United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Dixie National 

Forest 

April 2009 

Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

 

Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington, and Wayne Counties, Utah
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). 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 and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 Dixie National Forest

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington, and Wayne Counties, Utah 

Lead Agency: Dixie National Forest 

Cooperating Agencies: Five County Association of Governments (Beaver, Garfield, 

Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties), Wayne County, and 

State of Utah 

Responsible Officials: Robert G. MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor 

Dixie National Forest 

1789 N Wedgewood Ln 

Cedar City, Utah 84720 

Allen Rowley, Forest Supervisor 

Fishlake National Forest 

115 E 900 N 

Richfield, Utah 84701 

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the effects of modifying 

the current motorized travel plan for the Dixie National Forest to ensure compliance with new 

travel management regulations. Effects of the current travel plan are shown in analysis of 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, use of the current travel system 

is maintained, including the allowance of cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest. Each 

of the four action alternatives describes a different combination of route designations for the 

approximately 6,000 miles of authorized and unauthorized routes on the Forest. All of the 

action alternatives would close the Forest to cross-country travel. 

Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP 

i 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

ii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table of Contents 

Title Page....................................................................................................................................... i 

Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................iii 

Summary......................................................................................................................................vii 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

 1.1. Location of Project Area...............................................................................................1-2 

 1.2. Background..................................................................................................................1-5 

 1.3. Route Analysis .............................................................................................................1-5 

 1.4. Desired Condition.........................................................................................................1-6 

 1.5. Purpose of and Need for Action...................................................................................1-6 

 1.6. Proposed Action...........................................................................................................1-7 

 1.7. Decision Framework ....................................................................................................1-8 

 1.8. Public Involvement.......................................................................................................1-8 

 1.9. Scope of the Project and Analysis ...............................................................................1-9 

 1.10. Issues.........................................................................................................................1-9 

 1.10.1. Issue 1: Access ..............................................................................................1-10 

 1.10.2. Issue 2: Management of Administrative Routes.............................................1-10 

 1.10.3. Issue 3: Physical and Biological Resources...................................................1-11 

 1.10.4. Issue 4: Inventoried Roadless Areas .............................................................1-11 

 1.11. Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority.........1-11 

 1.12. Decisions to Be Made ..............................................................................................1-12 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 

 2.1. Alternative Development..............................................................................................2-2

 2.2. Alternatives Considered in Detail.................................................................................2-3 

 2.2.1. Alternative A........................................................................................................2-3 

 2.2.2. Alternative B........................................................................................................2-3 

 2.2.3. Alternative C........................................................................................................2-4 

 2.2.4. Alternative D........................................................................................................2-4 

 2.2.5. Alternative E........................................................................................................2-5 

 2.3. Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................................2-5 

 2.4. Features Common to All Alternatives.........................................................................2-17 

 2.4.1. Exemptions to Cross-country Travel Prohibitions .............................................2-17 

 2.4.2. Emergency Access ...........................................................................................2-17 

 2.4.3. Private Land Access .........................................................................................2-17 

 2.4.4. Disabled Access................................................................................................2-18 

 2.4.5. Permitted Activities............................................................................................2-18 

 2.4.6. Minerals Management and Administration........................................................2-18 

 2.4.7. Over-snow or Winter Travel ..............................................................................2-18 

 2.4.8. Parking ..............................................................................................................2-18 

 2.4.9. Dispersed Camping...........................................................................................2-18 

 2.4.10. Firewood Gathering.........................................................................................2-19 

 2.4.11. Non-motorized Travel......................................................................................2-19 

 2.4.12. Previous and Pending Decisions ....................................................................2-19 

 2.4.13. Signing Protocol and Publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map ....................2-20 

 iii Table of Contents
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 2.4.14. Route Maintenance .........................................................................................2-21 

 2.4.15. Information, Education, Enforcement, and Partnerships.................................2-21 

 2.5. Features Common to All Action Alternatives..............................................................2-22 

 2.5.1. Project Design Features....................................................................................2-22 

 2.5.2. Forest Plan Amendment ...................................................................................2-27 

 2.5.3. Designation of Non-system Routes...................................................................2-27 

 2.5.4. Travel Route Restrictions and Closures............................................................2-28 

 2.6. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study...................................2-28 

 2.6.1. Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.................................................................2-28 

 2.6.2. Non-motorized Trails Opened to Motorized Vehicles........................................2-29 

 2.6.3. Off-road Motorized Use for Game Retrieval or Antler Gathering ......................2-29 

 2.7. Alternative Maps ........................................................................................................2-29 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Effects Analysis 

 3.1. Soils .............................................................................................................................3-3 

 3.2. Hydrology...................................................................................................................3-10 

 3.3. Rare Plants ................................................................................................................3-15 

 3.4. Vegetation and Fire and Fuels...................................................................................3-21 

 3.5. Aquatic Biota..............................................................................................................3-25 

 3.6. Terrestrial Wildlife ......................................................................................................3-31 

 3.7. Social and Economic Resources ...............................................................................3-55 

 3.8. Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................................3-61 

 3.9. Noxious Weeds..........................................................................................................3-63 

 3.10. Special Uses ............................................................................................................3-67 

 3.11. Recreation................................................................................................................3-72 

 3.12. Scenery....................................................................................................................3-85 

 3.13. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas...................................................3-92 

 3.14. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................3-116 

 3.15. Transportation........................................................................................................3-121 

 3.16. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.........................................................3-132 

 3.17. Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................3-132 

 3.18. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .....................................3-133 

 3.19. Other Required Disclosures...................................................................................3-134 

 3.19.1. Forest Plan Consistency ...............................................................................3-134 

 3.19.2. Compliance with Laws and Other Direction ..................................................3-135 

 3.20. Resources Not Discussed in Detail........................................................................3-142 

 3.20.1. Air Quality......................................................................................................3-142 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 

 4.1. Preparers and Contributors..........................................................................................4-2 

 4.2. Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement....................................................4-5 

Appendix A: Data Tables and Designation Key ....................................................................... A-1 

 Route Designation by Alternative Tables............................................................................ A-2 

 Summary of Routes Open and Closed to the Public Tables............................................... A-5 

 Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative Tables ................................................. A-6 

 Designation Key: Route Designation Descriptions and Crosswalks Table ........................ A-9 

Appendix B: Response to Comments ...................................................................................... B-1 

 B.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. B-2 

 B.2. Concern is Outside Scope or Irrelevant to Proposed Action ...................................... B-3 

Table of Contents iv 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

B.3. Implementation ........................................................................................................... B-4 

 B.4. Already Decided by Law, Regulation, or Policy........................................................ B-17 

 B.5. Concern Can Be Better Addressed Through Another Decision Process.................. B-20 

 B.6. General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion.................................................. B-24 

 B.7. Soils.......................................................................................................................... B-31 

 B.8. Hydrology.................................................................................................................. B-33 

 B.9. Vegetation................................................................................................................. B-37 

 B.10. Terrestrial Wildlife................................................................................................... B-38 

 B.11. Social and Economic Resources............................................................................ B-41 

 B.12. Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................... B-46 

 B.13. Noxious Weeds....................................................................................................... B-47 

 B.14. Special Uses........................................................................................................... B-48 

 B.15. Recreation .............................................................................................................. B-50 

 B.16. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas ................................................. B-78 

 B.17. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. B-83

 B.18. Transportation......................................................................................................... B-84 

References................................................................................................................ References-1 

Acronyms .....................................................................................................................Acronyms-1 

Glossary.........................................................................................................................Glossary-1 

Index ...................................................................................................................................Index-1 

List of Maps 

Vicinity Map: State of Utah........................................................................................................1-3 

Vicinity Map: Southern Utah .....................................................................................................1-4 

Cedar City Ranger District – Alternative A...............................................................................2-30 

Cedar City Ranger District – Alternative B...............................................................................2-31 

Cedar City Ranger District – Alternative C...............................................................................2-32 

Cedar City Ranger District – Alternative D...............................................................................2-33 

Cedar City Ranger District – Alternative E...............................................................................2-34 

Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts – Alternative A .......................................................2-35 

Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts – Alternative B .......................................................2-36 

Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts – Alternative C .......................................................2-37 

Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts – Alternative D .......................................................2-38 

Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts – Alternative E .......................................................2-39 

Pine Valley Ranger District – Alternative A..............................................................................2-40 

Pine Valley Ranger District – Alternative B..............................................................................2-41 

Pine Valley Ranger District – Alternative C..............................................................................2-42 

Pine Valley Ranger District – Alternative D..............................................................................2-43 

Pine Valley Ranger District – Alternative E..............................................................................2-44 

Powell Ranger District – Alternative A .....................................................................................2-45

Powell Ranger District – Alternative B .....................................................................................2-46

Powell Ranger District – Alternative C .....................................................................................2-47

Powell Ranger District – Alternative D .....................................................................................2-48

Powell Ranger District – Alternative E .....................................................................................2-49

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction – Alternatives D and E...............................................3-87 

 v Table of Contents
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table of Contents vi 

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas: Pine Valley Ranger District ..............................................3-95 

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas: Cedar City Ranger District ...............................................3-96 

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas: Powell Ranger District .....................................................3-97 

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas: Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts........................3-98 

2005 Draft Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas: Pine Valley Ranger District ........................3-102 

2005 Draft Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas: Cedar City Ranger District .........................3-103 

2005 Draft Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas: Powell Ranger District ...............................3-104 

2005 Draft Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas: Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts..3-105 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Summary 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this project is to designate a system of authorized roads, trails, and/or areas for 

motor vehicle use in order to better protect natural resources, provide legal access, and improve 

recreation management and enforcement related to motor vehicle use on the Dixie National 

Forest. This purpose and need is in accordance with 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261 (which also 

incorporate Executive Orders 11644 and 11989), and 295 Travel Management; Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule (hereafter referred to as the Travel Rule). 

Proposed Action 

The action proposed by the Dixie National Forest to meet the purpose and need is to designate 

a motorized travel system that addresses the following four components: 

1. Cross-country travel. 

a. Prohibition of motorized cross-country travel (travel off designated roads or trails) 

except as specified for permitted uses (e.g., firewood gathering, allotment 

maintenance), emergency fire suppression, search and rescue activities, law 

enforcement activities, military operations, and Forest Service administrative 

uses and purposes. 

2. Designation of authorized National Forest System roads and motorized trails. 

a. Closure of currently authorized routes that will not be designated for motorized 

use and will therefore be removed from the National Forest System of roads and 

motorized trails. All routes removed from the system will be decommissioned. 

b. Designation of unauthorized routes that will be added to the National Forest 

System of roads and motorized trails, thereby becoming authorized routes. 

3. Designation of authorized uses of National Forest System roads and motorized trails. 

a. Designation of routes that will be open to all uses. 

b. Designation of routes needed to accommodate administrative activities and 

permitted uses. 

c. Designation of routes needed for access to private lands, rights-of-way, 

easements, and other jurisdictions. 

d. Designations of routes with seasonal restrictions or routes that only allow certain 

types of vehicles. 

4. Construction or relocation of designated National Forest System roads and motorized 

trails. 

a. Construction or relocation of routes to improve the transportation system or to 

respond to evaluation findings. 

Issues 

An issue is a concern, dispute, or debate about the environmental effect of an action. Issues 

were identified through the scoping process and internal review. Significant issues are defined 

 vii Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant 

issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided 

by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Dixie National 

Forest identified the following four significant issues as the biophysical and social elements that 

drove the development, design, and analysis of the alternatives. 

Access 

The majority of the concerns or debates received by the Dixie National Forest during scoping 

regarded access. Many of those who commented preferred keeping all existing motorized 

routes in order to conduct traditional forest activities, to provide opportunities for family activities, 

and to maintain recreational access. Others wanted a decrease in motorized opportunities due 

to perceived negative impacts to biological and physical resources from motorized use. Many 

people were in favor of closing the Forest to cross-country travel. 

Management of Administrative Routes 

Administrative routes are Maintenance Level 1 roads that are closed to the public but may be 

used for administrative or permitted purposes. During scoping, people questioned whether or 

not the Dixie National Forest was able or willing to enforce the closure of administrative roads to 

the public. Others questioned more specifically if the Forest Service could maintain those 

administrative routes and suggested the number of administrative routes be reduced. 

Physical and Biological Resources 

Many people expressed concern over the potential negative impacts of motorized travel (both 

on and off of designated routes) on physical and biological resources. Some requested that any 

routes that are determined to be contributing to soil erosion be closed, while others expressed 

concern that OHV impacts to water quality on the Forest be considered. Riparian areas, 

including wet meadows and lakeshores, were also cited as areas of critical wildlife habitat where 

motorized routes should not be allowed. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless 

area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, FEIS, Volume 2, dated 

November 2000. These IRAs are valued for their undeveloped character. Comments received 

during the scoping period revealed conflict and concern regarding the use of motorized vehicles 

in these IRAs. 

Summary viii 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Alternatives 

Alternative A 

This is the No Action Alternative. This alternative would retain all existing National Forest 

System roads and motorized trails as open. No non-system or unauthorized motorized routes 

would be added to the system. Current restrictions on cross-country travel (off-road or trail) 

would remain in place: cross-country travel would continue to be allowed on 1,150,113 acres 

(61 percent of the Forest), but would be prohibited on 735,943 acres (39 percent of the Forest). 

Alternative B 

This alternative emphasizes the protection of natural and cultural resources. Cross-country 

travel would be prohibited forest-wide. Some unauthorized routes, including those that must 

remain open for private property access, permitted uses, or administrative access, would be 

added to the system. Some system routes that are negatively impacting soil, water, and wildlife 

resources would be closed. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed to address public and agency input received during scoping 

related to access and physical and biological resources. This alternative allows for a higher 

level of motorized access than does Alternative B. Cross-country travel would be prohibited 

forest-wide. More unauthorized routes, including routes that must remain open for private 

property access, permitted uses, or administrative access, would be added to the system than 

under Alternative B. Some system routes that are negatively impacting soil, water, and wildlife 

resources would be closed. 

Alternative D 

This alternative allows for a higher level of motorized access than does Alternative B or C, but 

less than Alternative E. Alternative D is a modified version of the proposed action released in 

December 2006. It includes changes made in response to public and government input made 

during scoping. Under this alternative, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. 

Some unauthorized routes, including those that must remain open for private property access, 

permitted use, or administrative access, would be added to the system. Some system routes 

that are negatively impacting soil, water, and wildlife resources would be closed. 

Alternative E 

This alternative provides the most motorized access on designated routes. With the exception 

of routes that are currently closed and/or decommissioned and those routes covered under 

previous and pending decisions, all non-system or unauthorized routes would be added to the 

system and designated as open to public motorized travel. All trails that are currently 

designated as non-motorized, however, would remain non-motorized. Cross-country travel 

would be prohibited forest-wide. There are approximately 215 routes or segments of 

 ix Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

unauthorized routes currently located in IRAs. Under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, no 

roads in IRAs may be added to the system, though motorized trails may be added. Under 

Alternative E, however, all 215 of these routes or segments of routes would be added to the 

system. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

The following table illustrates the differences between alternatives aggregated forest-wide. 

Table S-1. Route Designation by Alternative – Forest-wide 

Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 631 959 1,037 962 399

Closed Classified 203 1,043 756 462 179

Closed Unauthorized 354 1,335 1,247 1,074 213

Existing Motorized Trail 97 101 89 103 90

Existing Non-motorized Trail 821 823 817 821 803

Existing Highway 139 139 139 139 139

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 1,022 0 0 0 0

Open - Street Legal 32 53 24 65 21

Open to All 2,768 1,445 1,648 2,284 4,276

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 <1 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 6 92 203 85 11

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 1 1

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 3 133 148 88 3

Seasonal 87 38 53 74 36

Total 6,163 6,161 6,161 6,158 6167

All mileages rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Differences between totals by alternative due to 

minor mapping discrepancies in GIS 

Affected Environment 

Soils 

Motorized vehicle use off roads and trails can degrade soil productivity. Direct mechanical 

impacts have several components: abrasion, compaction, shearing, and displacement. Indirect 

impacts include hydraulic modification (such as the disruption of surface water flow), reduction 

in infiltration and percolation, surface ponding, and the loss of water-holding capacity. In 

addition, disturbances from roads and trails can increase erosion and sediment delivery. 

Existing roads and trails are a primary source of long-term management-related sediment. 

Accelerated erosion and sediment delivery have been identified as a primary source of water 

quality pollution in many Dixie National Forest watersheds. Finally, soil productivity on the Dixie 

National Forest has been directly impacted by the type, extent, and location of designated 

roads, motorized trails, and cross-country motor vehicle use. 

Summary x 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Hydrology 

The major watersheds associated with the Dixie National Forest are the Virgin River, Colorado 

River, and Great Basin watersheds. Each of these larger watersheds are further sub-divided 

into 5th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds and numerous smaller 6th HUC watersheds of 

about 20,000 acres in size (31 square miles). There are 39 5th HUC watersheds and 179 6th 

HUC watersheds, which include areas on and off National Forest System (NFS) lands. Water 

quality impairments are associated with 40 of these 6th HUC watersheds (USDA 2009g). Most 

of the waters within the Forest boundary are considered High Quality Waters (Category I). The 

exceptions to this may be found in the Standards of Quality for the Waters of the State (UAC 

2008b). 

Rare Plants 

Plant species selected for this analysis are composed of species that are listed as Threatened, 

Endangered, or Proposed under the Endangered Species Act (USDI 2005), and Sensitive 

Species listed on the Intermountain Region Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive 

Species list (USDA 2003a) that have habitat within areas open to cross-country travel. There 

are no Endangered plant species on the Forest (Rodriguez 2008). Townsendia aprica (Last 

Chance townsendia) is the only Threatened species located within the project area. The 

recovery plan for Townsendia aprica does not designate any critical habitat; however, threats to 

this species include road development and road building (USDI 1993). The following table lists 

those Sensitive plants considered in this analysis. 

Table S-2. Rare Plant Species Analyzed 

Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Presence and Location 

Townsendia aprica (Last Chance townsendia) T Known on Teasdale 

Astragalus limnocharis var. tabulaeus (Table Cliff 

milkvetch) S Known on Escalante; suspected on Powell 

Botrychium paradoxum (paradox moonwort) S Known on Escalante 

Castilleja aquariensis (Aquarius paintbrush) S Known on Escalante and Teasdale 

Castilleja parvula var. revealii (Reveal paintbrush) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Cryptantha ochroleuca (yellow-white catseye) S Known on Escalante and Powell 

Cymopterus beckii (pinnate spring-parsley) S Known on Teasdale 

Cymopterus minimus (Cedar Breaks biscuitroot) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Eriogonum aretiodes (Widtsoe buckwheat) S Known on Escalante and Powell 

Gilia caespitosa (Rabbit Valley gilia) S Known on Teasdale 

Heterotheca jonesii (Jones goldenaster) S Known on Escalante 

Penstemon bracteatus (Red Canyon beardtongue) S Known on Powell 

Penstemon parvus (little penstemon) S Known on Escalante and Teasdale 

Penstemon pinorum (pinyon penstemon) S Known on Pine Valley 

Salix arizonica (Arizona willow) S Known on Cedar City, Powell, and Teasdale 

Senecio malmstenii (podunk groundsel) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Silene petersonii (Maguire campion) S Known on Cedar City and Powell 

Sphaeromeria capitata (rock tansy) S Known on Powell 

Thelesperma subnuda var. alpina (Bicknell 

thelesperma) S Known on Teasdale 

 T = Threatened; S = Sensitive. 

 xi Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

Vegetation on the Dixie National Forest consists of trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Some of 

the most common uses of Forest vegetation include: 

 Conifers and aspen: saw timber, mine timbers and props, fence material (poles and 

posts), house logs, firewood, Christmas trees, and cones and seeds, 

 Shrubs: deer and elk forage, limited livestock forage, ornamentals, berries for wildlife 

and humans, and 

 Grass and forbs: elk and livestock grazing, seeds (wildlife food source). 

The vegetation on the Forest has been affected by change elements including wildfire, drought, 

and insect infestations. Thinning, salvaging dead trees, and treating accumulations of dead 

wood to reduce fuels require a reasonable level of motorized access. Decades of wildfire 

suppression has kept fire out of aspen groves. Low or absent demand for aspen wood products 

has resulted in minimal acres of aspen managed for regeneration. The current forest products 

program on the Forest averages timber harvest on 1,500 to 2,000 acres annually. Tree 

seedlings are planted on about 500 acres annually across the Forest to replenish stands killed 

by bark beetles or fire, and a few stands receiving regeneration harvest (Jump 2008). 

Aquatic Biota 

Aquatic biota on the Forest can be broken into four broad categories: sport fish, non-game fish, 

amphibians, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. The more inconspicuous forms of aquatic biota 

such as aquatic mollusks and aquatic plants have not generally been studied across the Forest, 

and there is little trend data on macroinvertebrates. The Forest contains portions of 39 5th field 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds. Only those 22 watersheds within the Forest boundary 

that support self-sustaining fisheries have been analyzed. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Habitat effectiveness for many species is affected by road-associated factors that negatively 

affect habitats and populations of terrestrial vertebrates. These factors include habitat 

fragmentation, disturbance, mortality, and loss of habitat facilitated by motorized access 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). The following table lists those wildlife species considered in this analysis. 

Summary xii 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table S-3. Wildlife Species Analyzed 

Common Name Status 

California condor E* 

Mexican spotted owl T 

Mojave Desert tortoise T 

Utah prairie dog T 

American peregrine falcon S 

Bald eagle S 

Flammulated owl S 

Greater sage grouse S 

Northern goshawk S 

Pygmy rabbit S 

Spotted bat S 

Townsend’s big-eared bat S 

Three-toed woodpecker S 

Mule deer MIS 

Northern flicker MIS 

Rocky Mountain elk MIS 

Wild turkey MIS 

Black-throated gray warbler O 

Brewer’s sparrow O 

Broad-tailed hummingbird O 

 

* = Endangered west of I-15, Experimental non-essential population east of I-15; T = Threatened; S = 

Sensitive; MIS = Management Indicator Species; O = Other species of concern. 

Social and Economic Resources 

The Dixie National Forest is associated with quality of life values for a variety of people. Among 

other contributions that the Forest provides, and for which roads and trails are used: 

 Homeowners and visitors value the scenery and nearby recreation opportunities the 

Forest provides, 

 Permitted ranchers utilize the Forest to provide grazing for sheep and cattle, 

 Vegetation is managed through a variety of projects that include commercial logging, 

 Communities and private landowners benefit from a number of special use 

authorizations that facilitate including water improvements, roads, and utilities, 

 Game species populations are largely managed through seasonal hunting by the public, 

 Commercial recreation opportunities are permitted to occur on the Forest, such as 

skiing, resorts, and guided recreation. 

The landownership patterns in Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington, and Wayne counties are 

dominated by federal land. Less of the area’s economic base is now reliant on resource 

extraction and gathering of forest products than it once was. Recreation and tourism are 

becoming the major industry in some counties, with federal land providing much of the 

opportunity. 

 xiii Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing has been an historic and traditional use of the Dixie National Forest for over 

100 years. Grazing on the National Forest is authorized by Congress and is a significant use on 

the Dixie National Forest. Livestock forage is an important Forest product and many permittees 

use this forage to meet at least part of their year-round grazing needs. There are 104 grazing 

allotments on the Dixie National Forest (81 cattle and 23 sheep allotments). Approximately 

18,000 head of cattle and their calves, and 11,000 head of sheep and their lambs are permitted 

on the Forest (USDA 2006a). Presently about 263 grazing permittees are authorized to graze 

their livestock on 104 grazing allotments. About 769,000 acres (41 percent) of the Dixie 

National Forest are suitable for grazing cattle and sheep. 

Noxious Weeds 

The Forest Service defines noxious weeds as “. . . plants 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 the United States or parts thereof” (FSM 2080.5). Currently, there are 53 species 

identified on the Regional Designated Noxious Weed and Undesirable Plant List. Twenty-one of 

these species occur in Utah and nine occur on the Dixie National Forest. Two additional weeds 

have been proclaimed noxious by Iron County and Garfield County: bull thistle and field 

bindweed, respectively. Noxious weed species on the Dixie National Forest: 

1. Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare),1

2. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

3. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica), 

4. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),2

5. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), 

6. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), 

7. Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), 

8. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), 

9. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 

10. Whitetop (Cardaria draba), and 

11. Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). 

Special Uses 

There are currently over 400 issued special use permits within the boundaries of the Dixie 

National Forest’s Motorized Travel Plan project area. Permitted uses include, but are not limited 

to, fixed improvements, easements, and recreational activities. Special use authorizations can 

vary greatly in length of time. Some term permits are only authorized for a few months, while 

others, such as those for winter resorts, may be authorized for 40 years. Special uses also vary 

greatly in requirements, with some such as short-term recreation events only using a few trails 

during the summer months, while an oil and gas pipeline may require a 30-year permit and the 

use of large areas of land. 

 

1

 Noxious weed in Garfield County. 

2

 Noxious weed in Iron County. 

Summary xiv 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Recreation 

Recreation is a primary use of the Dixie National Forest. Visitors come to the Forest for a wide 

variety of activities and experiences ranging from primitive wilderness settings to developed 

campgrounds to permitted resorts and a downhill ski area. There are 42 recreation residences 

on the Forest. Thirty-nine outfitter-guides are authorized to operate on the Forest, providing 

guided hunting, fishing, OHV and mountain bike touring, and horse riding trips. Dispersed 

camping, including dispersed use for large family reunions and hunting camps, is popular. 

According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring results, approximately 20.7 percent of visits to 

the Dixie National Forest in 2003 were by people from Washington County, Utah. 

Approximately 7.4 percent were from Iron County, Utah, and approximately 8.6 percent were by 

people from Clark County, Nevada. Two percent were from Garfield County and approximately 

1.4 percent were from Kane County. Approximately 0.8 percent were from Salt Lake City. 

Some of the more popular recreation uses of the Forest include camping, trail use (both 

motorized and non-motorized), and hunting and fishing. 

Developed Camping: Camping at developed recreation sites is a popular recreation 

activity, with 26 campgrounds and 5 picnic sites on the Forest. 

Dispersed Camping: Dispersed camping, or camping in non-developed areas, is a 

common recreation activity on the Dixie National Forest, occurring primarily during the 

summer and the fall hunting season. There are currently 1,624 inventoried dispersed 

campsites on the Forest. 

Motorized Trail Use: There are 1,500 miles of trails on 266 designated trails providing 

recreation opportunities including hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV riding. 

Non-motorized Trail Use: There are 1,087 miles of designated non-motorized trail on the 

Forest, 155 miles of which are located in federally-designated wilderness areas. 

Great Western Trail: The Great Western Trail (GWT) is a long distance trail that traverses 

approximately 4,455 miles across five states; 226 of these miles are on the Dixie National 

Forest. The GWT provides for approximately 139 miles of motorized opportunities and 87 

miles of non-motorized opportunities. 

Motorized Use: There are a total of 3,475 miles of roads and trails open to OHV/ATV 

recreation: 413 miles of designated motorized trails, 2,580 miles of level 2 roads, and 482 

miles of level 3 roads. 

Hunting and Fishing: There is extensive hunting use on the Forest during the general 

season deer and elk hunts. Limited Entry elk hunts occur in the Panguitch Lake area north 

of Highway 14 on the Cedar City Ranger District, the Mount Dutton area north of Highway 

12 on the Powell Ranger District, and the Thousand Lake area on the Teasdale portion of 

the Fremont River Ranger District. The Paunsaugunt Limited Entry Deer hunt occurs south 

of Highway 12 on the Powell Ranger District. A Limited Entry antelope hunt occurs in the 

Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, Mount Dutton, and Pine Valley areas as well. Popular 

fishing sites are numerous and include opportunities for anglers to catch various trout and 

smallmouth bass. 

 xv Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Scenery 

In 2000 the Forest Plan was amended to update from the Visual Management System to the 

Scenery Management System. The amendment specified Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) 

for each management area. Scenic integrity is defined as “a measure of the degree to which a 

landscape is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given 

to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for 

its aesthetic appeal” (USDA 1995b). Scenic Integrity Objectives describe the objectives for 

management, or the desired future conditions. 

Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

For purposes of this report, two categories of areas will be discussed. IRAs refer to those 

specific areas identified in the Roadless Area Conservation Final FEIS (USDA 2000c); 

Unroaded and undeveloped areas refer to an inventory conducted for plan revision of areas with 

unroaded and undeveloped characteristics. Although IRAs and unroaded areas may have 

some overlap, the map layers were developed independently of each other and were therefore 

analyzed separately. 

IRAs: There are 42 IRAs covering a total of approximately 771,960 acres, which represents 

approximately 43 percent of the analysis area for this EIS. Several of the IRAs are smaller than 

5,000 acres, but are adjacent to larger tracts of wilderness, within other IRAs, or adjacent to 

potential wilderness on land administered by the BLM. The following table lists the acreage of 

IRAs on the Dixie National Forest by ranger district. 

Table S-4. Inventoried Roadless Area Acreage on the Dixie National Forest by Ranger 

District 

Ranger District IRA Acres 

Pine Valley Ranger District 

Pine Valley IRA Total 252,057

Cedar City Ranger District 

Cedar City IRA Total 48,055

Powell Ranger District 

Powell IRA Total 166,958

Escalante Ranger District 

Escalante IRA Total 100,083

Teasdale Portion of Fremont River Ranger District 

Teasdale IRA Total 204,805

Forest-wide IRA Total 771,958

 

Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas: There is no policy, law, or directive guiding the 

management of unroaded/undeveloped areas that lie outside of IRAs or wilderness. Currently, 

the only guidance for these areas is general forest or management area direction. On the Dixie 

National Forest, there were 50 areas identified as unroaded and undeveloped that were 

evaluated for wilderness potential. Of the 1,056,221 acres in that inventory, only about 29 

percent fall outside an IRA or designated wilderness area. The table below shows the total area 

of the unroaded areas identified on the Dixie National Forest by ranger district. 

Summary xvi 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table S-5. Unroaded and Undeveloped Area Acreage on the Dixie National Forest by 

Ranger District 

Ranger District Acres 

Pine Valley Ranger District 

Pine Valley Unroaded/Undeveloped Total 380,180

Cedar City Ranger District 

Cedar City Unroaded/Undeveloped Total 100,249

Powell Ranger District 

Powell Unroaded/Undeveloped Total 203,114

Escalante Ranger District 

Escalante Unroaded/Undeveloped Total 169,943

Teasdale Portion of the Fremont River Ranger District 

Teasdale Unroaded/Undeveloped Total 202,735

Forest-wide Total of 2005 Unroaded and Undeveloped Acres 1,056,221

Cultural Resources 

The cultural resources of the Dixie National Forest represent a wide diversity of site types, 

cultural groups, time periods, and even resources (including paleontological resources). A 

limited number of sites have been identified for public use, though they are currently in various 

stages of formal designation. These include the Spanish Trail designated by Congress as a 

National Historic Trail in 2002, and the Hell’s Backbone Bridge. Several administrative sites, 

including the Podunk, Cowpuncher, and Aquarius guard stations, have been designated for use 

under the Forest Service Rustic Cabin Rental program. Lower and Upper Enterprise Reservoir 

Dams, Leeds Creek Kiln, and several other sites are in the process of being designated. 

Two sites on the Forest and one adjacent with features on the Forest have been listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places: Long Flat Archaeological Site, designated in 1978; the 

Mountain Meadows Massacre District, designated in 1975; and Historic Iron Town, designated 

in 1978. Many other sites on the Forest are potentially eligible for nomination to the National 

Register. 

Individuals from adjacent American Indian tribes continue to utilize areas within the Dixie 

National Forest visiting sites and gathering and using resources from the area. Some have ties 

to natural features, ancient villages, campsites, rock art, and burial sites that they consider 

sacred. There are no Treaty Rights within the boundaries of the Forest with any of the Tribal 

groups adjacent to the Forest. 

Transportation 

In 1996 the Dixie National Forest began inventorying all motorized routes on the Forest. This 

effort resulted in a Global Positioning System motorized route inventory that was completed in 

summer 2005. This inventory provides the base data layer for this travel planning project. 

 xvii Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table S-6. Total Miles of Road on the Forest 

Area Current 

System Miles 

Current 

Non-System 

Miles 

Total 

Cedar City 1,011 393 1,404

Escalante 794 333 1127

Pine Valley 468 198 666

Powell 805 455 1260

Teasdale 348 104 452

Forest-wide 3,426 1483 4,909

*Includes miles from previous and pending decisions. 

The maintenance categories vary the frequency and intensity of all maintenance activities. 

Road maintenance standards are set by the road’s maintenance level and are described in the 

Forest Service’s Road Preconstruction Handbook (FSH 7709.58,10). The following table 

summarizes the maintenance levels of the current system. 

Table S-7. Miles of Road by Operational Maintenance Level 

Miles by Operational Maintenance Level Area 1 2 3 4 5 Total 

Cedar City 84 753 140 19 15 1,011

Escalante 226 423 145 0 0 794

Pine Valley 9 364 87 8 0 468

Powell 27 694 75 9 0 805

Teasdale 27 291 29 1 0 348

Forest-wide 373 2,525 476 37 15 3,426

The Forest performs road maintenance on the Forest road system as funding allows. On the 

Dixie National Forest it is estimated that approximately 25 percent of the road system miles 

receives some annual maintenance, including maintenance done by the counties. 

Environmental Consequences 

Soils 

Alternatives B, C, and D (in the same order of preference) would result in beneficial cumulative 

effects to soil resource in response to past, present, and future implementation of travel 

management actions on the Forest. Some of these actions are included in signed decisions 

that have yet to be implemented on the ground. All of these projects either reduced total 

motorized route mileage or reduced route encroachment on steep soils or highly erodible areas. 

These actions have been initiated primarily to improve watershed function and aquatic and 

terrestrial habitat conditions. Alternative A would have a continuance of negative effects as it 

would allow continued cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest. Alternative E would 

increase the number and miles of road on the Forest and would also increase negative effects. 

Summary xviii 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Hydrology 

Since detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, none of the watersheds are expected to 

display impacts initially under Alternative A. In time, however, this would change as the 

proliferation of user-created routes within the riparian influence zone, coupled with effects from 

other forest uses, would exceed the 5 percent threshold and lead to detrimental changes in 

vegetation health, stream channel integrity, water quality, and bedload.

Since detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, none of the streams are expected to 

display any cumulative impacts from implementation of Alternatives B, C, or D. In fact, if 

disturbance from other past, present, and future uses were doubled, the impacts to the riparian 

influence zone in all 179 watersheds would still not exceed the 5 percent threshold. 

Under Alternative E detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not 

exceed the 5 percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, and none of the streams 

are expected to display any cumulative impacts. With the exception of one watershed, if 

disturbance from other past, present, and future uses were doubled, the impacts to the riparian 

influence zone in all 179 watersheds would still not exceed the 5 percent threshold. The single 

watershed where the threshold would be exceeded if disturbance were doubled is Cottonwood 

Creek (160300020406) on the Powell Ranger District. 

Rare Plants 

The action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E), all of which close the Forest to crosscountry travel and restrict travel to designated routes, would have little to no affect on any 

populations of the 18 analyzed Sensitive plant species with known populations on the Dixie 

National Forest. In addition, Alternatives B and C would have no detrimental effect to T. aprica. 

Under these alternatives cross-country travel is closed and travel routes are limited; these 

alternatives have deterred possible future damage. Alternatives D and E would have a may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for populations of T. aprica. This 

determination is based on the fact that suitable habitat and a few individuals in some 

populations may continue to be affected, while other populations would not be affected. Any of 

the action alternatives would be more restrictive than Alternative A. Populations of T. aprica

would be benefited by any action alternative over time due to the substantial reduction of the 

area where motorized activity would be allowed. 

Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

All alternatives would provide reasonable motorized access to all of the vegetation management 

projects planned on the Dixie National Forest for the next five years. All alternatives would also 

provide motorized access to major portions of suitable timber lands. Alternative E provides the 

greatest number of miles of open roads for these purposes and for general public access. 

Alternatives A and D also provide open public roads to most forested areas. Alternatives B and 

C offer the least amounts of motorized access, and some roads closed in these alternatives 

might need to be reopened in the future to manage vegetation resources. 

 xix Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Effects of the motorized transportation system on wildfire suppression cannot be quantified as 

fires begin in somewhat random locations. Where motorized access exists, it is logical to 

assume that fire crews and equipment can get to fires faster so fires would have less time to 

burn before initial attack begins. This should result in generally smaller fires where they are 

accessible by motorized travel. Alternatives A and E would therefore offer a somewhat lower 

risk of larger fires. Alternative B would offer the highest risk of larger fires since fewer miles of 

roads are open. Alternatives with more roads, however, offer additional areas accessible to 

people in vehicles and a corresponding higher risk of human-caused fires. Alternative B has the 

fewest miles of open road so would offer a somewhat lower risk of human-caused fires. 

Alternatives A and E have the most miles of open roads so would offer higher risks of humancaused fires. 

Aquatic Biota 

Selection of any of the action alternatives would result in slight beneficial effects to aquatic biota 

populations and habitat on the Forest. This is primarily a response to the elimination of crosscountry travel. Additionally, Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce total motorized route 

mileage across the Forest and within certain watersheds. However, these effects are not likely 

to result in marked improvement in fish biomass production or a wholesale improvement in 

aquatic habitats on the Forest. Selection of Alternative A would result in a continuation of 

current deleterious effects to aquatic biota populations and habitat associated with the 

motorized travel system. The primary causative factor behind these effects is the continuation 

of cross-country travel and the persistence of specific routes within riparian areas and key 

watersheds. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

A reduction in the number and miles of motorized roads and trails and elimination of areas open 

to cross-country travel are expected to reduce access into wildlife habitat and result in an 

increase in habitat effectiveness. This is true for all alternatives but Alternative A. Benefits 

include: 

 An eventual restoration of lost habitat, and reduction in fragmentation and edge as the 

habitat returns, 

 A decrease in disturbance, displacement, harassment, or mortality, 

 A decrease in snags and downed wood lost to firewood collection, and 

 A decrease in barriers to movement. 

Social and Economic Resources 

Garfield and Kane Counties 

Under Alternative B there would be greater pressure on the counties’ economies to change and 

provide services to non-motorized visitors. As motorized recreation opportunities would be 

reduced from those available in Alternative A, Alternative B would have the highest chance of 

creating a disruption to the existing social and economic conditions in Garfield and Kane 

Counties. Under Alternative C there would be more motorized opportunities available than in 

Alternative B, but not as many as in Alternatives A, D, and E. This alternative would have the 

Summary xx 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

second highest potential disruption to social and economic conditions in the counties. There 

would not likely be much impact upon the economic and social resources in Garfield or Kane 

County under Alternative D. Under Alternative E, a very large number of motorized roads and 

trails would be open to the public. This could create some positive impacts to businesses that 

deal directly with recreation vehicle sales, rental, and repair. Motorized opportunities at this 

scale could, however, create a disincentive for other visitors (e.g., those pursuing non-motorized 

opportunities) to visit either county. 

Iron County 

Under Alternative B, the reduction of roads and trails open to the public could impact the 

organized groups and ATV events in Iron County. This alternative would have the largest 

impact on those activities. The impacts under Alternative C would be slightly less than 

Alternative B, but otherwise similar. Alternative D would not negatively impact ATV clubs or 

events, but non-motorized users and businesses that depend upon their patronage could be 

impacted. Under Alternative E, the provision of a large amount of motorized roads and trails 

could impact the sectors of the economy that depend upon other types of trail users (e.g., hiking 

and mountain biking). The differences between alternatives are not great as far as their impacts 

on the county as a whole. Overall, social and economic resources in Iron County are not likely 

to be impacted under any alternative. 

Piute County 

Dixie National Forest lands make up only about one-half of one percent of Piute County’s land 

base, and there are no identified roads or trails on the Forest in the county. There would be no 

social or economic impacts in any alternative. 

Washington County 

Under Alternative B the reduction in the mileage of roads and trails open to the public could 

impact organized groups and ATV events in Washington County. This alternative would have 

the largest impact on those activities. The impacts under Alternative C would be slightly less 

than Alternative B, but otherwise similar. Alternative D would not negatively impact ATV clubs 

or events, but non-motorized users and businesses that depend upon their patronage could be 

impacted. Under Alternative E, the provision of a large amount of motorized roads and trails 

could impact the sectors of the economy that depend upon other types of trail users (e.g., hiking 

and mountain biking). The differences between alternatives are not great as far as their impacts 

on the county as a whole. Overall, social and economic resources in Washington County are 

not likely to be impacted under any alternative. 

Wayne County 

Alternative B would represent the biggest change from the current use patterns in Wayne 

County. Since the county’s economy is very specialized and vulnerable to disruptions, 

Alternative B would have the greatest potential impact on the county’s social and economic 

resources. Impacts would be less than in Garfield and Kane County, however, because there 

 xxi Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

are no clubs or events that depend upon motorized recreation, and only a few businesses that 

do. Under Alternative C there would be more motorized opportunities available than under 

Alternative B, but not as many as in Alternatives A, D, and E. Alternative C would have the 

second highest potential disruption to social and economic conditions in Wayne County. There 

would not likely be much impact upon the aspects of the social and economic resources in 

Wayne County under Alternative D. There would be a very large number of motorized roads 

and trails open to the public in Alternative E. Motorized opportunities at this scale could, 

however, create a disincentive for other visitors to come to the county. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing activities, whether affecting the livestock themselves or the permittee, are not 

expected to be affected by implementing any of the travel management alternatives. Permittees 

may be allowed motorized access to maintain or develop range improvements assigned in their 

grazing permits or for other authorized administrative activities. No direct or indirect effects are 

anticipated under any of the alternatives as motorized access is and can be authorized through 

the grazing permit regardless of the configuration of the Forest’s motorized travel system. 

Noxious Weeds 

Increases in noxious weed invasion and spread can occur as a result of increased miles of road, 

ground disturbance, or fire. It is anticipated that new weeds would continue to invade public 

lands and other lands from various sources. Existing infestations would continue to be treated 

aggressively until they are controlled, contained, and/or eradicated. Project design features 

would be used with any new federal projects, which would aid in decreasing the introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species. None of the alternatives would appreciable 

accelerate the spread of noxious weeds over the existing trend. 

Special Uses 

All alternatives could cause some displacement of recreation-related permitted operations within 

the cumulative effects area. Displacement of permitted activities could be further impacted if 

locations adjacent to the project area implement land management actions that severely reduce 

motorized route mileage. Adjacent areas would generally fall under authorization of the BLM 

(Richfield, Kanab, St. George, and Cedar City field offices) and the Forest Service (Fishlake 

National Forest). Recreation-related permitted holders seeking a non-motorized or primitive 

experience would see a positive cumulative effect across all action alternatives. 

Non-recreation special uses are not anticipated to experience any cumulative effects from the 

action alternatives because the alternatives were designed to maintain known access. 

However, non-system routes identified as necessary for private property, permittee, or 

administrative access within areas closed to cross-country travel areas would not be open to 

motorized travel, thus potentially jeopardizing occupancy or re-issuance of special use permits. 

Recreation 

Implementation of any alternative could result in the displacement of some Forest visitors. A 

travel plan that does not offer the particular desired setting or desired mode of transportation on 

Summary xxii 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

a preferred road, trail, or area could displace some people to other areas or they may choose to 

engage in other activities. In addition, adjacent areas may see an increase in impacts 

associated with increased use with the implementation of the Dixie National Forest Motorized 

Travel Plan. This could be especially true with Alternatives B, C, and D due to the fact that 

these alternatives reduce motorized route mileages as compared with Alternative A. 

Scenery 

The major influences on scenery within and adjacent to the project area have been timber 

harvest, insect infestations, fuel treatment, fire, roads, trails, and recreation development, all of 

which have the potential to change the vegetative cover and landform being viewed on the 

Forest. Both of the routes proposed for construction in Alternatives D and E may diminish the 

views that Forest users would experience. This may be particularly true for those seeking a 

more primitive experience or those whose expectations are altered or are not met due to the 

presence of motorized routes and associated impacts. However, due to the scale of acres 

affected, impacts are not significant for the cumulative effects area. 

Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

Alternative B, C, or D would not add cumulatively to impacts on roadless characteristics or 

wilderness values. Alternative E may provide the potential for increased use within some areas. 

Foreseeable activities that would impact roadless characteristics or wilderness potential of IRAs 

or unroaded areas include oil and gas development and utility construction. There are existing 

utility corridors within or adjacent to IRAs and unroaded areas that were established prior to 

RACR or the unroaded inventory. Future development may occur throughout these corridors 

and could impact both roadless character and wilderness potential. In the event that oil or gas 

production is initiated, the roads and associated infrastructure are not likely to occur within an 

IRA so long as RACR is in place. However, with so much of the Forest falling within IRAs, a 

development could potentially occur adjacent to an IRA and within an existing unroaded area. 

The apparent naturalness of the area adjacent to the development would be impacted. 

Cultural Resources 

The increase in regional population and popularity of the Dixie National Forest is correlated to 

an increase in damage to archaeological and historical resources from visitation, including that 

caused by vandalism. As the popularity of OHVs and recreation activities increases, the 

increase of impacts to all cultural resources on the Forest is now at a critical stage. As cultural 

resources are nonrenewable, it is critical that we preserve and protect those remaining 

resources. Archaeological resources, historical sites, and paleontological resources within the 

Forest would continue to be impacted by natural process. The agency and other development 

projects conducted by non-agency groups would continue to be conducted in the foreseeable 

future. Prior to any activities either conducted by the Forest Service or outside groups under 

special use permits, all ground-disturbing activities would have cultural resource surveys 

conducted prior to their implementation as outlined in law governing the protection of these 

resources. 

 xxiii Summary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Summary xxiv 

Transportation 

All alternatives maintain primary access to major sites and facilities. Alternatives B, C, and D 

reduce the miles of designated roads, which reduces overall motorized access to the Forest. 

However, even under Alternative B, which has the lowest miles of designated roads, access to 

private property, most permitted activities, and forest administrative uses should remain intact. 

All Operational Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads would remain open. These roads provide 

important access for Forest management activities and form the backbone of the Forest 

Transportation System. Moreover, the existing public access to and through the Forest 

provided by county and state roads would remain the same for all alternatives. 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Data Tables and Designation Key 

The tables in this appendix display route data broken out by ranger district. All mileages are 

rounded to the nearest one mile. The designation key, including crosswalks to the open and 

closed summary and the MVUM designations, is located in this appendix. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments 

In May 2008, the Dixie National Forest circulated the DEIS for comment. In response, the 

Forest received approximately 175 letters, emails, and other comment types. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 1503, the Agency has evaluated the comments that were received in response to 

the DEIS. Appendix B contains summaries of each comment and the associated Forest Service 

response. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

1.1. Location of Project Area.....................................................................................................1-2

1.2. Background........................................................................................................................1-5

1.3. Route Analysis...................................................................................................................1-5

1.4. Desired Condition ..............................................................................................................1-6

1.5. Purpose of and Need for Action.........................................................................................1-6

1.6. Proposed Action.................................................................................................................1-7

1.7. Decision Framework ..........................................................................................................1-8

1.8. Public Involvement.............................................................................................................1-8

1.9. Scope of the Project and Analysis .....................................................................................1-9

1.10. Issues...............................................................................................................................1-9

1.10.1. Issue 1: Access......................................................................................................1-10

1.10.2. Issue 2: Management of Administrative Routes.....................................................1-10

1.10.3. Issue 3: Physical and Biological Resources...........................................................1-11

1.10.4. Issue 4: Inventoried Roadless Areas .....................................................................1-11

1.11. Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority...............1-11

1.12. Decisions to Be Made ....................................................................................................1-12

 1-1 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

1.1. Location of Project Area 

The Dixie National Forest is the largest of the six national forests in Utah, covering close to two 

million acres and stretching for over 200 miles. The Forest is located in Garfield, Iron, Kane, 

Piute, Wayne, and Washington counties in southcentral and southwestern Utah. There are 

currently four ranger districts on the Forest: Cedar City, headquartered in Cedar City; 

Escalante, headquartered in Escalante; Pine Valley, headquartered in St. George; and Powell, 

headquartered in Panguitch. The Supervisor’s Office is collocated with the Cedar City Ranger 

District in Cedar City. 

In March 2006 the Teasdale Ranger District on the Dixie National Forest and the Loa Ranger 

District on the Fishlake National Forest were consolidated into the Fremont River Ranger 

District. This new ranger district is administered by the Fishlake National Forest, though the 

area that was the Teasdale Ranger District remains part of the Dixie National Forest. As this 

Motorized Travel Plan was begun prior to the reorganization, the Teasdale portion of the 

Fremont River Ranger District is included in this analysis. The Fremont River Ranger District is 

headquartered in Loa, and the Fishlake National Forest Supervisor’s Office is in Richfield. 

The project area for the Motorized Travel Plan comprises approximately 1,883,730 acres. The 

area is portrayed on the following two maps: State of Utah Vicinity Map on page 1-3, and 

Southern Utah Vicinity Map on page 1-4. 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1-2 
Dixie National Forest

Motorized Travel Plan DEIS

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

 Box Elder

County

 Cache

County

 Rich

County

 Summit

County

 Weber

County

 Davis

County

 Morgan

County

 Tooele

County

 Utah

County

 Wasatch

County

 Duchesne

County

 Uintah

County

 Carbon

County

 Emery

County

 Juab

County

 Grand

 Millard County

County

 Iron

County

 Beaver

County

 Piute

County Wayne

County

 Garfield

County

 San Juan

County

 Sanpete

County

 Sevier

County

 Salt Lake

County

 Kane

Washington County

County

£¤70

£¤6

£¤40

£¤191

£¤15

£¤6

£¤80

£¤89

£¤89

£¤80

£¤10

£¤15

Moab

Price

Provo

Vernal

Beaver

Fillmore

Richfield

St. George

Cedar City

SALT LAKE CITY

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

Dixie National Forest

State of Utah 

Vicinity Map

0 25 50 100

Miles

Great Salt 

Lake

Legend

Dixie National Forest

Other National Forests

County Boundaries

Major Roads
Zion 

National

Park

Capitol 

Reef

National

Park

Glen

Canyon

National

Recreation

Area

Powell

Ranger 

District

Escalante

Ranger 

District

Fremont River

Ranger District

(Teasdale Portion)

Cedar City

Ranger 

District

Pine Valley

Ranger 

District

¬«15

¬«15

Bryce

Canyon

National

Park

Grand StaircaseEscalante National 

Monument

 Beaver

County

 Iron

County

 Piute

County

 Sevier

County

 Kane

County

Washington

County

 Garfield

County

 Wayne

County

Glen

Canyon

National

Recreation

Area

Cedar Breaks National 

Monument

¬«12

¬«21

¬«89

¬«14

¬«130

¬«17

¬«20

¬«15

¬«9

¬«143

¬«56

¬«59

¬«18

¬«89

¬«17

Loa

Kanab

Leeds

Ivins

Enoch

Beaver

Tropic

Monroe

Parowan

Hildale

Central

Milford

Teasdale

Elsinore

Annabella

Hurricane

Panguitch

La Verkin

Escalante

Washington

St. George

Cedar City

Orderville

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

Santa Clara

Minersville

Circleville

Colorado City

0 12.5 25 50

Miles

Dixie National Forest

Southern Utah Vicinity Map

Legend

Ranger Districts-Dixie National Forest

Dixie National Forest

Fishlake National Forest

National Parks, Monuments

& Recreation Areas

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

1.2. Background 

Increased recreational use and demand, including increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, on 

the Dixie National Forest has been linked to the immense population growth of southwestern 

Utah, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas, Nevada, over the past decade. Concurrent growth of 

subdivisions located within and adjacent to the Dixie National Forest has also occurred, 

accounting for hundreds of building permits issued annually for private residential and vacation 

homes. Increased OHV use and related impacts have been observed surrounding these 

growing forest communities. 

Dale Bosworth, former Chief of the Forest Service, identified unmanaged recreation – 

particularly impacts from OHVs – as one of the key threats facing national forests today. 

Locally, as well as regionally and nationally, unmanaged OHV use on federal lands has resulted 

in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat damage, impacts to cultural sites, 

and increasing degradation of recreational experiences, especially a loss in opportunities for 

solitude, primitive hunting, and other quiet experiences. 

The current Dixie National Forest Travel Map relies on the “open unless posted closed” 

enforcement method, which is complicated to interpret and difficult to administer. In addition, 

the lack of consistent management policies between the Dixie National Forest and other nearby 

national forests and other land management agencies is confusing for the public and inhibits 

cooperative law enforcement and successful prosecution of offenders. 

All of the factors described above have contributed to the current situation where some 

motorized travel is occurring on routes where motorized use is prohibited. In some areas of the 

Forest open to cross-country travel there are networks of user-created routes that are causing 

use conflicts and resource impacts. Problems do not occur equally throughout the analysis 

area. Some of this use has occurred in riparian areas and on highly erosive slopes. In other 

areas, use is very light and little or no effects from motorized cross-country travel are evident. 

Types of impacts include the introduction and spread of invasive plants, displacement and 

compaction of soils, impacts to rare plants, rutting of wetlands, disturbance of wildlife and 

livestock, damage to cultural resources, degradation of water quality, and impacts to riparian 

and fisheries habitat. 

The Fishlake National Forest began the process of updating their motorized travel plan in 2004. 

In December 2006, the Fishlake Forest Supervisor signed a Record of Decision, and 

implementation of the Fishlake motorized travel plan began late summer 2007. The decision 

covers motorized travel on the Loa portion of the Fremont River Ranger District. The Dixie 

National Forest has worked closely with the Fremont River Ranger District to ensure that 

decisions made on the Teasdale portion are consistent with those made earlier on the Loa 

portion. 

1.3. Route Analysis 

In January 2001 the Forest Service issued interim administrative directives requiring that all 

road management activities, including construction, reconstruction, or obliteration, must be 

 1-5 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

preceded by a roads analysis that identifies the need for a road and emphasizes a minimum 

road system (USDA 2001).1

 In 2003 the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests completed a 

combined Roads Analysis Process report (RAP) (USDA 2003b). This analysis evaluated the 

need for and determined the environmental impacts of operational maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 

roads. These are higher standard roads that are maintained for low clearance (passenger car) 

vehicles. 

As part of this Motorized Travel Plan, a supplemental RAP was completed for the remaining 

maintenance level 1 (closed) and 2 (high clearance vehicle) roads, as well as for all motorized 

trails on the Forest and all non-system (unauthorized) routes (USDA 2006c). Routes covered in 

previous and pending decisions, however, were not included as those decisions either 

contained a separate RAP and/or a travel management component. The supplemental RAP 

considered the need for the remaining system and non-system roads and trails and weighed 

those needs against possible environmental, social, and safety concerns. It also made 

recommendations for management of those roads and trails. 

A Travel Analysis Process (TAP) as described in the draft directives generally is a more broad 

analysis than that conducted under a RAP, but extends to trails and designated areas, not just 

the roads required in a RAP. The RAP prepared for the Dixie (comprising the original 2003 

version and the 2006 supplement) provides a more detailed analysis of all roads and motorized 

trails on the Forest than the analysis required in a TAP. None of the action alternatives propose 

any designated areas on the Forest. 

1.4. Desired Condition 

The Dixie National Forest’s goal related to OHV management is to manage the use of OHVs in 

partnership with other federal and state land management agencies, local governments, and 

communities and interest groups to protect public lands and resources while providing 

opportunities for the safe use and enjoyment of OHVs on designated roads and trails that 

comply with the Dixie National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter 

referred to as the Forest Plan) (USDA 1986, pp IV-3 and IV-11).2

 

The desired condition is to provide a range of motorized recreation opportunities, recognizing 

their legitimate use while minimizing the current or anticipated effects on wildlife and their 

habitat, soil, vegetation, water, fish, and other users. 

1.5. Purpose of and Need for Action 

The purpose of this project is to designate a system of authorized roads, trails, and/or areas for 

motor vehicle use in order to better protect natural resources, provide legal access, and improve 

recreation management and enforcement related to motor vehicle use. This purpose and need 

is in accordance with 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261 (which also incorporate Executive Orders 

 

1

 Directives to guide implementation of the 2005 Travel Rule have not yet been finalized. 2

 Information on Forest Plan consistency is located later in this chapter in the Relationship to Other Plans, 

Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority section on page 1-11 and in the Forest Plan Consistency

section of Chapter 3. 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1-6 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

11644 and 11989), and 295 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor 

Vehicle Use; Final Rule (hereafter referred to as the Travel Rule). 

The purpose of and need for action was developed over the course of three years beginning in 

2004 as the Dixie National Forest conducted an assessment in accordance with the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA). This NFMA analysis included a detailed agency review of 

each motorized route for known or potential effects to the environment, legal access issues, or 

other social uses, and was augmented by pre-planning public input. Broad, landscape-scale 

and site-specific considerations were made, identifying opportunities to improve watershed and 

wildlife habitat health, as well as the connectivity of communities, and recreational access. The 

Forest also considered opportunities to improve non-motorized and motorized trail systems and 

to facilitate desirable recreation activities. The Forest used the Motor Vehicle Route and Area 

Designation Guide to assist in the designation process (USDA 2005c). 

1.6. Proposed Action 

The action proposed by the Dixie National Forest to meet the purpose and need is to designate 

a motorized travel system that addresses the following four components: 

1. Cross-country travel. 

a. Prohibition of motorized cross-country travel (travel off designated roads or trails) 

except as specified for permitted uses (e.g., firewood gathering, allotment 

maintenance), emergency fire suppression, search and rescue activities, law 

enforcement activities, military operations, and Forest Service administrative 

uses and purposes. 

2. Designation of authorized National Forest System roads and motorized trails. 

a. Closure of currently authorized routes that will not be designated for motorized 

use and will therefore be removed from the National Forest System of roads and 

motorized trails. All routes removed from the system will be decommissioned. 

b. Designation of unauthorized routes that will be added to the National Forest 

System of roads and motorized trails, thereby becoming authorized routes. 

3. Designation of authorized uses of National Forest System roads and motorized trails. 

a. Designation of routes that will be open to all uses. 

b. Designation of routes needed to accommodate administrative activities and 

permitted uses. 

c. Designation of routes needed for access to private lands, rights-of-way, 

easements, and other jurisdictions. 

d. Designations of routes with seasonal restrictions or routes that only allow certain 

types of vehicles. 

4. Construction or relocation of designated National Forest System roads and motorized 

trails. 

a. Construction or relocation of routes to improve the transportation system or to 

respond to evaluation findings. 

As authorized by section 212.50 (b) of the Travel Rule, previous and pending decisions that 

allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, trails, or areas 

have been incorporated into this travel management decision. 

 1-7 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

1.7. Decision Framework 

Given the purpose and need for this action, the Forest Supervisors will review the proposed 

action, the alternatives, anticipated effects, and public comments to decide on motorized routes 

that will be added to or deleted from the current authorized system. The Forest Supervisors will 

also decide on the type and season of motorized use to be allowed on the authorized system. 

All routes not designated will be considered unauthorized routes and motorized use of those 

routes will be illegal. Motorized cross-country travel will be prohibited except as specified for the 

purposes of dispersed camping, emergency fire suppression, search and rescue, law 

enforcement, military operations, and Forest Service administrative use, including uses 

authorized by permit such as firewood gathering. 

User-created motorized routes that develop after the decision will be considered unauthorized, 

and will be closed or removed by the Forest Service upon discovery. No public process or 

analysis will be necessary to remove such a route. 

The assessment will consider the effects of forest travel management on adjacent lands. The 

decision does not include travel management for State lands, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) lands, or adjacent private lands or private “in-holdings.” 

This analysis and decision can neither validate nor deny R.S. 2477 assertions made by a 

county. The status of R.S. 2477 roads will be determined by state and/or federal courts. 

This analysis does not address the potential effects of illegal or criminal activities. Violations of 

state law, federal regulation, forest direction, or forest orders are outside the scope of this 

analysis. Prohibitions with respect to acts or omissions on National Forest System lands, 

including the use of motor vehicles, are provided at 36 CFR 261. 

1.8. Public Involvement 

In October 2004 the Dixie National Forest held a series of workshops in Cedar City, St. George, 

Ruby’s Inn (now Bryce Canyon City), Torrey, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Participants were asked 

to review the route inventory and evaluation questions and provide feedback on the evaluation 

process. At the same time, a working group of citizens who provided suggestions for motorized 

travel in revising the Dixie Land and Resource Management Plan was reconvened to make 

suggestions for the proposed travel system and evaluation process. Input received from 

cooperating agencies, the public, and the work group contributed to the proposed action. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published 

in the Federal Register on December 5, 2006. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed 

action by January 31, 2007. Prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local 

government officials, motorized advocacy groups, environmental groups, and businesses. 

Public involvement efforts after release of the NOI included public open houses in St. George, 

Cedar City, Panguitch, Escalante, Torrey, and Salt Lake City, Utah. The project website 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP) was also used to disseminate information and 

gather comments. About 500 scoping responses from individuals, advocacy groups, and state 

and other federal agencies were received and analyzed. Subsequent to the open houses, 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1-8 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

comments on the project were reviewed and the proposed action was revised. The Forest also 

developed two additional alternatives based on public comments. 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was 

published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2008. Legal notices announcing the DEIS’ 

availability were published on May 28, 2008, in both papers of record, The Spectrum and The 

Richfield Reaper. Publication of the NOA started the official 45-day public comment period. 

Multiple groups requested an extension to the comment period. The deciding officials extended 

the comment period an additional 15 days, for a cumulative comment period of 60 days. An 

amended NOA announcing the extended comment period was published in the Federal 

Register on May 27, 2008. Legal notices announcing the extension were published in The 

Spectrum on July 3, 2008, and in The Richfield Reaper on July 9, 2008. A postcard announcing 

the extension was also mailed to the over 800 individuals and groups on the project mailing list. 

During the comment period the Forest held four public open houses in June 2008 in Bicknell, 

Cedar City, St. George, and Cedar City. The purpose of these open houses was to present the 

DEIS, answer questions, and encourage and assist people in submitting comments. In 

response to public requests, the Forest hosted an additional open house in Cedar City on July 

10, 2008. 

For information on the comments that were received, please see Appendix B: Response to 

Comments. 

1.9. Scope of the Project and Analysis 

This DEIS is a site-specific document with a focus on route designation for motorized use. The 

analysis, however, requires a broad geographic scope since the project covers the entire Dixie 

National Forest. This project will update and replace the current Dixie National Forest Travel 

Map. It is not intended to address all aspects of unmanaged recreation or motorized use. 

Dispersed camping, the most desirable route system for long-term multiple use, resource 

protection, and access needs are addressed to varying degrees depending on site-specific 

considerations and the context provided by the purpose of and need for action. Travel by oversnow vehicles is outside the scope of the route designation project. 

The analysis area is limited to National Forest System lands, but the Dixie National Forest has 

coordinated with and will continue to seek consistency with the Fishlake National Forest, Cedar 

Breaks National Monument, Bryce Canyon National Park, Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument, Capitol Reef National Park, state lands, and BLM district and field offices. The 

Forest does not have jurisdiction on all routes that are located on National Forest System lands. 

The mapped designations for routes under other jurisdictions are provided so that the public can 

see how the route system interconnects. 

1.10. Issues 

An issue is a concern, dispute, or debate about the environmental effect of an action. Issues 

were identified through the scoping process and internal review. Significant issues are defined 

as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant 

 1-9 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided 

by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations explain this 

delineation in Sec. 1501.7(a)(3), “Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are 

not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3), . . . .” 

There were many non-significant issues raised during scoping and internal review. All 

comments received during scoping are part of the project record and are available for review 

upon request. The Dixie National Forest identified the following four issues as the biophysical 

and social elements that drove the development, design, and analysis of the alternatives. 

1.10.1. Issue 1: Access 

The majority of the comments and concerns heard at the open houses and in the comments 

received during scoping regarded access. Most individuals listed specific routes and their 

specific recommendations for those routes, whether for recreational uses, permitted uses, 

hunting access, emergency access, private property access, or general Forest access. Those 

specific recommendations included converting routes to motorized use, converting routes to 

non-motorized use, and closing or rerouting routes to prevent resource damage. 

Many people stated that they wanted all existing motorized opportunities maintained, others 

wanted an increase in motorized opportunities for full-sized vehicles and OHVs, and others 

wanted OHVs banned from the Forest. Those who wanted all existing motorized opportunities 

maintained mentioned access to conduct traditional forest activities, opportunities for family 

activities, recreational access, and potential negative impacts to local communities and 

businesses if access were decreased. Some who wanted an increase in motorized 

opportunities cited increased sales of OHVs and growing demand for OHV opportunities. Some 

who wanted a decrease in motorized opportunities referenced negative impacts to biological 

and physical resources, and potential negative impacts to local communities and businesses if 

motorized opportunities remained at their current levels. Many people were in favor of closing 

the Forest to cross-country travel. 

Some individuals were concerned about designating motorized routes in largely non-motorized 

areas, and others stated the need to retain areas for non-motorized opportunities. Others urged 

the Forest Service to ensure that designations on Forest Service land matched route or area 

designations on neighboring federal lands (e.g., do not designate a motorized route that deadends at a boundary with National Park Service or BLM lands where motorized use is not 

allowed). 

1.10.2. Issue 2: Management of Administrative Routes 

Administrative routes are Maintenance Level 1 roads that are closed to the public but may be 

used for administrative or permitted purposes. Often these roads are gated to prevent 

unauthorized use by the general public. Many people questioned whether or not the Dixie 

National Forest was able or willing to enforce the closure of administrative roads to the public. 

Others questioned more specifically if the Forest Service could maintain those administrative 

routes that are gated (which could also include roads gated during seasonal closures or where 

frequent administrative, permittee, or private property access is needed). 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1-10 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

Some individuals requested that all routes recommended as administrative routes be open to 

public use as well. Some stated that the public should be able to travel everywhere Forest 

Service employees can. Others questioned why the Forest Service needed so many 

administrative routes, and suggested the number of administrative routes be reduced. In areas 

where administrative routes were located in critical wildlife areas, some stated that Forest 

Service employees should only use non-motorized transportation methods. Some asked if it 

wouldn’t be more effective to close or mothball administrative routes that aren’t needed in the 

immediate future to improve enforcement. 

When use of an administrative route is authorized through permit, some questioned how that 

use would be managed so as to provide the permitted access but prevent abuse, especially 

during hunting season. 

1.10.3. Issue 3: Physical and Biological Resources 

Many people expressed concern over the potential negative impacts of motorized travel (both 

on and off of designated routes) on physical and biological resources. Some stated that nothing 

in the travel plan should lead to any adverse impacts to threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. Some stated that soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources should be protected 

above all other uses. Others commented on the negative impacts of noxious weeds and 

invasive species on native ecosystems, and how use of OHVs can result in increased 

infestations. 

Some requested that any routes that are determined to be contributing to soil erosion (and 

subsequent sedimentation of waterbodies) be closed, while others expressed concern that OHV 

impacts to water quality on the Forest be considered, particularly in areas where local 

communities depend on watersheds located on the Forest. Riparian areas, including wet 

meadows and lakeshores, were cited as areas of critical wildlife habitat where motorized routes 

should not be allowed. 

1.10.4. Issue 4: Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Some people expressed concern that OHV use in Inventoried Roadless Areas would negatively 

impact roadless and wilderness area characteristics. Some also believed that motorized trails 

would impact roadless area characteristics. 

1.11. Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and 

Regulatory Authority 

Direction and authority for the proposal come from the NFMA, NEPA, and CEQ, all of which 

provide general land management and environmental analysis direction. The NFMA requires 

that all projects and activities proposed and considered be consistent with the Forest’s Forest 

Plan. If a project or activity cannot be conducted consistent with the Forest Plan, it cannot go 

forward as planned unless the Forest Plan is amended. The Forest Plan Consistency section in 

Chapter 3 of this EIS documents those components of the various alternatives that would 

require an amendment to the Forest Plan if selected. 

 1-11 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1-12 

Federal Codes of Regulation 36 CFR 212 and 261 have given the Forest Service the authority 

to manage OHV use and provide specific regulations for the agencies based on Executive 

Orders 11644 and 11989. The agency maintains other discretionary authorities such as the 

ability to issue emergency closure orders that allow enforcement or modification of the 

motorized travel plan or that regulate use and occupancy of National Forest System lands. 

1.12. Decisions to Be Made 

Based on the environmental analysis in this DEIS, the Forest Supervisors of the Dixie National 

Forest and the Fishlake National Forest will decide whether or not to retain, close, construct, 

relocate, or decommission roads and motorized trails within the Motorized Travel Plan project 

area in accordance with 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, the Travel Rule, and with Forest 

Plan goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. The Forest Supervisors will also decide 

whether to implement an action alternative, a modified action alternative, or the no action 

alternative. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 

2.1. Alternative Development....................................................................................................2-2

2.2. Alternatives Considered in Detail.......................................................................................2-3

2.2.1. Alternative A................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.2. Alternative B................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.3. Alternative C ...............................................................................................................2-4

2.2.4. Alternative D ...............................................................................................................2-4

2.2.5. Alternative E................................................................................................................2-5

2.3. Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................2-5

2.4. Features Common to All Alternatives ..............................................................................2-17

2.4.1. Exemptions to Cross-country Travel Prohibitions .....................................................2-17

2.4.2. Emergency Access ...................................................................................................2-17

2.4.3. Private Land Access .................................................................................................2-17

2.4.4. Disabled Access........................................................................................................2-18

2.4.5. Permitted Activities ...................................................................................................2-18

2.4.6. Minerals Management and Administration................................................................2-18

2.4.7. Over-snow or Winter Travel ......................................................................................2-18

2.4.8. Parking......................................................................................................................2-18

2.4.9. Dispersed Camping ..................................................................................................2-18

2.4.10. Firewood Gathering ................................................................................................2-19

2.4.11. Non-motorized Travel..............................................................................................2-19

2.4.12. Previous and Pending Decisions ............................................................................2-19

2.4.13. Signing Protocol and Publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map............................2-20

2.4.14. Route Maintenance.................................................................................................2-21

2.4.15. Information, Education, Enforcement, and Partnerships.........................................2-21

2.5. Features Common to All Action Alternatives ...................................................................2-22

2.5.1. Project Design Features............................................................................................2-22

2.5.2. Forest Plan Amendment ...........................................................................................2-27

2.5.3. Designation of Non-system Routes...........................................................................2-27

2.5.4. Travel Route Restrictions and Closures....................................................................2-28

2.6. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study.........................................2-28

2.6.1. Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.........................................................................2-28

2.6.2. Non-motorized Trails Opened to Motorized Vehicles................................................2-29

2.6.3. Off-road Motorized Use for Game Retrieval or Antler Gathering ..............................2-29

2.7. Alternative Maps ..............................................................................................................2-29

 2-1 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Motorized Travel Plan. 

It includes a description of each of the alternatives. Maps of each alternative are located at the 

end of the chapter. 

The terminology used to describe the alternatives, particularly in the comparison tables, 

contains important distinctions. The term “routes” applies to both roads and trails. The term 

“roads” applies to travelways where full-size vehicle use is allowed. If used generally, the term 

“trails” refers only to motorized trails 50 inches in width or less. Wherever a reference to nonmotorized trails or a motorized trail for vehicles over 50 inches in width is intended, that specific 

language will be used. 

2.1. Alternative Development 

In order to gain substantial agreement about the proposed action, input was collected beginning 

in spring 2004 from members of the public; state, local, and other federal governments; and 

interest groups. A series of public workshops was held in the fall of 2004. Input received during 

the Forest Plan Revision process was also used, especially information provided by the Topical 

Working Groups (TWiGs). 

A route evaluation process was used by the Forest’s interdisciplinary team in development of 

the proposed action. Each route was evaluated using an extensive series of questions 

developed and reviewed by Dixie National Forest employees, the MTP Work Group, interested 

members of the public, and cooperating governments. A series of public workshops was held in 

fall 2004 in Cedar City, St. George, Ruby’s Inn (now Bryce Canyon City), Torrey, and Las 

Vegas, Nevada. These workshops provided opportunities to participate in the development and 

review of the evaluation process. 

As the proposed action was reviewed with the public during the scoping period, there appeared 

to be substantial agreement about many of the designations of individual routes, of which there 

were 8,440 reviewed during the pre-NEPA route evaluation. There were between 100 and 200 

routes that were the subject of specific disagreement as far as designation. There also 

appeared to be agreement about most of the uses and impacts that were identified for each 

route during route evaluation; however, broader issues related to motorized travel management 

tended to be a general source of disagreement. 

 

In reviewing the scoping comments, disagreement seemed to center upon differing perspectives 

about motorized recreation. Some examples are summarized below: 

 Some individuals wished to see a reduction in overall miles of open routes in order to 

facilitate non-motorized recreation experiences or to provide better protection of natural 

and cultural resources. Other individuals wished to see an increase in overall miles of 

open routes in order to enjoy more motorized recreation activities and access. Some 

people perceive the popularity of the Dixie National Forest as a destination area for OHV 

recreation as an increase in demand, and wanted to see no reduction in the motorized 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-2 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

recreation opportunity. Other people believed that now is the time to make choices 

about where motorized recreation should be allowed to occur. 

 Some individuals believed it would be important to designate open motorized routes into 

blocks of largely non-motorized landscapes in order to allow easier access into an 

already limited area. Other individuals preferred to see such routes closed in order to 

maintain primitive, non-motorized recreation qualities and protect natural resources 

within large blocks of land. 

 Some individuals wanted to see motorized travel restricted in certain areas during the 

big game hunt in order to improve non-motorized hunting success and to provide a 

degree of sanctuary to game animals. Others did not wish to see a reduction in 

motorized access during the hunt and believed that restrictions would result in crowding 

on fewer open routes and reduce overall hunting success. 

2.2. Alternatives Considered in Detail 

2.2.1. Alternative A 

This is the No Action Alternative. This alternative would retain all existing National Forest 

System roads and motorized trails as open. No non-system or unauthorized motorized routes 

would be added to the system. Current restrictions on cross-country travel (off-road or trail) 

would remain in place: cross-country travel would continue to be allowed on 1,150,113 acres 

(61 percent of the Forest), but would be prohibited on 735,943 acres (39 percent of the Forest). 

Although no non-system or unauthorized routes would be added to the system, use of nonsystem or unauthorized routes located in areas that allow cross-country travel would continue to 

be allowed. In areas where cross-country travel is not allowed, non-system routes identified as 

necessary for private property access, permitted uses, or administrative access, or routes 

necessary for public access (as determined through the route evaluation process) would not be 

open to motorized travel. System routes that have been identified as unnecessary or 

undesirable (again, as determined through the route evaluation process) would remain open. 

No new motorized trails would be proposed for construction. 

Maps of Alternative A by ranger district are located on page 2-30 (Cedar City), page 2-35

(Escalante and Teasdale), page 2-40 (Pine Valley), and page 2-45 (Powell). 

2.2.2. Alternative B 

This alternative emphasizes the protection of natural and cultural resources. It would also 

provide the most opportunity for enhanced non-motorized recreation experiences: there would 

be fewer miles of motorized routes and therefore fewer conflicts with motorized users. Crosscountry travel would be prohibited forest-wide. Some unauthorized routes, including those that 

must remain open for private property access, permitted uses, or administrative access, would 

be added to the system. Some system routes that are negatively impacting soil, water, and 

wildlife resources would be closed. Alternative B retains the fewest miles of open motorized 

routes of all the action alternatives. 

 2-3 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

This alternative was developed to respond to the Sustained Multiple Use Alternative submitted 

by a group of 10 organizations (see page 2-28). It also includes suggestions made by other 

individuals and organizations during scoping. 

No new motorized routes would be proposed for construction. 

Maps of Alternative B by ranger district are located on page 2-31 (Cedar City), page 2-36

(Escalante and Teasdale), page 2-41 (Pine Valley), and page 2-46 (Powell). 

2.2.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed to address public and agency input received during scoping 

related to access and physical and biological resources. This alternative allows for a higher 

level of motorized access than does Alternative B. Alternative C would close approximately 468 

additional miles of road for wildlife and hydrology concerns as compared with Alternative D. 

Under Alternative C, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. More unauthorized 

routes, including routes that must remain open for private property access, permitted uses, or 

administrative access, would be added to the system than under Alternative B. Some system 

routes that are negatively impacting soil, water, and wildlife resources would be closed. 

Motorized access for recreation, administrative uses, and permitted uses is allowed to a higher 

degree than under Alternative B. 

No new motorized routes would be proposed for construction. 

Maps of Alternative C by ranger district are located on page 2-32 (Cedar City), page 2-37

(Escalante and Teasdale), page 2-42 (Pine Valley), and page 2-47 (Powell). 

2.2.4. Alternative D 

This alternative allows for a higher level of motorized access than does Alternative B or C, but 

less than Alternative E. Alternative D is a modified version of the proposed action released in 

December 2006. It includes changes made in response to public and government input made 

during scoping. 

Under this alternative, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. Some unauthorized 

routes, including those that must remain open for private property access, permitted use, or 

administrative access, would be added to the system. Some system routes that are negatively 

impacting soil, water, and wildlife resources would be closed. Motorized access for recreation, 

administrative access, and permitted use is allowed to a higher degree than under Alternative B 

or C, but to a lower degree than under Alternative E. 

Two new motorized routes would be proposed for construction as shown in the table below. A 

map of these routes is included in the Recreation and Scenery section of Chapter 3. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-4 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

Table 2-1. Proposed Motorized Trail Construction – Alternatives D and E 

Route # District Geographic Area Length in 

Miles 

T34070 Cedar City Panguitch/Mammoth 0.65

U24028A Cedar City Panguitch/Mammoth 0.61

Total miles 1.26

Maps of Alternative D by ranger district are located on page 2-33 (Cedar City), page 2-38

(Escalante and Teasdale), page 2-43 (Pine Valley), and page 2-48 (Powell). 

2.2.5. Alternative E 

This alternative provides the most motorized access on designated routes. With the exception 

of routes that are currently closed and/or decommissioned and those routes covered under 

previous and pending decisions, all non-system or unauthorized routes would be added to the 

system and designated as open to public motorized travel. All trails that are currently 

designated as non-motorized, however, would remain non-motorized. Cross-country travel 

would be prohibited forest-wide. 

This alternative designates a system of routes for motorized travel that includes all routes that 

must remain open for private property access, permitted use, and administrative access. This 

alternative includes suggestions made by some individuals, organizations, and government 

officials who commented during scoping. 

Two new motorized routes would be proposed for construction as shown in the table above. 

These are the same routes proposed for construction in Alternative D. A map of these routes is 

included in the Recreation and Scenery section of Chapter 3. 

Maps of Alternative E by ranger district are located on page 2-34 (Cedar City), page 2-39

(Escalante and Teasdale), page 2-44 (Pine Valley), and page 2-49 (Powell). 

There are approximately 215 routes or segments of unauthorized routes currently located in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). On September 20, 2006, the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule (RACR) was reinstated. Under the rule, no roads in IRAs may be added to the system, 

though motorized trails may be added. 

Under Alternative E, however, all 215 of these routes or segments of routes would be added to 

the system. As RACR is currently in place, Alternative E would have to be modified regarding 

the designation of those routes that would be added as roads (though those added as trails 

would not be affected). If Alternative E were to be selected and RACR were still in effect, those 

roads in IRAs could not be added to the system except by the Chief of the Forest Service. 

2.3. Comparison of Alternatives 

The following pages contain tables illustrating the differences between alternatives aggregated 

forest-wide. Tables containing more detailed information disaggregated by ranger district 

 2-5 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-6 

(instead of the forest-wide totals shown here) are located in Appendix A: Data Tables and 

Designation Key. As implied by its title, Appendix A also contains a key describing each route 

designation. 

Table 2-2. Route Designation by Alternative – Forest-wide 

Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 631 959 1,037 962 399

Closed Classified 203 1,043 756 462 179

Closed Unauthorized 354 1,335 1,247 1,074 213

Existing Motorized Trail 97 101 89 103 90

Existing Non-motorized Trail 821 823 817 821 803

Existing Highway 139 139 139 139 139

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 1,022 0 0 0 0

Open - Street Legal 32 53 24 65 21

Open to All 2,768 1,445 1,648 2,284 4,276

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 <1 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 6 92 203 85 11

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 1 1

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 3 133 148 88 3

Seasonal 87 38 53 74 36

Total 6,163 6,161 6,161 6,158 6167

All mileages rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Differences between totals by alternative due to minor 

mapping discrepancies in GIS.
Mot

Table 2-3. Summary of Routes Open and Closed to the Public – Forest-wide 

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles 

Open to Public 4,275 80% 1,867 36% 2,173 42% 2,742 52% 4,563 Closed to Public* 1,063 20% 3,337 64% 3,040 58% 2,496 48% 790 Total 5,338 100% 5,204 100% 5,213 100% 5,238 100% 5,353 

All miles rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping d* Includes administrative routes and routes to be decommissioned. 

Table 2-4. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Forest-wide 

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 354 24% 1,334 90% 1,244 84% 1,072 73Added as "administrative" 18 1% 82 6% 147 10% 228 15Added as "open to all" 87 6% 18 1% 31 2% 103 7Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% 4 <1% 1 <1% 6 <1Added as "seasonal" 0 0% 1 <1% 1 <1% 1 <1Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 9 1% 22 1% 36 2Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 1 <1% 30 2% 33 2% 30 2Not closed (unauthorized)* 1,021 69% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 1,481 100% 1,476 100% 1,478 100% 1,476 100

All miles rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in Previous and pending decisions have already been applied to all alternatives. For example, all unauthorized routes are 

under Alternative E as noted on page 2-5. This table only shows 84% of unauthorized routes being added as open 

are covered by previous and pending decisions. Of the 84% of routes not addressed by previous or pending decisioopen to all. 

* Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61 percent of the Forest open to cross-country 

 2-7 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 2-5. Summary of Alternatives by Issue and Topic 

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Issue 1: Access Cross-country travel Currently allowed on 

61% of Forest 

No cross-country travel allowed on the Forest 

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B 

Disposition of unauthorized routes (approx. 1,500 miles)1

25% of miles closed; 6% open; <1% nonmotorized trail Additionally, 69% of miles are not closed, but use will continue to be allowed as these miles of unauthorized routes occur in the 61% of the Forest where cross-country travel is allowed 

96% of miles closed; 1% open; 1% motorized trail; 2% non-motorized trail 

94% of miles closed; 2% open; 2% motorized trail; 2% non-motorized trail 

88% of miles closed; 8% open; 2% motorized trail; 2% non-motorized trail 

Total open versus closed2 77% of routes open to public; 23% closed 46% of routes open to public; 54% closed 51% of routes open to public; 49% closed 60% of routes open to public; 40% closed Percent of Forest within specified distance of a motorized route 

0 to 0.5 miles: 70% 0 to 1 mile: 88% 0 to 2 miles: 98% 0 to 3 miles: 100% 

0 to 0.5 miles: 59% 0 to 1 mile: 81% 0 to 2 miles: 96% 0 to 3 miles: 99% 

0 to 0.5 miles: 62% 0 to 1 mile: 83% 0 to 2 miles: 96% 0 to 3 miles: 99% 

0 to 0.5 miles: 66% 0 to 1 mile: 86% 0 to 2 miles: 97% 0 to 3 miles: 100% 

Proposed new motorized trail construction 

No new motorized trail construction proposed 

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A 1.26 miles (2 routes) 

proposed 

1 “Closed” includes “closed” and “administrative/permittee/private property access.” “Open” includes “open to all,” “open to 

“seasonal.” All alternatives carry forward the closure of 16% of unauthorized routes from previous and pending decisions. 

percentage of miles are shown as closed in Alternative A as these are unauthorized routes in the 39% of the Forest closed 

Under Alternative E, only those 16% of miles carried forward as closed from previous and pending decisions are closed, aroutes would be added to the system. 2 As noted in the previous footnote, for this summary, “closed” includes “closed” and “administrative/permittee/private prope

includes “open to all,” “open to street legal,” and “seasonal.” 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-8 
Mot

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Issue 2: Management of Administrative Routes Administrative routes 631 miles of 

administrative routes (10% of entire system) 

959 miles of administrative routes (16% of entire system) 

1,037 miles of administrative routes (17% of entire system) 

962 miles of administrative routes (16% of entire system) 

Issue 3: Physical and Biological Resources Soils 108 miles of road 

intercepting slopes ≥35% 64 miles of road on highly erodible soils 

73 miles of road intercepting slopes ≥35% 39 miles of road on highly erodible soils 

84 miles of road intercepting slopes ≥35% 47 miles of road on highly erodible soils 

95 miles of road intercepting slopes ≥35% 54 miles of road on highly erodible soils 

Watershed Projected increase in 

road density in most of the 179 watersheds. Road mileage within Riparian Influence Zone (RIZ) is either greater than or equal to that in Alts B, C, and D 

Projected reduction in road density in 149 of the 179 watersheds. Reduction in road mileage within RIZ in 108 of the 179 watersheds 

Projected reduction in road density in 149 of the 179 watersheds. Reduction in road mileage within RIZ in 108 of the 179 watersheds 

Projected reduction in road density in 143 of the 179 watersheds. Reduction in road mileage within RIZ in 91 of the 179 watersheds 

Threatened plant species (Townsendia aprica) 

Greatest negative impact from crosscountry travel provision. 

Motorized crosscountry travel prohibited. 62% decrease in miles of motorized routes. 5.58 miles open to administrative use adjacent to T. aprica. 

Motorized crosscountry travel prohibited. 57% decrease in miles of motorized routes. 5.58 miles open to administrative use adjacent to T. aprica. 

Motorized crosscountry travel prohibited. 40% decrease in miles of motorized routes. 1.5 miles open to administrative and public OHV use, and 5.58 miles open to all uses adjacent to T. aprica. 

 2-9 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Vegetation, Fire & Fuels 

Access to vegetation mgt. projects: provides 

motorized access to all planned for the next 5 years. Access to suitable timber: provides motorized access within 1⁄2 mile to 87% of suitable timber. Fire suppression: roads in critical strategic locations remain open. Access to fuels mgt projects: provides access to all planned for the next 5 years. 

Access to vegetation mgt. projects: provides reasonable motorized access to planned for the next 5 years, though some roads may need to be reopened. Access to suitable timber: provides motorized access within 1⁄2 mile to 73% of suitable timber. Fire suppression: same as Alt. A Access to fuels mgt projects: provides access to all planned for the next 5 years. 

Access to vegetation mgt. projects: same as Alt. B Access to suitable timber: provides motorized access within 1⁄2 mile to 78% of suitable timber. Fire suppression: same as Alt. A Access to fuels mgt projects: provides access to all planned for the next 5 years. 

Access to vegetation mgt. projects: same as Alt. A Access to suitable timber: provides motorized access within 1⁄2 mile to 85% of suitable timber. Fire suppression: same as Alt. A Access to fuels mgt projects: provides access to all planned for the next 5 years. 

Aquatic biota Would permit further 

development of increasing networks of user-created routes, resulting in persistent and expanding degradation to aquatic habitats. 

Would limit current and future expansion and creation of unauthorized routes, thus limiting potential degradation of high value aquatic habitats. 

Same as Alt B. Same as Alt B. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-10 
Mot

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Wildlife – general Increased potential 

for disturbance, and increased habitat degradation and fragmentation for all species analyzed given continued open route mileage and opportunity for crosscountry travel. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease for all species. 

Greatest increase in habitat effectiveness for all species analyzed given net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel. 

Increased habitat effectiveness for all species analyzed, though less of an increase than Alt. B, given net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel. 

Increased habitat effectiveness for all species analyzed, though less of an increase than Alts. B or C, given net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel. 

Wildlife – mule deer Total Motorized Road 

Density (TMRD)3

over 2 miles/sq. mile: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion Wildlife Management Units (WMUs). Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) over 2 miles/sq. mile: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion WMUs. 

TMRD over 2 miles/square mile: Zion WMU. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Zion WMU. 

TMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Zion WMU. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Zion WMU. 

TMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Paunsaugunt and Zion WMUs. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Zion WMU. 

3 Total Motorized Road Density (TMRD) calculations include all routes; Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) calculations 

Level 1 routes and unauthorized routes within the 39 percent of the Forest closed to cross-country travel. 

 2-11 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Wildlife – Rocky Mountain elk 

TMRD: Same as mule deer. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: Panguitch Lake and Paunsaugunt WMUs. 

TMRD: Same as mule deer. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: None. 

TMRD: Same as mule deer. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: None. 

TMRD: Same as mule deer. OMRD over 2 miles/sq. mile: None. 

Noxious weeds Highest risk to 

increase the spread of noxious weeds forest-wide as crosscountry travel permitted on 61% of the Forest. 

Overall, Alt. B would have the least risk of spreading noxious weeds, followed next by Alt. C, then Alt D. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-12 
Mot

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Issue 4: Inventoried Roadless Areas Routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) 

No unauthorized routes within IRAs would be added to the system. 

No unauthorized routes within IRAs would be added as roads to system; 8 miles (7 routes) would be added as motorized trail. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Routes in Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

Of the 1,056,221 acres of unroaded and undeveloped areas, only 29% are outside an IRA or wilderness. Areas will continue to be managed for multiple resource benefits while maintaining their undeveloped character to the extent possible. 

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. 

Cross-country travel in IRAs 

58% of IRAs open to cross-country travel. 

No cross-country travel allowed on the Forest. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Cross-country travel in Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

56% of Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas open to crosscountry travel 

No cross-country travel allowed on the Forest. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

4 As noted above under the discussion for Alternative E beginning on page 2-5, Alternative E would need to be modified if i

and RACR were still in effect as those roads in IRAs could not be added to the system or the Chief of the Forest Service w

petitioned to add them to the system. 

 2-13 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Other Resources Social and Economic No impacts Potential impacts in 

Garfield, Kane, and Wayne counties (in that decreasing order) due to clubs, events, focus of economy, and a few businesses 

Some impact on Garfield, Kane, and Wayne counties, but not as high as under Alt. B 

Not much impact 

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing 

activities, whether affecting the livestock themselves or the permittee, are not expected. 

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A 

Non-Recreation Special Uses and Easements 

Holders of special use authorizations have the right to access their facilities for operation and maintenance on NFS lands. 

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A 

Recreation Special Uses 

May be impacts on permit holders who seek to use unauthorized routes in areas currently closed to crosscountry travel, and on those whose permits depend on larger areas closed to motorized travel (i.e., big game outfitter and guides) 

Recreation-related permit holders who seek motorized opportunities may see the greatest impact due to the decrease in motorized access. Those who seek nonmotorized opportunities would see greatest benefit. 

Recreation-related permit holders who seek motorized opportunities may see impacts due to the decreased amount of motorized access, though impacts would be lower that in Alt. B. More benefit for those seeking nonmotorized opportunities, but less than in Alt. B. 

Recreation-related permit holders who seek motorized opportunities should see fewer impacts than those associated with Alts. B and C. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-14 
Mot

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Recreation Approximately 828 

miles of nonmotorized trails; more miles of motorized routes than Alts. B, C, or D. 

Approximately 960 miles of nonmotorized trails; provides the least amount of miles for motorized travel. 

Approximately 969 miles of nonmotorized trails; provides the second least amount of miles for motorized travel. 

Approximately 915 miles of nonmotorized trails; midrange among motorized travel. Generally allows for a higher level of motorized access than Alt. C. 

Scenery Vast majority of the 

Forest would meet or exceed Scenic Integrity Objectives. 

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Construction of 

routes T34040 and U24028A may result in impacts that reduce scenic integrity from high to moderate. 

Cultural Resources Unauthorized routes 

would continue to be developed by the public in the 61% of the Forest open to cross-country travel, impacting cultural and paleontological sites and resources. Sites and resources would continue to be impacted intentionally and unintentionally by visitors and natural processes. 

Impacts to sites and resources would be least among alternatives. Sites and resources would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by visitors and natural

processes. 

Impacts to sites and resources would be more intense than under Alt. B, but fewer than under A, D, and E, in that order. Sites and resources would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by visitors and natural processes. 

Impacts to sites and resources would be more intense than under Alts. B and C, but fewer than A or E. Cultural resource surveys, review, and concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office would be conducted on the 2 proposed motorized trails prior to construction. Sites and resources would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by visitors and natural processes. 

 2-15 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-16 

Alternative Issue/Topic A B C D 

Transportation 61% (1,150,113 

acres) of Forest open to motorized crosscountry travel. Cross-country travel would remain prohibited on 39% (735,943 acres). Site-specific planning and enforcement of OHV regulations would continue at current levels.

Closing the Forest to motorized crosscountry travel would reduce the potential for direct and indirect off-route interactions and impacts with other land uses. 

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt B 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

2.4. Features Common to All Alternatives 

A variety of resource protection measures and policies are currently in place to mitigate 

potential adverse effects of travel routes on the Forest. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

apply to all alternatives. CFR 261.5 parts A and B allow district rangers to close, re-designate, 

or impose restrictions on roads or trails at any time if further use poses an immediate risk to 

public safety or if adverse effects are occurring. These closures or restrictions are intended to 

be short-term in nature; however, future decisions can be made to change route designations 

for the long-term. Therefore the designations in this decision have an adaptive management 

component. 

2.4.1. Exemptions to Cross-country Travel Prohibitions 

The following vehicles and uses are exempted from the prohibitions to motorized cross-country 

travel by 36 CFR 212.51: 

 Aircraft, 

 Watercraft, 

 Over-snow vehicles, 

 Limited administrative use by the Forest Service, 

 Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency 

purposes, 

 Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes, 

 Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit, and 

 Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued 

under federal law or regulations. 

2.4.2. Emergency Access 

The travel plan does not restrict responses to emergency events to protect human life, property 

values, structures, and forest resources (see the list of vehicles and uses that are exempted 

from prohibitions to motorized cross-country travel above). Emergency activities are 

coordinated through the authorized official. 

2.4.3. Private Land Access 

Private land access would be provided within National Forest boundaries as required by Section 

1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. 

Routes on private land within National Forest System lands are not under the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service and would remain open to the public through rights-of-way or easements 

obtained for the purposes of public access. Routes without rights-of-way or easements may not 

be open to public access, depending on landowner preference. 

 2-17 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

2.4.4. Disabled Access 

All alternatives would provide equal access to people with disabilities. Wheelchair travel is 

considered non-motorized travel. OHV vehicles are not classified as mobility devices or 

wheelchairs. 

2.4.5. Permitted Activities 

Permitted activities often require motorized access. Permitted activities such as livestock 

operations, mineral development, outfitter-guide operations, and access to special use 

developments are approved or denied through the permit process and operating plan. Some of 

the routes authorized for permittee use are not designated for public use and are depicted as 

administrative use or non-motorized trails on the alternative maps. In all cases, permitted uses 

are non-recreational, intended to allow maintenance of utilities, water improvements, etc., 

and/or to haul materials needed for the permitted operation. Permit holders and agency officials 

are allowed motorized access only for official purposes. 

2.4.6. Minerals Management and Administration 

All alternatives recognize the rights of access under the various mineral laws. Activities within 

the constraints of regulations implementing those acts are deemed consistent with or in 

compliance with this travel plan. 

2.4.7. Over-snow or Winter Travel 

Most areas of the Forest are open to cross-country over-snow vehicle (e.g., snowmobile) use 

when adequate snow cover exists, as currently allowed by Forest Special Order #0407-04-03 

(USDA 2004e). This travel management decision does not address over-snow travel, as noted 

earlier in Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action, Section 1.9: Scope of the Project and 

Analysis. The decision to restrict over-snow vehicles to designated routes will be made over 

time, if necessary, to address disturbance in big game winter range areas. 

2.4.8. Parking 

Parking is allowed along the edge of designated routes and should only occur where a vehicle 

can safely pull over and where meadows, streams, and riparian areas are avoided. Roads and 

closed gates are not to be blocked. This allowance provides the public reasonable access off 

designated routes to park their vehicle to fish, picnic, hike, etc., during the snow free-season. If 

parking is causing unacceptable resource damage, the Forest Service can close the area to 

parking off designated routes. 

2.4.9. Dispersed Camping 

Dispersed camping would continue to be allowed within 150 feet along designated open routes, 

as currently allowed by Forest Special Order #0407-04-03 (USDA 2004e). However, some 

specific areas have already been restricted to designated campsites only. More dispersed 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-18 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

campsites and dispersed camping areas may be designated in the future if physical and social 

conditions reach a level where it is deemed necessary. 

This limited use of motor vehicles off designated routes within 150 feet of roads and motorized 

trails would be allowed solely for the purposes of dispersed camping in areas determined 

through this analysis. This access would not authorize the creation of new campsites or 

travelways. Motorized travel between multiple dispersed campsites would be prohibited. 

2.4.10. Firewood Gathering 

Off-road travel for the purpose of firewood gathering would be allowed only as specified under 

the terms of the firewood gathering permit. Access to administrative use routes will be 

controlled as part of permit issuance. 

2.4.11. Non-motorized Travel 

All travel routes and areas are open to non-motorized and non-mechanized modes of travel 

such as hiking, horse riding, skiing, or snowshoeing, unless specifically closed to such uses. At 

this time, these modes of travel are not restricted to designated travel routes. 

Mechanized modes of travel, including the use of mountain bikes, are not currently restricted to 

designated routes. Except in areas specifically closed to mechanized uses (such as designated 

wilderness areas and non-mechanized trails), all travel routes and areas would be open to 

mechanized modes of travel. The decision to designate a non-mechanized system of routes 

may be made over time with other project decisions. 

2.4.12. Previous and Pending Decisions 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 212.50 of the Travel Rule, 25 previous and pending decisions that allow, 

restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, trails or areas have been 

incorporated as previously designated into this travel planning project. See the following table 

for a list of these decisions. 

 2-19 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 2-6. Previous and Pending Decisions 

Name District 

NFS Roads 

Open to 

Public 

NFS Road 

Open Only for 

Admin Use 

NFS Roads 

Closed1

NFS Roads 

with Seasonal 

Restrictions 

Unauthorized 

Closed 

ATV Trails 

Non-motorized 

Trails 

South Fork Pinto 

Creek Rd Pine Valley 5.25 0.46 3.13 0 0 0 0

Upper Santa Clara Pine Valley 7.35 0.36 0 0 0.26 0 7.39

Duck Creek 

Swains Cedar City 202.63 28.22 130.74 0 177.30 35.70 8.13

Long Deer Cedar City 24.80 48.69 0.49 0 2.71 0 1.74

Pretty Tree Bench Escalante 47.34 19.76 5.44 21.54 13.03 2.3 4.33

Black Forest Escalante 1.73 4.87 0 0 0.65 0 0

Velvet Lake/ 

Coyote Hollow Escalante 0.19 0.09 0 0.13 0.03 0 0

Velvet Lake Escalante 4.94 14.01 0.04 0.12 0.13 0 0

Roundy Escalante 3.65 16.71 0 0.44 0 0 1.07

Coyote Hollow Escalante 0.05 11.89 0.28 2.98 0.58 0 0

Griffin Springs Escalante 26.54 17.85 5.58 0 9.58 2.31 4.56

Main Canyon Escalante 4.49 18.74 0.79 4.11 0.07 0 0

Pockets2 Escalante 11.61 13.44 0 5.87 0 2.67 0

Pacer Escalante 8.06 10.67 0 0 0.02 2.44 0

Mt. Dutton3 Powell 21.40 12.01 1.96 0 2.40 3.82 0

Puma Powell 9.93 7.94 0 0 4.80 0 0

Boulder Top Teasdale 49.25 3.21 83.40 0 1.39 0 27.15

Barney Top Teasdale 11.93 1.34 0 0 1.44 0 0.9

Lower Bowns Rec. Teasdale 19.04 1.62 1.34 0 4.06 8.21 15.90

South Creek Teasdale 9.92 20.12 2.22 4.78 24.77 0 5.48

South Cr/Under 

Barney Teasdale 3.66 13.26 0.64 7.39 11.20 0 1.11

Purple Lake Teasdale 0 0 .07 0 0 0 0

Grand View Trail Powell 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.2

Spruces Trail Cedar City 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Virgin River Rim 

Trail Cedar City 0 0 0 0 0 0 31.5

1

 Decommissioned. 

2

 The Pockets Resource Management Project is the only project in this list that is still pending. 3

 The Mt. Dutton decision was finalized after the publication of the DEIS. 

2.4.13. Signing Protocol and Publication of the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map 

Travel routes are closed unless designated open for motorized use. Routes that would be 

designated open for public motorized use would be shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM), which will be published as a result of this decision. The MVUM is a national 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-20 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

requirement that will become the legal document to illustrate route designations and will be 

reissued each year, much like hunting proclamations or regulations. It will be the user’s 

responsibility to be familiar with the annual MVUM, which will be provided free of charge at local 

Forest Service offices and on the Internet. 

Routes that are designated for motorized use would be signed with a route number, according 

to Forest Service signing and installation standards, at all appropriate junctions. Allowed uses 

would also be posted, according to Forest Service standards. In response to specific problems, 

a few closed routes may be signed accordingly; however, routes not designated as open for 

public use will not be shown on the MVUM and generally will not be signed as closed. 

The Forest is committed to signing motorized and non-motorized routes to improve the 

recreation experience and to increase compliance. The Forest will begin signing priority routes 

the first field season after the decision on this plan is made. Due to the reality of missing or 

damaged signs, and the time and funding necessary to install numerous signs across the forest, 

not all designated routes can be expected to be signed immediately or all the time. It is the 

user’s responsibility to know the routes that are open for public motorized use. Users are 

strongly advised to obtain a current MVUM to be sure of routes that are legally designated for 

public use. 

2.4.14. Route Maintenance 

Over time, the forest objective is that all system routes, motorized and non-motorized, will be 

maintained to Forest Service standards to provide for user enjoyment, safety, and resource 

protection. Standards vary depending on intended use, but allow for a range of route conditions 

from primitive native surface (designed for high-clearance vehicles) to paved surface routes 

(designed for low clearance vehicles and passenger comfort). Maintaining routes to standard 

requires routine maintenance, which would continue as funding allows. 

Portions of some routes may require relocation or improvement to meet standards and have 

been identified through the route evaluation/analysis process. Authorization of some of the 

actual road or trail relocation work may require supplemental analysis and, in some cases, a 

subsequent NEPA decision. Road and trail maintenance standards are set by their 

maintenance level or trail class and are described in FSH 7709.56 and FSH 2309.18. 

2.4.15. Information, Education, Enforcement, and Partnerships 

Over the years, the Dixie National Forest has become a popular place for motorized recreation. 

The Forest has been working since the mid-1990s to improve motorized travel management, 

through smaller route designation projects and increased efforts toward visitor information and 

education. Non-motorized areas can be affected by motorized travel planning; therefore longterm impacts on non-motorized areas must be considered. Through increased coordination with 

the State of Utah and local counties, the Dixie National Forest is working to publish high quality 

maps of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities, install trailhead kiosks and trail 

signs, and outreach to visitors through the media. Substantial funding has been contributed by 

these partners to provide an enjoyable motorized recreation experience. 

Partnership opportunities continue to emerge as state and local governments, organizations, 

and individuals offer volunteer labor, trail patrol, and grant funding. Coordination with other 

 2-21 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

governments continues in the areas of law enforcement. OHV manufacturers and motorized 

interest groups are also partnering with the Forest Service to improve protection of natural 

resources, improve user etiquette, and to protect the riding privilege. 

2.5. Features Common to All Action Alternatives 

2.5.1. Project Design Features 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines apply to all alternatives. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) addressing soil, water, and noxious weeds would be applied to the maintenance of 

travel routes and to route closures. BMPs would also be applied to any route construction 

(Alternatives D and E only). Following a decision, all areas proposed for ground-disturbing 

activities and all non-system routes proposed to become system routes will be surveyed for 

heritage resources with State Historical Preservation Office review. 

2.5.1.1. Hydrology 

Reconstruction and relocation of roads and motorized trails would meet the following project 

design features: 

 Slope would be less than 8 percent. 

 Trail drainage would be provided at the proper spacing according to trail slope and 

location. 

 Running surface would be provided based on traffic volume, soils, and geology. 

 Stream crossings would be provided that mitigate or eliminate the effects to the stream 

channel, the water in the channel, and the wetland associated with the channel. 

 Highly erosive soils would be avoided. 

 Routes would be located outside of the riparian influence zone. 

Riparian and wetland areas of concern for each activity or project should be 

identified using the following guidelines (Belt et al. 1992): 

1) Site-specific identification of riparian influence zones for fish-bearing 

streams should include the area from the edges of the active stream 

channel to whichever of the following widths is most appropriate: 

 To the top of the inner gorge, 

 To the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, 

 To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 

 To a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 

 To a 300 foot slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the 

stream channel). 

2) Site-specific identification of riparian influence zones for permanently 

flowing non-fish bearing streams should include the area from the edges of 

the active stream channel to whichever of the following widths is most 

appropriate: 

 To the top of the inner gorge, 

 To the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, 

 To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 

 To a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-22 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 To a 150 foot slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the 

stream channel). 

3) Site-specific identification of riparian influence zones for wetlands, ponds, 

lakes, reservoirs, and seasonally-flowing or intermittent streams should 

include the area from the edge of the waterbody to whichever of the 

following widths is most appropriate: 

 To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 

 To the extent of the seasonally-saturated soil, 

 To the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, 

 To a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, 

 To a 150 foot slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool 

elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs. 

Seasonal restrictions may be used to protect the road, trail, or route during saturated or near 

saturated soil conditions. Natural processes of road closure, if ineffective, may be augmented 

with active obliteration. 

2.5.1.2. Soil and Water Conservation 

The Clean Water Act requires each state to implement its own water quality standards. The 

State of Utah's Water Quality Antidegradation Policy requires maintenance of water quality to 

protect existing instream Beneficial Uses on streams designated as Category 1 High Quality 

Waters. All surface waters geographically located within the outer boundaries of the Dixie 

National Forest, whether on private or public lands, are designated as High Quality Waters 

(Category 1). This means they are to be maintained at existing high quality. New point sources 

are not to be allowed, and non-point sources will be controlled to the extent feasible through 

implementation of BMPs or regulatory programs (UAC 2008b). 

The State of Utah and the Forest Service have agreed through a 1991 Memorandum of 

Understanding to use Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) as the BMPs. The use of 

SWCPs as the BMPs meets the water quality protection elements of the Utah Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan. 

The soil and water conservation practices associated with this Motorized Travel Plan project 

would be modified with additional site-specific direction that would directly or indirectly improve 

water quality, protect beneficial uses, reduce losses in soil erosion and productivity, and abate 

or mitigate management effects, while meeting other resource goals and objectives. 

The following SWCPs apply to this travel plan project. They serve as checkpoints in designing 

a project. The site-specific direction for each of the SWCPs listed below is taken from FSH 

2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, R1/R4 Amendment No. 1, effective 

May 1988. 

15.01 General Guidelines for Transportation Planning 

15.02 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails 

15.03 Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan 

15.04 Timing of Construction Activities 

15.05 Slope Stabilization and Prevention of Mass Failures 

15.06 Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of Slopes 

15.07 Control of Permanent Road Drainage 

 2-23 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

15.09 Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Streamcrossing 

Projects 

15.10 Control of Road Construction Excavation and Sidecast Material 

15.11 Servicing and Refueling of Equipment 

15.12 Control of Construction in Riparian Areas 

15.16 Bridge and Culvert Installation (Disposition of Surplus Material and Protection of 

Fisheries) 

15.17 Regulation of Borrow Pits, Gravel Sources and Quarries 

15.18 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris 

15.21 Maintenance of Roads 

15.22 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials 

15.23 Traffic Control During Wet periods 

2.5.1.3. Rare Plants 

The five project design features below will help reduce the risk to Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, and Sensitive plant populations and their habitat from the invasion and expansion of 

noxious weeds and invasive species. 

1. During motorized trail construction and road obliteration activities, all off-road and 

maintenance equipment is required to be free of noxious weed seeds when moving 

equipment into a new area and/or moving between areas that are known to contain 

noxious weeds. Use federal form B6.35 – Equipment Cleaning. 

2. Use certified weed-free straw and mulch for all projects conducted or authorized by the 

Forest Service on National Forest System lands. If state-certified straw and/or mulch is 

not available, the Forests should require sources certified to be weed free using the 

North American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process. 

3. Certified “weed-free” seed mix is required for areas that are seeded. 

4. Avoid weed-infested areas for use as staging or parking areas. 

5. Complete post-project surveys to document infestations and to allow treatment of 

noxious weeds in areas of disturbance. 

Firewood collection areas would not be designated where any population of a Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive plant species is known to occur. 

2.5.1.4. Wildlife 

Given the potential for short-term disturbance due to ground-disturbing decommissioning 

activities, suitable habitat validation within Critical Habitat and/or site-specific surveys for 

species presence or absence would be completed prior to implementation for the following 

species: 

 California condor, 

 Mexican spotted owl, 

 Utah prairie dog, 

 American peregrine falcon (known eyries), 

 Northern goshawk (known nest areas), 

 Greater sage-grouse (known leks), and 

 Pygmy rabbit. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-24 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Appropriate limited operating seasons will be applied to decommissioning activities if a given 

species is present. Limited operating seasons will also be in effect for mule deer and elk crucial 

fawning and summer habitat, and known migratory bird nest locations (see letter regarding the 

Biological Assessment at USDA 2009b). 

2.5.1.5. Recreation 

A public education program should be implemented in conjunction with the Travel Plan. An 

implementation plan should also be developed, to include a schedule of closures to assist in 

public education. To accomplish the project objectives, a signing plan should be developed. 

Due to the cost and extent of needed signing, cost of road closures, cost of public education, 

and cost of law enforcement, a project financial work plan should also be developed. 

 2-25 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Common to Alternatives D and E 

Table 2-7. Project Design Features for Motorized Trail Construction 

Easiest More Difficult Most Difficult 

Grade 

Max. sustained 15% 25% 35% 

Length 200’ 300’ 500’ 

Max. pitch 20% 30% 50% 

Clearing (wooded) 

Downhill side 2’ 1.5’ 1’ 

Uphill side 3’ 3’ 3’ 

Level 3.1’ each side 2.6’ each side 2.5’ each side 

Clearing (open) 

Downhill side 2’ 1.5’ 1’ 

Uphill side 3’ 3’ 3’ 

Level 3.1’ each side 2.6’ each side 2.4’ each side 

Height 

6’ 6’ 5’ 

Tread (width) 

Minimum 6.2’ 5.2’ 4.8’ 

Maximum 7.2’ 6.2’ 5.8’ 

Surface 

Relatively smooth Sections of 

relatively rough 

Relatively rough with 

very rough sections 

Source: Forest Service Handbook, Section 2309.18-Trails Management Handbook: ATV Trail 

(three-wheel/four-wheel vehicle) Guide. 

2.5.1.6. Scenery 

Common to Alternatives D and E 

Project design features include professional trail design, construction in sustainable locations, 

and proper signage and enforcement. 

2.5.1.7. Transportation 

Some routes proposed for closure would be decommissioned (ripped and seeded) and others 

would be allowed to revegetate naturally. Some routes proposed for closure are already 

brushed in (revegetating naturally), a process that would be left alone to continue. For roads 

that are proposed for decommissioning, there would be a one-time cost to accomplish those 

activities. Decommissioning activities would follow the methods described in Road Closure and 

Obliteration in the Forest Service (USDA 1996). 

The Forest Service Manual (FSM 7712.1) allows for a spectrum of treatments for roads to be 

decommissioned depending on the most appropriate action for a given road segment. It would 

be the responsibility of the project engineer and hydrologist to determine which 

decommissioned roads would be best served by obliteration and to determine which type of 

closure would be the most effective. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-26 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Portions of some routes may require relocation or improvement to meet Forest Service 

standards; these route sections have been identified through the route evaluation and analysis 

process. Authorization of some of the actual road relocation work may require supplemental 

analysis and, in some cases, a subsequent decision made according to NEPA provisions. 

No new road construction or reconstruction is proposed in this project. The only proposed trail 

construction is under Alternatives D and E. 

2.5.1.8. Cultural Resources 

Areas with high probability of having cultural resources within areas proposed for ground 

disturbance and/or reclassification of routes that have not been surveyed would be surveyed 

and evaluated by an archaeologist in an effort to locate and record any archaeological, 

historical, or Traditional Cultural Properties. Survey methods would include pedestrian 

transects and visual assessments of the project Area of Potential Effects for all site-specific 

undertakings. 

Each site identified would be evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Those sites found to exhibit the characteristics for inclusion on the Register would be identified 

as Historic Properties and actions undertaken near or adjacent to them must identify what effect 

they would have. 

Measures must be undertaken for those actions that would pose an adverse effect. Measures 

could include fencing, rerouting, burying the site, and/or full scale excavation. Measures are 

identified on a site-by-site basis. A Programmatic Agreement between the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, the Utah State Historical Preservation Office, and the Dixie National 

Forest will outline how the surveys, evaluations, and measures will be implemented.

2.5.2. Forest Plan Amendment 

Under the action alternatives, the Forest Plan would be amended to reflect the prohibition on 

cross-country motorized travel. The MVUM published after release of the decision will function 

as the new Travel Map for the Dixie National Forest. As noted on page IV-3 of the Forest Plan, 

“Review the travel map annually and revise as necessary. The most current revisions will 

become a part of the management direction for the Forest Plan” (USDA 1986). The MVUM 

meets this requirement and will become part of the management direction of the Forest Plan. 

2.5.3. Designation of Non-system Routes 

There are a large number of unauthorized routes (routes not currently part of the National 

Forest System of roads and trails) currently on the Forest. While some of these unauthorized 

routes were user-created, the majority were created to facilitate range, timber, and special use 

activities over the course of decades. In some cases, these routes have acquired recreational 

value. Through careful route evaluation, this travel plan considers the uses and impacts of 

unauthorized routes, and proposes to add some of them to the system. The number and 

mileage of non-system routes proposed for addition to the system varies by alternative (see 

Table 2-5. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative on page 2-7). 

 2-27 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

2.5.4. Travel Route Restrictions and Closures 

Routes that are not designated for public or administrative access in this decision would be 

closed and decommissioned from the National Forest System. A variety of closure methods are 

considered in this decision (see the Transportation section under Project Design Features on 

page 2-26). If a route is proposed to be closed, the method would be the same for all 

alternatives that recommend a closure. 

2.6. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed 

Study 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of designating a system of 

authorized roads, trails, or areas for motor vehicle use; duplicative of the alternatives considered 

in detail; unlikely to meet the purposes the agency has selected for the project; or determined to 

contain components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number 

of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

summarized below. 

2.6.1. Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative 

This alternative was submitted by Grand Canyon Trust on behalf of the following organizations: 

 Center for Biological Diversity, 

 Center for Water Advocacy, 

 Grand Canyon Trust, 

 Great Old Broads for Wilderness, 

 Red Rock Forests, 

 Sierra Club, Utah Chapter, 

 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 

 Utah Environmental Congress, 

 Wild Utah Project, and 

 Wildlands CPR (Grand Canyon Trust 2007). 

The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (SMUA) submitted by these groups was not studied in 

detail in its entirety because: 

 Many of the proposed standards, conditions, and guidelines were outside the scope of 

designating a system of authorized roads, trails, or areas for motor vehicle use. For 

example: 

o It assigned designations to routes that were addressed in previous decision 

areas. Under 36 CFR 212.50(b), the responsible official may limit the scope of 

the designation process by incorporating previous decisions. 

o It did not allow for forest-wide dispersed camping but proposed designation of 

dispersed campsites. A decision regarding designation of sites would have far 

reaching implications and would require a separate analysis process. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-28 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

o It proposed Dixie National Forest registration and licensure of OHVs, as well as 

regulation of OHV engine noise levels. Ordinances regulating the ownership and 

manufacture of OHVs are not included in the agency’s regulations for motorized 

route designation. 

o It required the Dixie National Forest to conduct a landscape level non-motorized 

trail system analysis. All travel routes and areas are currently open to nonmotorized and non-mechanized modes of travel. 

 It did not meet the agency’s purpose in providing legal access. Under the most 

environmentally protective alternative studied by the Forest Service (Alternative B), the 

Dixie National Forest identified a need for 959 miles of routes which, although closed to 

the general motorized public, were deemed necessary for legal access (i.e., designated 

as Administrative/Permittee/Private Property Owner), whereas the SMUA only 

recognized 296 miles of routes of the same designation. Many of the routes suggested 

for closure under the SMUA are required for access to private land, privately owned 

facilities authorized by special use permit, or range improvements (USDA 2008c). 

 It was duplicative of Alternative B, which was studied in detail. We developed 

Alternative B using information provided in the SMUA. Alternative B focuses on 

resource protection. Since Alternative B closes 232 more miles to the public than does 

the SMUA, we analyzed Alternative B to ensure we had sufficiently considered a 

reasonable range of alternatives (USDA 2008c). 

2.6.2. Non-motorized Trails Opened to Motorized Vehicles 

Some individuals and groups requested that existing non-motorized trails be converted to 

motorized trails. As allowed by the Travel Rule, all previous and pending decisions that allow, 

restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on NFS roads, trails, or areas have been incorporated into 

this project and will not be revisited. There are previous decisions in place for the nonmotorized trails that were proposed for conversion to motorized trails (e.g., Grand View, Virgin 

River Rim, and Spruce trails). 

2.6.3. Off-road Motorized Use for Game Retrieval or Antler Gathering 

Game may be retrieved off of designated routes using non-motorized means only. Antlers may 

also be retrieved off of designated routes using non-motorized means only. This direction 

provides consistency among the national forests in Utah, none of which allow off-road motorized 

use for either game retrieval or antler gathering. This direction is also consistent with travel 

restrictions on State of Utah Wildlife Management Areas (UDWR 2008, p. 42). 

2.7. Alternative Maps 

Maps of each alternative, organized by ranger district, are located on the following 20 pages. 

The Escalante Ranger District and the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District 

are included on the same maps. 

 2-29 Chapter 2: Alternatives
Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Brian Head

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternative A

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Brian Head

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternative B

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Brian Head

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternative C

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Brian Head

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternative D

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Closed Classified

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Brian Head

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternative E

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Adminstratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Teasdale

Escalante

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of

Fremont River Ranger Districts

Alternative A

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Teasdale

Escalante

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of

Fremont River Ranger Districts

Alternative B

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Teasdale

Escalante

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of 

Fremont River Ranger Districts

Alternative C

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Teasdale

Escalante

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of

Fremont River Ranger Districts

Alternative D

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Closed Classified

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Teasdale

Escalante

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of 

Fremont River Ranger Districts

Alternative E

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Adminstratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Leeds

Central

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Pine Valley Ranger District

Alternative A

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Existing Single Track-Motorized

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Leeds

Central

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Pine Valley Ranger District

Alternative B

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Leeds

Central

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Pine Valley Ranger District

Alternative C

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Leeds

Central

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Pine Valley Ranger District

Alternative D

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Closed Classified

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Leeds

Central

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Pine Valley Ranger District

Alternative E

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Adminstratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

 Proposed Motorized Trail Construction

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Panguitch

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District

Alternative A

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Panguitch

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District

Alternative B

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Panguitch

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District

Alternative C

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Panguitch

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District

Alternative D

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Administratively Open

Closed Classified

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Tropic

Panguitch

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District

Alternative E

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Pending Decision Areas

Previous Decision Areas

Private Land

Highway

Open to All

Open to Street Legal Only

Seasonal

Adminstratively Open

Classified Closed

Unauthorized Closed

Existing Motorized Trail

Proposed Motorized Trail

Existing Non-Motorized Trail

Proposed Non-Motorized Trail

Non-Forest

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-50 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Effects Analysis 

3.1. Soils ...................................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.1. Affected Environment..................................................................................................3-3

3.1.2. Effects Analysis...........................................................................................................3-4

3.2. Hydrology.........................................................................................................................3-10

3.2.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-10

3.2.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-10

3.3. Rare Plants ......................................................................................................................3-15

3.3.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-15

3.3.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-16

3.4. Vegetation and Fire and Fuels.........................................................................................3-21

3.4.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-21

3.4.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-22

3.5. Aquatic Biota....................................................................................................................3-25

3.5.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-25

3.5.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-25

3.6. Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................3-31

3.6.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-31

3.6.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-34

3.7. Social and Economic Resources .....................................................................................3-55

3.7.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-55

3.7.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-56

3.8. Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................3-61

3.8.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-61

3.8.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-62

3.9. Noxious Weeds................................................................................................................3-63

3.9.1. Affected Environment................................................................................................3-63

3.9.2. Effects Analysis.........................................................................................................3-64

3.10. Special Uses..................................................................................................................3-67

3.10.1. Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-67

3.10.2. Effects Analysis.......................................................................................................3-67

3.11. Recreation......................................................................................................................3-72

3.11.1. Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-72

3.11.2. Effects Analysis.......................................................................................................3-76

3.12. Scenery..........................................................................................................................3-85

3.12.1. Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-85

3.12.2. Effects Analysis.......................................................................................................3-86

3.13. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas.........................................................3-92

3.13.1. Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-92

3.13.2. Effects Analysis.....................................................................................................3-107

3.14. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................3-116

3.14.1. Affected Environment............................................................................................3-116

3.14.2. Effects Analysis.....................................................................................................3-117

3.15. Transportation..............................................................................................................3-121

3.15.1. Affected Environment............................................................................................3-121

3.15.2. Effects Analysis.....................................................................................................3-124

 3-1 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-2 

and Effects Analysis 

3.16. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...............................................................3-132

3.17. Unavoidable Adverse Effects.......................................................................................3-132

3.18. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...........................................3-133

3.19. Other Required Disclosures.........................................................................................3-134

3.19.1. Forest Plan Consistency .......................................................................................3-134

3.19.2. Compliance with Laws and Other Direction ..........................................................3-135

3.20. Resources Not Discussed in Detail..............................................................................3-142

3.20.1. Air Quality .............................................................................................................3-142
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Effects Analysis 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, and social and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also 

presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in 

Chapter 2. 

The information in this chapter is derived from the specialist reports prepared for this motorized 

travel plan. For more information on any of the sections in this chapter, please refer to the 

corresponding specialist report available on the Motorized Travel Plan website at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP. 

3.1. Soils 

The information in this section is summarized from the Soils Specialist Report prepared for this 

motorized travel plan (USDA 2009n). Please see that report for more detail on the affected 

environment and effects analysis. 

3.1.1. Affected Environment 

Motorized vehicle use off roads and trails can degrade soil productivity. Direct mechanical 

impacts have several components: abrasion, compaction, shearing, and displacement. Indirect 

impacts include hydraulic modification (such as the disruption of surface water flow), reduction 

in infiltration and percolation, surface ponding, and the loss of water-holding capacity. 

Unauthorized roads and trails have the potential to accelerate erosion and sediment delivered to 

streams due to lack of design and poor location (Luce and Black 2001). 

Disturbances from roads and trails can increase erosion and sediment delivery. Existing roads 

and trails are a primary source of long-term management-related sediment. The type, extent, 

and location of a designated motorized system of roads, trails, and areas will contribute to the 

amount of accelerated erosion. Accelerated erosion and sediment delivery have been identified 

as a primary source of water quality pollution in many Dixie National Forest watersheds. 

Soil productivity on the Dixie National Forest has been directly impacted by the type, extent, and 

location of designated roads, motorized trails, and cross-country motor vehicle use. These 

impacts have affected the existing condition of all the ranger districts to varying degrees. 

There are no known locations of asbestos influenced soils on the Dixie National Forest (Van 

Gosen 2008). 

The following five indicators are used to evaluate effects on the soil resource. 

1. Percent of Forest open to cross-country travel. This percentage is used as a general 

measure of potential effects to soil productivity. Motorized cross-country travel can 

result in new trails being pioneered across sensitive areas. Degraded areas can 

become a major environmental problem because of their direct effects on vegetation, 

soils, and site hydrology. 

Soils 3-3 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

2. Miles of road that intercept slopes of 35 percent or more. Accelerated erosion and 

sediment from roads continue over the long-term as a result of traffic use, compaction, 

high runoff, and concentrated water on the road surface, ditch lines, and from relief 

culverts. 

3. Miles of roads on high erosion potential soils. Erosion potential ratings characterize 

the natural inherent sensitivity of soil types to detach and erode. In high potential areas, 

disturbance poses a higher risk of accelerated erosion and sediment delivery (Switalski 

et al. 2004). Soils with low or moderate erosion potential were not considered as an 

issue due to low risk of accelerated erosion. 

4. Miles of road surface. Roads represent a long-term commitment of the soil to a nonproductive condition. This is a total resource commitment of the soil resource. 

5. Miles of designated ATV trails. ATV trails can have similar effects to soil productivity 

as can roads, but the effects differ based on the width of the travelway. As with single 

track motorized trails, ATV trails create additional problems due to steep grades, lack of 

designed stream crossings, and difficulty of maintaining water management features. In 

addition, cross-country motorized vehicle use can cause additional damage to the soil 

resource. 

3.1.2. Effects Analysis 

3.1.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

The table below summarizes the soil indicators by alternative. Effects were determined to be an 

improvement, no change, or degradation as compared to Alternative A. A negative change 

indicates an improvement to soil productivity, a positive number indicates degradation, and a 

zero indicates no change. The larger the negative number, the greater relative improvement to 

the soil resources; the larger the positive number, the greater relative degradation to the soil 

resources. For a breakdown of indicators and percent change by ranger district, see the Soils 

Specialist Report (USDA 2009n). 

The size of the increase or decrease was qualitatively described for each indicator. For the 

indicators, a rating of “major” was given when the difference was 20 percent or more. A rating 

of “moderate” was given when the change was 10-19 percent. A rating of “minor” was given to 

changes of 1-9 percent. If the change was less than 1 percent, a “no change” rating was 

applied. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-4 Soils 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-1. Soil Indicators and Percent Change from Existing Condition by Alternative 

Alternative 

A B C D E

Soil Indicator

Measure 

% Change 

Measure 

% Change 

Measure 

% Change 

Measure 

% Change 

Measure 

% Change 

1. Percent of Forest open to 

cross-country travel 61% 0 0% -100 0% -100 0% -100 0% -100

2. Miles of road that intercept 

slopes of 35% or more 108 0 73 -32 84 -22 95 -12 112 4

3. Miles of road on high 

erosion potential soils 64 0 39 -39 47 -27 54 -16 72 12

4. Miles of road surface 4,604 0 2,755 -40 3,062 -33 3,545 -23 4,875 6

5. Miles of designated ATV 

trail 94 0 154 64 165 76 151 61 98 4

3.1.2.1.1. Soil Indicator #1: Percent of Forest Open to Cross-country Travel 

All action alternatives would have a major reduction in negative effects to soils by eliminating 

cross-country travel. 

Under Alternative A, motorized cross-country travel could result in new trails being pioneered 

across alpine areas, wetlands, steep slopes, and other areas with sensitive soils. Degraded 

areas become a major environmental problem because of their direct effects on vegetation, 

soils, and site hydrology. 

Soil quality is expected to improve with the elimination of cross-country travel in the action 

alternatives. There would also be an improvement due to the elimination of motorized use on 

and adjacent to unauthorized roads. However, accelerated erosion and sediment delivery 

would continue from unauthorized roads until such time as restoration plans are made and 

implemented. 

Under the action alternatives, limited access for dispersed camping and parking would generally 

be allowed within 150 feet of a designated road or motorized trail (there are currently three 

areas on the Forest that have been restricted to designated campsites only as described on 

page 3-73 in the Recreation section). Adverse affects to soil quality are expected to continue on 

those areas open to limited motorized access within that 150 feet along designated roads and 

motorized trails. 

3.1.2.1.2. Soil Indicator #2: Miles of Road That Intercept Slopes of 35 Percent or More 

Alternatives B and C would have major improvements in the miles of road that intercept slopes 

of 35 percent or more, and Alternative D would have a moderate improvement. Alternative E 

would have a minor degradation due to an increase in miles of road on steep slopes. 

Soils 3-5 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

The miles of roads that intercept slopes of 35 percent or more are used as a relative measure of 

detrimental soil disturbance in areas that are highly susceptible to accelerated erosion, and 

where sediment from roads continues over the long-term as a result of traffic use, compaction, 

high runoff, and concentrated water on the road surface, ditch lines, and from relief culverts. 

Cut and fill slopes can also be a chronic source of surface erosion and mass failures (Satterlund 

1972). 

3.1.2.1.3. Soil Indicator #3: Miles of Road on High Erosion Potential Soils 

Alternatives B and C would have major improvements in the miles of road on high erosion 

potential soils, and Alternative D would have a moderate improvement. Alternative E would 

have a moderate degradation due to an increase in miles of road on highly erodible soils. 

The miles of roads that are on high erosion potential soils is used as a relative measure of 

detrimental soil disturbance for soil that can be easily detached and eroded. In high potential 

areas, disturbance poses a higher risk of accelerated erosion and sediment delivery. Soils with 

low or moderate erosion potential were not considered as an issue due to low risk of 

accelerated erosion. 

3.1.2.1.4. Soil Indicator #4: Miles of Road Surface 

Alternatives B, C, and D would have major improvements due to decreases in the miles of road. 

Alternative E would have a minor degradation due to an increase in miles of road. 

The miles of designated roads are used as a relative measure of total soil resource commitment 

and detrimental soil disturbance. Accelerated erosion and sediment from roads continue over 

the long-term as a result of traffic use, compaction, high runoff, concentrated water on the road 

surface, ditch lines, and from relief culverts. Cut and fill slopes can also be a chronic source of 

surface erosion and mass failures (Satterlund 1972). Total soil resource commitment can affect 

water quality because it often creates the greatest extent of accelerated erosion and sediment 

delivery. Detrimental soil disturbance can result from off-route motorized activities and can 

produce unacceptable levels of soil degradation by compacting, moving, eroding, or puddling 

the soil. 

3.1.2.1.5. Soil Indicator #5: Miles of Designated ATV Trails 

The miles of designated ATV trails would be a major degradation for Alternatives B, C, and D, 

and a minor degradation for Alternative E. 

The miles of designated ATV trails are used as a relative measure of total soil resource 

commitment and detrimental soil disturbance. ATV trails can have effects to soil productivity 

similar to those of roads, but the effects differ based on the width of the travelway. ATV trails 

create additional problems due to steep grades, lack of designed stream crossings, and 

difficulty of maintaining water management features. 

3.1.2.1.6. New Motorized Trail Construction 

Two new motorized ATV trails totaling 1.26 miles are proposed for construction in Alternatives D 

and E on the Cedar City Ranger District. More information on these routes can be found in the 

Recreation section beginning on page 3-72 and the Scenery section beginning on page 3-85. A 

map of the two trail locations is on page 3-87. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-6 Soils 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

New motorized trails represent a total soil resource commitment and detrimental soil 

disturbance. ATV trails can have effects to soil productivity similar to those of roads, but the 

effects differ based on the width of the travelway. The proposed routes would likely be 60 

inches wide, and would require the removal of all vegetation. Motorized trails can create 

additional problems due to steep grades, lack of designed stream crossings, and difficulty of 

maintaining water management features, such as rolling dips that are used to limit 

water/sediment movement. In addition, motorized vehicle use off the trail can occur, resulting in 

additional damage to the soil resource. 

Both proposed motorized trail segments represent a total resource commitment; the total 

commitment (applicable to both alternatives) is 0.8 acres. The soils where route T34070 would 

be located are not suited for new motorized trails. The soils where route U24028A would be 

located are suitable for new construction with proper project design features to minimize effects 

to the soil resource. Specific effects from each new route are disclosed in the table below. 

Table 3-2. New Motorized Trails Proposed for Construction in Alternatives D and E 

Proposed 

Route # Mileage Soil Types and Characteristics* 

Existing Condition of 

Area Proposed for New 

Motorized Trail 

Effects to Soil Resources 

from the Proposed New 

Motorized Trail 

T34070 0.65 

Four soil types (223, 237, 

242A, and 242) would be 

affected from this proposed 

route. These soil types are 

found on slump-land 

topography to the south of 

Brian Head Peak. These 

soils are located at very 

high elevation (10,000 feet 

or higher) and are formed 

from tertiary volcanic rocks 

of the Brianhead 

Formation. They are welldrained. 

Active gully erosion is 

occurring down slope of 

the proposed motorized 

trail. The vegetation in the 

area is a sparse cover of 

low shrubs and forbs. The 

proposed new route 

traverses slopes that are 

10-45 percent. 

By constructing a 

motorized trail mid-slope 

across this soil, additional 

gullies would likely 

develop from the 

interruption of the natural 

surface flow, causing the 

runoff to be accumulated 

and released along 

varying sections of this 

trail and increasing the 

water erosion potential on 

these high elevation 

sideslopes with little 

vegetative cover. 

U24028A 0.61 

Soil Type 239 is located at 

very high elevation (10,000 

feet or higher) and on 

mountain sideslopes with 

soils that are shallow (less 

than 20 inches) to bedrock.

Slopes affected by the 

proposed route 

construction are less than 

15 percent with sparse 

Engelmann spruce and 

subalpine fir. 

The soils are suitable for 

motorized trail 

development. Additional 

design practices would 

need to be utilized to 

prevent water erosion. 

* Source: Soil Survey of the Dixie National Forest (USDA 1999). 

3.1.2.1.7. Indirect Effects Common to Alternative B, C, and D 

Motorized users may be displaced to other areas within Utah, Arizona, and Nevada with 

implementation of Alternative B, C, or D. This may increase motorized vehicle use in these 

areas and could cause additional effects to the soils off of the Dixie National Forest.. 

Soils 3-7 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.1.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

3.1.2.2.1. Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The cumulative effects analysis is grouped into the following eight categories (details of projects 

associated with these groups can be found in the project record [USDA 2008b]). 

1. Utilities. Proposals for new power lines, telecommunication facilities, and water lines 

and tanks to be located on the Forest are received annually. All these projects result in 

additional disturbance to the soil resource through the removal of vegetation and longterm commitments for access to these improvements. Detrimental cumulative effects to 

the soil resource from future utility developments would increase at the Forest level in all 

alternatives. 

2. Oil and Gas. Analysis for new oil and gas exploration and development on both the 

Dixie National Forest and the Fishlake National Forest is currently ongoing. Oil and gas 

exploration and development cause additional disturbance to the soil resource with new 

roads and drill pad development, and through the long-term commitments for access to 

these improvements. Detrimental cumulative effects to the soil resource from future oil 

and gas development would increase at the forest level in all alternatives. 

3. Transportation. 

a. Level 1 Maintenance Roads. Level 1 roads are roads on the designated 

National Forest System (NFS) that have been closed to use but that may actually 

be operationally open. In recent years these roads have been physically closed, 

waterbars have been installed, and roadbeds and cut and fill slopes have been 

scarified and seeded. However, many of these roads still need to be physically 

closed and stabilized to keep them from contributing sediment. 

b. Unauthorized Motor Vehicle Use and Unauthorized Roads. Unauthorized 

motorized use would continue to be a problem that adversely affects soil 

productivity. The major problems occur on unauthorized roads and in meadows 

adjacent to roads and motorized trails. Unauthorized roads may or may not be 

open or drivable. Access may be physically blocked by down or live trees. 

These roads receive no maintenance so drainage and erosion problems do occur 

in areas. Drainage structures such as ditches, crossdrains, waterbars, or dips 

may never have been constructed or are no longer functioning. The majority of 

routes that are being considered for designation across the alternatives of this 

project currently exist and are receiving some amount of use. If Alternative B, C, 

or D is selected, detrimental effects to the soil resource from the motorized route 

network would be reduced from the current condition. 

c. Cross-country Travel. All action alternatives would eliminate cross-country 

travel. This action would reduce current and potential future interaction between 

cross-country travel and other forest actions, thereby reducing the threat of 

detrimental effects to the soil resource. Alternative A has the highest potential to 

result in adverse cumulative impacts to aquatic resources. This is primarily 

related to the continuation of cross-country travel on the 61 percent of the Forest 

where it is currently allowed, including sensitive riparian areas, stream corridors, 

and lake basins. 

4. Recreation. Dispersed camping and ATV use are activities that are widespread across 

the Forest. ATV use and cross-country travel are commonly related activities that occur 

within and near popular dispersed camping areas. Selection of Alternative A would 

result in cumulative detrimental impacts associated with dispersed camping and ATV 

use on the soil resource within areas open to cross-country travel. Additionally, routes 

included within all action alternatives that increase the designated ATV system would 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-8 Soils 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Soils 3-9 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 

present the potential for adverse cumulative effects associated with dispersed camping. 

These effects may produce unacceptable levels of soil degradation by compacting, 

moving, eroding, or puddling the soil. 

5. Vegetation Treatments. Proposals for new timber sales are an annual occurrence on 

the Forest. These projects typically result in 2 to 5 percent of each activity area resulting 

in detrimental soil disturbance (Jaros 2005, 2007a, 2007b). Detrimental cumulative 

effects to the soil resource from timber sale activity would remain at current levels in the 

future at the forest level in all alternatives. 

6. Land Exchange and Easements. Proposals for land exchanges do not directly affect 

detrimental soil disturbance. 

7. Special Use Permits. Proposals for special use permits do not directly affect 

detrimental soil disturbance. 

8. Grazing. Livestock grazing is a use that is managed under proper use guidelines. The 

actions proposed in this EIS would not alter the grazing pattern or management of 

livestock. 

Alternatives B, C, and D (in the same order of preference) would result in beneficial cumulative 

effects to soil resource in response to past, present, and future implementation of travel 

management actions on the Forest. Some of these actions are included in signed decisions 

that have yet to be implemented on the ground. All of these projects either reduced total 

motorized route mileage or reduced route encroachment on steep soils or highly erodible areas. 

These actions have been initiated primarily to improve watershed function and aquatic and 

terrestrial habitat conditions. Alternative A would have a continuance of negative cumulative 

effects as it would allow continued cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest. Alternative 

E would increase the number and miles of road on the Forest and would also increase negative 

cumulative effects. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.2. Hydrology 

The information in this section is summarized from the Hydrology Specialist Report prepared for 

this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009g). Please see that report for more detail on the affected 

environment and effects analysis. 

3.2.1. Affected Environment 

The major watersheds associated with the Dixie National Forest are the Virgin River, Colorado 

River, and Great Basin watersheds. Each of these larger watersheds are further sub-divided 

into 5th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds and numerous smaller 6th HUC watersheds of 

about 20,000 acres in size (31 square miles). These HUCs are the basis for this analysis. 

There are 39 5th HUC watersheds and 179 6th HUC watersheds, which include areas on and 

off National Forest System (NFS) lands. Water quality impairments are associated with 40 of 

these 6th HUC watersheds (USDA 2009g). 

Existing impacts to soil and water resources from past and present activities include livestock 

grazing of upland and riparian areas, timber harvest, mining, oil and gas activities, stream 

augmentations and impoundments, developed ski areas, developed and dispersed recreation, 

OHV and ATV use, wildland fires, wildland fire use fires (WFUs), prescribed fires, and road and 

trail construction, and well as maintenance associated with many of these activities 

Most of the waters within the Forest boundary are considered High Quality Waters (Category I). 

The exceptions to this may be found in the Standards of Quality for the Waters of the State 

(UAC 2008b). 

The existing condition with regard to roads on each of the 179 watersheds on the Forest is 

reflected in Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, as shown in detail in the Hydrology 

Specialist Report (USDA 2009g). 

3.2.2. Effects Analysis 

3.2.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

In general, access management that increases accessibility also increases the risk of impacting 

the soil and water resources. The potential impacts include soil disturbance in the form of soil 

displacement and compaction in the uplands as well as stream management zones including 

wetlands, streambanks, meadows, and riparian areas. This soil displacement leads to sediment 

inputs into the streams in addition to any other pollutant inputs that may be associated with 

vehicular traffic. 

Geomorphic effects of roads range from chronic and long-term contributions of fine sediment 

into streams to catastrophic mass failures of road cuts and fills during large storms. Roads may 

alter channel morphology directly or may modify channel flow and extend the drainage network 

into previously unchanneled portions of the hillslope. The magnitude of road-related 

geomorphic effects differs with climate, geology, road age, construction practices, and storm 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-10 Hydrology 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

history. Improvements in designing, constructing, and maintaining roads can reduce roadrelated erosion at the scale of individual road segments (Gucinski et al. 2001). 

Roads have three primary effects on hydrologic processes: 

1. They intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cutbanks and affect 

subsurface water moving down the hillslope, 

2. They concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel, and 

3. They divert or reroute water from paths it otherwise would take were the road not 

present. 

Problems of road drainage and transport of water and debris – especially during floods – are 

primary reasons roads fail, often with major structural, ecologic, economic, or other social 

consequences. The effect of roads on peak streamflow depends strongly on the size of the 

watershed. For example, capture and rerouting of water can remove water from one small 

stream while causing major channel adjustments in another stream receiving the additional 

water. In large watersheds, roads constitute a small proportion of the land surface and have 

relatively insignificant effects on peak flow (Gucinski et al. 2001). 

Roads can impact streams and aquatic systems in many ways. Roads with inadequate buffers 

can have higher sediment loads. Road obliteration can eliminate these impacts. User-created 

roads often are close to streams and have poor if any drainage features to prohibit sediment 

from entering the stream. ATVs can travel many trails or roads or off-road, resulting in the same 

impacts as from roads designed for full-size vehicles. Road systems can change watershed 

hydrology and increase peak flows while reducing late summer base flows. Roads can be a 

conduit for moving chemicals and sediment into streams. 

The choice of analysis for this project was to equate all past, present, and proposed road 

disturbances to a “detrimentally disturbed soil,” which is a soil that has been displaced, 

compacted, or severely burned such that its hydrologic properties are impaired (Forest Service 

Handbook for Soil Management [FSH] 2509.18). Literature review indicates that the area of 

detrimentally disturbed soils should not exceed 5 percent within the 300 foot riparian influence 

zone adjacent to both sides of the stream and in the stream (McGurk and Fong 1995). Our 

assumption is that all road acreages constituted a detrimentally disturbed soil as they perform 

like a compacted soil and are hydrologically impaired. 

The logic behind the analysis is that once a riparian influence zone exceeds the 5 percent 

threshold of detrimentally disturbed soils, effects to water quality will occur, as will changes to 

the sponge filter system. This may then cause a malfunction of the sponge filter system which 

may lead to detrimental changes in vegetation health, stream channel integrity, suspended 

sediment loads, and bedload. 

To simplify analysis, the approximate 5 percent threshold used in this approach would be a 1:1 

ratio of stream miles and road miles within the riparian influence zone. Use of this ratio 

assumes a median compacted width of 30 feet. Road density by 6th HUC watershed will also 

be used as a comparison parameter to track the miles of road/square mile of watershed. The 

logic behind using this parameter is that an increase in the miles can be considered a relative 

detrimental affect to the watershed and its function. 

Assumptions used in this effects analysis: 

 Roads considered in the effect analysis include all unauthorized routes (U and G routes) 

and all classified roads as of 2005, 

Hydrology 3-11 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 Roads located on private land or under the jurisdiction of local counties, the State of 

Utah, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management that were located within 

any of the cumulative effects watersheds were considered in the analysis, 

 The two motorized trails proposed for construction (comprising 1.26 miles) are included 

in the analysis of Alternatives D and E, 

 The cross-country travel allowance in Alternative A will lead to an increased density of 

roads within each watershed and in each riparian influence zone, and 

 Naturally closed roads will continue to influence surface and subsurface hydrology for up 

to 30 years. Any reduction of road miles within a watershed from road closures will take 

time before negative effects are no longer realized. 

3.2.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Compared to Alternatives B, C, and D, there is a projected increase in the road density within 

most of the 179 watersheds in Alternative A. Road mileage within the riparian influence zone is 

either greater than or equal to that in Alternatives B, C, and D. Compared to Alternative E, road 

density within the 179 watersheds is either greater than or equal to Alternative A. Road mileage 

within the riparian influence zone is either less than or equal to that in Alternative E. 

Cross-country motorized travel would have a negative impact on watershed function as route 

proliferation is expected to increase over time in those watersheds where cross-country travel is 

allowed. An increase in road mileage would contribute to the area compacted within a 

watershed and would ultimately lead to increases in erosion and runoff rates and interruption of 

surface and subsurface water flow. Increases in road mileage within the riparian influence zone 

would affect water quality, stream stability, and wetland and floodplain health. 

3.2.2.1.2. Alternatives B and C 

Compared to Alternative A, there is a projected reduction in road density in 149 of the 179 

watersheds and a reduction in road mileage within the riparian influence zone in 108 of the 179 

watersheds in both Alternatives B and C. There may be some isolated and/or localized areas 

where roads within the riparian influence zone would have a negative influence and/or impact to 

the stream channel, wetlands, floodplains, and water quality. 

 

The elimination of cross-country motorized travel would lead to fewer user-created roads, which 

impact wetlands, floodplains, stream channel health, and water quality. Concentrating vehicular 

travel to a designated route designed for motorized travel would reduce and localize impacts to 

a more manageable level. 

3.2.2.1.3. Alternative D 

Compared to Alternative A, there is a projected reduction in road density in 143 of the 179 

watersheds and a reduction in road mileage within the riparian influence zone in 91 of the 179 

watersheds. There may be some isolated and/or localized areas where roads within the riparian 

influence zone would have a negative influence and/or impact to the stream channel, wetlands, 

floodplains, and water quality. 

The elimination of unrestricted cross-country travel would lead to fewer user-created roads, 

which impact wetlands, floodplains, stream channel health, and water quality. Concentrating 

vehicular travel to a designated route designed for motorized travel would reduce and localize 

impacts to a more manageable level. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-12 Hydrology 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.2.2.1.4. Alternative E 

Compared to Alternative A, there is a projected increase in road density within 97 of the 179 

watersheds and an increase in road mileage within the riparian influence zone in 53 of the 179 

watersheds. 

There may be some isolated and/or localized areas where roads within the riparian influence 

zone would have a negative influence and/or impact to the stream channel, wetlands, 

floodplains, and water quality. 

The elimination of unrestricted cross-country travel would lead to fewer user-created roads, 

which impact wetlands, floodplains, stream channel health, and water quality. Concentrating 

vehicular travel to a designated route designed for motorized travel would reduce and localize 

impacts to a more manageable level. 

3.2.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

Effects other than roads considered in the cumulative effects analysis: 

1. Utilities. Includes power lines, water lines/tanks, fiber optic and other telecom lines, and 

communication sites. 

2. Oil and Gas. Also includes other minerals and mineral materials (e.g., gravel, perlite, 

cinders). These activities would continue to occur with a possible increase in oil and gas 

activity in the near future. 

3. Transportation. Motorized route designation, construction, and decommissioning. The 

is what is addressed in this plan. 

4. Recreation. Includes general activities not under special use permit (sightseeing, 

hiking, camping) and developed recreation maintenance. Levels of use would stay the 

same or increase over time. 

5. Vegetation Treatments. Includes timber harvest, chaining, fuel reductions, prescribed 

fire, firewood collection, and Christmas tree collection. Vegetation treatments would 

continue to occur with an estimated increase in chaining maintenance and prescribed 

fire. 

6. Land Exchange and Easements. Includes property disposal, highway easements, 

water diversions, and water augmentation. Over time these adjustment would occur at a 

reduced rate. 

7. Special Use Permits. Includes one time events (e.g., horse races, trekking) and 

outfitter guide activities. These would continue to occur with some increases in use. 

8. Grazing. Grazing would continue to occur at the present level. 

3.2.2.2.1. Alternative A 

Since detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, none of the watersheds are expected to 

display cumulative impacts initially. In time this would change as the proliferation of usercreated routes within the riparian influence zone, coupled with effects from other forest uses as 

listed above, would exceed the 5 percent threshold and lead to detrimental changes in 

vegetation health, stream channel integrity, water quality, and bedload.

Hydrology 3-13 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-14 Hydrology 

and Effects Analysis 

Although the detrimental disturbance within riparian influence zones does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold, with time the damage from unrestricted cross-country travel and user-created 

routes would surpass the threshold and cumulative effects would become evident at the 

confluence of each watershed. These effects would likely contribute pollutants to 303d listed 

waters and would likely exceed Total Maximum Daily Loads mandated by the State of Utah. 

3.2.2.2.2. Alternatives B, C, and D 

Since detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, none of the streams are expected to 

display any cumulative impacts initially or over time. In fact, if disturbance from other past, 

present, and future uses were doubled, the impacts to the riparian influence zone in all 179 

watersheds would still not exceed the 5 percent threshold. 

Since cumulative effects are not expected to be evident initially or over time, changes to water 

quality down stream of each of the 6th HUC watersheds is not expected to further impair any 

303d listed water or add to any mandated Total Maximum Daily Load. 

3.2.2.2.3. Alternative E 

Since detrimental disturbance to soils from proposed road mileage does not exceed the 5 

percent threshold in any of the riparian influence zones, none of the streams are expected to 

display any cumulative impacts initially or over time. With the exception of one watershed, if 

disturbance from other past, present, and future uses (section the list under Cumulative Effects

on page 3-13) were doubled, the impacts to the riparian influence zone in all 179 watersheds 

would still not exceed the 5 percent threshold. The single watershed where the threshold would 

be exceeded if disturbance were doubled is Cottonwood Creek (160300020406) on the Powell 

Ranger District. 

Since cumulative effects are not expected to be evident initially or over time, changes to water 

quality down stream of each of the 6th HUC watershed is not expected to further impair any 

303d listed water or add to any mandated Total Maximum Daily Load. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.3. Rare Plants 

The information in this section is summarized from the Rare Plants Specialist Report prepared 

for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2008j). Please see that report for more detail on the 

affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.3.1. Affected Environment 

Plant species selected for this analysis are composed of species that are listed as Threatened, 

Endangered, or Proposed under the Endangered Species Act (USDI 2005), and Sensitive 

Species listed on the Intermountain Region Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive 

Species list (USDA 2003a) that have habitat within areas open to cross-country travel (Table 3-

3 on page 3-16). Townsendia aprica (Last Chance townsendia) is the only Threatened species 

located within the project area. This Threatened species has habitat in areas open to crosscountry travel. T. aprica and the 18 sensitive species with known populations within the project 

area will be analyzed in detail. There are no Endangered species on the Forest (Rodriguez 

2008). 

The recovery plan for Townsendia aprica does not designate any critical habitat; however, 

threats to this species include road development and road building (USDI 1993). The recovery 

plan states: 

At present, off-road vehicle use on T. aprica habitat is light. However, with possible 

human population increases in the region in which T. aprica occurs, and with increasing 

popularity and availability of improved off-road vehicles, off-road vehicle use is expected 

to increase. This can be expected to result in an increase in damage to the habitat of T. 

aprica. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service 

should develop off-road vehicle use plans that prohibit off-road vehicle use on T. aprica

habitat. 

The following table lists those Sensitive plants that were analyzed. A complete list of all 

Sensitive species, including those that do have suitable habitat on the Dixie but were not 

analyzed, is included in the Rare Plants Specialist Report (USDA 2008j). 

Rare Plants 3-15 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-3. Rare Plant Species Analyzed 

Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Presence and Location 

Townsendia aprica (Last Chance townsendia) T Known on Teasdale 

Astragalus limnocharis var. tabulaeus (Table Cliff 

milkvetch) S Known on Escalante; suspected on Powell 

Botrychium paradoxum (paradox moonwort) S Known on Escalante 

Castilleja aquariensis (Aquarius paintbrush) S Known on Escalante and Teasdale 

Castilleja parvula var. revealii (Reveal paintbrush) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Cryptantha ochroleuca (yellow-white catseye) S Known on Escalante and Powell 

Cymopterus beckii (pinnate spring-parsley) S Known on Teasdale 

Cymopterus minimus (Cedar Breaks biscuitroot) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Eriogonum aretiodes (Widtsoe buckwheat) S Known on Escalante and Powell 

Gilia caespitosa (Rabbit Valley gilia) S Known on Teasdale 

Heterotheca jonesii (Jones goldenaster) S Known on Escalante 

Penstemon bracteatus (Red Canyon beardtongue) S Known on Powell 

Penstemon parvus (little penstemon) S Known on Escalante and Teasdale 

Penstemon pinorum (pinyon penstemon) S Known on Pine Valley 

Salix arizonica (Arizona willow) S Known on Cedar City, Powell, and Teasdale 

Senecio malmstenii (podunk groundsel) S Known on Cedar City, Escalante, and Powell 

Silene petersonii (Maguire campion) S Known on Cedar City and Powell 

Sphaeromeria capitata (rock tansy) S Known on Powell 

Thelesperma subnuda var. alpina (Bicknell 

thelesperma) S Known on Teasdale 

Source: Madsen 2004. 

T = Threatened; S = Sensitive. 

There are additional Sensitive species on the Forest; however, only these 18 species listed in the table 

have been analyzed for this motorized travel plan. 

3.3.2. Effects Analysis 

3.3.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.3.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Effects Common to All Rare Plants 

This alternative allows cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest. The areas open to 

cross-country travel encompass habitat and known populations of 18 Sensitive species and 1 

Threatened species (T. aprica). These 19 species and their habitat located in areas open to 

cross-country travel are at risk of habitat degradation and destruction of plants from OHVs 

crushing the plants, disturbing the habitat, and by potentially introducing invasive species to the 

area. Cross-country travel can contribute to noxious weed and invasive species introduction 

into uninfested areas and can aid in expanding existing populations. Noxious weeds and 

invasive species are aggressive plants that can take over an area choking out the native 

species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-16 Rare Plants 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Effects to T. aprica 

There are known locations of the federally-listed species T. aprica that occur in areas open to 

cross-country travel. These populations are located adjacent to 7.11 miles of roads on the 

Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District. Currently 5.61 miles of these roads are 

open to all motorized travel and 1.5 miles are open to full-size vehicles for administrative 

motorized use and to OHVs for public use. Due to the existing locations of T. aprica within 

areas open to cross-country travel and along routes that have motorized vehicle use, there is a 

risk of degradation and decline of these populations. 

Increased interest in public lands coupled with the increasing numbers of the new side-by-side 

ATVs would result in an increase in motorized activity (A & A Research 1994). This increased 

activity would likely increase the disturbance to populations of T. aprica. Examples were 

documented from one trail where allowable motorized activity was moving into areas occupied 

by T. aprica. Over time, the habitat for this species may begin to erode and compromise the 

unique nature of these ecosystems (Campbell 2006). 

Alternative A poses the greatest potential risk to T. aprica populations and habitat due to the 

potential degradation to T. aprica habitat and potential adverse effect on the populations. 

Determinations – Sensitive Species 

The 18 sensitive species located in areas open to cross-country travel would have some 

impacts, increasing with escalating motorized use on public lands (A & A Research 1994) under 

Alternative A because of their vulnerability to cross-country OHV activities. 

Alternative A would have no additional affect on the remaining six Sensitive species not 

analyzed as part of this travel plan due to the fact that known populations are found only in 

areas already closed to cross-country travel. This determination is based on life histories, field 

surveys, and habitat assessments for the Sensitive plant species on the Dixie National Forest 

(Rodriguez 2008). 

Determinations – Threatened Species 

Alternative A would have the potential to impact populations of the federally-listed T. aprica. 

This determination is based on the fact that suitable habitat and a few individuals in some 

populations may continue to be affected due to the open OHV areas with T. aprica populations, 

while other populations would not be affected. In all cases, where suitable habitat and a few 

individual plants of T. aprica may be affected, the determination is that the population as a 

whole would not be at risk. 

3.3.2.1.2. Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Effects Common to Sensitive Species 

The impact to sensitive plants would increase in proportion to the increase in number of miles of 

designated routes within each Sensitive plant colony. None of the action alternatives allow 

cross-country travel, thereby reducing the impact that cross-country travel can have on plant 

populations and their habitat. Additionally, the risk of exposing these colonies and 

unadulterated acres of the Forest to invasive species would decrease in proportion to the 

reduction of miles of designated routes. 

Rare Plants 3-17 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Effects Common to Threatened Species 

The action alternatives address existing routes adjacent to T. aprica populations on the 

Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District differently. Under Alternatives B and C, 

5.58 miles of routes would remain open only to administrative motorized use. Under Alternative 

D, those same 5.58 miles of routes would remain open to all uses with proposed project design 

features (see Chapter 2). Also under Alternative D, 1.5 miles would remain open to both 

administrative use and OHV use by the public. Under Alternative E, 7.11 miles would remain 

open to all motorized use. 

Due to the motorized use on these routes near populations and habitat, there is a risk to the 

known populations. An invasion of noxious and invasive species could degrade the habitat 

compromising T. aprica populations. Of the action alternatives, Alternative E poses the greatest 

risk to this Threatened plant. Alternatives B and C pose the least risk, and Alternative D falls in 

the middle for risk. The following table compares the miles of routes associated with known T. 

aprica populations by action alternative. 

Table 3-4. Miles of Routes by Designation and Alternative Adjacent to Townsendia aprica

Populations 

Alternative Miles Open to 

Administrative Use 

Miles Open to 

Administrative Use 

and Public OHV Use 

Miles Open to All 

Uses 

B 5.58 0 0

C 5.58 0 0

D 0 1.5 5.58

E 0 0 7.11

Determinations – Sensitive Species 

The action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E), all of which close the Forest to crosscountry travel and restrict travel to designated routes, would have little to no affect on any 

populations of the 18 analyzed Sensitive plant species with known populations on the Dixie 

National Forest. This determination is based on life histories, field surveys, and habitat 

assessments for the Sensitive plant species on the Dixie National Forest as described in 

Rodriguez 2004. 

Determinations – Threatened Species 

Alternatives B and C would have no detrimental effect to T. aprica. Under these alternatives 

cross-country travel is closed and travel routes are limited; these alternatives have deterred 

possible future damage. This determination is based on life histories, field surveys, and habitat 

assessments for this Threatened plant species on the Dixie National Forest as described in 

Rodriguez 2004. 

Alternatives D and E would have a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for 

populations of T. aprica. This determination is based on the fact that suitable habitat and a few 

individuals in some populations may continue to be affected, while other populations would not 

be affected. In all cases, where suitable habitat and a few individual plants of T. aprica may be 

affected, the population as a whole would not be at risk. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-18 Rare Plants 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Any of the action alternatives would be more restrictive than Alternative A. Populations of T. 

aprica would be benefited by any action alternative over time due to the substantial reduction of 

the area where motorized activity would be allowed. 

Effects Common to Rare Plant Species from Proposed Motorized Trail Construction in 

Alternatives D and E 

Alternatives D and E both propose the construction of 2 segments of motorized trail comprising 

1.26 miles on the Cedar City Ranger District (see map on page 3-87). Neither of the motorized 

trails proposed for construction are located within habitat for any Sensitive species or within 

habitat for the Threatened T. aprica. There would be no effect to rare plants from construction 

of either motorized trail. 

3.3.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

 Utilities. Proposals for new power lines, telecommunication facilities, and water lines 

and tanks to be located on the Forest are received annually. All these projects result in 

additional disturbance opening sites to noxious weeds. Routes used for utilities are 

closed to the public and therefore there would be no additional effect to rare plants. 

Special use permittees would follow guidelines to prevent spread of noxious weeds. 

 Oil and gas. Site-specific analysis would be conducted when specific oil and gas 

projects are proposed and specific locations are known. Disturbance and heavy 

equipment creates exposure and opportunity for noxious weed seeds and plant parts to 

become established. However, there would be no greater threat when combined with 

the implementation of any alternatives. Effects to rare plants would remain unchanged. 

 Transportation. All action alternatives would result in the elimination of cross-country 

travel. This action would reduce current and potential future interaction between crosscountry travel and other forest actions, thereby reducing the threat to sensitive plant 

populations. Alternative A has the highest potential to result in adverse cumulative 

impacts to sensitive plant populations, primarily related to the continuation of crosscountry travel on the 61 percent of the Forest where it is currently allowed. 

 Recreation. Dispersed camping and ATV use are widespread across the Forest. ATV 

use and cross-country travel are commonly related activities that occur within and near 

popular dispersed camping areas. Selection of Alternative A would result in cumulative 

detrimental impacts associated with dispersed camping and ATV use on the sensitive 

plant populations within areas open to cross-country travel. Additionally, routes included 

within all action alternatives that increase the designated ATV system would present the 

potential for adverse cumulative effects associated with dispersed camping. This would 

result in minimal additional impacts to sensitive plants. 

 Vegetation treatments. Proposals for new timber sales and other vegetation 

treatments are an annual occurrence on the Forest. Alternative A would continue 

current impacts with no changes to sensitive species impacts. All action alternatives 

actually decrease impacts to sensitive plants. These reductions are proportional to miles 

of roads closed. 

 Land exchanges and easements. Land exchanges and easements may require new 

travel routes, increasing miles of roads when combined with Alternative A, resulting in a 

net increase in road impacts. The action alternatives would curtail this affect, minimizing 

impacts to noxious weed spread and sensitive species degradation. 

Rare Plants 3-19 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-20 Rare Plants 

and Effects Analysis 

 Special uses. Each special use permit increases use of public lands when combined 

with Alternative A more overall area is open to degradation and therefore increases 

opportunity for noxious weed seeds to be introduced in remote areas as well as 

degradation to sensitive species populations. The action alternatives concentrate these 

uses onto designated routes, reducing the potential impact. 

 Livestock grazing. Alternative A would have no more cumulative effects than at 

present for noxious weeds and sensitive plants. The action alternatives would improve 

our ability to monitor travel routes for noxious weeds and reduce cross-country impacts 

on sensitive species cumulatively as well as reducing the stresses on plant communities 

giving vegetative resources the advantage. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.4. Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

The information in this section is summarized from the Vegetation and Fire and Fuels Specialist 

Report prepared for this motorized travel plan (Jump 2008). Please see that report for more 

detail on the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.4.1. Affected Environment 

Vegetation on the Dixie National Forest consists of trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Some of 

the most common uses of Forest vegetation include: 

 Conifers and aspen: saw timber, mine timbers and props, fence material (poles and 

posts), house logs, firewood, Christmas trees, and cones and seeds, 

 Shrubs: deer and elk forage, limited livestock forage, ornamentals, berries for wildlife 

and humans, and 

 Grass and forbs: elk and livestock grazing, seeds (wildlife food source). 

Use and administration of vegetation require an appropriate motorized travel network to access 

areas. Firewood collection availability is an important consideration as wood is a common 

heating source for homes located in rural areas in and near the Dixie National Forest. 

The vegetation on the Forest has been affected by change elements including wildfire, drought, 

and insect infestations. Thinning, salvaging dead trees, and treating accumulations of dead 

wood to reduce fuels require a reasonable level of motorized access. Decades of wildfire 

suppression has kept fire out of aspen groves. Low or absent demand for aspen wood products 

has resulted in minimal acres of aspen managed for regeneration. The Forest has recently 

begun aspen restoration projects to regenerate decadent stands; motorized access will be 

required in these areas for project completion and monitoring. 

Suitable timber land is forest land suitable for management of commercial timber species 

(conifers and aspen) (USDA 2007b). Areas excluded from the suitable timber land base include 

areas of non-Forest Service ownership, designated wilderness areas, administratively 

withdrawn lands, economically and technologically infeasible lands, and lands where adequate 

reforestation is not assured. Timber suitability assumes that motorized travel access exists 

adequate to perform all aspects of timber management such as timber harvest and 

administration, reforestation and associated site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, stand 

examination, and fuel reduction projects. Most roads in suitable timber areas were constructed 

in conjunction with timber harvest. This has resulted in relatively high road densities where 

timber has been harvested. The Forest Service system road network is adequate in most areas 

to serve the needs of currently appropriate vegetation management intensity. For more detail, 

see the Vegetation and Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (Jump 2008). 

The current forest products program on the Forest averages timber harvest on 1,500 to 2,000 

acres annually. Commercial products harvested include saw logs and house logs, each 

accounting for about half of the annual 13 MMBF (million board feet) harvest. Tree seedlings 

are planted on about 500 acres annually across the Forest to replenish stands killed by bark 

beetles or fire, and a few stands receiving regeneration harvest (Jump 2008). 

Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 3-21 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.4.2. Effects Analysis 

3.4.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Motorized travel route designation does not directly affect forested vegetation, but it does affect 

access to vegetation for resource uses and management, primarily timber harvest and salvage 

and Forest Service access for vegetation management project work. Effects indicators for 

vegetation are the change in: 

1. Opportunity for management of forested vegetation on suitable timber lands, and 

2. Public opportunity to collect firewood and other forest products. 

There are 467,870 acres of lands suitable for timber management on the Forest. For this 

analysis, only those suitable lands within one-half mile of roads designated as open in each 

alternative were considered. There are scattered areas of suitable timber beyond one-half mile 

of the existing road system; however, these areas would not likely need to be accessed for 

management within the foreseeable future so will not be considered in this analysis. The 

following table displays the suitable timber within one-half mile of open roads by alternative. 

Table 3-5. Acres Suitable for Timber Production within a Half-Mile Buffer by Alternative 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Area 

Total 

Suitable 

Acres 

Acres 

Within 

Buffer 

% 

Within 

Buffer 

Acres 

Within 

Buffer 

% 

Within 

Buffer 

Acres 

Within 

Buffer 

% 

Within 

Buffer 

Acres 

Within 

Buffer 

% 

Within 

Buffer 

Acres 

Within 

Buffer 

% 

Within 

Buffer 

Cedar City 167,430 144,690 86% 127,960 76% 135,770 81% 143,460 86% 147,930 88%

Escalante 136,460 126,960 93% 100,750 74% 107,530 79% 124,480 91% 127,790 94%

Pine Valley 1,510 1,220 81% 1,220 81% 1,220 81% 1,220 81% 1,220 81%

Powell 66,830 64,290 96% 56,040 84% 60,460 90% 63,030 94% 64,580 97%

Teasdale 95,640 69,230 72% 57,730 60% 59,250 62% 66,020 69% 69,710 73%

Forest-wide 467,870 406,390 87% 343,700 73% 364,230 78% 398,210 85% 411,230 88%

All acres are rounded to the nearest 10 acres. 

3.4.2.1.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Vegetation 

Vegetation Management. Additional temporary roads and reconstruction of existing roads may 

be needed to facilitate vegetation management activities as needs and opportunities are 

identified. Individual project analysis conducted according to the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) would evaluate needs for existing road reconstruction and construction of temporary 

roads. 

Opportunities to access major portions of the Forest, including suitable timber base lands, would 

continue under all alternatives. None of the alternatives are limiting to forested vegetation 

management projects planned for the next five years. All planned projects would remain 

reasonably accessible under all alternatives. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-22 Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Unforeseen needs for future motorized access for forested vegetation management, including 

rehabilitation of stands burned by wildfire or damaged by insect or disease outbreaks, would be 

assessed by NEPA analysis of each individual project. 

Ongoing monitoring must be conducted across the Forest to assess the condition and health of 

forested vegetation. Existing motorized travel routes contribute to access for monitoring and 

management of forest stands. 

Effects on vegetation below the commercial conifer zone (pinyon and juniper, shrub lands, and 

grasslands) can only be considered in a relative sense. Alternatives offering greater motorized 

access may increase chances of damage to vegetation near roads and trails. 

Firewood Collection. Collection of dead and down wood through use of personal use firewood 

permits would continue under all alternatives. Firewood can be found most anywhere from the 

pinyon/juniper vegetation type to the high elevation spruce-fir stands. Trees die somewhat 

randomly, so it is impossible to predict where firewood would be located. Firewood located near 

roads is preferred because it is most easily accessible. Some alternatives would provide 

greater opportunities to collect firewood than others. Relative opportunity to collect firewood is 

discussed in the individual alternative sections below. Firewood permits would specify any 

associated motorized travel rules specific to the permit. 

Fire and Fuels 

Most fire suppression relies on motorized access for engines and crews. Alternatives with fewer 

miles of open road could cause longer travel times and possibly larger fires due to the increased 

travel time for crews and equipment. However, fewer miles of road open for public access could 

offer less chance of human-caused fires to occur. These effects cannot be quantified due to the 

fact that wildfires are more or less random events, so analysis of them can only be relative in 

terms of motorized access. 

Any effects of lack of open roads on wildfire suppression are expected to be minimal since the 

roads in critical strategic locations for wildfire suppression within the Dixie National Forest 

remain open in all alternatives. Fuels management projects, including prescribed burning, 

require individual NEPA analyses where motorized access needs would be evaluated for each 

planned project. 

Planned fuel management projects would continue as usual as all planned fuels management 

projects remain reasonably accessible under all alternatives. 

3.4.2.1.2. Comparison of Effects 

Vegetation 

Vegetation Management. All alternatives would provide reasonable motorized access to all of 

the vegetation management projects planned on the Dixie National Forest for the next five 

years. All alternatives would also provide motorized access to major portions of suitable timber 

lands. Alternative E provides the greatest number of miles of open roads for these purposes 

and for general public access. Alternatives A and D also provide open public roads to most 

forested areas. Alternatives B and C offer the least amounts of motorized access, and some 

roads closed in these alternatives might need to be reopened in the future to manage vegetation 

Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 3-23 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-24 Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

and Effects Analysis 

resources. However, as noted above, these needs would be analyzed in each project’s NEPA. 

While Alternatives B and C offer the least amount of access to suitable timber lands, future 

timber harvests would probably not need to be significantly reduced from the current level of 13 

MMBF, although the possibility does exist depending upon future forest product types and 

project economics. 

Firewood Collection. Alternative A offers the greatest potential area for firewood collection as 

cross-country travel is allowed on 61 percent of the Forest. Alternative E has the next greatest 

potential for firewood collection areas, followed by Alternatives D, C, and B, in that order.

Fire and Fuels 

Effects of the motorized transportation system on wildfire suppression cannot be quantified as 

fires begin in somewhat random locations. Where motorized access exists, it is logical to 

assume that fire crews and equipment can get to fires faster so fires would have less time to 

burn before initial attack begins. This should result in generally smaller fires where they are 

accessible by motorized travel. Alternatives A and E would therefore offer a somewhat lower 

risk of larger fires. Alternative B would offer the highest risk of larger fires since fewer miles of 

roads are open. Alternatives with more roads, however, offer additional areas accessible to 

people in vehicles and a corresponding higher risk of human-caused fires. Alternative B has the 

fewest miles of open road so would offer a somewhat lower risk of human-caused fires. 

Alternatives A and E have the most miles of open roads so would offer higher risks of humancaused fires. 

None of the alternatives restrict motorized access to fuels management projects planned for the 

next five years. 

The Motorized Travel Plan alternatives do not propose to construct or reconstruct any new 

roads. Decisions regarding access for fire suppression and fuels management projects are 

deliberately deferred to appropriate project analysis. Therefore, there would be no conflicts in 

any of the alternatives with current laws, regulations, policy, or land use plans. 

3.4.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects to forested vegetation or forested vegetation management from 

any of the alternatives. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.5. Aquatic Biota 

The information in this section is summarized from the Aquatic Biota Specialist Report prepared 

for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2008a). Please see that report for more detail on the 

affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.5.1. Affected Environment 

Aquatic biota on the Forest can be broken into four broad categories: sport fish, non-game fish, 

amphibians, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. The more inconspicuous forms of aquatic biota 

such as aquatic mollusks and aquatic plants have not generally been studied across the Forest, 

and there is little trend data on macroinvertebrates. 

The Forest contains portions of 39 5th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds. Only those 

22 watersheds within the Forest boundary that support self-sustaining fisheries have been 

analyzed. See the Aquatic Biota Specialist Report for descriptions of the condition of each of 

these 22 watersheds (USDA 2008a). 

3.5.2. Effects Analysis 

3.5.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.5.2.1.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Roads, particularly those located in close proximity to riparian areas, pose a distinct threat to 

aquatic biota habitat quality and population structure (Gucinski et al. 2001, Furniss et al. 1991). 

Roads can route sediment into water bodies, fragment aquatic habitat (i.e., migration barriers), 

and provide a vector for introduction of aquatic nuisance species and hazardous materials 

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Additionally, roads provide access to and concentrate human 

and livestock use within riparian areas. This can lead to widespread degradation of stream 

banks, in-channel aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation. 

Under any of the alternatives, there are roads and motorized trails within watersheds that 

support fish populations and other aquatic biota. Some of these routes are located within 

riparian influence zones (RIZs), and thus can negatively impact both aquatic biota populations 

and habitat. For this analysis, a RIZ is defined as any area falling within 300 feet of fish-bearing 

streams and high value lakes. 

None of the alternatives would increase road- and motorized trail-related impacts to aquatic 

biota beyond what is currently occurring. Selection of any of the action alternatives would result 

in a decrease in detrimental effects to aquatic biota from roads and motorized trails due to the 

elimination of cross-country travel and some road decommissioning. 

A major effect to aquatic biota on the Dixie National Forest are system roads, non-system 

roads, and motorized trails, all of which generally run alongside streams and riparian zones and 

in canyon bottoms in areas where locations for routes are constrained. Routes often run near 

Aquatic Biota 3-25 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

water even in unconstrained upper mountain headwaters and plateaus. The effects of 

motorized routes include increased stream channel confinement, reduced stream sinuosity, 

increased gradient, increased sedimentation, reduced riparian shading, and decreased amounts 

of large woody debris. Easy access also generally increases the degree of land management 

activities in an area such as grazing or timber harvest, and increases human activity such as 

recreation. All of these aspects can increase effects to aquatic habitat that in turn affect aquatic 

biota. Examples of potential effects are reduced carrying capacity, increased water 

temperature, degradation of water quality, introduction of non-native organisms, or aquatic 

nuisance species. 

3.5.2.1.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 61 percent of the Forest would remain open to cross-country travel, 

including approximately 14,823 acres within fish-bearing stream RIZs and approximately 2,843 

acres within high value lake RIZs. Alternative A would permit further development of increasing 

networks of user-created routes in these areas, resulting in persistent and expanding (as new 

routes are created) degradation of aquatic habitats. 

Depending on slope, terrain, and vegetation, the actual amount of these open travel areas that 

may receive motorized use varies. In some sub-watersheds with gentle terrain and open 

vegetation, motorized vehicles (primarily OHVs) may be able to travel across a large percentage 

of the area. This can lead to higher rates of erosion across broad areas, but may also diffuse 

impacts. In other sub-watersheds with steep terrain and dense vegetation, OHV use is often 

physically restricted to major ridgetops and drainage bottoms. Ridgetop use would generally be 

far enough away from streams to reduce sedimentation, but drainage bottom use can affect 

aquatic biota due to the direct proximity to streams and lakes, with damage including 

sedimentation, stream bank damage, and damage to vegetation. Additionally, these drainage 

bottoms are often important passageways for amphibians. 

3.5.2.1.3. Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The key benefit to aquatic biota and habitat under the action alternatives is the elimination of 

motorized cross-country travel on the Forest. This action should limit current and future 

expansion and creation of unauthorized routes, thus limiting potential degradation of high value 

aquatic habitats. 

Alternatives B, C, and D are relatively similar in terms of effects to aquatic biota and habitat. 

Any one of these three alternatives would decrease road density within the RIZ of fish-bearing 

streams and high value lakes as compared to Alternative A. The variation in RIZ road mileage 

between these alternatives is spread out across the Forest and does not represent a significant 

difference within any one drainage. 

Alternative E would designate more miles of motorized routes within RIZs than any other 

alternative, including Alternative A. However, Alternative E would prohibit cross-country travel; 

thus, potential future degradation to aquatic biota habitats and populations would be reduced 

when compared to Alternative A. Of the four action alternatives, Alternative E provides the least 

amount of benefit to aquatic biota resources on the Forest. 

Road mileage within the RIZ of lakes is fairly low in all alternatives. Access to lakes on the 

Forest is generally via a single route that dead ends at the lake in question. The majority of 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-26 Aquatic Biota 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

these routes have been maintained within all alternatives as they serve specific destinations and 

provide necessary access for special uses or recreation. 

3.5.2.1.4. Proposed Motorized Trail Construction – Alternatives D and E 

Alternatives D and E both include the construction of two segments of motorized trail comprising 

1.26 miles. Construction of both of these new trails would occur outside of the RIZs of fishbearing streams and high value lakes. No effects to aquatic biota resources or habitat would 

occur as a result of this new trail construction in either alternative. 

3.5.2.1.5. Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Virgin River Chub and Woundfin 

There are only two federally listed aquatic species: the Virgin River chub and woundfin, both 

listed as Endangered. These two fish species occur downstream of National Forest System 

lands within the Virgin River system. Implementation of any alternative being considered within 

this process would not affect fisheries habitat within the Virgin River mainstem where these 

species are known to occur. 

The remaining species in this section are listed on either the Intermountain Region’s Sensitive 

Species List (USDA 2003a) or on the State of Utah Sensitive Species List (UDWR 2006). 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) occupies streams and lakes on the Pine Valley, Cedar City, 

Powell, and Escalante Ranger Districts. Across the Forest, all action alternatives would provide 

similar or identical protection for BCT and its occupied habitat. However, Alternatives B and C 

could provide better protection for the species within the Threemile Creek watershed. These 

two alternatives have reduced RIZ road densities within the upper Delong Creek area and along 

lower Threemile Creek when compared to Alternatives A, D, and E. Given the other current 

land uses (e.g., livestock grazing, dispersed recreation) within the watershed, however, it is 

unlikely that the reduced road densities within Alternatives B and C alone would result in 

significant increases in habitat quality or population structure. 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) occupies streams and lakes on the Escalante Ranger 

District and on the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District. All action alternatives 

would provide similar or identical protection for CRCT and its occupied habitat. There is some 

potential that proposed road closures within the West Branch Pine Creek drainage, which are 

included in Alternatives B and C, could help facilitate future work to biologically connect West 

Branch CRCT with mainstem Pine Creek and Right Fork Pine Creek CRCT through the 

elimination of culverts along roads 30729 and 30652. 

Southern Leatherside 

On the Dixie National Forest, distribution of southern leatherside (formerly leatherside chub) is 

limited to a few small drainages on the Cedar City and Escalante Ranger Districts. All action 

alternatives provide similar or identical protection for this species. 

Virgin Spinedace 

Virgin spinedace distribution on the Forest is limited to the Moody Wash drainage on the Pine 

Valley Ranger District. However, this species is somewhat widespread within the Virgin River 

headwaters downstream of the Pine Valley and Cedar City Ranger Districts. Road closures 

Aquatic Biota 3-27 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

included within Alternatives B and C would reduce threats to Virgin spinedace habitat within 

Moody Wash. Alternatives D and E would provide only limited benefits to Virgin spinedace 

when compared to Alternative A, primarily a result of eliminating motorized cross-country travel. 

Arizona Toad 

Arizona toad is known to occur in several drainages in the southwest portion of the Pine Valley 

Ranger District. Road closures included within Alternatives B and C would reduce threats to 

Arizona toad habitat within Moody Wash. Alternatives D and E would provide only limited 

benefits to Arizona toad when compared to Alternative A, primarily a result of eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel. In other occupied drainages, including the Pine Park area, all 

action alternatives would provide similar or identical protection for Arizona toad populations and 

habitat. 

Boreal Toad 

Boreal toad occupies habitat on the Paunsaugunt Plateau on the Powell Ranger District and on 

Boulder Mountain on the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District. All known 

occupied habitat and populations on the Forest would be equally protected under all action 

alternatives. The Paunsaugunt Plateau is heavily roaded and would remain so regardless of 

which alternative is selected. Aside from roads, livestock grazing and chytrid fungus are 

currently limiting boreal toad habitat and populations in this area. Conversely, boreal toad 

occupied habitat on Boulder Mountain is sparsely roaded and would remain so regardless of 

which alternative is selected. On Boulder Mountain the primary threats to boreal toad habitat 

include livestock grazing, water impoundments, diversions, and conveyance structures. 

3.5.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for the aquatic biota resource is all lands within the Dixie National 

Forest boundary. Known aquatic biota population distribution and the limited connectivity 

(current and potential) of aquatic habitats on the Dixie National Forest with adjacent non-Forest 

Service lands support the relevance of this effects area. 

1. Utilities. Utility corridors are common features on the Forest. In general, currently 

existing corridors are causing very limited impacts to the aquatic biota resource. What 

impacts there are, are associated with utility corridor stream crossings and do not tend to 

be related to the motorized travel system. The greatest potential for detrimental effects 

to aquatic biota occurs during utility corridor construction. During these periods, ground 

disturbance is common and the potential for erosion and sediment deposition within 

aquatic habitats is high. Following construction, disturbed ground tends to recover 

quickly as vegetation and ground cover is reestablished. Selection and implementation 

of any of the alternatives is not expected to result in long-term cumulative impacts to the 

aquatic biota resource from utility corridor interactions. 

2. Oil and gas. Oil, gas, and other mineral use on the Forest is currently fairly limited. The 

most common mineral use is from gravel and cinder pits located across the Forest, and 

a small number of gas wells on the Escalante Ranger District. Impacts to the aquatic 

biota resource from oil, gas, and other mineral activities are extremely limited due to the 

upland location of most of the gravel pits and gas wells. Selection and implementation 

of any of the alternatives is not expected to result in cumulative impacts to the aquatic 

biota resource from oil, gas, or other mineral activities. 

3. Transportation. 

 All routes considered for designation within the alternatives currently exist and 

are receiving some amount of use. The only exception to this is the small 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-28 Aquatic Biota 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

amount of new motorized trail construction (1.26 miles) proposed in Alternatives 

D and E (discussed on page 3-27). Because of this existing use, regardless of 

which alternative is selected, detrimental effects to aquatic biota habitat and 

populations from the motorized route network would either be reduced or 

maintained when compared to the current condition. 

 All action alternatives would result in the elimination of cross-country travel. This 

action would reduce current and potential future interaction between crosscountry travel and other Forest actions, thereby reducing the threat of detrimental 

effects to aquatic biota populations and habitat. 

 Alternative A has the highest potential to result in adverse cumulative impacts to 

aquatic resources. This is primarily related to the continuation of cross-country 

travel on portions of the Forest, including sensitive riparian areas, stream 

corridors, and lake basins. This issue is further exacerbated due to the current 

travel system providing limited protection of aquatic resources as described in 

the Aquatic Biota Specialist Report (USDA 2008a) and the expected increase in 

motorized use of the Dixie National Forest (USDA 2009m). 

 All of the action alternatives would result in beneficial cumulative effects to 

aquatic biota in response to past and present implementation of travel 

management actions on the Forest. All of these projects either reduced total 

motorized route mileage within specific watersheds or reduced route 

encroachment on sensitive aquatic habitats. 

4. Recreation. Dispersed camping within riparian areas is widespread across the Forest. 

OHV use and cross-country travel are common related activities that occur within and 

near popular dispersed camping areas. Selection of Alternative A would result in 

cumulative detrimental impacts associated with dispersed camping and OHV use within 

the RIZ of drainages within areas open to cross-country travel. Additionally, routes 

included within all alternatives that encroach upon RIZs would present the potential for 

adverse cumulative effects associated with dispersed camping. These effects may 

include increased sediment influx into waterbodies from bank damage and user-created 

crossings, reduced riparian plant composition and structure, and increased risk of 

aquatic nuisance species transfer and introduction. Each of these effects has the 

potential to reduce aquatic biota habitat condition and population structure. 

5. Vegetation treatments. Road construction, maintenance, closure, and obliteration are 

common components to many vegetation projects. Selection of any of the action 

alternatives would result in beneficial cumulative effects to the aquatic biota resource 

through the reduction of total motorized route mileage and open motorized cross-country 

areas. These beneficial effects would be most evident within Alternatives B, C, and D. 

6. Land exchanges and easements. Existing road easements on the Forest are included 

within the motorized route network that has been analyzed as part of this process. 

There are no foreseeable future land exchanges or easements that would result in 

cumulative effects to the aquatic biota resource in conjunction with this project. Current 

easements and recent past land exchanges are not appreciably affecting the quality of 

the aquatic biota resource on the Forest. 

7. Special use permits. The Forest issues many special use permits for various activities. 

The effects to the aquatic biota resource from these activities are highly variable, but 

tend to be innocuous and site-specific. Since selection and implementation of any of the 

action alternatives would result in beneficial effects to the aquatic biota resource, no 

detrimental cumulative effects to the aquatic biota resource in conjunction with the 

various special uses is expected or likely. 

8. Livestock grazing. Livestock grazing is common and widespread on the Dixie National 

Forest. Since selection and implementation of any of the action alternatives would result 

Aquatic Biota 3-29 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-30 Aquatic Biota 

and Effects Analysis 

in beneficial effects to the aquatic biota resource, no detrimental cumulative effects to 

the aquatic biota resource in conjunction with livestock grazing is expected or likely. 

Regardless of the alternative selected, forest-wide improvement or degradation within aquatic 

biota populations and habitats is likely to be slight. Additionally, the magnitude of these 

responses is expected to fall within the normal variation and would be difficult to tie directly to 

this project. However, certain elements contained within the action alternatives of this project 

have the capability of improving the aquatic biota resource at specific locations. 

Selection of any of the action alternatives would result in slight beneficial effects to aquatic biota 

populations and habitat on the Forest. This is primarily a response to the elimination of crosscountry travel. Additionally, Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce total motorized route 

mileage across the Forest and within certain watersheds. However, these effects are not likely 

to result in marked improvement in fish biomass production or a wholesale improvement in 

aquatic habitats on the Forest. 

Selection of Alternative A would result in a continuation of current deleterious effects to aquatic 

biota populations and habitat associated with the motorized travel system. The primary 

causative factor behind these effects is the continuation of cross-country travel and the 

persistence of specific routes within RIZs and key watersheds.
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.6. Terrestrial Wildlife 

The information in this section is summarized from the Wildlife Specialist Report prepared for 

this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009p). Please see that report for more detail on the affected 

environment and effects analysis. 

3.6.1. Affected Environment 

This analysis focuses on quantifying the effects of roads on occupied or potentially suitable 

habitats. The table on the following page lists those species and habitats potentially affected by 

the alternatives and analyzed in the effects analysis. 

On August 1, 2007, the National Forests in Utah formalized an updated state-wide strategy for 

addressing migratory birds in Forest Service planning and project documents (USDA 2007a). 

Species selected for this Motorized Travel Plan analysis were chosen based on the process 

identified in this strategy. Six species were included in the DEIS analysis; this analysis has 

been refined down to three species. For this analysis, the black-throated gray warbler, Brewer’s 

sparrow, and broad-tailed hummingbird were selected as representative species to analyze the 

effects of motorized impacts on potentially suitable habitats. Additional migratory bird species 

were not selected because effects to all other habitat types were analyzed for other species. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-31 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-6. Wildlife Species – Existing Condition 

Project Area Habitat 

Distribution2

 Species (Status)1 Habitat 

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Total Habitat 

Available 

within 

Project Area 

(Acres) 

Acres currently 

open to crosscountry 

motorized travel 

% ope

cro

coun

trav

California condor (E) Potential X X X X X 616,825 330,658 

Critical X X 35,797 23,490 

Mexican spotted owl (T) PAC X X 2,398 1,666 

Potential X X X X X 22,014 2,934 

Paunsaugunt RU X X X 15,027 9,589 

Utah prairie dog (T) Awapa 

Plateau RU X X 17,474 15,228 

Known Nesting X X X X 28,057 12,981 

American peregrine falcon (S) Potential 

Nesting X X X X X 443,010 237,168 

Bald eagle (S) Winter Roosting X X X X X 14,554 5,595 Flammulated owl (S) Potential X X X X X 472,635 233,584 

Known Lek X X X X 2,659 1,405 

Sage-grouse (S) Potential X X X X 211,753 155,669 

Known Nesting X X X X X 41,607 22,033 

Northern goshawk (S) 

Potential X X X X X 804,170 399,495 

Occupied X 30 30 1

Pygmy rabbit (S) Potential X X X X X 57,836 31,944 

Roosting X X X X X 443,010 237,168 

Spotted bat (S) Foraging X X X X X 230,994 111,516 Townsend’s big-eared Foraging X X X X X 230,994 111,516 bat (S) Hibernacula X 250 0 Three-toed Woodpecker (S) Potential X X X X X 248,873 125,106 Mule deer (MIS) All seasons X X X X X 1,968,480 1,148,031 Rocky Mountain elk (MIS) All seasons X X X X X 1,312,076 738,677 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-32 

and Effects Analysis 
 Mot

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-33 Chapter 

 

Project Area Habitat 

Distribution2

 Species (Status)1 Habitat 

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Total Habitat 

Available 

within 

Project Area 

(Acres) 

Acres currently 

open to crosscountry 

motorized travel 

% ope

cro

coun

trav

Northern flicker (MIS) Potential X X X X X 1,192,638 721,864 Wild turkey (MIS) Potential X X X X X 712,234 362,851 Black-throated gray warbler (O) Potential Breeding X X X X X 618,722 466,744 Brewer’s sparrow (O) Potential Breeding X X X X X 113,765 50,626 Broad-tailed hummingbird (O) Potential Breeding X X X X X 230,994 111,516 

1 Status: E=Endangered, T=Threatened, S=Sensitive, MIS=Management Indicator Species, O=Other species of concer2 D1 = Pine Valley Ranger District; D2 = Cedar City Ranger District; D3 = Powell Ranger District; D4 = Escalante Range

Teasdale Ranger District. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.6.2. Effects Analysis 

As noted above, the information included here is a summary from the Wildlife Specialist Report

(USDA 2009p). For detailed information such as miles of route with specific habitat types by 

alternative, please see the specialist report. 

3.6.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.6.2.1.1. California Condor 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel may affect condors 

that occur within the project area. Although suitable cliff nesting and roosting sites are not 

directly accessible, open routes at cliff bases and tops could increase the chance for 

disturbance, harassment, or mortality from shooting to condors that may be present. Foraging 

condors would also be at risk for disturbance and harassment facilitated by access. Because 

condors forage on carrion, they are at risk for lead poisoning if they ingest lead from ammunition 

in animal carcasses or gut piles left behind by hunters. This risk is increased with open roads, 

as hunting is generally facilitated by motorized access. Although hunting may also provide 

viable carrion for condors, this benefit does not compensate for the risk of disturbance and 

mortality to condors. Motorized travel may also displace big game, providing inadequate 

carcasses within some habitats. The continuation of cross-country travel would potentially 

increase such disturbance and adverse effects within 54 percent (330,658 acres) of potential 

condor cliff habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within the 54 percent of potential 

habitat that is currently open to such travel. Open motorized route miles would be reduced by 

60 percent, 56 percent, and 40 percent for Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. Reducing 

access near cliffs would decrease the potential for disturbance and harassment to roosting or 

nesting condors. Because condors forage over a wide range of habitats for carrion, an overall 

decrease in motorized access would reduce the risk of disturbance, harassment, and mortality 

to foraging condors. Displacement of potential prey animals would be less likely to occur. With 

a reduction in overall access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain 

open; however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the 

beneficial effects of reducing overall access. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under 

Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 54 percent of potential habitat, but open 

motorized route miles would increase by 13 percent. An overall reduction in access due to 

closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for adverse affects facilitated by 

access, and offset the potential adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in 

Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-34 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.6.2.1.2. Mexican Spotted Owl 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel may affect owls that 

occur within the project area. Motorized routes in suitable habitat increase the risk of adverse 

effects directly related to motorized access (noise, dust, exhaust) and facilitated by access 

(disturbance, harassment, or mortality associated with hiking, camping, and shooting) if owls do 

occupy these sites. Routes would fragment habitat and may displace prey, further decreasing 

owl habitat effectiveness. Approximately 23,490 acres (66 percent) of Critical Habitat, 1,666 

acres (69 percent) of PAC habitat, and 2,934 acres (13 percent) of potentially suitable habitat 

would remain open to cross-country travel under Alternative A. The continuation of crosscountry travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects. The risk of 

disturbance from recreational disturbance and/or mortality (from collection, harassment, or 

poaching) would remain at current levels or increase. Within foraging habitat, fragmentation 

would continue or increase. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within the 66 percent of Critical Habitat, 69 percent of 

PAC habitat, and 13 percent of potentially suitable habitat currently open. Open motorized 

route miles within Critical Habitat would be reduced by 79 percent, 79 percent, and 68 percent 

for Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. Reducing access within Critical Habitat would reduce 

the potential for adverse effects associated with access as detailed above under Alternative A. 

Within foraging habitat, a reduction in open route miles would decrease fragmentation and 

disturbance, thereby increasing habitat effectiveness. Owls that are present within Critical 

Habitat would be impacted by continued use, and possible increased use, of routes that remain 

open; however, given the amount of Critical Habitat and relatively low miles of open route, 

adverse effects are not expected to occur. 

Although there are no routes currently within PAC habitat, eliminating cross-country travel would 

limit the opportunity for recreational disturbance in canyon bottoms and along mesa tops that 

owls most likely inhabit. Closing cross-country travel within designated Critical and potential 

habitat would further reduce the risk of habitat fragmentation and prey disturbance. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 66 percent of Critical Habitat, 69 percent of PAC 

habitat, and 13 percent of potentially suitable habitat. Open motorized route miles would 

increase by 16 percent within Critical Habitat. A reduction in access due to the closure of crosscountry travel would reduce the potential for adverse affects facilitated by access, and offset the 

potential adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Not all 

Critical Habitat contains the primary constituent elements necessary for suitable habitat; it is 

unlikely that motorized routes would be within suitable habitat due to the inaccessible nature of 

most suitable canyons. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action 

alternatives. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-35 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.6.2.1.3. Mojave Desert Tortoise 

Upon research and field verification in 2008, neither Critical Habitat nor potentially suitable 

habitat for this species exists within the project area (USDA 2008f). Critical Habitat boundaries 

can be found in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USDI 1994); no Critical 

Habitat was designated within the Dixie National Forest boundary. Effects to this species will 

not be analyzed further. 

3.6.2.1.4. Utah Prairie Dog 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect Utah 

prairie dogs that occur within the project area. 102 buffered-colony areas are currently 

impacted by roads; 76 of these by unauthorized routes. Approximately 64 percent (9,589 acres) 

of Paunsaugunt RU habitat and 87 percent (15,228 acres) of Awapa Plateau RU habitat would 

remain open to cross-country travel, increasing the risk of direct habitat loss and the resulting 

habitat fragmentation if new routes are created. Motorized disturbance (noise, dust, exhaust) 

would continue or increase. Access would also facilitate mortality of prairie dogs from 

recreational shooting and road kill. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 64 percent and 87 percent 

of Paunsaugunt and Awapa Plateau RU habitat, respectively. Open motorized route miles 

within Paunsaugunt RU habitat would be reduced by 58 percent, 55 percent, and 37 percent for 

B, C, and D, respectively. Open motorized route miles within Awapa Plateau RU habitat would 

be reduced by 56 percent, 50 percent, and 32 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. 

Under Alternative B, a total of 0.47 miles of unauthorized route would be opened within four 

buffered-colony areas. Under C, a total of 0.78 miles would be opened within four areas. Under 

D, 2.34 miles would be opened within 12 areas. Authorizing these routes as open would 

increase access and potentially adverse effects. Adverse effects of opening routes would be 

offset by the overall reduction in access that would occur under these Alternatives. This 

reduction would eliminate routes within 32, 25, and 13 buffered-colony areas for Alternative B, 

C, and D, respectively. 

Reducing access would impede habitat loss and fragmentation. The potential for harassment 

and mortality from shooting would likewise be reduced. Closing routes and cross-country travel 

would further reduce adverse affects from motorized disturbance, including road kills. These 

effects would result in an increase in habitat effectiveness. With a reduction in overall access, 

there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects 

from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in 

that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 64 percent and 87 percent of Paunsaugunt and 

Awapa Plateau RU habitat, respectively. Open motorized route miles would increase by 3 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-36 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

percent within the Paunsaugunt RU, and 4 percent within the Awapa Plateau RU. A total of 

46.1 miles of unauthorized route would be opened within 75 buffered-colony areas. Authorizing 

these routes as open would increase access, thereby increasing potentially adverse effects. An 

overall reduction in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for 

habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance, harassment, and shooting; these beneficial effects 

would offset the potentially adverse effects of opening 46.1 miles of route in this alternative. 

Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.5. American Peregrine Falcon 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect peregrine 

falcons that occur within the project area. Because cliff nesting locations are inaccessible to 

motorized vehicles, direct access to nest sites from motorized activity would not occur; however, 

motorized routes may facilitate access for disturbance in nest areas. This disturbance may 

come directly from motorized travel (noise, dust, exhaust) or from recreational climbing and 

hiking. Motorized access also facilitates peregrine falcon mortality from shooting. Foraging 

falcons would continue to be affected by disturbance, and prey base may be altered as habitat 

is impacted by access. The continuation of cross-country travel would potentially increase 

disturbance and adverse effects to 46 percent (12,981 acres) of known nesting habitat and 54 

percent (237,168 acres) of potential nesting habitat if new routes are created. Habitat 

effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 46 percent of known 

nesting and 54 percent of potential nesting habitat. Open motorized route miles within known 

nesting habitat would be reduced by 52 percent, 49 percent, and 40 percent for Alternative B, C, 

and D, respectively. Open motorized route miles within potential nesting habitat would be 

reduced by 61 percent, 57 percent, and 41 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. 

Limiting motorized access would decrease the likelihood of nest disturbance from recreational 

activities. Peregrine falcons forage wide (10 miles) over a range of habitats. Reducing access 

within foraging habitat would decrease adverse effects to prey and their habitat, thus increasing 

falcon habitat effectiveness. With a reduction in overall access, there may be additional, 

concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from increased use of 

open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall access. 

Of the known 17 eyries, none would be adversely affected by the opening of routes in 

Alternative B, C, or D. The proximity and extent of the routes being opened within nest areas 

are such that neither direct nor facilitated disturbance would increase with implementation. 

Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that 

order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 46 percent of known nesting and 54 percent of 

potential nesting habitat. Open motorized route miles within known nest habitat would increase 

by 2 percent and within potential habitat by 12 percent. A reduction in access due to the closure 

of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for adverse affects facilitated by access, and 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-37 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

offset the potential adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. 

Three eyries would be at risk of increased disturbance from the opening of routes. The routes 

to be opened are located at the top of the affected cliffs, near their edges. This conversion 

increases the risk of disturbance from noise or harassment. Overall habitat effectiveness would 

increase under Alternative E, but least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.6. Bald Eagle 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect bald 

eagles that occur within the project area. Bald eagles are typically present in the project area 

during the winter, when motorized access is limited by snow; however, motorized access when 

routes are open may cause habitat fragmentation. Though eagles are mainly found within the 

project area in the winter, two areas have recorded occupancy year-round. One nesting pair 

has been documented on private land near the Teasdale Ranger District Office. Another pair 

has been observed near Panguitch Lake, within the Cedar City Ranger District. Disturbance 

from motorized travel (noise, exhaust, dust) may affect eagles that are in these areas. Access 

would also facilitate the potential for disturbance, harassment, and mortality from shooting. Bald 

eagles eat carrion, increasing the risk of mortality from vehicle strike while feeding on road kill. 

Suitable roost trees would remain accessible for firewood cutting. The continuation of crosscountry travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 38 percent (5,595 

acres) of potential winter habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 38 percent of potential winter habitat. Open 

motorized route miles within potential habitat would increase by 4 percent. An overall reduction 

in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat loss and 

fragmentation, disturbance, harassment, and shooting; these beneficial effects would offset the 

potentially adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 38 percent of potential winter habitat. Open 

motorized route miles within potential habitat would increase by 4 percent. An overall reduction 

in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat loss and 

fragmentation, disturbance, harassment, and shooting; these beneficial effects would offset the 

potentially adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.7. Flammulated Owl 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect 

flammulated owls that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue to alter 

and fragment foraging habitat. Access increases the potential for motorized disturbance (noise, 

dust, exhaust), harassment, and displacement. Flammulated owls are secondary cavitynesters, and rely on previously excavated cavities in large trees for nesting. Firewood cutting in 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-38 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

areas used by owls is facilitated by motorized access. The continuation of cross-country travel 

would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 49 percent (233,584 acres) of 

potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 49 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 66 percent, 61 

percent, and 48 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Eliminating cross-country 

travel and closing routes would reduce and prevent habitat fragmentation. A reduction in 

access would lead to a reduction in noise, dust, and harassment. Firewood cutting of suitable 

nest trees would diminish with a decrease in access. With a reduction in access, there may be 

additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from 

increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in 

that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 49 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 10 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to the closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat loss and 

fragmentation, disturbance, and harassment; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially 

adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Overall access for 

firewood cutting would be reduced. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the 

action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.8. Greater Sage-grouse 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect sagegrouse that occur within the project area. Sage-grouse typically breed in areas that are open 

with low vegetation, areas that are easily accessible to motorized travel. Of the ten known leks, 

nine of these are impacted by currently existing routes. These routes fragment important 

habitat. There is an increased risk of disturbance (dust, noise, exhaust) and mortality (road kill) 

from motorized travel on these routes. Further disturbance from bird-watching, harassment, 

and shooting is facilitated by access. The continuation of cross-country travel would potentially 

increase disturbance and adverse effects to 53 percent (1,405 acres) of known lek habitat, and 

75 percent (175,305 acres) of potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and 

may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 53 percent of known lek 

habitat and 75 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized route miles within known lek habitat 

would be reduced by 65 percent, 61 percent, and 44 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, 

respectively. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 71 

percent, 66 percent, and 50 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Under Alternative 

D, less than 1 mile of unauthorized route would be opened within 1 buffered lek; however, 

nearly 2 miles of route within the same lek would be closed. A reduction in access would 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-39 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

reduce current and limit future habitat fragmentation. This would be accompanied by a 

decreased risk of disturbance, harassment, and mortality. With a reduction in access, there 

may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from 

increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. Habitat effectiveness would increase the most under Alternative B, followed by C and 

D, in that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 53 percent of known lek habitat and 75 percent 

of potential habitat. Unauthorized routes would be designated open within eight of the ten 

buffered leks. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would increase by 5 percent. 

Authorizing these routes as open would increase access and potentially adverse effects. 

Adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A would be offset by the 

overall reduction in access. Current fragmentation would continue, but would not increase. A 

reduction in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for 

disturbance and habitat fragmentation, and would offset adverse effects from an increase in 

open route miles. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.9. Northern Goshawk 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect northern 

goshawks that occur within the project area. There are currently 131 buffered territories 

impacted by open routes, 85 of these by unauthorized routes. Habitat within 98 buffered 

territories would remain open to cross-country travel. These territories would be at continued or 

increased risk of disturbance, harassment, or mortality. Habitat fragmentation would remain or 

increase, potentially displacing prey species from the area. Access for firewood collecting 

would continue, potentially reducing snags and downed wood that prey species rely upon. 

Although goshawks select nest sites in areas not typically suitable for cross-country travel, 

continued cross-country travel could have adverse effects on necessary Post-Fledging Area 

(PFA) and foraging habitat by increasing habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and displacement 

of prey species. Within potential habitat, 50 percent (399,495 acres) would remain open to 

cross-country travel. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Implementation of Alternative B, C, or D would expose four, seven, or five buffered territories, 

respectively, to a potential increase in access. In most cases, disturbance to the nests would be 

minimized by vegetation and/or topography that impede access. In the event that the affected 

nests were abandoned, it is unlikely that the total impact would be enough to affect the 

persistence of the goshawk for any ranger district or the Dixie National Forest as a whole, due 

to the wide distribution of this species across the Forest and their relative abundance in the 

project area. In addition, implementation would eliminate open routes within 37, 30, and 18 

buffered territories for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. 

Most buffered territories would see no change or a decrease in motorized access. A decrease 

in access would reduce disturbance and habitat fragmentation, improving habitat effectiveness 

and offsetting the adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. In 

addition, closing cross-country travel could further decrease the risk of disturbance and habitat 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-40 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

alteration from the creation of new routes for the 98 buffered territories that are currently in open 

areas. Overall habitat effectiveness would increase with a decrease in disturbance and 

alteration. 

Cross-country travel would also be prohibited within 50 percent of potential habitat. Open 

motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 64 percent, 59 percent, and 

45 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat may be suitable for 

nesting or foraging. Within foraging habitat, a reduction in access would reduce disturbance to 

prey and their habitat, thereby improving foraging habitat for the goshawk. Reducing access 

may also increase the suitability of potential nest sites that have not been used previously due 

to motorized disturbance. 

With a reduction in access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain 

open; however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the 

beneficial effects of reducing overall access. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under 

Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. 

Alternative E 

Implementation would expose 62 buffered territories to a potential increase in access, including 

three buffered territories that currently have no motorized access. The other 59 are currently 

impacted by some amount of access. Routes would be eliminated within two buffered 

territories. Authorizing routes as open would increase access and the potential for adverse 

effects; however, prohibiting cross-country travel could decrease the risk of disturbance and 

habitat alteration from the creation of new routes for the 98 buffered territories that are currently 

in open areas. Furthermore, open motorized route increases by 11 percent within potential 

habitat, but is offset by closing 50 percent of potential habitat to cross-country travel. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.10. Pygmy Rabbit 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel may affect pygmy 

rabbits that occur within the project area. Habitat fragmentation would continue and may 

increase with cross-country travel. The known habitat is currently in an area open to crosscountry travel, and 55 percent (31,944 acres) of potential habitat is open to cross-country travel. 

Access facilitates disturbance from motorized travel (noise, dust, exhaust), and increases the 

risk of harassment and mortality from shooting and road kill. Habitat effectiveness would not 

increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 55 percent of potential 

habitat and all known habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be 

reduced by 56 percent, 47 percent, and 31 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. A 

reduction in access would increase habitat effectiveness by reducing fragmentation and the 

potential for disturbance, harassment, and mortality. With a reduction in access, there may be 

additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from 

increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-41 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

access. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in 

that order. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 55 percent of potential habitat and all known 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would increase by 2 percent. An 

overall reduction in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for 

disturbance, mortality, and habitat fragmentation, and would offset the adverse effects of 

increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but 

least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.11. Spotted Bat 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect spotted 

bats that occur within the project area. 54 percent (237,168 acres) of potential roost habitat 

would remain open to cross-country travel. Because cliff roosting locations are inaccessible to 

motorized vehicles, direct impacts to roost sites from motorized activity would not occur; 

however, access may facilitate disturbance in these areas. This disturbance may come directly 

from motorized travel (noise, dust, exhaust), or from recreational climbing. Riparian foraging 

habitat would continue to be fragmented by motorized travel. Access in riparian areas facilitates 

disturbance from camping, fishing, and other recreational activities. Continued cross-country 

travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 48 percent (111,516 acres) 

of potential riparian foraging habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 54 percent of potential 

roosting habitat and 48 percent of potential foraging habitat. Open motorized route miles within 

potential roosting habitat would be reduced by 61 percent, 57 percent, and 41 percent for 

Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Open motorized route miles within potential foraging 

habitat would be reduced by 45 percent, 40 percent, and 27 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, 

respectively. 

A reduction in access to cliff areas would decrease the chance for disturbance to roost sites 

from motorized travel and recreation. Foraging habitat would also benefit from closure, as these 

riparian areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation and disturbance from recreation 

such as camping and fishing. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, 

followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in access, there may be additional, 

concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from increased use of 

open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 54 percent of potential roosting habitat and 48 

percent of potential foraging habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential roosting 

habitat would increase by 12 percent and within potential foraging habitat by 6 percent. An 

overall reduction in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-42 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

disturbance and habitat fragmentation, and would offset the adverse effects of increasing open 

route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the 

action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.12. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect 

Townsend’s big-eared bats that occur within the project area. Riparian foraging habitat would 

continue to be fragmented by motorized travel. Access in riparian areas facilitates disturbance 

from camping and other recreational activities. Continued cross-country travel would potentially 

increase disturbance and adverse effects to 48 percent (111,516 acres) of potential riparian 

foraging habitat. Townsend’s bats may also use hollow trees for roost sites. Access facilitates 

the loss of suitable trees from firewood cutting, and would continue at current levels or increase 

with further cross-country travel. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 48 percent of potential 

foraging habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential foraging habitat would be reduced 

by 45 percent, 40 percent, and 27 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Foraging 

habitat would also benefit from closure, as these riparian areas would be exposed to less risk of 

fragmentation and disturbance from recreational activities such as camping and fishing. A 

reduction in access would also reduce the potential for loss of suitable roost trees from firewood 

cutting. Habitat effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in 

that order. With a reduction in access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that 

remain open; however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by 

the beneficial effects of reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 48 percent of potential foraging habitat. Open 

motorized route miles within potential foraging habitat would be increased by 6 percent. An 

overall reduction in access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for 

disturbance and habitat fragmentation, and would offset the adverse effects of increasing open 

route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the 

action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.13. Three-toed Woodpecker 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect three-toed 

woodpeckers that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue to fragment 

habitat and create disturbance (dust, noise, exhaust). Access also facilitates disturbance, 

harassment, and displacement from human activities. Three-toed woodpeckers require snags 

for feeding, perching, nesting, and roosting; loss of suitable trees from firewood cutting would 

continue to be facilitated at current levels or increase with further cross-country travel. 

Continued cross-country travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 50 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-43 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

percent (125,106 acres) of potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 50 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 69 percent, 64 

percent, and 51 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would benefit 

from closure, as these areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation and disturbance. 

Firewood cutting of suitable nest trees would diminish with a decrease in access. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With 

a reduction in access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; 

however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial 

effects of reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 50 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 11 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, 

disturbance, and harassment; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse 

effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Overall access for firewood 

cutting would be reduced. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action 

alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.14. Mule Deer 

Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) is used to measure effects on both mule deer and 

Rocky Mountain elk (beginning on page 3-47), as it ties to the Forest Plan guideline on road 

density (USDA 1986, page IV-50). For this analysis, Total Motorized Road Density (TMRD) was 

used in determining habitat effectiveness for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. This TMRD 

includes Maintenance Level 1 roads and unauthorized routes in areas closed to cross-country 

travel, which, by definition, would be closed to public motorized use. In this case, TMRD was 

used due to the forest-wide scale of this project and variation of road closure conditions. 

Implementation at the forest-wide scale may take several years to fully initiate closure activities; 

therefore, the disclosure of effects on all roads allows for a more accurate description of effects 

over this time period. At the conclusion of the implementation activities, OMRDs would be 

substantially reduced because the implementation plan includes effective closure of all Level 1 

and unauthorized roads closed to public motorized travel. The Wildlife Specialist Report

includes specific detail on TMRD by WMU. Tables showing the TMRD and OMRD by 

alternative by WMU are found on page 3-46. 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect mule deer 

that occur within the project area throughout all seasonal ranges (summer, fawning, winter, and 

year-round). Three WMUs would continue to have TMRDs above the OMRD guideline of two 

miles/square mile: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion WMUs. Motorized travel fragments 

habitat, effectively reducing secure habitat, particularly within crucial fawning habitat. Motorized 

disturbance (dust, noise, exhaust) would continue or increase with cross-country travel. Access 

facilitates disturbance, harassment, and mortality from hunting, poaching, and collision. During 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-44 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

periods of increased stress (e.g., winter and drought), avoidance of motorized travel could result 

in fatal energy expenditures. Mule deer may be displaced to less-disturbed but less-suitable 

habitats. Continued cross-country travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse 

effects to 58 percent (1,148,031 acres) of useable habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not 

increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 58 percent of useable 

habitat. Implementation of any of these alternatives would result in a decrease in TMRDs for 

every WMU within the project area. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the Zion WMU would 

continue to have road densities above the recommended OMRD guideline. In Alternative D, the 

Paunsaugunt WMU would also have higher TMRDs. Both of these WMUs have limited habitat 

within the project area (Paunsaugunt 15 percent, Zion 9 percent), so while these areas may 

have higher road densities, they make up a relatively small part of the entire WMU. In addition, 

any of these three alternatives move the TMRD closer to the desired OMRD guideline, in a 

direction that would result in improved habitat effectiveness (USDA 1998). 

A decrease in motorized access would reduce disturbance, harassment, and mortality. Mule 

deer would expend less energy for avoidance of disturbance. Less fragmentation would create 

more suitable, secure habitat, and prevent displacement of mule deer into less-suitable areas. 

Habitat connectivity would improve. Habitat effectiveness would increase within all seasonal 

ranges most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in access, 

there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects 

from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 58 percent of useable habitat. Implementation 

would result in a slight increase in TMRDs within the Mount Dutton and Panguitch Lake WMUs, 

and a very slight reduction in the Pine Valley and Zion WMUs. The Panguitch Lake, 

Paunsaugunt, and Zion WMUs would continue to have TMRDs above the recommended two 

miles/square mile. These changes from the existing condition are very small, and would not 

have a noticeable impact on mule deer or their habitat. An overall reduction in access due to 

closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, disturbance, 

harassment, and mortality; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse effects of 

increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but 

least among the action alternatives. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-45 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-7. Total Motorized Road Density within Mule Deer Habitat in the Project Area 

TMRD 

(miles of open route/sq. mile 

habitat) by Alternative 

Wildlife 

Management Unit 

A B C D E 

% of Usable 

Acres within 

Project Area 

Boulder Plateau 1.56 0.91 1.00 1.24 1.56 50% 

Kaiparowits 1.86 1.11 1.20 1.40 1.86 3% 

Mount Dutton 1.39 0.66 0.74 0.85 1.42 62% 

Panguitch Lake 2.34 1.57 1.70 1.85 2.38 61% 

Paunsaugunt 3.11 1.30 1.70 2.14 3.11 15% 

Pine Valley 1.07 0.67 0.78 0.83 1.06 55% 

Zion 3.86 3.69 3.69 3.75 3.84 9% 

Table 3-8. Open Motorized Road Density within Mule Deer Habitat in the Project Area 

OMRD 

(miles of open route/sq. mile 

habitat) by Alternative 

Wildlife 

Management Unit 

A B C D E 

% of Usable 

Acres within 

Project Area 

Boulder Plateau 1.24 0.63 0.67 0.83 1.39 50% 

Kaiparowits 1.66 0.51 0.53 0.66 1.85 3% 

Mount Dutton 1.32 0.42 0.51 0.73 1.39 62% 

Panguitch Lake 2.15 1.19 1.35 1.55 2.23 61% 

Paunsaugunt 3.01 1.10 1.22 1.58 3.07 15% 

Pine Valley 1.05 0.43 0.56 0.76 1.05 55% 

Zion 2.67 2.44 2.46 2.57 2.68 9% 

3.6.2.1.15. Northern Flicker 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect northern 

flickers that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue to fragment habitat 

and create disturbance (dust, noise, exhaust). Access also facilitates disturbance, harassment, 

and displacement from human activities. Northern flickers require snags for feeding, perching, 

nesting, and roosting; loss of suitable trees from firewood cutting would continue to be facilitated 

at current levels or increase with further cross-country travel. Continued cross-country travel 

would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 61 percent (721,864 acres) of 

potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 61 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 65 percent, 60 

percent, and 42 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would benefit 

from closure, as these areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation and disturbance. 

Firewood cutting of suitable nest trees would diminish with a decrease in access. Habitat 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-46 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With 

a reduction in access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; 

however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial 

effects of reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 61 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 9 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, 

disturbance, and harassment; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse 

effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Overall access for firewood 

cutting would be reduced. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action 

alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.16. Rocky Mountain Elk 

Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) is used to measure effects on both Rocky Mountain elk 

and mule deer (beginning on page 3-44), as it ties to the Forest Plan guideline on road density 

(USDA 1986, page IV-50). For this analysis, Total Motorized Road Density (TMRD) was used 

in determining habitat effectiveness for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. This TMRD 

includes Maintenance Level 1 roads and unauthorized routes in areas closed to cross-country 

travel, which, by definition, would be closed to public motorized use. In this case, TMRD was 

used due to the forest-wide scale of this project and variation of road closure conditions. 

Implementation at the forest-wide scale may take several years to fully initiate closure activities; 

therefore, the disclosure of effects on all roads allows for a more accurate description of effects 

over this time period. At the conclusion of the implementation activities, OMRDs would be 

substantially reduced because the implementation plan includes effective closure of all Level 1 

and unauthorized roads closed to public motorized travel. The Wildlife Specialist Report

includes specific detail on TMRD by WMU. Two tables showing the TMRD and OMRD by 

alternative by WMU are found on page 3-48. 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect elk that 

occur within the project area throughout all seasonal ranges (summer, calving, winter, and yearround). Three WMUs would continue to have TMRDs above the Forest Plan OMRD guideline 

of two miles/square mile: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion. Motorized travel fragments 

habitat, effectively reducing secure habitat, particularly within crucial calving habitat. Motorized 

disturbance (dust, noise, exhaust) would continue or increase with cross-country travel. Access 

facilitates disturbance, harassment, and mortality from hunting, poaching, and collision. During 

periods of increased stress (e.g., winter and drought), avoidance of motorized travel could result 

in fatal energy expenditures. Elk may be displaced to less-disturbed but less-suitable habitats. 

Continued cross-country travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 56 

percent (738,677 acres) of useable habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 56 percent of useable 

habitat. Implementation of any of these three alternatives would result in a decrease in TMRD 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-47 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

for every WMU within the project area. For all alternatives, the Zion WMU would have TMRDs 

above the recommended OMRD guideline. In Alternative D, the Paunsaugunt WMU would also 

have higher-than-desired TMRDs. Both of these WMUs have limited habitat within the project 

area (Paunsaugunt 33 percent, Zion 5 percent), so while these areas may have higher road 

densities, they make up a relatively small part of the entire WMU. In addition, any of these three 

alternatives move the TMRD closer to the desired guideline, in a direction that would result in 

improved habitat effectiveness (USDA 1998). 

A decrease in access would reduce disturbance, harassment, and mortality. Elk would expend 

less energy for avoidance of disturbance. Less fragmentation would create more suitable, 

secure habitat, and prevent displacement of elk into less-suitable areas. Habitat connectivity 

would improve. Habitat effectiveness would increase within all seasonal ranges most under 

Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in access, there may be 

additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from 

increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 56 percent of useable habitat. Implementation 

would result in a slight increase in TMRDs within the Mount Dutton and Panguitch Lake WMUs, 

and a very slight reduction in the Boulder Plateau WMU. The Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, 

and Zion WMUs would continue to have TMRDs above the recommended two miles/square 

mile. These changes from the existing condition are very small, and would not have a 

noticeable impact on elk or their habitat. An overall reduction in access due to closure of crosscountry travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, disturbance, harassment, 

and mortality; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse effects of increasing 

open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least 

among the action alternatives. 

Table 3-9. Total Motorized Road Density within Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the Project 

Area 

TMRD 

(miles of open route/sq. mile 

habitat) by Alternative 

Wildlife 

Management Unit 

A B C D E 

% of Usable 

Acres within 

Project Area 

Boulder Plateau 1.65 0.97 1.06 1.32 1.64 58% 

Kaiparowits 1.87 1.14 1.23 1.44 1.87 51% 

Mount Dutton 1.44 0.68 0.76 0.88 1.47 77% 

Panguitch Lake 2.23 1.44 1.57 1.73 2.27 75% 

Paunsaugunt 3.49 1.44 1.90 2.42 3.49 33% 

Zion 3.30 3.10 2.97 3.27 3.30 5% 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-48 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-10. Open Motorized Road Density within Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the 

Project Area 

OMRD 

(miles of open route/sq. mile 

habitat) by Alternative 

Wildlife 

Management Unit 

A B C D E 

% of Usable 

Acres within 

Project Area 

Boulder Plateau 1.31 0.67 0.72 0.89 1.46 58% 

Kaiparowits 1.67 0.52 0.54 0.67 1.87 51% 

Mount Dutton 1.37 0.43 0.53 0.75 1.44 77% 

Panguitch Lake 2.07 1.10 1.25 1.45 2.16 75% 

Paunsaugunt 3.38 1.22 1.36 1.76 3.45 33% 

Zion 1.61 1.18 1.24 1.66 1.72 5% 

3.6.2.1.17. Wild Turkey 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect wild 

turkeys that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue or increase 

fragmentation of potential habitat. Disturbance from motorized travel (noise, dust, exhaust) 

would continue or increase. Access facilitates disturbance from hiking, harassment, and 

mortality from hunting, poaching, and collision. Turkeys use snags for roosting; motorized 

access increases the risk of firewood cutting of suitable roost trees. Continued cross-country 

travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 51 percent (362,851 acres) 

of potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 51 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 64 percent, 60 

percent, and 45 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would benefit 

from closure, as these areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation. Reducing access 

in potential habitat would reduce the potential for disturbance, harassment, and mortality. 

Firewood cutting of suitable roost trees would diminish. Habitat effectiveness would increase 

most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in access, there 

may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, adverse effects from 

increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of reducing overall 

access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 51 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 12 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, 

firewood cutting, disturbance, harassment, and shooting; these beneficial effects would offset 

the potentially adverse effects of increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase, but least among the action alternatives. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-49 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.6.2.1.18. Black-throated Gray Warbler 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect blackthroated gray warblers that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue or 

increase fragmentation of potential habitat. Disturbance from motorized travel (noise, dust, 

exhaust) would continue or increase. Access may also facilitate mortality from collision. 

Continued cross-country travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 75 

percent (466,744 acres) of potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 75 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 66 percent, 61 

percent, and 35 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would benefit 

from closure, as these areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation. Reducing access 

in potential habitat would reduce the potential for disturbance and mortality. Habitat 

effectiveness would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With 

a reduction in access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; 

however, adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial 

effects of reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 75 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 3 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, 

disturbance, and mortality; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse effects of 

increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but 

least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.19. Brewer’s Sparrow 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect Brewer’s 

sparrows that occur within the project area. Motorized travel would continue or increase 

fragmentation of potential habitat. Disturbance from motorized travel (noise, dust, exhaust) 

would continue or increase. Motorized access may also facilitate mortality from collision. 

Continued cross-country travel would potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 45 

percent (50,626 acres) of potential habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 45 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 57 percent, 49 

percent, and 34 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would benefit 

from closure, as these areas would be at less risk of fragmentation. Reducing access in 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-50 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

potential habitat would reduce the potential for disturbance and mortality. Habitat effectiveness 

would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in 

access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, 

adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of 

reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 45 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would increase by 3 percent. An overall reduction in access 

due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation, 

disturbance, and mortality; these beneficial effects would offset the potentially adverse effects of 

increasing open route miles over that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but 

least among the action alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.20. Broad-tailed Hummingbird 

Alternative A 

Continued motorized travel from existing routes and cross-country travel would affect broadtailed hummingbirds that occur within the project area. Potential riparian habitat would continue 

to be fragmented by motorized travel. Access in riparian areas facilitates disturbance from 

camping, fishing, and other recreational activities. Continued cross-country travel would 

potentially increase disturbance and adverse effects to 48 percent (111,516 acres) of potential 

riparian habitat. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may decrease. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide, including within 48 percent of potential 

habitat. Open motorized route miles within potential habitat would be reduced by 45 percent, 40 

percent, and 27 percent for Alternative B, C, and D, respectively. Potential habitat would also 

benefit from closure, as these riparian areas would be exposed to less risk of fragmentation and 

disturbance from recreational activities such as camping and fishing. Habitat effectiveness 

would increase most under Alternative B, followed by C and D, in that order. With a reduction in 

access, there may be additional, concentrated use on routes that remain open; however, 

adverse effects from increased use of open routes would be offset by the beneficial effects of 

reducing overall access. 

Alternative E 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited within 48 percent of potential habitat. Open motorized 

route miles within potential habitat would be increased by 6 percent. An overall reduction in 

access due to closure of cross-country travel would reduce the potential for disturbance and 

habitat fragmentation, and would offset the adverse effects of increasing open route miles over 

that in Alternative A. Habitat effectiveness would increase, but least among the action 

alternatives. 

3.6.2.1.21. Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 

Two new motorized routes (0.61 miles and 0.65 miles) would be proposed for construction 

under Alternatives D and E. These routes comprise a total of 1.26 miles. Portions of or all of 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-51 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

the proposed trails occur within potential habitat for the California condor, peregrine falcon, 

northern goshawk, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern flicker, and wild turkey, and 

useable habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. The effects of increased access to each 

species would be the same as have been described above. This increase of 1.26 miles would 

not measurably decrease habitat effectiveness for these species over the extent of their 

potential habitat within the project area. 

3.6.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

Through the analysis disclosed above, we determined that the direct and indirect effects of the 

action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) were the same for all species; it was the 

magnitude of the effects that differed. Therefore, cumulative effects are grouped by their 

impacts to either the No Action Alternative or the Action Alternatives. 

3.6.2.2.1. Utilities 

Utility corridors and sites are common features within the landscape occupied by many wildlife 

species. Corridors and sites include power lines, water lines and tanks, and communication 

sites. These projects result in disturbance to the soil, removal of vegetation, and long-term 

commitments for access (as defined in the Forest Plan [USDA 1986, pages II-54 and IV-22]). 

These corridors may fragment habitat, increase disturbance, and create barriers to movement, 

leading to a decrease in habitat effectiveness. Power lines may also increase mortality from 

electrocution, especially for raptors. Sage-grouse and prairie dogs would face an increased risk 

of mortality from predation, as power line poles facilitate hunting by raptors. Adverse effects of 

potentially increased access under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse 

effects of utility uses. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, implementation of 

any of the Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife. 

3.6.2.2.2. Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals 

Oil, gas, and other mineral use on the Forest is currently limited, but is also found on lands 

within the cumulative effects area for many species. There is currently ongoing analysis being 

conducted for Oil and Gas development across the Forest, which is expected to be completed in 

FY2009. This analysis is being conducted at a programmatic level, and site-specific analyses 

would be conducted at the permit application phase. Oil and gas exploration and development 

may cause disturbance to habitat from new roads and drill pad development, and includes longterm commitments for access to these sites (as defined in the Forest Plan [USDA 1986, pages 

II-54 and IV-22]), decreasing habitat effectiveness. Adverse effects of potentially increased 

access under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse effects of oil, gas, 

and other mineral use. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, implementation 

of any of the Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife. 

3.6.2.2.3. Transportation 

With the exception of the two motorized trails proposed for construction in Alternatives D and E 

and comprising 1.26 miles, all routes that are being considered for designation within this 

project current exist and have or are receiving some amount of use. Continuing motorized 

travel on designated routes and cross-country would continue to reduce habitat effectiveness 

both on the Forest and off. Implementation of any of the Action Alternatives would maintain or 

reduce effects to wildlife, increasing habitat effectiveness. Adverse effects of potentially 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-52 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

increased access under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse effects of 

continued and cross-country travel. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, 

implementation of any of the Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts 

to wildlife. 

3.6.2.2.4. Recreation 

Dispersed camping, particularly within riparian areas, is widespread across the cumulative 

effects area. OHV use, hunting, fishing, and hiking would also continue to impact habitat for 

many species. These activities facilitate the potential for disturbance, harassment, mortality, 

and habitat loss, all causing a reduction in habitat effectiveness. Adverse effects of potentially 

increased access under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse effects of 

recreation. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, implementation of any of the 

Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife. 

3.6.2.2.5. Vegetation Treatments 

Vegetation treatments include timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, harrowing, and fuel 

reductions. Two Forest Service documents provide greater detail concerning the effects of 

timber harvest and prescribed burning on wildlife resources (Summers 1998a, Summers 

1998b). In general, vegetation treatments can alter stand structure, Vegetative Structural Stage 

(VSS) class, canopy closure, and snag densities. A shift in VSS class to grasses and forbs 

would increase forage for wildlife such as deer, but a loss of snags would decrease habitat for 

wildlife such as woodpeckers. There is a potential for disturbance and mortality to many wildlife 

species from such activities. Overall, adverse effects of potentially increased access under the 

No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse effects of vegetation treatments. 

Implementation of any of the Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts 

to wildlife, but could add cumulatively to the effects of treatment that increase habitat 

effectiveness. 

3.6.2.2.6. Land Exchanges and Easements 

Existing road easements on the Forest are included within the motorized route network that has 

been analyzed as part of this process. There are no foreseeable future land exchanges or 

easements that would result in cumulative adverse effects to wildlife within the cumulative 

effects area. 

3.6.2.2.7. Special Use Permits 

The Forest issues special use permits for various activities, including outfitting, guiding, and 

special events. The effects to wildlife from these activities are variable, but typically increase 

disturbance and reduce habitat effectiveness. Adverse effects of potentially increased access 

under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse effects of special uses. 

Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, implementation of any of the Action 

Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife. 

3.6.2.2.8. Grazing 

Livestock grazing is common and widespread on the Dixie National Forest. Effects on wildlife 

from grazing are disclosed in a Dixie National Forest 1995 review (USDA 1995a). In general, 

grazing reduces vegetation and increases disturbance for wildlife, especially within riparian 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-53 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-54 Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Effects Analysis 

areas. Grazing has little impact on cavity-nesters such as flickers. Adverse effects of 

potentially increased access under the No Action Alternative would add cumulatively to adverse 

effects of grazing. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects, implementation of 

any of the Action Alternatives would not result in cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife. 

3.6.2.3. Determination 

Alternative A 

Given the continued open route mileage and opportunity for cross-country travel, 

implementation would increase the potential for disturbance and increase habitat degradation 

and fragmentation for all species analyzed. Habitat effectiveness would not increase, and may 

decrease for all species. 

Alternative B 

Given the net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel, 

implementation would lead to the greatest increase in habitat effectiveness for all species 

analyzed. 

Alternative C 

Given the net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel, 

implementation would lead to an increase in habitat effectiveness for all species analyzed, 

though less of an increase than under Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

Given the net reduction of open motorized route miles and prohibition of cross-country travel, 

implementation would lead to an increase in habitat effectiveness for all species analyzed, 

though less of an increase than under Alternative B or C. 

Alternative E 

Given the increase in open motorized route miles, but prohibition of cross-country travel, 

implementation would likely decrease the potential for disturbance to all species. Elimination of 

cross-country travel would lead to an increase in habitat effectiveness, though least among the 

action alternatives. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.7. Social and Economic Resources 

The information in this section is summarized from the Social and Economic Specialist Report

prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009m). Please see that report for more detail 

on the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.7.1. Affected Environment 

The Dixie National Forest is associated with quality of life values for a variety of people. Among 

other contributions that the Forest provides, and for which roads and trails are used: 

 Homeowners and visitors value the scenery and nearby recreation opportunities the 

Forest provides, 

 Permitted ranchers utilize the Forest to provide grazing for sheep and cattle, 

 Vegetation is managed through a variety of projects that include commercial logging, 

 Communities and private landowners benefit from a number of special use 

authorizations that facilitate including water improvements, roads, and utilities, 

 Game species populations are largely managed through seasonal hunting by the public, 

and 

 Commercial recreation opportunities are permitted to occur on the Forest, such as 

skiing, resorts, and guided recreation. 

 

The landownership patterns in Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington, and Wayne counties are 

dominated by federal land. Less of the area’s economic base is now reliant on resource 

extraction and gathering of forest products than it once was. Recreation and tourism are 

becoming the major industry in some counties, with federal land providing much of the 

opportunity. 

Table 3-11. Landownership Patterns 

All Federal Land Dixie National Forest County Total County 

Acres Acres % of County Acres % of County 

Garfield 3,311,360 2,947,110 89% 1,059,635 32%

Iron 2,110,720 1,203,110 57% 253,286 12%

Kane 2,554,880 2,120,550 83% 127,744 5%

Piute 485,120 358,989 74% 2,765 <1%

Washington 1,553,280 1,164,960 75% 403,853 26%

Wayne 1,574,400 1,338,240 85% 78,720 5%

Recreation and tourism levels on the Forest have shown a dramatic increase since the Forest 

Plan was released in 1986, paralleling or exceeding statewide trends during this same period. 

The Dixie National Forest's proximity to several state and national parks, its location near 

Interstates 15 and 70 between major western population centers, and a growing resident and 

transient population are contributing to increases in Forest visitation. 

The areas around the Forest have become attractive to second home buyers. Out-of-county 

and out-of-state landowners make up a large percentage of county property taxpayers, a trend 

that is expected to continue. 

Social and Economic Resources 3-55 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Utah is the fifth fastest-growing state in the nation (State of Utah 2006), and Washington and 

Iron counties were two of the fastest growing counties in the country (U.S. Census Bureau 

2005a). Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, Nevada, where many Forest users live, continue to see 

explosive growth (State of Utah 2006, U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). According to recent 

population projections, Utah will have a population of over four million by 2030 (State of Utah 

2005). 

Many traditional sources of economic income such as natural resources and mining are 

projected to lose their share of the state economic output. These shifts are largely due to 

growth in the economy, not necessarily a decrease in outputs in these sectors. Professional 

business, education, and health services are projected to grow. 

Most of the project area has historically been rural in character. Many local people are 

concerned about the loss of agricultural lands and associated traditional livelihoods such as 

ranching, farming, and other natural resource-based economic endeavors. Forest lands would 

continue to provide opportunities for rural communities to have a “working” connection with the 

land through the continuation of traditional livelihoods, but larger, global trends may nonetheless 

make traditional lifestyles and occupations increasingly difficult to maintain. Based on the 

experience of other western states, this is a trend that extends beyond Utah (Rasker and 

Holmes 2003). 

Because of variation between the economic bases of the area communities, the Social and 

Economic Specialist Report includes an economic analysis by county (USDA 2009m). 

3.7.2. Effects Analysis 

None of the alternatives are likely to have much impact to the social and economic resources of 

the counties in the project area. All impacts described below are relative within the greater 

context of the overall relatively minimal impact. 

Among the six counties, Garfield County would likely see the most impacts, relatively speaking, 

because of the high acreage of National Forest System lands in the county, the focus of the 

economy (on the Hospitality and Leisure sector), planned events, and some small businesses 

that cater to motorized recreation use. 

Kane County would likely see the second-most impacts for similar reasons, but of a lesser 

impact as it doesn’t have the same Forest acreage as does Garfield County. Wayne County 

could see the third-most impacts largely due to the county’s reliance upon tourism. Groups and 

organized events in Iron and Washington counties could be impacted, but the overall impact on 

social or economic resources in these counties would be minimal regardless of the alternative. 

There are potential impacts on non-motorized uses and businesses that cater to these users 

across all alternatives. 

Alternatives B and E would have a greater potential to impact social and economic resources 

because they would provide a mix of motorized and non-motorized uses on trails and roads that 

would be most weighted towards motorized or non-motorized use at the expense of other users. 

For example, Garfield County may experience impacts from reduced motorized opportunities 

under Alternative B because of planned events that focus on motorized recreation use and 

some small businesses that cater to that use. Under Alternative E, however, Garfield County 

could experience impacts on other recreation uses such as non-motorized uses. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-56 Social and Economic Resources 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.7.2.1. Effects Common to All Counties 

There would be no impact to the current social and economic conditions of any of the six 

counties under Alternative A as there would be no change from the existing condition. 

3.7.2.2. Direct and Indirect Effects 

As noted above, all impacts described below are relative within the greater context of the overall 

relatively minimal impact under all alternatives. Additionally, alternatives that have the potential 

to affect current social and economic conditions also have the potential to provide opportunities 

for expansion in other sectors catering to other recreation uses. 

3.7.2.2.1. Garfield County 

Under Alternative B there would be greater pressure on the county’s economy to change and 

provide services to non-motorized visitors. As motorized recreation opportunities would be 

reduced from those available in Alternative A, more effort would be necessary to resolve the 

conflicting interests of trails users across the county. Alternative B would have the highest 

chance of creating a disruption to the existing social and economic conditions in Garfield 

County. 

Under Alternative C there would be more motorized opportunities available than in Alternative B, 

but not as many as in Alternatives A, D, and E. This alternative would have the second highest 

potential disruption to social and economic conditions in the county. There would not likely be 

much impact upon the economic and social resources in Garfield County under Alternative D. 

There would, however, be some possible impact on those businesses that depend upon visitors 

interested in non-motorized recreation. 

Under Alternative E, a very large number of motorized roads and trails would be open to the 

public. This could create some positive impacts to businesses that deal directly with recreation 

vehicle sales, rental, and repair. Motorized opportunities at this scale could, however, create a 

disincentive for other visitors (e.g., those pursuing non-motorized opportunities) to visit the 

county. This could have negative economic implications for many county businesses. 

3.7.2.2.2. Iron County 

Under Alternative B, the reduction of roads and trails open to the public could impact the 

organized groups and ATV events in Iron County. This alternative would have the largest 

impact on those activities. The impacts under Alternative C would be slightly less than 

Alternative B, but otherwise similar. Alternative D would not negatively impact ATV clubs or 

events, but non-motorized users and businesses that depend upon their patronage could be 

impacted. Under Alternative E, the provision of a large amount of motorized roads and trails 

could impact the sectors of the economy that depend upon other types of trail users (e.g., hiking 

and mountain biking). 

The differences between alternatives are not great as far as their impacts on the county as a 

whole. Overall, social and economic resources in Iron County are not likely to be impacted 

under any alternative. 

Social and Economic Resources 3-57 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.7.2.2.3. Kane County 

Under Alternative B there would be greater pressure on the county’s economy to change and 

provide services to non-motorized visitors. As motorized recreation opportunities would be 

reduced from those available under Alternative A, more effort would be necessary to resolve the 

conflicting interests of trails users across the county. Alternative B would have the highest 

chance of creating a disruption to the social and economic conditions in Kane County. 

Under Alternative C, there would be more motorized opportunities available than in Alternative 

B, but not as many as in Alternatives A, D, and E. This alternative would have the second 

highest potential disruption to social and economic conditions in the county. There would not 

likely be much impact upon the social and economic resources in Kane County under 

Alternative D. There would, however, be some possible impact on those businesses that 

depend upon visitors interested in non-motorized recreation. 

Under Alternative E a very large number of motorized roads and trails would be open to the 

public. This could create some positive impacts to businesses that deal directly with recreation 

vehicle sales, rental, and repair. Motorized opportunities at this scale could, however, create a 

disincentive for other visitors (e.g., those pursuing non-motorized opportunities) to come to the 

county. This could have negative economic implications for many county businesses. 

3.7.2.2.4. Piute County 

Dixie National Forest lands make up only about one-half of one percent of Piute County’s land 

base, and there are no identified roads or trails on the Forest in the county. No further social 

and economic analysis, other than that included in the summary above, will be conducted as 

there would be no social or economic impacts in any alternative. 

3.7.2.2.5. Washington County 

Under Alternative B the reduction in the mileage of roads and trails open to the public could 

impact organized groups and ATV events in Washington County. This alternative would have 

the largest impact on those activities. The impacts under Alternative C would be slightly less 

than Alternative B, but otherwise similar. Alternative D would not negatively impact ATV clubs 

or events, but non-motorized users and businesses that depend upon their patronage could be 

impacted. Under Alternative E, the provision of a large amount of motorized roads and trails 

could impact the sectors of the economy that depend upon other types of trail users (e.g., hiking 

and mountain biking). 

The differences between alternatives are not great as far as their impacts on the county as a 

whole. Overall, social and economic resources in Washington County are not likely to be 

impacted under any alternative. 

3.7.2.2.6. Wayne County 

Alternative B would represent the biggest change from the current use patterns in Wayne 

County. Since the county’s economy is very specialized and vulnerable to disruptions, 

Alternative B would have the greatest potential impact on the county’s social and economic 

resources. Impacts would be less than in Garfield and Kane County, however, because there 

are no clubs or events that depend upon motorized recreation, and only a few businesses that 

do. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-58 Social and Economic Resources 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Under Alternative C there would be more motorized opportunities available than under 

Alternative B, but not as many as in Alternatives A, D, and E. Alternative C would have the 

second highest potential disruption to social and economic conditions in Wayne County. There 

would not likely be much impact upon the aspects of the social and economic resources in 

Wayne County under Alternative D. There would, however, be some possible impact on those 

businesses that depend upon visitors interested in non-motorized recreation. 

There would be a very large number of motorized roads and trails open to the public in 

Alternative E. Motorized opportunities at this scale could, however, create a disincentive for 

other visitors (e.g., those pursuing non-motorized opportunities) to come to the county. This 

could have negative economic implications for many county businesses. 

3.7.2.3. Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for the social and economic resource is the same as the cumulative 

effects area for the Recreation analysis: the southern half of the State of Utah (the six counties 

analyzed in the direct and indirect effects and Beaver, Millard, and Sevier counties), the two 

nearest contiguous counties in Arizona (Coconino and Mohave), and the two nearest 

contiguous counties in Nevada (Clark and Lincoln). 

The eight categories below were considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

1. Utilities. Requests to construct new utility corridors or conduct activities within existing 

corridors to respond to increasing growth and demand would continue. One example is 

the Dixie National Forest’s recent Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to analyze the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of a new transmission line from Tropic to 

Hatch (USDA 2008m). The electric transmission line is proposed to provide energy to 

Garfield and Kane counties to meet current and projected demand. Because future 

utility-related actions would be addressed through site-specific NEPA analysis (which 

would assess the need for temporary and long-term motorized access for construction, 

operation, and maintenance), there would be no cumulative effects on the social and 

economic resources from utility operations under any alternative. 

2. Oil and Gas. Current oil, gas, and other mineral activity on the Forest is mostly limited 

to mineral materials (gravel and cinder pits) and a small number of gas wells on the 

Escalante Ranger District. Demand for mineral materials is generally limited to Utah 

Department of Transportation for winter road maintenance, some personal use, and 

some administrative use. None of the alternatives would affect the availability of mineral 

materials to the public, other governments or agencies, or the Forest Service itself. Both 

the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests are preparing oil and gas leasing EISs, with a 

potential increase in that activity once decisions have been made (the Dixie decision will 

apply to the Cedar City, Escalante, Pine Valley, and Powell ranger districts, and the 

Fishlake decision will apply to the entire Fremont River Ranger District). Both EISs 

address reasonable foreseeable development scenarios that include new road 

construction and reconstruction for exploration, development, and production. None of 

the alternatives in this motorized travel plan would affect the decisions made in either 

EIS. 

3. Transportation. All action alternatives would add varying mileages of unauthorized 

routes to the system to provide private property and permittee access, although 

motorized access can continue to be authorized through permit for all permitted uses on 

the Forest. As all alternatives provide an adequate transportation system for Forest 

Social and Economic Resources 3-59 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-60 Social and Economic Resources 

and Effects Analysis 

Service administrative uses and permitted uses, there would be no cumulative effects on 

the social and economic resources of the area from any alternative. 

4. Recreation. As discussed above under Direct and Indirect Effects, negative impacts to 

the current social and economic conditions of Garfield, Kane, and Wayne counties are 

greatest under Alternative B and, to a lesser extent, Alternative C. However, there are 

no impacts to the greater social and economic cumulative effects area under any 

alternative as the impacts to Garfield, Kane, and Wayne counties are absorbed by the 

other counties’ more diversified economies, broader economy foci, and land ownership 

patterns (U.S. Census Bureau 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2005e, 2005f, 2005g, 2005h). 

5. Vegetation Treatments. All alternatives would provide adequate access for all future 

planned vegetation treatments. Access to timber sales and stewardship contracts would 

not be affected by any of the alternatives, and the site-specific analysis conducted prior 

to any treatments would identify if any additional roads or trails were needed as part of 

the project. 

6. Land Exchanges and Easements. There are no foreseeable land exchanges or 

easements that would result in cumulative effects to the social and economic resources 

in the cumulative effects area. 

7. Special Use Permits. The minor differences between alternatives regarding firewood 

collection is discussed in Direct and Indirect Effects section in the Vegetation and Fire 

and Fuels section beginning on page 3-22. As this use would continue to be 

administered through special use permit, there is no appreciable difference between 

alternatives given the availability of firewood. Most who collect firewood on the Forest 

are residents of the counties in which the Dixie National Forest is located. The same is 

true for other personal use collections like Christmas tree permits and post and pole 

permits. Commercial special use permits would continue to be analyzed on a case-bycase basis; there would be no change for these activities between alternatives in the 

cumulative effects area. 

8. Grazing. Livestock grazing is expected to continue at current at the present level under 

all alternatives. Any motorized access needed above that provided by the travel system 

under any alternative can be authorized through the permit process. No effect on the 

social and economic resource in conjunction with grazing is expected or likely. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.8. Livestock Grazing 

The information in this section is summarized from the Livestock Grazing Specialist Report

prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009h). Please see that report for more detail on 

the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.8.1. Affected Environment 

Livestock grazing has been an historic and traditional use of the Dixie National Forest for over 

100 years. Grazing on the National Forest is authorized by Congress and is a significant use on 

the Dixie National Forest. Livestock forage is an important Forest product and many permittees 

use this forage to meet at least part of their year-round grazing needs. 

Motorized access is often needed by permittees holding grazing permits to access range 

improvements within their allotments such as fences, troughs, and corrals, access to locations 

for sheep herder camps, and access for livestock management. Motorized access for grazing 

permittees is authorized by provisions incorporated into each grazing permit. This authorization 

process would not be changed with this decision. 

There are 104 grazing allotments on the Dixie National Forest (81 cattle and 23 sheep 

allotments). Approximately 18,000 head of cattle and their calves, and 11,000 head of sheep 

and their lambs are permitted on the Forest (USDA 2006a). Presently about 263 grazing 

permittees are authorized to graze their livestock on 104 grazing allotments. About 769,000 

acres (41 percent) of the Dixie National Forest are suitable for grazing cattle and sheep. 

To facilitate livestock management on the allotments, structural range improvements have been 

constructed and are assigned for maintenance by the permittees. 

Table 3-12. Range Improvements on the Dixie National Forest 

Improvement Type Number of Existing 

Improvements 

Miles of fence 895 

Number of corrals 49 

Miles of water pipeline 205 

Water developments 267 

Water storage units 1,208 

Livestock grazing permittees are required to maintain all existing structural range improvements 

and to manage their allotments in accordance with the terms and conditions of their grazing 

permits. Administrative roads (Operational Maintenance Level 1 roads) within allotments can be 

authorized for permittee use by local District Rangers through each Term Grazing Permit. This 

use is only for administrative purposes directly associated with the management of the grazing 

permit. 

Livestock harassment and vandalism have been a concern to the Forest Service and its grazing 

permittees. There have been multiple incidents reported to employees in 2008 alone, including 

Livestock Grazing 3-61 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-62 Livestock Grazing 

and Effects Analysis 

fences cut, gates left down, and livestock being chased by ATV across country. This has 

happened in areas open to cross-country travel and in areas already closed to cross-country 

travel by previous decisions. Tickets have been written to violators for vandalism of federal 

property related to grazing permit administration. This is an issue regarding enforcement of 

laws and regulation that already exist. 

3.8.2. Effects Analysis 

3.8.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Livestock grazing activities, whether affecting the livestock themselves or the permittee, are not 

expected to be affected by implementing any of the travel management alternatives. As 

mentioned above, permittees may be allowed motorized access to maintain or develop range 

improvements assigned in their grazing permits or for other authorized administrative activities. 

No direct or indirect effects are anticipated under any of the alternatives as motorized access is 

and can be authorized through the grazing permit regardless of the configuration of the Forest’s 

motorized travel system. 

3.8.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

This travel plan would not contribute to the cumulative effects on the range resources on the 

Dixie National Forest. Livestock grazing would not be adversely or positively affected by this 

project. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

3.9. Noxious Weeds 

The information in this section is summarized from the Noxious Weeds Specialist Report

prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2008h). Please see that report for more detail on 

the affected environment and effects analysis. The Rare Plants section beginning on page 3-15

and the Rare Plants Specialist Report (USDA 2008j) also contain information related to noxious 

weeds. 

3.9.1. Affected Environment 

The Forest Service defines noxious weeds as “. . . plants 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 the United States or parts thereof” (FSM 2080.5). 

Currently, there are 53 species identified on the Regional Designated Noxious Weed and 

Undesirable Plant List. Twenty-one of these species occur in Utah and nine occur on the Dixie 

National Forest. Two additional weeds have been proclaimed noxious by Iron County and 

Garfield County: bull thistle and field bindweed, respectively. Noxious weed species on the 

Dixie National Forest: 

1. Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare),1

2. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

3. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica), 

4. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),2

5. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), 

6. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), 

7. Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), 

8. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), 

9. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 

10. Whitetop (Cardaria draba), and 

11. Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). 

The Forest Plan was amended in 2000 to address noxious weed management. The following 

“Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species Goal” applies forest-wide: 

1. Noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plants are managed and controlled to prevent 

new infestations, control existing populations and eradicate invasions where possible 

and practical so that ecological biodiversity, ecosystem stability and function, and native 

plant composition, structure, and successional patterns are maintained or improved 

(USDA 2000b, Appendix F, Attachment 1, p. 1). 

Noxious weed prevention methods are routinely incorporated into resource management 

activities such as grazing permits and annual operating instructions, and timber sale contracts. 

A voluntary Regional Forage Certification Program was initiated in Utah in 1991, and in 1992 a 

1

 Noxious weed in Garfield County. 

2

 Noxious weed in Iron County. 

Noxious Weeds 3-63 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Closure Order was issued limiting livestock feed used on National Forest System lands in Utah 

to that which has been certified weed-free. The Weed-Free Hay Program was initiated to 

reduce the spreading of noxious weeds by stock eating weed-contaminated feed and then 

distributing weed seeds in fecal matter. 

The source of many weed infestations and other introduced plant species has been traced to 

disturbed sites such as travel corridors (roads, trails, skid trails, etc.), trailheads, parking areas, 

campsites, fire suppression activities, harvest units, and landings. Unwanted plants can be 

spread by vehicles, material from gravel pits, livestock, wildlife and birds, camping/fishing gear 

and clothing, straw and mulch, and livestock feed (hay and grain). Noxious weed seed is also 

transported by motorized vehicle tires (including OHVs). Noxious weed infested acres continue 

to increase due to a variety of factors including continuing drought conditions and the ability of 

noxious weeds to out-compete native plants for space, nutrients, water, and sunlight. 

 

Cross-country travel off of designated routes contributes to distribution of weed seed through 

the transport of seed on stock, people and vehicles. Cross-country motorized travel contributes 

to this trend through loss of native vegetation and soil disturbance. 

The following table displays acres infested by noxious weeds within each ranger district 

boundary. These numbers include noxious weed infestations on other land ownership within 

the district boundaries (inholdings). 

Table 3-13. Acres of Noxious Weeds 

Area 

Acres within 

Ranger District 

Boundary 

Infested Acres 

% of Ranger 

District 

Infested 

Cedar City 404,265 257 0.06

Escalante 436,586 5 0.001

Pine Valley 481,218 1,679 0.35

Powell 388,597 32 0.008

Teasdale 253,707 1 0.0004

Forest-wide 1,964,373 1,974 0.1

Acres include non-Forest Service acres within the proclaimed Forest boundary. 

Infestations of weeds would continue to exist under all alternatives. Access is the biggest threat 

to spread existing infestations and to introduce new infestations of noxious and invasive weed 

species. 

3.9.2. Effects Analysis 

Designated travel routes and acres open to cross-country motorized travel can contribute to the 

spread of noxious weeds. The indicator to measure the effects on this issue will be acres open 

to cross-country motorized travel and miles of routes open to motorized travel. Comparing 

miles of designated motorized routes by alternative will indicate the relative risk of each 

alternative contributing to the spread and intensity of noxious weed infestations. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-64 Noxious Weeds 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.9.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.9.2.1.1. Common to All Alternatives 

Designated motorized travel routes, especially roads receiving high levels of use, are monitored 

and treated for noxious weed infestations. All alternatives would maintain these monitoring and 

treatment activities. Continuing use of designated travel routes through both motorized and 

non-motorized means has the potential to spread noxious weeds and other invasive species. 

Routes that are to be decommissioned naturally, the number of which varies by alternative, are 

expected to return naturally to vegetative production unless there is a localized need to vegetate 

some areas to prevent erosion, noxious weed invasion, or for other purposes. Some routes are 

proposed to be decommissioned by obliteration. These routes would be seeded using weed 

seed free seed as designated by Dixie National Forest direction (USDA 2000a, 2000b). Routes 

proposed for decommissioning would be surveyed to determine whether or not any noxious 

weed infestations exist, existing infestations would be monitored, and control measures would 

be taken to eliminate or minimize any infestation. 

3.9.2.1.2. Alternative A 

Managing 61 percent of the Forest as open to cross-country motorized travel increases the risk 

of the spread of noxious weeds into adjacent areas, and increases the risk of noxious weeds 

being continually spread within the areas already infested. Under this alternative, the spread of 

noxious weeds to areas physically accessible to rubber-tired vehicles of all kinds would be 

accelerated. The use of OHVs in areas never before accessed by tired vehicles can import 

weed seed, which may eventually establish noxious weed populations in other areas of the 

Forest. 

The motorized network of unauthorized routes would continue to grow given the acreage open 

to cross-country travel. This alternative has the second highest number of designated 

motorized routes among all the alternatives (Alternative D would designate more); however, it is 

the only alternative that maintains cross-country travel. This alternative has the highest risk to 

increase the spread of noxious weeds forest-wide. 

3.9.2.1.3. Alternative B 

In Alternative B, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. This alternative has the 

least number of miles open to the public. Compared to the existing condition, Alternative B 

reduces the miles of open motorized routes by 2,408 miles (a 56 percent reduction) (see Table 

2-3. Summary of Routes Open and Closed to the Public in Chapter 2). A reduction in the miles 

of open motorized routes has the potential to reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced 

or transported into uninfested areas, and reduce the risk of noxious weeds being continually 

spread within the area already infested. 

3.9.2.1.4. Alternative C 

Alternative C allows for a higher level of motorized access than Alternative B. Under this 

alternative, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. This alternative has fewer 

open miles of designated motorized routes than do Alternatives A, D, and E. Compared to the 

existing condition, Alternative C reduces the miles of open motorized routes by 2,102 miles (a 

49 percent reduction). A reduction in the miles of open motorized routes has the potential to 

Noxious Weeds 3-65 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-66 Noxious Weeds 

and Effects Analysis 

reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced or transported into uninfested areas, and 

reduce the risk of noxious weeds being continually spread within the area already infested. 

3.9.2.1.5. Alternative D 

This alternative allows for a higher level of motorized access than does Alternative C, including 

the proposed the construction of two new motorized trail segments with a combined length of 

1.26 miles. Under Alternative D, cross-country travel would be prohibited forest-wide. 

Compared to the existing condition, Alternative D reduces the miles of open motorized routes by 

1,533 miles (a 36 percent reduction). This alternative has a lower risk of the spread of noxious 

weeds than does Alternatives A or E. 

3.9.2.1.6. Alternative E 

Alternative E prohibits cross-country travel. As under Alternative D, two new motorized trail 

segments would be constructed with a combined length of 1.26 miles. Compared to Alternative 

A, Alternative D increases the miles of open motorized routes by 288 miles (a 7 percent 

increase). This alternative has the second highest risk to increase noxious weeds and invasive 

species because it has the greatest number of miles of motorized routes open to the public 

(Alternative A has the highest risk). 

Alternative E would have the second highest potential to facilitate noxious weed and invasive 

species expansion and introduction because of the high mileage of open routes combined with 

the proposed construction of 1.26 miles of motorized trails. Alternative D also proposes to 

construct 1.26 miles of motorized trails, which would increase the chance of weed establishment 

and expansion; however, the risk associated with this new trail mileage would not significantly 

increase this risk. Overall, Alternative B would have the least risk of spreading noxious weeds, 

followed next by Alternative C, then Alternative D, with Alternative A having the highest risk. 

3.9.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is southwestern Utah because noxious weeds are a 

regional issue and weed infestations occur on adjacent lands. Increases in noxious weed 

invasion and spread can occur as a result of increased miles of road, ground disturbance, or 

fire. It is anticipated that new weeds would continue to invade public lands and other lands from 

various sources. Existing infestations would continue to be treated aggressively until they are 

controlled, contained, and/or eradicated. Project design features would be used with any new 

federal projects, which would aid in decreasing the introduction and spread of noxious weeds 

and invasive species. None of the alternatives would appreciable accelerate the spread of 

noxious weeds over the existing trend. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.10. Special Uses 

The information in this section is summarized from the Special Uses Specialist Report prepared 

for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2008l). Please see that report for more detail on the 

affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.10.1. Affected Environment 

There are currently over 400 issued special use permits within the boundaries of the Dixie 

National Forest’s Motorized Travel Plan project area. Permitted uses include, but are not limited 

to, fixed improvements, easements, and recreational activities. Special use authorizations can 

vary greatly in length of time. Some term permits are only authorized for a few months, while 

others, such as those for winter resorts, may be authorized for 40 years. Special uses also vary 

greatly in requirements, with some such as short-term recreation events only using a few trails 

during the summer months, while an oil and gas pipeline may require a 30-year permit and the 

use of large areas of land. The following table lists those special use permits currently issued 

on the Dixie National Forest. 

Table 3-14. Currently Authorized Special Use Permits 

Permit Designation Number of 

Permits

Recreation Special Uses 118

Agriculture 7

Community and Public Information 13

Feasibility, Research, Training, Cultural Resources, and Historical 18

Industry 5

Energy Generation and Transmission 38

Transportation 55

Communication 48

Water (Non-power Generating) 127

Total 481

3.10.2. Effects Analysis 

3.10.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects include decreased motorized access to the project area. Indirect effects may 

include crowding, increased conflict levels, and increased use in adjacent or similar areas 

(displacement). Direct effects to outfitter and guide permit holders may include a displacement 

of permitted use outside of the project area. This potential displacement could adversely affect 

the viability of some permittees whose operations are based near their homes. 

Special Uses 3-67 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

In general, the alternatives were developed to continue to provide authorized access to known 

roads and trails used by special use permit holders. Fixed improvement special use permits or 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) easements would not be affected because 

the alternatives were designed to maintain known accesses. 

The action alternatives would not jeopardize occupancy or re-issuance of any special use 

permits. However, under Alternative A, non-system routes identified as necessary for private 

property, permittee, or administrative access within the 39 percent of the Forest closed to crosscountry travel areas would not be open to motorized travel, thus potentially jeopardizing 

occupancy or re-issuance of special use permits. 

3.10.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Under this alternative, non-system routes identified as necessary for special use permittee 

access (as well as private property, other permittee, or administrative access) within the 39 

percent of the Forest closed to cross-country travel would not be open to motorized travel. 

Some permitted special use holders may see an impact under Alternative A due to the fact that 

some routes deemed important to certain special uses may be unauthorized routes within the 

39 percent of the Forest where cross-country travel is not allowed. However, substitute legal 

routes may avoid this impact. 

In addition to the 61 percent of the Forest open to cross-country travel, Alternative A would 

allow for the second highest amount of motorized access from a designated route among the 

alternatives. Under Alternative A, 70 percent of the Forest is within one-half mile of a motorized 

route, and 100 percent of the Forest is within 3 miles of a motorized route. See Table 3-19. 

Percent of Forest Within a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route, on page 3-80. 

Alternative A may have an impact on special use permittees whose permits depend on larger 

areas being closed to motorized travel, such as big game outfitter and guides or backpacking 

and hiking groups. In contrast, Alternatives A and E may be the preferred alternatives for those 

seeking vast amounts of motorized routes. Alternative A would be the preferred alternative for 

permit holders seeking cross-country travel for multiple reasons, including game retrieval, on the 

61 percent of the Forest open to that use. 

3.10.2.1.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B is unlikely to have an impact on non-recreation associated activities. Recreationrelated special use permit holder who seek vast motorized opportunities may see the greatest 

amount of impacts due to the amount of motorized routes decommissioned and decreased 

amounts of access as the Forest would be closed to cross-country travel. 

Alternative B offers the least amount of motorized route miles among alternatives. Alternative B 

also has the greatest amount of buffer area between motorized routes, with 41 percent of the 

Forest greater than one-half mile from a motorized route. Conversely, only 1 percent of the 

Forest is greater than 3 miles from a motorized route (see Table 3-19. Percent of Forest Within 

a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route, on page 3-80). Thus, for permit holders who 

specialize in motorized recreation, impacts such as displacement, conflict, and lower 

satisfaction levels may be greatest in Alternative B. 

Conversely, recreation-related permit holders seeking non-motorized experiences, larger 

forested areas, and opportunities for solitude may benefit most from Alternative B. Alternative B 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-68 Special Uses 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

would likely be the preferred alternative for permit holders specializing in non-motorized 

experiences, or permit holders who depend on greater areas with fewer roads, and the least 

preferred alternative for those desiring vast motorized access. 

3.10.2.1.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C is unlikely to have an impact on non-recreation associated activities. Recreationrelated special use permit holders who seek vast motorized opportunities may see impacts due 

to the amount of motorized routes decommissioned, and decreased amounts of access as the 

Forest would be closed to cross-country travel. However, impacts would be lower than those 

under Alternative B. 

Alternative C has the second largest amount of buffer area between motorized routes, with 38 

percent of the Forest greater than one-half mile from a motorized route. Conversely, only 1 

percent of the Forest is greater than 3 miles from a motorized route (see Table 3-19. Percent of 

Forest Within a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route, on page 3-80). Thus, when 

associated with motorized travel, impacts such as displacement, conflict, and lower satisfaction 

levels may be significant when compared to Alternatives A and E. However, these impacts 

should decrease when compared to Alternative B. 

Conversely, recreation-related permit holders seeking non-motorized experiences, larger 

forested areas, and solitude opportunities may benefit from Alternative C when compared to 

Alternatives A, D, and E. Alternative C may be an adequate alternative for permit holders 

specializing in non-motorized experiences or those who depend on larger areas without roads; 

Alternative C may potentially be the least attractive alternative for those desiring vast motorized 

access, preferred only above Alternative B. 

3.10.2.1.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D is unlikely to have an impact on non-recreation associated activities. Recreationrelated special use permit holders who seek vast motorized opportunities may see impacts due 

to the amount of motorized routes decommissioned, and decreased amounts of access as the 

Forest would be closed to cross-country travel; however, impacts would be less than those 

associated with Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative D is mid-range among the alternatives regarding amount of buffer area between 

motorized routes, with 34 percent of the Forest greater than one-half mile from a motorized 

route, and less than 1 percent (0.43 percent) of the Forest greater than 3 miles from a motorized 

route (see Table 3-19. Percent of Forest Within a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route, on 

page 3-80). Thus, when associated with motorized travel, impacts such as displacement, 

conflict, and lower satisfaction levels may be greater when compared to Alternatives A and E, 

but less than those associated with Alternatives B and C. 

Conversely, recreation-related permit holders seeking non-motorized experiences, larger 

forested areas, and opportunities for solitude may benefit from Alternative D when compared to 

Alternatives A and E. Alternative D is the mid-range alternative for permit holders specializing in 

both non-motorized and motorized activities. 

Special Uses 3-69 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.10.2.1.5. Alternative E 

This alternative provides the most motorized access on designated routes by designating all 

routes as open to public motorized travel, with the exception of routes already designated 

through a specific previous decision. All non-system or unauthorized routes would also be 

designated as open to public motorized travel, many of which provide access for permitted 

uses. 

Alternative E is unlikely to have a impact on non-recreation associated activities. When 

compared to all other alternatives, recreation-related special use permit holders who seek vast 

motorized opportunities may see the least amount of impact with Alternative E. Alternative E 

allows for the least amount of buffer area from motorized routes, with only 29 percent of the 

Forest greater than one-half mile from a motorized route, and less than 1 percent (0.22 percent) 

of the Forest greater than 3 miles from a motorized route (see Table 3-19. Percent of Forest 

Within a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route, on page 3-80). 

When associated with motorized users, recreation-related impacts such as displacement, 

conflict, and lower satisfaction levels may be least among all alternatives, with the possible 

exception of Alternative A, where cross-country travel is allowed on 61 percent of the Forest. 

Conversely, recreation-related permit holders seeking non-motorized experiences, larger 

forested areas, and opportunities for solitude may experience the greatest negative impact from 

Alternative E. 

Alternative E would be the least preferred alternative, with the possible exception of Alternative 

A, among permit holders specializing in non-motorized experiences or those who depend on 

greater areas without roads. It would be the most attractive alternative for those desiring vast 

motorized access. 

3.10.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The southwest section of Utah is the cumulative effects area for special uses for this project. 

This area includes the following counties south of I-70: Sevier, Wayne, Garfield, Kane, 

Washington, Iron, Beaver, and Piute. When dealing with recreation-related permits, areas 

immediately adjacent to the project area or areas further away that provide similar experiences 

are likely to experience the most direct impacts from this project. 

Non-recreation special uses are usually very site-specific and few authorizations can be easily 

replaced on other NFS lands. The fixed improvements and FLPMA authorizations are related to 

specific lands that provide a route for power, phone, or fiber-optic cable lines. Weather stations 

are also located according to conducive conditions for collecting data. Water lines and service 

buildings are generally authorized in areas most conducive to their purpose, such as areas 

adjacent to private lands or located in conjunction with another authorization 

All alternatives could cause some displacement of recreation-related permitted operations within 

the cumulative effects area. Displacement of permitted activities could be further impacted if 

locations adjacent to the project area implement land management actions that severely reduce 

motorized route mileage. Adjacent areas would generally fall under authorization of the BLM 

(Richfield, Kanab, St. George, and Cedar City field offices) and the Forest Service (Fishlake 

National Forest). Recreation-related permitted holders seeking a non-motorized or primitive 

experience would see a positive cumulative effect across all action alternatives. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-70 Special Uses 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Special Uses 3-71 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 

Currently, the Richfield, Kanab, and St. George field offices are in the process of updating their 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs), the equivalent of the Forest Service’s Forest Plans. The 

Fishlake National Forest completed its Motorized Travel Plan in late 2006. The Cedar City Field 

Office is scheduled to begin updating their RMP within the next few years. All these recently 

completed, ongoing, and planned projects would establish motorized route guidelines for the 

foreseeable future (USDA 2009k). 

The proposed actions and management plans for management of adjacent areas should not 

significantly add to the impact of displacement of recreation-related permit holders currently 

operating on the Dixie National Forest unless the permit holder is dependent on cross-country 

travel. If cross-country travel is a necessity to permit operations, then displacement impacts 

would be extreme. 

Non-recreation special uses are not anticipated to experience any cumulative effects from the 

action alternatives because the alternatives were designed to maintain known access. 

However, as noted under Alternative A, non-system routes identified as necessary for private 

property, permittee, or administrative access within areas closed to cross-country travel areas 

would not be open to motorized travel, thus potentially jeopardizing occupancy or re-issuance of 

special use permits. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.11. Recreation 

The information in this section is summarized from the Recreation and Scenery Specialist 

Report prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009k). Please see that report for more 

detail on the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.11.1. Affected Environment 

Recreation is a primary use of the Dixie National Forest. Visitors come to the Forest for a wide 

variety of activities and experiences ranging from primitive wilderness settings to developed 

campgrounds to permitted resorts and a downhill ski area. There are 42 recreation residences 

on the Forest. Thirty-nine outfitter-guides are authorized to operate on the Forest, providing 

guided hunting, fishing, OHV and mountain bike touring, and horse riding trips. Dispersed 

camping, including dispersed use for large family reunions and hunting camps, is popular. 

The Forest provides habitat and non-motorized and motorized access for small and big game 

hunting, a highly-valued activity in southern Utah. Several streams and lakes provide fishing 

opportunities; some lakes accommodate boats while others require hiking-in. Non-motorized 

and motorized trails are available for hiking, mountain biking, OHV use, and horse riding. 

Since the publication of the Forest Plan in 1986, recreation and tourism levels on the Forest 

have shown a dramatic increase, paralleling or exceeding statewide trends during this same 

period. According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring results for the Dixie National Forest, 

the Forest received 773,789 visits in 2003 (USDA 2004c, p. 6). Visits to the Dixie National 

Forest are often associated with visits to surrounding national and state parks and other 

recreation and travel opportunities. The Dixie National Forest's proximity to several parks, its 

location near Interstates 15 and 70 between major western population centers, and a growing 

resident and transient population are contributing to swelling trends in Forest visitation. 

According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring results, approximately 20.7 percent of visits to 

the Dixie National Forest in 2003 were by people from Washington County, Utah. 

Approximately 7.4 percent were from Iron County, Utah, and approximately 8.6 percent were by 

people from Clark County, Nevada. Two percent were from Garfield County and approximately 

1.4 percent were from Kane County. Approximately 0.8 percent were from Salt Lake City (ibid). 

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity System (ROS) to match visitor’s desires, 

abilities, and expectations to a particular activity and setting (PLAE, Inc. 1993, pp. 25-27). ROS 

provides a framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, 

and considers social factors such as remoteness, size of the space, evidence of human activity, 

social encounters, and managerial presence. ROS is based upon the following philosophical 

premises: 

 People purposefully choose settings for their recreation activities, 

 Choices are made with the expectation of achieving particular recreation experiences, 

and 

 It is desirable to present a diverse spectrum of activity and recreation setting 

opportunities, ranging from highly developed to primitive, from which people may 

choose. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-72 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

There are five different ROS classes on the Forest: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, 

Semi-Primitive Motorized, and Roaded Natural. 

Table 3-15. Forest-wide ROS Acres 

ROS Class 

Measure Primitive Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Roaded 

Natural 

Acres 103,960 805,500 687,610 284,000

All acres rounded to the nearest 10 acres. There are no Rural or Urban classes on the Forest. 

The Forest Plan predicted substantial growth in demand for opportunities for driving for pleasure 

and dispersed recreation. Although demand for dispersed recreation was not expected to 

exceed supply, competition for sites was expected to create social conflict. The growing 

popularity of ATV use was also described as a growing concern, and a plan to regulate use was 

recognized as necessary to prevent damage to critical areas (pp. II-8 through II-10). Conflict 

between recreation user groups would be minimized because of sufficient areas of each 

experience type to accommodate the expected increase in user groups (pp. III-2 through III-3). 

Some of the more popular recreation uses of the Forest include camping, trail use (both 

motorized and non-motorized), and hunting and fishing. 

 

Developed Camping: Camping at developed recreation sites is a popular recreation activity, 

with 26 campgrounds and 5 picnic sites on the Forest. A number of these sites accommodate 

large groups. Several campgrounds are located near lakes and reservoirs and have boating 

and fishing opportunities. 

Dispersed Camping: Dispersed camping, or camping in non-developed areas, is a common 

recreation activity on the Dixie National Forest, occurring primarily during the summer and the 

fall hunting season. Dispersed camping is allowed on most areas of the Forest except within 

the vicinity of developed recreation sites such as trailheads, picnic areas, or campgrounds. 

Additionally, there are three specific areas on the Forest that have been restricted to designated 

campsites only: East Fork of the Sevier River south of Tropic Reservoir, Mammoth Creek near 

Mammoth Spring, and Yankee Meadows. There are currently 1,624 inventoried dispersed 

campsites on the Forest. 

Motorized Trail Use: There are 1,500 miles of trails on 266 designated trails providing 

recreation opportunities including hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV riding. 

Non-motorized Trail Use: There are 1,087 miles of designated non-motorized trail on the 

Forest, 155 miles of which are located in federally-designated wilderness areas. Uses consist 

mainly of hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Hiking is common on most all non-motorized 

trails, but is most common on trails that are too steep or narrow for equestrian or mountain bike 

use. Although horseback riding occurs on many trails across the Forest, it is most common on 

trails that access the Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness Area. Due to terrain constraints, 

equestrian use is limited on trails that access the Ashdown Gorge and Box-Death Hollow 

wilderness areas. The Dixie National Forest issues special use permits for a number of 

Recreation 3-73 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

mountain bike races, including the National Off-Road Bicycling Association (NORBA) national 

series race. 

Great Western Trail: The Great Western Trail (GWT) is a long distance trail that traverses 

approximately 4,455 miles across five states; 226 of these miles are on the Dixie National 

Forest. The GWT was designated a Utah Centennial Trail in 1996 and a National Millennium 

Trail in 2000. The GWT is somewhat unique in that it is a popular route for both motorized and 

non-motorized users, and for the fact that portions of it follow roads and other named trails. On 

the Dixie National Forest, the GWT travels through the Powell and Escalante Ranger Districts 

and the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District. Across these three districts the 

GWT provides for approximately 139 miles of motorized opportunities and 87 miles of nonmotorized opportunities. In some instances, use is separated by different routes, and in some 

cases, mixed use does occur. Past experience and research shows that mixing motorized and 

non-motorized use can create conflicts, and in general this conflict is greatest felt by nonmotorized users (Ramthun 1995, Hendee and Dawson 2002, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Manning 

1999, Gibbons and Ruddell 1995). In addition, the complications of properly managing a 

popular, long distance trail such as the GWT are increased when accommodating both 

motorized and non-motorized use. This is especially true if enforcement is lacking, signing is 

poor or dated, and/or users do not follow regulations. 

Motorized Use: There are a total of 3,475 miles of roads and trails open to OHV/ATV 

recreation: 413 miles of designated motorized trails, 2,580 miles of level 2 roads, and 482 miles 

of level 3 roads. Dispersed motorized recreation use has grown and developed considerably on 

the Forest, with many motorized users coming from Las Vegas, the Salt Lake area, and local 

communities. Growth in demand for OHV use and other dispersed motorized recreation 

opportunities has increased on the Dixie, reflective of similar demand in other areas of the U.S, 

particularly the West. 

The Dixie National Forest has several designated OHV/ATV trail systems. The Markagunt 

ATV/OHV trail system located on the Cedar City Ranger District is comprised of 408 miles of 

well-marked trail riding opportunities. The Fremont and Paunsaugunt ATV/OHV trail system 

located on the Powell Ranger District provides 147 miles of riding opportunities. The Great 

Western ATV/OHV trail system on the Powell and Escalante ranger districts provides 

approximately 65 miles of riding opportunities. Many of the miles of these ATV/OHV trail 

systems are located on level 2 and level 3 roads. 

The Forest also has several OHV loading and unloading areas across the Forest: 

 Pine Valley Ranger District 

o Upper Enterprise Reservoir 

 Cedar City Ranger District 

o Duck Creek Campground Corral 

o Aspen Mirror Lake 

o Parking areas at Strawberry and Swains 

o Hwy 14/Mammoth Creek Road pull-out 

o Hwy 14/Stout Canyon Parking area 

o Red Creek Reservoir 

o Yankee Meadows Campground 

o North Red Creek Reservoir 

o Pole Hollow road pull-out just past private land on Markagunt trail system #25 

o Road # 30074 old gravel pit pull-out, provides access to Markagunt trail system 

#3 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-74 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 Powell Ranger District 

o Great Western Trailhead 

o Casto Canyon Trailhead 

 Escalante Ranger District 

o Pine Lake 

o Clayton Guard Station area 

o Antimony area 

 Teasdale portion of Fremont River Ranger District 

o Fish Creek Trailhead 

o Rosebud Trailhead 

Hunting and Fishing: There is extensive hunting use on the Dixie National Forest during the 

general season deer and elk hunts. Limited Entry elk hunts occur in the Panguitch Lake area 

north of Highway 14 on the Cedar City Ranger District, the Mount Dutton area north of Highway 

12 on the Powell Ranger District, and the Thousand Lake area on the Teasdale portion of the 

Fremont River Ranger District. The Paunsaugunt Limited Entry Deer hunt occurs south of 

Highway 12 on the Powell Ranger District. A Limited Entry antelope hunt occurs in the 

Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, Mount Dutton, and Pine Valley areas as well. Black bears, 

mountain lions, turkeys, waterfowl, and upland game birds are hunted across the Forest. 

Ruffed grouse are generally hunted along the rim areas. 

Popular fishing sites are numerous and include opportunities for anglers to catch various trout 

and smallmouth bass. Three are many popular lakes and streams across the Forest. 

Recreation Residences and Private Subdivisions: There are 42 recreation residences under 

Forest Service permit. Private residences, both primary and secondary homes, are located in 

numerous subdivisions within the Forest boundary at Duck Creek Village, Strawberry Valley, 

Swains Creek, Mammoth Creek, and Zion View. Duck Creek Village, within the boundaries of 

the Cedar City Ranger District, offers all amenities, including several retail stores, gasoline, 

lodging, restaurants, and ATV purchase and rentals. 

3.11.1.1. Trail Maintenance 

The Forest objective is that all system trails, motorized and non-motorized, will be maintained to 

Forest Service standards to provide for user enjoyment, safety, and resource protection. These 

Forest Service standards vary depending on the intended use of the trail, and allow for a range 

of trail conditions from primitive native surfaced routes to higher-level improved surfaced routes. 

Much of the improvement associated with bringing individual trails up to standard falls within the 

category of routine maintenance and would proceed as funding is secured. Portions of some 

trails may require relocation to meet standards. Authorization of any trail relocation work may 

require supplemental analysis and in some cases a subsequent NEPA decision. Trail 

maintenance standards are set by the trail’s maintenance level or trail class. Standards are 

described in FSH 2309.18. 

The following tables represent the Dixie National Forest accomplishment reports for Miles of 

Trail Maintained to Standard and Miles of Trail Improved to Standard. 

Recreation 3-75 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-16. Trail Accomplishment Reports, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 

Accomplishment Description Target Miles Actual Miles % of Target 

Accomplished

Fiscal Year 2006 

Miles of Trail Maintained to Standard 179 284 159%

Miles of Trail Improved to Standard 9 3 (67%)

Fiscal Year 2007 

Miles of Trail Maintained to Standard N/A 642 N/A

Miles of Trail Improved to Standard 4 13 325%

Trails include motorized and non-motorized trails. 

Miles of Trail Maintained to Standard = miles of trails receiving maintenance. This is the annual 

amount of maintenance done with the annual appropriations. 

Miles of Trail Improved to Standard = miles of trails improved to standard as identified in the 

Meaningful Measures trails component. This is the annual amount of improvement 

(construction) done with the annual appropriations. 

N/A = not applicable; new report format introduced in 2007 does not contain targets. 

3.11.2. Effects Analysis 

When discussing effects to those who desire a non-motorized or a motorized experience, it 

should be noted that Forest users are very diverse, and attributes required for goal attainment 

may in fact contradict common theory. For example, motorized users may seek large tracks of 

undeveloped land, and non-motorized users may seek large amount of motorized access in 

certain locations. 

3.11.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.11.2.1.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Implementation of any alternative could result in the displacement of some Forest visitors. A 

travel plan that does not offer the particular desired setting or desired mode of transportation on 

a preferred road, trail, or area could displace some people to other areas or they may choose to 

engage in other activities. In addition, adjacent areas may see an increase in impacts 

associated with increased use with the implementation of the Dixie National Forest Motorized 

Travel Plan. This could be especially true with Alternatives B, C, and D due to the fact that 

these alternatives reduce motorized route mileages as compared with Alternative A. 

Non-motorized travel is generally allowed across most of the Forest and on most travel routes. 

With the exception of designated wilderness (no mechanized travel allowed) and some research 

natural areas, cross-country travel on foot, stock, snowshoe, skis, and bicycle is allowed on 

most of the Forest. 

Travel routes are closed unless designated open for motorized use. Routes designated open 

for public motorized use will be shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), which will be 

published after the motorized travel plan is signed. The MVUM is a national requirement that 

will be the legal document to illustrate route designations. It will be the user’s responsibility to 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-76 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

be familiar with the MVUM, which will be provided free of charge at local Forest Service offices 

and on the Internet. 

Routes designated open for public motorized use will be signed with a route number at all 

appropriate junctions according to Forest Service signing and installation standards. Allowed 

uses will also be posted according to Forest Service standards. Routes not designated as open 

for public motorized use will not be shown on the MVUM. 

3.11.2.1.2. Alternative A 

There are 828 miles of non-motorized trails under Alternative A (the fewest outside of 

Alternative E), and more miles of motorized routes than under Alternative B, C, or D. This 

alternative allows for motorized cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest. By allowing 

this use, this alternative is likely to match, and possibly increase, the current level of Forest user 

conflict between non-motorized and motorized users. With the total amount of motorized travel 

offered by this alternative combined with cross-country travel, the Dixie National Forest is likely 

to see similar or increased levels of resource impacts, including creation of illegal routes, thus 

potentially displacing a greater number of Forest users. Alternative A would be the least 

attractive to those seeking a non-motorized setting. 

Table 3-17. Miles of Available Roads and Trails by Alternative 

Miles by Alternative Measure A B C D E 

Miles of motorized routes1 4,136 1,802 2,017 2,617 4,428

Miles of motorized trails2 103 190 292 194 101

Miles of non-motorized trails 828 960 969 915 812

1

 To accurately display recreational opportunities, highway and administrative route mileages 

are not included. Mileages of motorized trails, as shown in the following row, are included. 

2

 Does not include miles of motorized roads where OHV use is also allowed. 

3.11.2.1.3. Alternative B 

Alternative B offers 960 miles of non-motorized trails (the most outside of Alternative C), and 

provides the least amount of miles for motorized travel (215 miles fewer than Alternative C). 

This alternative does not allow cross-country travel. Alternative B would provide the greatest 

amount of non-motorized opportunity. Furthermore, this alternative is likely to have the greatest 

effect on decreasing conflict, maintaining or increasing satisfaction levels, and mitigating 

displacement among non-motorized users. 

3.11.2.1.4. Alternative C 

Alternative C offers 969 miles of non-motorized trails (the highest among alternatives), and 

provides the second least amount of miles for motorized travel, 215 miles more than Alternative 

B. Motorized cross-country travel is prohibited. Alternative C would provide a similar setting for 

non-motorized opportunities as would Alternative B. However, due to the fact that Alternative C 

has more motorized route mileage, non-motorized opportunities may be slightly less than those 

available in Alternative B. 

Recreation 3-77 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.11.2.1.5. Alternative D 

Alternative D offers 915 miles of non-motorized trails (mid-range among alternatives for nonmotorized opportunities), and is mid-range among motorized travel, allowing 815 more miles 

than Alternative B, and 1,811 fewer miles than Alternative E. Motorized cross-country travel is 

prohibited. Alternative D would provide a similar setting for non-motorized opportunities as 

would Alternative C, but as a whole, may be the compromise alternative if associated with 

motorized use. As Alternative D has more motorized route mileage, non-motorized 

opportunities may be slightly less than those available in Alternatives B and C. 

3.11.2.1.6. Alternative E 

Alternative E offers 812 miles of non-motorized trails (the fewest among alternatives), and 

provides the greatest amount of miles for motorized travel, 2,626 more miles than Alternative B. 

Motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited. Alternative E would be likely to have a 

positive effect on decreasing conflict between non-motorized and motorized Forest users when 

compared to Alternative A, but a potential negative impact (greater user conflict) when 

compared to Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E would provide the least amount of setting 

for non-motorized opportunities as related to all other alternatives, with the potential exception 

of Alternative A. 

3.11.2.1.7. ROS 

As discussed on page 3-72, there are five ROS classes on the Forest. The information in the 

following table portrays the miles of motorized routes and miles of non-motorized routes in each 

ROS class by alternative. 

Note that under Alternative A there are motorized routes in both Primitive and Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized ROS classes. The inclusion of motorized routes in non-motorized ROS classes 

is a reflection of an anomaly in the ROS mapping. When a final decision is made on this 

motorized travel plan for the Dixie National Forest, the ROS classes for the Forest will be 

updated to match the selected Forest Service system of routes. For purposes of this EIS, 

however, all mileages are presented to show the differences between alternatives to allow 

comparison. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-78 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-18. Motorized and Non-motorized Routes by ROS Class 

Alternative ROS Class Measure A B C D E 

Miles of motorized routes 5 0 0 4 5 Primitive Miles of non-motorized routes 106 107 110 106 106

Semi-Primitive Miles of motorized routes 199 49 56 88 233

Non-Motorized Miles of non-motorized routes 464 479 484 478 462

Semi-Primitive Miles of motorized routes 3,222 1,487 1,709 2,027 2,761

Motorized Miles of non-motorized routes 179 275 275 235 172

Roaded Miles of motorized routes 1,966 1,280 1,406 1,564 1,936

Natural Miles of non-motorized routes 78 98 100 96 75

All mileages rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Motorized routes include all roads and motorized trails. 

Non-motorized Opportunities 

Conflict is a key issue when dealing with motorized and non-motorized uses (Ramthun 1995, 

Hendee and Dawson 2002, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Manning 1999, Gibbons and Ruddell 

1995). Conflict among user groups is generally asymmetrical, with one group perceiving a 

greater amount of conflict than the other (Ramthun 1995). In the field of outdoor recreation, 

non-mechanized users have generally perceived higher levels of conflict. This seems especially 

true when associated with mechanized users (Ramthun 1995; Adelman et al. 1982, Jackson 

and Wong 1982). 

Conflict frequently stems from goal interference (Gibbons and Ruddell 1995). For example, 

forest visitors expecting solitude in a certain location may experience conflict if this goal is 

interfered with by coming across other forest visitors in the same location. Or, if a hiker is 

expecting a non-motorized experience, conflict may be perceived if OHV users are encountered 

or heard. Conflict may even simply stem from the evidence of past OHV use in a non-motorized 

area. 

With this in mind, for those seeking non-motorized opportunities, Alternative E allows for the 

most motorized use within Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas. This is followed by Alternatives 

A, D, C, and B, in that order. Within Primitive areas, Alternatives A and E each offer the same 

number of motorized route miles, followed by Alternative D with 4 miles, and then Alternatives B 

and C, both of which have 0.01 miles. 

Motorized Opportunities 

Motorized users seeking a Semi-Primitive Motorized or Roaded Natural experience may prefer 

Alternative A, followed closely by Alternative E, then D, C, and B, in that order. Those seeking a 

Primitive experience may prefer Alternatives A and E, followed by D, and, lastly, B and C. 

However, motorized routes within the Primitive ROS class are minimal and do not change much 

across alternatives. Motorized users purely seeking the maximum route mileage may prefer 

Alternative A, followed by Alternatives E, D, C, and B, in that order. 

Recreation 3-79 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.11.2.1.8. Distance From Motorized Routes 

Table 3-19. Percent of Forest Within a Specified Distance of a Motorized Route 

Distance to a Percent of Forest Within Specified Distance by Alternative 

Motorized Route A B C D E 

0 to 0.5 miles 70% 59% 62% 66% 71%

0 to 1 mile 88% 81% 83% 86% 89%

0 to 2 miles 98% 96% 96% 97% 98%

0 to 3 miles 100% 99% 99% 100% 100%

Includes highways and roads on private land (including Cedar Breaks National Monument) within 

the Forest boundary. 

The table above shows the percent of the Forest within varying distances from motorized 

routes. Paralleling previous analysis, Alternative B generally offers the greatest percentage of 

acres away from motorized routes. After Alternative B, Alternatives C, D, A, and E, in that 

order, present decreasing acres away from motorized routes. Alternative E allows the least 

amount of buffer area, or acres, away from motorized routes. 

Given these figures, non-motorized users may prefer Alternative B, followed by Alternatives C, 

D, A, and E, in that order. Motorized users may prefer Alternative E, followed by Alternatives A, 

D, C, and B, in that order. However, as noted above, Forest users are very diverse, and 

attributes required for goal attainment may in fact contradict common theory. 

In addition to illustrating the percentage of the Forest within varying distances from motorized 

routes, this table also illustrates the percentage of motorized access provided across the Forest 

by alternative. 

3.11.2.1.9. Dispersed Camping 

Dispersed camping would be allowed within 150 feet along designated routes except in areas in 

the vicinity of developed recreation sites and in the three areas on the Forest where camping 

has been restricted to designated campsites only (see the Dispersed Camping description on 

page 3-73). More dispersed campsites and dispersed camping areas may be designated in the 

future if physical and social conditions reach a level where it is deemed necessary. This 

motorized travel plan would directly affect dispersed camping across the Forest for those who 

access these sites through motorized means. Impacts to dispersed camping vary by 

alternative: with the exception of Alternative A and its areas open to cross-country travel, the 

greater the number of miles of motorized routes, the greater the number of available dispersed 

sites. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-80 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-20. Number of Legally Accessible Inventoried Dispersed Campsites 

Alternative Measure A B C D E 

Number of dispersed campsites 

accessible by motorized vehicle 1,409 725 817 1,052 1,315

Percent change from Alternative A N/A 51% 58% 75% 93%

Note: There are a total of 1,624 inventoried dispersed campsites across the Forest, 215 of which 

are in areas closed to cross-country travel and not legally accessible via motorized vehicles. 

Alternative A: 1,227 campsites are within 150’ of a designated route. There are an additional 182 

campsites further than 150’ from a designated route but within the 61 percent of the Forest open 

to cross-country travel; these sites are therefore legally accessible by motorized vehicles. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E: These are the number of campsites within 150’ of a designated route. 

As illustrated in the previous table, Alternative A provides motorized access to the greatest 

number of dispersed campsites across alternatives, with 1,409 legally accessible inventoried 

sites. This figure decreases by 94 sites when compared to the next highest amount in 

Alternative E. Compared to Alternative A, the numbers decline further with a decrease of 357 

sites accessible in Alternative D, by 592 sites accessible in Alternative C, and by 684 sites 

accessible in Alternative B. Given these figures, impacts to use associated with dispersed 

camping are greatest with Alternative B, and least with Alternative A. Paralleling this is the fact 

that displacement associated with dispersed camping would be greatest with Alternative B, and 

the least with Alternative A. However, a decrease in dispersed campsites may actually increase 

users’ experiences if solitude is a main objective. 

3.11.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for recreation is the southern section of Utah (Millard, Sevier, 

Wayne, Garfield, Kane, Washington, Iron, Beaver, and Piute counties), portions of eastern 

Nevada (Clark and Lincoln counties), and the northern section of Arizona (Coconino and 

Mohave counties). 

The biggest increment for potential cumulative impacts to motorized and non-motorized 

recreation uses comes directly from the Dixie National Forest’s Motorized Travel Plan rather 

than from past or foreseeable actions (as detailed in USDA 2008b). Most ongoing and future 

Forest Service actions have little long-term or cumulative effect on outdoor recreation 

opportunities. 

Travel Management Decisions on BLM and other Forest Service Lands 

All alternatives would cause some displacement of both non-motorized and motorized users. 

Displacement of forest users could be further impacted if locations adjacent to the project area 

implement land management actions that severely reduce motorized route mileage. Adjacent 

areas may see an increase in impacts associated with increased use with the implementation of 

the Dixie National Forest Motorized Travel Plan. This could be especially true with Alternatives 

B, C, and D due to the fact that these alternatives reduce motorized route mileages as 

compared to Alternative A.

Recreation 3-81 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

The Fishlake National Forest completed its Motorized Travel Plan in late 2006. The Arizona 

Strip, Richfield, Ely, and Kanab BLM field offices completed their respective Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) in 2008. The Fillmore RMP is about 20 years old, the Las Vegas 

RMP is about 9 years old, and the St. George RMP is about 10 years old; no revisions are 

currently scheduled for these three RMPs. Lastly, the Cedar City BLM Field Office is slated to 

begin their RMP update within the next several years. These processes will establish motorized 

route guidelines for the foreseeable future. 

The Fishlake National Forest designated 2,742 miles of motorized routes open to the public, a 

reduction from their existing condition of approximately 16 percent. The Fishlake decision 

closed the Forest to cross-country travel, with the exception of two play areas comprising 879 

acres. 

The Richfield BLM Field Office RMP designated 1,908,210 acres as limited (OHV travel on 

designated routes), 9,890 acres as open (allowing OHV cross-country travel), and 209,000 

acres as closed to OHV use. When associate with their No Action Alternative or pre-2008 

management practices, the Richfield preferred alternative essentially eliminated cross-country 

travel. Prior to the 2008 RMP, 1,636,400 acres of this area was designated as open. The 

Kanab BLM Field Office RMP designated 528,000 acres as limited, 1,000 acres as open, and 

25,000 acres as closed to OHV use. When associate with their No Action Alternative or pre2008 management practices, the Kanab preferred alternative essentially eliminated crosscountry travel. Prior to the 2008 RMP, 466,600 acres within the Kanab Field Office was 

designated as open. 

The Arizona Strip BLM Field Office RMP designated 1,899,260 acres as limited, 80,829 acres 

as closed, and 976 acres as open to OHV use. When compared with their 1992 RMP, the 

Arizona Strip 2008 RMP essentially changed directions from “limited to existing roads and trails” 

to “limited to designated roads.” Prior to the 2008 RMP, 1,764,000 acres within the Arizona 

Strip Field Office was limited to existing roads and trails, 690,400 acres was limited to 

designated roads and trails, 358,600 acres was closed, and 1,400 acres was designated open. 

The Ely BLM Field Office 2008 RMP designated 10,306,500 acres as limited to designated 

roads and trails, and closed (through designated wilderness and wilderness study areas) 

1,153,500 acres to OHV traffic. The Ely BLM Field Office may review specific route 

designations further in the future. Prior to the 2008 RMP, a large percentage of the Ely Field 

Office was essentially open (allowing cross-country travel) to OHV travel. 

The Las Vegas BLM Field Office RMP essentially eliminated cross-country travel by decreasing 

Open areas by over 2.8 million acres. As with other RMPs, the Las Vegas RMP dramatically 

increased OHV travel regulations to “Limited to existing roads trails and washes” and “Limited to 

designated roads, trails, and washes.” Areas completely closed to OHV use essentially did not 

change. 

The St. George BLM Field Office 1999 RMP allows for 89,235 acres as open, 335,780 acres as 

“open for use on existing roads and trails,” 112,286 acres as “open for use on designated roads 

and trails,” and 91,704 acres as “closed.” 

For Forest users seeking motorized use on designated travel routes, management actions 

within the cumulative effects area should not significantly add to the impact of displacement 

associated with the Dixie National Forest Motorized Travel Plan. However, Forest users 

seeking motorized cross-country travel may see a significant impact associated with 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-82 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

displacement when combined with other management actions within the cumulative effects area 

and the Dixie National Forest Motorized Travel Plan. As previously stated, adjacent areas may 

see an increase in impacts associated with increased use with the implementation of the Dixie 

National Forest Motorized Travel Plan. This could be especially true with Alternatives B, C, and 

D due to the fact that these alternatives reduce motorized route mileages as compared with 

Alternative A. 

Oil and Gas 

The cumulative effect of past, present, and future oil and gas exploration and development 

activities is displacement of forest visitors from areas directly adjacent to or part of the activities. 

Scenic integrity is also affected by oil and gas development. Some oil and gas impacts are 

long-term, so localized displacement and scenic integrity impacts can also be long-term 

depending on reclamation practices. Oil and gas leasing on the Forest can affect recreation use 

patterns. Associated with oil and gas leasing is construction and reconstruction of roads. This 

could assist in mitigating impacts to motorized users and/or increase displacement of nonmotorized users, or those seeking a primitive experience. 

In some cases, oil and gas activities are short-term and cause very little ground disturbance. In 

these cases, impacts associated to recreation and scenic integrity would be minimal and 

generally brief in nature. Impacts associated to recreation may be short-term displacement of 

non-motorized users or those seeking a primitive experience. Due to the scale of acres 

affected, the displacement is not significant for the cumulative effects area. Effects would be 

the same for all alternatives. 

Vegetation Treatments 

The cumulative effects of past, present, and proposed vegetation and fuel reduction treatments 

could be temporary displacement of Forest users and a change in the visual quality of the area. 

Results would be similar with wildfire. However, displacement and change in visual qualities 

may be prolonged when associated with wildfire. These effects would be the same under all 

alternatives. 

Vegetation treatments on the Dixie National Forest can affect recreation use patterns. The 

cumulative effects of past, present, and proposed vegetation treatments could be temporary 

displacement of Forest users from areas directly adjacent to or part of the treatment activities, 

and a change in the visual quality of the area. Associated with vegetation treatments may be 

the construction and reconstruction of roads. This could assist in mitigating impacts to 

motorized users and/or increase displacement of non-motorized users, or those seeking a 

primitive experience. Due to the scale of acres affected, the displacement is not significant for 

the cumulative effects area; effects would be the same for all alternatives. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

The cumulative effects of past, present, and future wildlife and fisheries management and 

watershed restoration projects would have a positive long-term effect on Forest visitors who 

view wildlife, hunt, or fish in the area. However, past restoration projects have displaced 

dispersed users from streamside campsites. This displacement could occur with future projects. 

Restoration projects generally improve the visual quality of riparian areas within three to five 

years. These effects would be the same with all alternatives. 

Recreation 3-83 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-84 Recreation 

and Effects Analysis 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weed control could have a minor but cumulative effect on forest road and trail use. 

Noxious weed control activities include spraying from ATVs. These activities leave a noticeable 

track in some areas, which could encourage illegal off-route travel by members of the public. 

On-site signing could mitigate the situation. It is likely that these treatments would continue 

throughout the cumulative effects area. In the long-term, successful weed control would 

improve landscape conditions for all forest visitors. 

Motorized travel is known to encourage the spread of noxious weeds. Thus, a reduction in 

route mileage may assist in mitigating the spread of noxious weeds. When compared to the 

other alternatives, Alternatives B and C would do the most in mitigating off-route travel 

associated with weed control and the spread of noxious weeds associated with travel routes. 

Land Exchanges and Easements 

Includes property disposal, highway easements, water diversions, and water augmentation. 

Over time these adjustments would occur at a reduced rate. 

Special Uses 

Includes one time events (e.g., horse races, trekking) and outfitter and guide activities. These 

would continue to occur with some increases in use. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing in some areas has caused conflicts with recreation use. If livestock is allowed 

to congregate in developed sites, at trailheads, or along popular travel routes, resulting 

conditions can reduce the recreation experience for forest visitors. Recent and future grazing 

management changes would reduce this conflict through improved riparian protection measures 

and adjusting the timing and duration of grazing in high-use recreation areas. Due to the scale 

of acres affected, the displacement is not significant for the cumulative effects area. The effect 

may be greatest among alternatives that offer the most designated route mileage (Alternatives A 

and E). 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.12. Scenery 

The information in this section is summarized from the Recreation and Scenery Specialist 

Report prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009k). Please see that report for more 

detail on the affected environment and effects analysis. Additionally, the Recreation section 

beginning on page 3-72 contains information applicable to Scenery Management. 

3.12.1. Affected Environment 

The National Forest Scenery Management System is the process used for planning and design 

of the visual elements of multiple use land management. There are 11 fundamental principles 

to the Scenery Management System. 

1. Biological, physical and social factors create and influence scenery and interact to 

determine landscape character. 

2. Landscape character varies greatly with the interaction of environmental factors. 

3. People have the ability to perceive landscape character and develop expected images. 

4. Through various activities, people have the ability to modify landscape character and 

scenic conditions and have often done so. 

5. Such changes in landscape character and scenic condition often modify, suppress, or 

replace the original landscape character. 

6. People value most highly the more scenic landscapes. 

7. Generally, natural-appearing landscapes are the most valued. 

8. Resource managers can design their activities to reduce adverse impacts on landscape 

character and scenic integrity. 

9. People have the ability to establish goals to maintain or create desired landscape 

character. 

10. People have the ability to apply ecological, technical, and design knowledge to meet 

scenery management goals and objectives. 

11. In some situations, resource managers perpetuate or create desired scenic 

environments to provide an improved quality of life (USDA 1995b). 

Concern Levels represent a method of categorizing the importance of scenic resources to 

Forest visitors. Concern Level 1 travel routes are those that are nationally or regionally 

important locations associated with recreation and tourism use, where there is a high interest in 

scenic resources (USDA 1995b). Examples of travel routes that would fall into this rating would 

include designated scenic byways, national parks, and areas such as Red Canyon, Panguitch 

Lake, and Navajo Lake. An example of a trail that would fall into this rating is the Virgin River 

Rim Trail and areas seen from it as it would be of high scenic concern because of its popularity 

for mountain biking and other uses. Concern Level 2 routes would be those that are locally 

important and are associated with recreation, and where there is a high to moderate interest in 

scenic resources. All remaining roads and unnamed trails would be Concern Level 3 travel 

routes, which are routes that receive low use and where users have a moderate to low interest 

in scenic resources. 

In 2000 the Forest Plan was amended to update from the Visual Management System to the 

Scenery Management System. The amendment specified Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) 

Scenery 3-85 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

for each management area. Scenic integrity is defined as “a measure of the degree to which a 

landscape is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given 

to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for 

its aesthetic appeal” (USDA 1995b). Concern Levels describe the current condition of the 

scenic resource, while Scenic Integrity Objectives describe the objectives for management, or 

the desired future conditions. 

The Scenic Integrity Objectives and percentages of each on the Dixie National Forest are 

displayed in the following table. The Management Areas listed in the table are defined in the 

2000 amendment (USDA 2000d). 

Table 3-21. Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Dixie National Forest 

Scenic Integrity Objectives Notes 

Very High (5%) 

Wilderness Areas (8A), Research Natural Areas (10A), and Antone 

Bench and Box Death Hollow (8A1/8A2 adjacent to designated 

wilderness) 

High (27%) Management Areas 1A, 1B, 2A, 4A, 4A*, 9B and the foreground of 

Concern Level 1 travelways and use areas in other management areas. 

Moderate (30%) Management Areas 2B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 9A and foreground of Concern 

Level 2 travelways and use areas in other management areas. 

Low (18%) Management Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, 7A, and 10B. 

Unclassified (16%) 

Management Area 1, except within the foreground of Concern Level 1 

and 2 travelways and use areas. These areas can range from low to 

high scenic integrity objectives. 

* Private land makes up the remaining 4 percent. 

3.12.2. Effects Analysis 

Two motorized trails are proposed for construction in Alternatives D and E. This scenery 

analysis is focused solely on the effects of this construction in these two alternatives. All effects 

associated with route construction would be with the same for Alternatives D and E. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would have no effects associated with trail construction. 

Table 3-22. Proposed Motorized Trail Construction – Alternatives D and E 

Route # Length 

in Miles District Scenic Integrity Objective Class 

T34070 0.65 Cedar City High 

U24028A 0.61 Cedar City High 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-86 Scenery 

and Effects Analysis 
Cedar Breaks

National Monument

T34070

U24028A

National Forest Boundary

SH143

30048

SH148

30204

30047A

Brian Head

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Legend

Ranger District Boundary

Ashdown Gorge Wilderness

Private Land

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction

Highway

Open Roads

Existing Motorized Trails

Non-Forest Roads

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

Alternatives D and E

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction

£¤14

£¤143

£¤89

£¤15 £¤20

£¤148

£¤130

£¤12

Enoch

Parowan

Panguitch

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.12.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

In general, the vast majority of the Forest would meet or exceed Scenic Integrity Objectives 

across all alternatives. However, within Alternatives D and E, construction of routes T34070 

and U24028A may result in impacts that reduce scenic integrity from high to moderate. 

Construction of the routes would not result in a change in scenery integrity guidelines as 

described in the 2000 amendment. Scenic Integrity Objectives provide a standard for 

management or a desired future condition; Concern Levels examine the significance of scenic 

quality and aesthetic experience to people. Project design features, such as sustainable trail 

design and seeding, could limit the reduction in scenic integrity to less than 5 years. 

3.12.2.1.1. Route T34070 

Description 

This route’s location is approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Brian Head Peak in Iron County. 

This 0.65 mile route, in conjunction with U24028A, would assist in the connection of Brian Head 

to the Markagunt OHV Trail System. Specifically, this route would allow legal access from Brian 

Head Resort to Forest Service Road 30047. 

OHVs are currently accessing Road 30047 by traveling cross-country. Construction of this 

route would eliminate the need for cross-country travel through the construction of a sustainable 

trail. Construction of this route would meet Forest Service ATV standards of “more difficult,” and 

construction operations would be accomplished with a trail dozer. BMPs would be used during 

construction. Signing, enforcement, sustainable trail building techniques, and volunteers would 

be used to reduce user conflicts and resource damage. 

Development of this route would assist in reducing cross-country travel and the proliferation of 

user-created routes, thus helping to reduce further resource damage. However, due to the fact 

that T34070 would directly cross the non-motorized Marathon Trail (#32024), this route would 

likely increase conflict levels between non-motorized and motorized users, thus potentially 

reducing user satisfaction and increasing displacement. 

Variety 

In general, the terrain is flat to rolling, with a mix of grass, sub-alpine fir, aspen, and spruce. In 

this location, a large amount of the spruce is dead standing due to bug kill. As seen from the 

actual route, open fields of grass provide an experience of vastness and great visual variety. 

The forest offers a variety of colors, shapes, and textures in all season. While some views from 

this route may be limited to foreground because of the screening effect of adjacent forest cover 

or topography, most of this route allows views into Cedar Break National Monument, Ashdown 

Gorge Wilderness Area, and other areas of scenic interest. 

Visibility 

Large portions of this route could be seen as immediate foreground (from zero feet to 300 feet) 

and foreground views (from 300 feet to one-half mile) from Highway 14 and Forest Service 

Road 30047, both Concern Level 1 routes. In addition, this route would directly cross over the 

non-motorized Marathon Trail (#32024), a Concern Level 2 trail. Furthermore, this route, and 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-88 Scenery 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

associated users, may be visible from Cedar Breaks National Monument overlooks and 

Ashdown George Wilderness trailheads. 

T34070 may increase use of this specific area, thus increasing the chance that OHV and 

associated impacts, such as dust plumes, would be within the immediate foreground and 

foreground views more consistently. Other impacts to visibility may include scarring as a result 

of trail construction and OHV use. Scarring impacts should decrease within a 5-year period. In 

order to mitigate impacts, BMPs would be implemented. Currently, this area is used during the 

winter season by snowmobiles, thus impacts to immediate foreground and foreground views do 

currently exist, although temporarily. 

Scenic Integrity and Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Portions of this route would be constructed in an area classified as having a high scenic integrity 

objective. High SIO is defined as, “Appears unaltered. Landscapes where the valued 

landscape character ‘appears’ intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line 

color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale 

that they are not evident” (USDA 1995b). 

Construction of this route may alter intact landscapes. This is due to a combination of potential 

construction results, such as the unearthing of a large quantity of soils that may not blend with 

the surrounding landscape, and newly constructed routes that run perpendicular to Concern 

Level 1 roads. Project design features, such as seeding and the use of unobtrusive gravel and 

trail design, may decrease the level of visual impacts. However, implementation of this route 

could reduce scenic integrity objectives from high to moderate. 

3.12.2.1.2. Route U24028A 

Description 

This route’s location is approximately 1 mile southeast of Brian Head Peak in Iron County. This 

0.61 mile route would assist in the connection of existing routes U24028 and Forest Service 

Road 32310. In addition, this route, in conjunction with T34070, would allow legal access from 

Brian Head Resort to the Markagunt OHV Trail System. 

Construction of this route would meet Forest Service ATV standards of “more difficult,” and 

construction operations would be accomplished with a trail dozer. The trail would be located in 

a sustainable location and BMPs would be used during construction. Signing, enforcement, 

sustainable trail building techniques, and volunteers would be used to reduce user conflicts and 

resource damage. 

Development of this route would assist in reducing cross-country travel and the proliferation of 

user-created routes, thus helping to reduce further resource damage. However, due to the fact 

that U24028A would be within view and within the soundscape of the non-motorized Marathon 

Trail (#32024) and Sydney Peak Trail (#32010), it is likely that conflict levels between nonmotorized and motorized users would increase, thus potentially reducing user satisfaction and 

increasing displacement. 

Scenery 3-89 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Variety 

In general, the terrain is flat to rolling, with a mix of grass, sub-alpine fir, aspen, and spruce. In 

this location, a large amount of the spruce is dead standing due to bug kill. As seen from the 

actual route location, open fields of grass provide an experience of vastness and great visual 

variety. The forest offers a variety of colors, shapes, and textures in all season. While views 

from this route may be limited to foreground (from 300 feet to one-half mile) because of the 

screening effect of adjacent forest cover or topography, some of this route would allow 

middleground (from one-half mile to four miles) views into Cedar Break National Monument, 

Brian Head Peak, and other areas of scenic interest. 

Visibility 

Some portions of this route may be seen as foreground views (from 300 feet to one-half mile) 

from Forest Service Road 30047, a Concern Level 1 road. In addition, this route would be seen 

as immediate foreground (from zero feet to 300 feet) and foreground views (from 300 feet to 

one-half mile) from the non-motorized Marathon Trail (#32024) and Sydney Peak Trail 

(#32010), both Concern Level 2 trails. Further, this route, and associated users, may be visible 

from Cedar Breaks National Monument and Brian Head Peak. 

U24028A may increase use of this specific area, thus increasing the chance that OHV and 

associated impacts, such as dust plumes, would be within the immediate foreground and 

foreground views more consistently. Impacts to visibility may also include scarring resulting 

from trail construction. Scarring impacts should decrease within a 5-year period. In order to 

mitigate impacts, BMPs would be use during construction. 

Scenic Integrity and Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Portions of this route would be constructed in an area classified as having a high scenic integrity 

objective. High SIO is defined as, “Appears unaltered. Landscapes where the valued 

landscape character ‘appears’ intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line 

color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale 

that they are not evident” (USDA 1995b). 

Construction of this route may alter intact landscape. This is due to a combination of potential 

construction results, such as the unearthing of a large quantity of soils that may not blend with 

the surrounding landscape, and newly constructed routes that run perpendicular to Concern 

Level 1 roads. Project design features, such as seeding, the use of unobtrusive gravel, and trail 

design, may decrease the level of visual impacts. However, implementation of this route could 

reduce scenic integrity objectives from high to moderate. 

3.12.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for scenery management is the viewsheds surrounding the area of 

the proposed trail construction. Areas immediately adjacent to the constructed routes are likely 

to experience the most direct impacts. 

The major influences on scenery within and adjacent to the project area have been timber 

harvest, insect infestations, fuel treatment, fire, roads, trails, and recreation development, all of 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-90 Scenery 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Scenery 3-91 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 

which have the potential to change the vegetative cover and landform being viewed on the 

Forest. 

Cumulative effects on scenery are predictable within the provisions of the guidelines in the 

amendment. This is also the case with all routes proposed for construction. However, routes 

U24028A and T34070 may provide two circumstances where scenic integrity objective levels 

would be modified from high to moderate, although those modifications would still be within the 

parameters of the guidelines. 

Both of the routes proposed for construction in Alternatives D and E may diminish the views that 

Forest users’ would experience. This may be particularly true for those seeking a more primitive 

experience or those whose expectations are altered or are not met due to the presence of 

motorized routes and associated impacts. Additionally, the effects of proposed routes U24028A 

and T34070 may have some cumulative effect with the visual effects of the dead and dying 

spruce component of the adjacent Forest and project area, which would remain after route 

implementation. However, due to the scale of acres affected, impacts are not significant for the 

cumulative effects area. 

Further impacts associated with route construction may be displacement of other forest users in 

conflict with motorized use or those seeking higher levels of solitude. This action has the 

potential to increase use and conflict levels in other nearby areas or areas with similar settings. 

Also, route construction would add to soil compaction, thus potentially creating instances of soil 

erosion. Further, route construction may increase cross-country travel due to the fact that some 

route placement occurs in areas with no formidable obstacles to mitigate off-road travel. 

Combined, these items may lead to further impacts to the scenic resource. However, due to the 

scale of acres affected, impacts are not significant for the cumulative effects area. 

Past, present, and future environmental conditions within the cumulative effects area include 

drought cycles, accumulation of forest fuels, and the increasing threat of invasive species. 

These conditions, alone or in combination with one another, have the potential to change the 

scenery and settings of the Forest. However, national responses have been put in place to 

mitigate impacts. The alternatives considered would have no impact associated with drought, 

though Alternatives D and E, which include motorized route construction, may slightly increase 

the spread of invasive species and increase human-caused fires within the cumulative effects 

area (see the Vegetation and Fire and Fuels section beginning on page 3-21, the Noxious 

Weeds section beginning on page 3-63, and the Rare Plants section beginning on page 3-15). 

Past and foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects area include vegetative 

treatments, oil and gas activities, utilities, and grazing. These conditions, alone or in 

combination, have the potential to change the scenery and settings of the Forest. However, due 

to the scale of acres affected, they would not create a cumulative effect when considered 

together with any of the proposed trail construction. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

The information in this section is summarized from the Roadless and Unroaded and 

Undeveloped Areas Specialist Report prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009l). 

Please see that report for more detail on the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.13.1. Affected Environment 

For purposes of this report, two categories of areas will be discussed. Inventoried Roadless 

Areas (IRAs) refer to those specific areas identified in the Roadless Area Conservation Final 

FEIS (USDA 2000c); Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas refer to an inventory conducted for 

plan revision of areas with unroaded and undeveloped characteristics. Although IRAs and 

unroaded areas may have some overlap, the map layers were developed independently of each 

other and were therefore analyzed separately. 

3.13.1.1. Inventoried Roadless Areas 

IRAs are those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, FEIS, Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any 

subsequent update or revision of those maps through the land management planning process 

(36 CFR 294.11). 

In an increasingly developed and fragmented landscape, IRAs represent some of the largest 

and most extensive tracts of undeveloped land. To be classified as an IRA, areas should not 

contain constructed roads and generally must be at least 5,000 acres. Areas containing less 

than 5,000 acres can also be classified as IRAs if they do not contain constructed roads and 

meet one of the following criteria: (1) areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural 

conditions, (2) they are self-contained ecosystems, such as islands, that can be managed as an 

individual unit of wilderness, and; (3) they are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, 

recommended wilderness, or potential wilderness in other federal ownership. The definition for 

a constructed road is a road where there has been mechanical surface grading and cut and fill 

slopes are present along with drainage structures. Two-track roads are permissible within an 

IRA if there is no evidence of mechanical construction. However, on the Dixie, due to the 

manner in which the protocol was applied, IRAs contain both constructed and two track roads 

since the inventory datasets only included known system roads at that time. 

There are 42 IRAs covering a total of approximately 771,960 acres, which represents 

approximately 43 percent of the analysis area for this EIS. Several of the IRAs are smaller than 

5,000 acres, but are adjacent to larger tracts of wilderness, within other IRAs, or adjacent to 

potential wilderness on land administered by the BLM. The following table lists the IRAs on the 

Dixie National Forest by ranger district and the total acreage associated with each. 

In addition to the absence of constructed roads, IRAs contain other important environmental 

values that warrant protection. These values include nine values or features identified in the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) that characterize IRAs, as well as six attributes that 

characterize wilderness potential. Detailed information on the characteristics and attributes of 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-92 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

each individual IRA will not be presented here. Rather, the characteristics and attributes are 

described in general in this section and any unique characteristics known to be present within a 

specific IRA are discussed within the individual ranger district sections. Since IRAs cover such 

a large percentage of the land, it is assumed that they contain a full range of the physical and 

biological characteristics found on each ranger district. 

Table 3-23. Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Dixie National Forest by Ranger District 

IRA Name Acres 

Pine Valley Ranger District 

Atchinson 17,663

Bull Valley 10,919

Cave Canyon 5,661

Cedar Bench 8,919

Cottonwood 6,757

Cove Mountain 16,639

Dixie 109

Gum Hill 3,182

Headwaters/Pine Park Bench/Pine Park 10,952

Kane Mountain 8,016

Lost Peak 4,144

Mogotsu 16,771

Moody Wash 31,857

North Hills 24,499

Pine Valley Mountains 56,330

Rock Canyon 16,471

Stoddard Mountain 13,168

Pine Valley Total 252,057

Cedar City Ranger District 

Bear Valley Peak 7,436

Bunker Creek 7,473

Hancock 9,806

Lava Beds 14,940

Mineral Canyon 8,400

Cedar City Total 48,055

Powell Ranger District 

Casto Bluff 87,419

Deer Creek 39,795

Fishhook 12,954

Horse Valley 13,618

Red Canyon North 9,438

Red Canyon South 3,734

Powell Total 166,958

Escalante Ranger District 

Boulder Mtn/Boulder Top/Deer Lake 14,894

Box-Death Hollow 3,171

Hog Ranch 17,118

Jake Hollow 15,135

Long Neck Mesa/Steep Creek/Oak Creek – Steep Creek/Oak Creek 11,141

McGath Lake – Auger Hole 8,328

New Home Bench 10,505

Shakespeare Point 752

Roadless and Unroaded 3-93 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

IRA Name Acres 

South Rim 1,371

Table Cliffs – Henderson Canyon 17,668

Escalante Total 100,083

Teasdale Portion of Fremont River Ranger District 

Capital Reef [sic] 763

Dark Valley 27,460

Happy Valley 14,447

Hay Lakes 22,126

Long Neck Mesa/Steep Creek/Oak Creek-Steep Creek/Oak Creek 44,305

Boulder Mtn/Boulder Top/Deer Lake 95,704

Teasdale Total 204,805

Forest-wide Total 771,958

 

The next four pages contain maps of the IRAs on each ranger district. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-94 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
North Hills

Moody Wash

Mogotsu

Pine Valley Mountains

Stoddard Mountain

Cove Mountain Kane Mountain

Atchinson

Headwaters/

Pine Park Bench/

Pine Park

Bull Valley

Cave Canyon

Lost Peak

Cedar Bench

Cottonwood

Gum Hill

Enterprise 

Reservoir

Dixie

Rock Canyon

Pine Valley Mountains

¬«18 ¬«56

¬«17

¬«15

Veyo

Pinto

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Pine Valley Ranger District
 Iron

County

¬«14

¬«143

Navajo 

Lake

Panguitch 

Lake

Hancock

Lava Beds

Lava Beds

Bunker Creek

Mineral Canyon

Bear Valley 

Peak

Cedar 

Breaks 

National 

Monument

¬«14

¬«89

¬«143

¬«15

¬«20

¬«148

Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Paragonah

Brian Head

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Cedar City Ranger District

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
¬«12

¬«89

Deer Creek

Casto Bluff

Horse Valley

Red Canyon 

North

Red Canyon 

South

Fishhook

Tropic 

Reservoir

Casto Bluff

¬«63

¬«143

¬«20

Hatch

Tropic

Panguitch

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Powell Ranger District

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Table Cliffs - Henderson Canyon

Box-Death Hollow

Hog Ranch

Jake Hollow

McGath Lake -

 Auger Hole

New Home 

Bench

Pine 

Lake

Dry 

Lake

Cyclone Lake

Jacobs 

Reservoir

FH 17

30140

30154

30153

Boulder Mtn/Boulder Top/Deer Lake

Hog Ranch

Dark Valley

Hay Lakes

Happy 

Valley

Long Neck Mesa/Steep 

Creek/Oak Creek

 - Steep Creek/Oak Creek

Lower Bowns

Reservoir

¬«12

¬«12

Tropic

Boulder

Teasdale

Escalante

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

1999 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of

Fremont River Ranger Districts
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13.1.2. Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

Beginning in 2000, the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests began a joint effort to revise their 

Forest Plans. Part of this revision included consideration of areas for wilderness potential, 

which was conducted according to the direction in the Intermountain Region Planning Desk 

Guide: A Protocol for Identifying and Evaluating Areas for Potential Wilderness (USDA 2004b). 

This inventory only included known classified system roads, with the exception of administrative 

only roads, and thus identified areas as unroaded/undeveloped that currently contain numerous 

constructed roads and trails, as well as timbered areas, powerlines, and other infrastructure. 

The Forest Plan Revision Team involved the public in the development of the Unroaded and 

Undeveloped Inventory. One of the Topical Working Groups formed for the revision effort was 

focused specifically on the Undeveloped Area Inventory and Evaluation. This Working Group 

met from 2003 through 2005, and formally presented the results of their meetings to both the 

Dixie and Fishlake Forest Supervisors. In order to gain additional public input on undeveloped 

areas, the Forest Supervisors hosted four public workshops in 2004 to gather input on the 

inventory and evaluation. Additional informational and working sessions were also held with 

county commissioners on the topic from 2004 through 2006 (USDA 2008d). 

After the update to the Draft Dixie Undeveloped Area Evaluation was released in 2004, the 

Forests began an evaluation of the suitability of the areas for wilderness recommendation. This 

evaluation considered capability, availability, and need. Wilderness attributes were evaluated 

as part of capability (USDA 2004b). These attributes include natural integrity (naturalness), 

natural appearance (untrammeled and undeveloped), opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation, special features, and manageability, and were rated as low, medium, or high. These 

ratings were utilized in this analysis to determine the effects of changes within these areas due 

to access (these ratings are provided in Appendix D of the Roadless and Unroaded and 

Undeveloped Areas Specialist Report [USDA 2009l]). The base map for this Motorized Travel 

Plan analysis is the 2005 Draft Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas Map (see pages 3-102

through 3-105 for a district-by-district display of this data). Between 2004 and 2006, further 

updates were made to the inventory and evaluation, most specifically regarding area acreages. 

A new inventory and reevaluation using current road inventory, timbered area, and infrastructure 

data will be necessary to fully understand the character of these areas. 

There is no policy, law, or directive guiding the management of unroaded/undeveloped areas 

that lie outside of IRAs or wilderness. Currently, the only guidance for these areas is general 

forest or management area direction. It is the intent of the Dixie National Forest to manage 

these unroaded/undeveloped areas for multiple resource benefits while maintaining their 

undeveloped character to the extent possible. 

On the Dixie National Forest, there were 50 areas identified as unroaded and undeveloped that 

were evaluated for wilderness potential. Of the 1,056,221 acres in that inventory, only about 29 

percent fall outside an IRA or designated wilderness area. Table 3-24 below shows the size of 

the unroaded areas identified on the Dixie National Forest. 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-99 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-24. Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas on the Dixie National Forest by Ranger 

District 

Unroaded Area Number Unroaded Area Name Acres 

Pine Valley Ranger District 

0407101 North Hills 24,864

0407102 Pine Park 31,550

0407103 Lost Peak 6,053

0407104 Cave Canyon 8,136

0407105 Bull Valley 13,372

0407106 Moody Wash/Mogotsu 58,994

0407107 Cove Mountain 15,678

0407108 Atchinson 24,309

0407109 Cedar Bench 10,004

0407110 Kane Mountain 9,635

0407111 Pine Valley Mountain 154,519

0407112 Cottonwood 8,850

0407113 Stoddard Mount 14,215

Pine Valley Total 380,180

Cedar City Ranger District 

0407201 Ashdown Gorge 12,150

0407202 Hancock 10,140

0407203 Lava Beds #1 7,058

0407204 Lava Beds #2 8,643

0407205 Bunker Creek 12,346

0407206 Wagon Box 5,769

0407207 Little Creek Peak 19,348

0407208 Mineral Canyon 13,410

0407209 Bear Valley Peak 11,385

Cedar City Total 100,249

Powell Ranger District 

0407301 Fishhook 11,442

0407302 Big Hollow 7,793

0407304 Red Canyon South 5,597

0407305 Red Canyon North 15,131

0407306 Blind Springs 9,917

0407307 Horse Valley 14,588

0407308 Casto Bluff 86,409

0407309 Deep Creek 41,984

0407310 Lower Hoodle 10,254

Powell Total 203,114

Escalante Ranger District 

0407401 Canaan Mountain 7,683

0407402 Henderson Canyon 23,113

0407403 Heaps Canyon 6,629

0407404 Birch Creek 6,106

0407405 Pacer Lake 16,328

0407406 Antimony 20,605

0407407 Dry Lake 9,268

0407408 Jake Hollow 11,820

0407409 Hog Ranch 5,924

0407410 Box-Death Hollow 32,996

0407411 Pretty Tree Bench 12,025

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-100 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Unroaded Area Number Unroaded Area Name Acres 

0407412 Shakespeare Point 1,109

0407413 Barker 16,337

Escalante Total 169,943

Teasdale Portion of the Fremont River Ranger District 

0407502 North Boulder 53,506

0407503 West Boulder 17,186

0407504 Boulder Top 69,202

0407505 Long Neck 33,124

0407506 Oak Creek 18,474

0407507 Happy Valley 11,245

Teasdale Total 202,735

Forest-wide Total of 2005 Unroaded and Undeveloped Acres 1,056,221

The next four pages contain maps of the unroaded and undeveloped areas. It should be noted 

that the inventory and evaluation tables represent the draft evaluation from approximately 

December 2004. The inventory and evaluation is not final and improved information or changed 

conditions may lead to some adjustments. However, the most current updates to the 2004 

unroaded and undeveloped inventory, which were made in 2005, were used for this analysis 

and are represented in these maps. 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-101 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Enterprise 

Reservoir

¬«18

¬«56

£¤15

North Hills

Bull 

Valley

Pine Park

Lost Peak

Cave Canyon Moody Wash / Mogotsu

Cove Mountain

Kane Mountain

Stoddard Mount

Atchinson

Pine Valley Mountain

Pine Valley Mountain

Cedar Bench

Cottonwood

Pine 

Valley 

Mountain

Veyo

Pinto

Enterprise

Toquerville

Pine Valley

New Harmony

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

2005 Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped

Pine Valley Ranger District
 Iron

County

¬«14

¬«143

Navajo 

Lake

Panguitch 

Lake

Cedar 

Breaks 

National 

Monument

Hancock

Mineral Canyon

Bear Valley Peak

Lava Beds #2

Lava Beds #1

Little Creek Peak

Bunker Creek

Ashdown Gorge

Wagon Box

¬«14

¬«89

¬«143

¬«15

¬«20

¬«148

Hatch

Parowan

Panguitch

Paragonah

Brian Head

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

2005 Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped

Cedar City Ranger District

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
¬«12

¬«89

Tropic 

Reservoir

¬«63

¬«143

¬«20

Casto Bluff

Casto Bluff

Casto Bluff

Deep Creek

Horse Valley

Fishhook

Red Canyon North

Lower Hoodle

Blind Springs

Big Hollow

Red Canyon South

Hatch

Tropic

Panguitch

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

2005 Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped

Powell Ranger District

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS
Pine 

Lake

Cyclone Lake

Jacobs 

Reservoir

FH 17

30140

30154

30153

Lower Bowns

Reservoir

¬«12

¬«12

Antimony

Pacer 

Lake

North Boulder

West

Boulder

Boulder 

Top

Oak Creek

Happy Valley

Long Neck

Pretty Tree 

Bench

Hog 

Ranch

Barker

Boulder Top

Box-Death Hollow

Henderson Canyon

Shakespeare Point

Canaan Mountain

Jake Hollow

Birch 

Creek

Heaps 

Canyon

Dry 

Lake

Tropic

Boulder

Teasdale

Escalante

Dixie National Forest Ü Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

Legend

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas

Wilderness Areas

Dixie National Forest

Private Land Inholding

Major Roads

2005 Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped

Escalante and Teasdale Portion of the

Fremont River Ranger Districts
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13.1.3. Descriptions by Ranger District 

3.13.1.3.1. Pine Valley Ranger District 

There are 17 IRAs on the Pine Valley Ranger District covering a total of 251,911 acres. Several 

of the IRAs listed are less than 5,000 acres, but are included due to proximity with other 

potential wilderness areas. Lost Peak IRA is adjacent to BLM land that could be potential 

wilderness. The Dixie IRA, a small, isolated remnant area of just over 100 acres, is included in 

these totals but did not contain any road designations and thus does not affect any other 

calculations. 

The Pine Valley Ranger District contains the largest amount of biological crusts and gypsiferous 

soils and these resources would be expected to occur on IRAs. Eight municipal watersheds 

covering 14,688 acres are partially located on the Pine Valley Mountains IRA. The watersheds 

are Central, Enterprise, Leeds, New Harmony, Pine Valley, Pintura, Sawyer Spring, and St. 

George. 

In general, IRAs provide approximately 18,650 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered 

species including California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis). The IRAs also provide approximately 24,618 acres of habitat for sensitive species 

including Bonneville cutthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki utah), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), 

northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), pygmy 

rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), and sensitive bats. 

There are 13 unroaded and undeveloped areas on the Pine Valley Ranger District, totaling 

380,180 acres. None of these areas are less than 5,000 acres in size. 

3.13.1.3.2. Cedar City Ranger District 

There are five IRAs on the Cedar City Ranger District covering a total of 48,847 acres. The 

Bunker Creek IRA includes 1,190 acres of the Parowan municipal watershed. IRAs on the 

Cedar City Ranger District provide approximately 1,620 acres of habitat for threatened and 

endangered species including California condor, Mexican spotted owl, and Utah prairie dog. 

IRAs on the Ranger District also provide around 25,300 acres of habitat for sensitive species 

including bald eagle, flammulated owl, greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), 

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, pygmy rabbit, and sensitive bats. 

There are nine unroaded and undeveloped areas on the Cedar City Ranger District, totaling 

100,249 acres. None of these areas are less than 5,000 acres in size. 

3.13.1.3.3. Powell Ranger District 

There are six IRAs on the Powell Ranger District covering a total of 166,925 acres. The Red 

Canyon South IRA is less than 5,000 acres, but is included due to proximity with adjacent BLM 

land that could be potential wilderness. The Deer Creek IRA overlaps 5,303 acres of the 

Antimony municipal watershed. Generally, IRAs on the ranger district provide 41,500 acres of 

known habitat for threatened and endangered species including California condor, Mexican 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-106 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

spotted owl, and Utah prairie dog. IRAs also provide 104,000 acres of habitat for sensitive 

species including Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), flammulated 

owl, greater sage-grouse, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, pygmy 

rabbit, and sensitive bats. 

There are nine unroaded and undeveloped areas on the Powell Ranger District, totaling 

203,114 acres. None of these areas are less than 5,000 acres in size. 

3.13.1.3.4. Escalante Ranger District 

There are 10 IRAs on the Escalante Ranger District covering a total of 100,651 acres. As with 

the other Ranger Districts, several of the IRAs listed are less than 5,000 acres, but are included 

due to proximity with other IRAs and wilderness areas. The Box-Death Hollow IRA surrounds 

and is adjacent to the Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area and the Shakespeare Point and 

South Rim IRAs are adjacent to the Table Cliffs-Henderson Canyon IRA. The Hog Ranch and 

McGath Lake-Auger Hole IRAs overlap with 1,006 acres of the Escalante municipal watershed 

and the New Home Bench IRA overlaps with 426 acres of the Boulder Town municipal 

watershed. 

The Side Hollow Ponderosa Pine Provenance Study Area covers 4.5 acres within the New 

Home Bench IRA. The study area contains ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) from various 

origins that are being used for genetic studies. IRAs on the ranger district provide about 71,600 

acres of habitat for threatened and endangered species including California condor, Mexican 

spotted owl, and Utah prairie dog. IRAs also provide 78,335 acres of habitat for sensitive 

species including Colorado River cutthroat trout, flammulated owl, peregrine falcon, northern 

goshawk, three-toed woodpeckers, pygmy rabbit, and sensitive bats. 

There are 13 unroaded and undeveloped areas on the Escalante Ranger District, totaling 

169,943 acres. Only the Shakespeare Point area is less than 5,000 acres in size. 

3.13.1.3.5. Teasdale Portion of the Fremont River Ranger District 

There are six IRAs on the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River Ranger District totaling 

approximately 204,805 acres. Inventoried Roadless Areas make up 81 percent of National 

Forest Lands on this unit. The IRAs on this district provide approximately 135,600 acres of 

habitat for threatened and endangered species including California condor, Mexican spotted 

owl, and Utah prairie dog. The IRAs also provide approximately 171,900 acres of habitat for 

sensitive species including Colorado River cutthroat trout, bald eagle, flammulated owl, 

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, pygmy rabbit, and sensitive bats. 

There are six unroaded and undeveloped areas on the Teasdale portion of the Fremont River 

Ranger District, totaling 202,735 acres. None of these areas are less than 5,000 acres in size. 

3.13.2. Effects Analysis 

This section describes the effects of alternatives relative to motorized road and trail access on 

the wilderness attributes and the roadless characteristics identified above. Roadless areas can 

be affected by the construction or reconstruction of roads or motorized trails within the roadless 

areas. However, identification as an inventoried roadless area in and of itself does not prohibit 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-107 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

motorized uses or construction of non-motorized trails or motorized trails. Wilderness character 

would be affected by construction of roads or trails, since wilderness is in part defined by its 

roadless and non-motorized character. 

In addition to some restrictions on timber harvest and road construction activities identified in 

the RACR, there is a lack of perceived need to expand roads and motorized trails into IRAs and 

a public sensitivity to impacting roadless areas with new roads or motorized trails. See the 

Roadless Specialist Report for tables comparing motorized access by IRA and unroaded and 

undeveloped area (USDA 2009l). All 42 IRAs and all 50 areas identified as unroaded and 

undeveloped were considered in this analysis. Each area was reviewed using GIS in relation to 

changes in both motorized and non-motorized access by alternative. Impacts from motorized 

access to roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes are presented below. 

Under Alternatives B, C and D, no roads within IRAs are proposed to be added to the system 

with the exception of those routes needed for public water access and that fit the criteria in 

RACR. These routes may, however, be added as motorized trails. 

The cumulative effects area for this analysis is the IRAs themselves and areas identified during 

the Forest Plan Revision in the 2004 unroaded and undeveloped inventory. The GIS dataset 

used for this analysis includes updates to the size of some unroaded and undeveloped areas in 

2005. 

The locations of impacts (e.g., dispersed camping) may shift within alternatives due to changes 

in available motorized access. Areas inside IRAs, as well as those outside IRAs that were 

identified as unroaded during the 2004 inventory, will continue to be considered for future 

projects. In many cases, these projects will occur in areas that already contain previous timber 

harvest and constructed roads and thus would not significantly change their existing character. 

Changes in motorized access affect mainly roadless characteristics, naturalness, and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Changes to special features or manageability 

are not expected. 

3.13.2.1. Alternative A 

3.13.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

With the exception of Long Neck, Henderson Canyon, and Lava Beds, most IRAs did not rate 

high for wilderness potential due to the presence of historic roads, evidence of past human 

disturbance, and lack of screening from lower valleys. The IRAs’ wilderness potential would not 

be altered by changing the amount of designated roads or trails within them. These areas 

would still rate medium to low due to other factors such as previous timber harvest and 

infrastructure. 

Implementation of Alternative A would retain 404.8 miles of road and trails open to the public for 

motorized access within IRAs. Use of remote areas is likely to increase as visitors increase and 

users become more familiar with undiscovered areas noted as open on the MVUM. 

Implementation of Alternative A would retain 439.32 miles of roads and trails open to the public 

for motorized access within areas identified as unroaded and undeveloped. Access-oriented 

recreation would continue to impact remote areas through cross-country travel. Opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation would continue to decline. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-108 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13.2.1.2. Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A would not change the number of roads or motorized trails already present. 

However, the ability to continue cross-country travel in some areas would likely result in 

additional user-created routes. Activities associated with motorized access would continue with 

increase uses in some areas over the long-term. An increase in motorized use has the potential 

to reduce the “apparent naturalness” of these areas. 

There are over 450,000 acres open to cross-country travel within IRAs. The impact of this 

would vary by IRA since the percent available within an IRA ranges from less than 1 percent to 

100 percent (USDA 2009l, Appendix C). 

Cumulative effects to wilderness attributes within the areas identified as unroaded and 

undeveloped would result in continued loss of areas for solitude or primitive recreation. The 

areas that fall outside IRAs and designated wilderness areas are more likely to receive 

increased user-created impacts. As user-created routes continue to develop, there would also 

be a loss in naturalness or untrammeled character. 

3.13.2.2. Alternative B 

3.13.2.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Implementation of this alternative would retain 71.4 miles of roads and trails open to public 

motorized access within IRAs. Due to the persistence of roads and trails in this environment, 

visitors would see little change in the short-term in roadless characteristics. This alternative 

would result in a reduction of motorized access and thus would reduce the potential for impacts 

to wilderness characteristics. 

The prohibition on cross-country travel would likely provide the greatest potential for reducing 

the risk of new unauthorized routes within IRAs and unroaded and undeveloped areas. 

Alternative B does the most to reduce the number of miles available for motorized access within 

unroaded and undeveloped areas with 74.7 miles of roads and trails open to the public. The 

short-term effects would be the same as for IRAs with existing roads and trails remaining visible 

for some time. 

3.13.2.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The demand for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized opportunities would continue to 

grow. This alternative offers the greatest reduction in motorized access and thus would tend to 

provide an increase in areas available for non-motorized opportunities. 

As areas recover under this alternative, future inventories for areas with wilderness potential 

may identify additional acres that contain wilderness attributes. 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-109 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13.2.3. Alternative C 

3.13.2.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative would retain 99.3 miles of motorized access open to the public within IRAs. 

Cross-country travel would be prohibited in both IRAs and unroaded and undeveloped areas. 

This alternative would not adversely affect the existing roadless values or wilderness potential. 

Effects would be similar to those in Alternative B. 

This alternative would retain 86.52 miles of motorized access open to the public within areas 

identified as unroaded and undeveloped during the 2004 inventory. The difference in available 

miles between IRAs and unroaded areas is due to the fact that the Dixie has IRAs that were not 

identified as unroaded and undeveloped that contain numerous roads and motorized trails. 

Direct and indirect effects would be similar to those in Alternative B. 

3.13.2.3.2. Cumulative Effects 

The demand for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized opportunities would continue to 

grow. Although not to the extent as Alternative B, this alternative offers a reduction in motorized 

access over Alternative A, and thus would tend to provide an increase in areas available for 

non-motorized opportunities. 

Cumulative impacts to unroaded areas would be similar to those for IRAs. With the closure to 

cross-country travel and the reduction in available motorized recreation access to remote areas, 

loss of naturalness due to motorized recreation should reduce over time. Opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would increase. 

3.13.2.4. Alternative D 

3.13.2.4.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Implementation of this alternative would retain 204.2 miles of public access within IRAs. Crosscountry travel would be prohibited. This alternative is more selective within IRAs and would 

show a greater decrease in available routes in some IRAs than in others. The existing roadless 

values or wilderness potential would not be adversely affected. 

Alternative D would retain 171.48 miles of public access within areas identified as unroaded 

during the 2004 inventory with updates. Thirty-two of the 50 areas would show some 

improvement in wilderness attributes over Alternative A. Twelve additional areas would likely 

have little change in wilderness attributes. Seventeen of the 32 areas mentioned above would 

show some improvement, but would be less than that expected due to access either bisecting 

the area or remaining within the edges; these areas are Atchison, Blind Springs, Boulder Top, 

Bull Valley, Cave Canyon, Cedar Bench, Cove Mountain, Dry Lake, Henderson Canyon, Jake 

Hollow, Little Creek Peak, Moody Wash/Mogotsu, North Boulder, North Hills, Pine Park, 

Shakespeare Point, and Stoddard Mountain. These areas would likely remain larger than 5,000 

acres in size and thus may still be considered in future unroaded inventories, but they may 

continue to have encroachment from the edges. Blind Spring, Bull Valley, Jake Hollow, North 

Boulder, North Hills, and Pine Park may receive the greatest impacts due to roads that bisect 

some of their area. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-110 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.13.2.4.2. Cumulative Effects 

Wilderness characteristics would benefit more in some IRAs in the long-term than in others. 

Roadless characteristics would improve but not to the extent as in Alternative B or C. 

Naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation would improve for most of the 

unroaded areas, but not to the extent that it would improve under Alternative B or C. 

3.13.2.5. Alternative E 

3.13.2.5.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Implementation of this alternative would retain almost 490 miles of public access within IRAs. 

This alternative would have similar affects as Alternative A, with the exception of some benefit 

with the prohibition of cross-country travel. The existing roadless values and wilderness 

potential would not be adversely impacted. 

Implementation of Alternative E would retain over 455 miles of motorized access within areas 

identified in 2004 as unroaded and undeveloped. As with IRAs, the main benefit to unroaded 

areas would be due to closure of cross-country travel. For most areas, existing wilderness 

attributes would remain medium to low. With the exception of the Boulder Top and North 

Boulder areas, there would be very few miles closed or decommissioned. This alternative 

would make several administrative roads open for public access, thus increasing the chance for 

future encroachment into remote areas. 

3.13.2.5.2. Cumulative Effects 

The designation of non-system routes, and the subsequent inclusion of those routes on the 

MVUM, could increase the use of some areas. Thus this alternative has the potential to impact 

the apparent naturalness of areas not currently known to most visitors. The increased use of 

little known motorized trails could result in these routes becoming more visually apparent, taking 

on the appearance of roads and thus negatively impacting an area’s roadless character. In the 

long-term, Alternative E would reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation to levels 

similar to Alternative A. 

3.13.2.6. Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Alternative B, C, or D would not add cumulatively to impacts on roadless characteristics or 

wilderness values. Alternative E may provide the potential for increased use within some areas. 

Foreseeable activities that would impact roadless characteristics or wilderness potential of IRAs 

or unroaded areas include oil and gas development and utility construction. There are existing 

utility corridors within or adjacent to IRAs and unroaded areas that were established prior to 

RACR or the unroaded inventory. Future development will likely occur throughout these 

corridors and will impact both the roadless character and wilderness potential along these 

areas. In the event that oil or gas production is initiated, the roads and associated infrastructure 

are not likely to occur within an IRA so long as RACR is in place. However, with so much of the 

Forest falling within IRAs, a development could potentially occur adjacent to an IRA and within 

an existing unroaded area. The apparent naturalness of the area adjacent to the development 

would be impacted. 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-111 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

With the population growth and development increasing on private inholdings and around the 

Forest, there is a potential for continued utility construction that may cross IRAs and unroaded 

areas and could potentially impact wilderness capability for a limited area. 

Activities like grazing, wildfire and suppression activities, prescribed fire, and non-motorized 

recreation may occur within or adjacent to IRAs or unroaded areas, but would not adversely 

impact the roadless character or wilderness potential. 

The following tables display the miles of motorized routes within each IRA (Table 3-25), and 

each unroaded and undeveloped area (Table 3-26). Much more detailed information on 

motorized routes, including a breakdown of each route type by alternative, is located in the 

appendices in the Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas Specialist Report (USDA 

2009l). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-112 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-25. Miles of Motorized Routes by Inventoried Roadless Area 

Alternative IRA A B C D E 

Atchison 4 <1 2 2 4

Bear Valley Peak 5 4 4 4 5

Boulder Mtn/Boulder Top/Deer Lake 48 25 26 35 48

Box-Death Hollow 1 0 1 1 1

Bull Valley 17 4 4 11 18

Bunker Creek 3 2 2 2 3

Capital Reef* 1 <1 <1 <1 1

Casto Bluff 63 12 17 18 66

Cave Canyon 3 <1 1 1 3

Cedar Bench 6 0 0 1 6

Cottonwood 3 <1 <1 2 3

Cove Mountain 17 2 3 3 17

Dark Valley 44 11 14 20 44

Deer Creek 10 1 1 6 16

Fishhook 10 2 2 2 10

Gum Hill 1 <1 <1 <1 1

Hancock 0 0 0 0 0

Happy Valley 14 8 8 8 14

Hay Lakes 46 12 12 24 46

Headwaters/Pine Park Bench/Pine Park 2 0 1 <1 2

Hog Ranch 12 3 5 9 12

Horse Valley 12 1 2 9 12

Jake Hollow 14 1 5 6 14

Kane Mountain 5 <1 <1 1 5

Lava Beds 1 1 1 1 1

Long Neck Mesa/Steep Creek/Oak 

Creek-Steep Creek/Oak Creek 31 16 18 19 32

Lost Peak <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

McGath Lake-Auger Hole 1 <1 <1 1 1

Mineral Canyon 3 <1 <1 <1 3

Mogotsu 6 3 4 4 6

Moody Wash 18 11 11 13 18

New Home Bench 24 21 21 22 24

North Hills 25 7 8 8 25

Pine Valley Mountains 3 <1 2 1 3

Red Canyon North 12 5 6 6 12

Red Canyon South 4 1 1 4 4

Rock Canyon 8 5 4 5 8

Shakespeare Point <1 0 0 0 <1

South Rim 1 <1 1 1 1

Stoddard Mountain 7 2 2 2 7

Table Cliffs-Henderson Canyon 5 2 2 3 5

All miles rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Miles composed of Maintenance Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 

unauthorized roads, and seasonal Maintenance Level 2 roads, and motorized trails. For a more 

detailed breakdown by IRA, including totals by maintenance level, totals of motorized trails, totals of 

non-motorized trails, and unauthorized routes, see the Appendix A of the Roadless and Unroaded 

and Undeveloped Specialist Report (USDA 2009l). 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-113 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-26. Miles of Motorized Routes by Unroaded and Undeveloped Area 

Alternative Unroaded and Undeveloped Area A B C D E 

Antimony 33 9 7 11 34

Ashdown 2 2 2 2 2

Atchison 16 6 <1 11 17

Barker 8 <1 <1 2 8

Bear Valley Peak 4 2 2 2 4

Big Hollow <1 0 0 0 <1

Birch Creek 1 1 1 1 1

Blind Springs 6 <1 <1 1 1

Boulder Creek 14 10 9 11 13

Box-Death Hollow 3 <1 <1 <1 3

Bull Valley 15 1 1 9 17

Bunker Creek 7 3 3 3 7

Canaan Mountain 3 2 2 2 3

Casto Bluff 26 4 7 6 29

Cave Canyon 5 0 1 2 5

Cedar Bench 8 0 0 2 8

Cottonwood 8 <1 <1 5 8

Cove Mountain 14 2 5 5 14

Deep Creek 10 2 2 7 15

Dry Lake 15 10 11 14 15

Fishhook 5 0 <1 0 5

Hancock <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Happy Valley 7 4 4 4 7

Heaps Canyon 5 2 2 2 5

Henderson Canyon 1 0 0 0 1

Hog Ranch 1 0 1 0 1

Horse Valley 8 <1 1 1 8

Jake Hollow 12 3 7 7 12

Kane Mountain 6 1 1 1 6

Lava Beds #1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Lava Beds #2 1 0 0 0 1

Little Creek Peak 11 5 6 6 11

Long Neck 11 5 5 7 11

Lost Peak <1 0 <1 <1 <1

Lower Hoodle 20 0 <1 3 20

Mineral Canyon 3 <1 1 <1 3

Moody Wash/Mogotsu 36 18 19 21 36

North Boulder 34 16 16 22 34

North Hills 25 7 8 9 25

Oak Creek 6 1 1 1 6

Pacer Lake 26 19 22 22 26

Pine Park 12 6 3 6 12

Pine Valley Mountain 33 12 19 10 32

Pretty Tree Bench 2 2 2 2 2

Red Canyon North 12 5 5 5 12

Red Canyon South <1 0 0 0 <1

Shakespeare Point <1 0 0 0 <1

Stoddard Mount 7 2 2 2 7

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-114 Roadless and Unroaded 

and Effects Analysis and Undeveloped 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Roadless and Unroaded 3-115 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Undeveloped and Effects Analysis 

Alternative Unroaded and Undeveloped Area A B C D E 

Wagon Box 7 0 1 1 7

West Boulder 5 3 3 3 7

All miles rounded to the nearest 1 mile. Miles composed of Maintenance Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 

unauthorized roads, and seasonal Maintenance Level 2 roads, and motorized trails. For a more 

detailed breakdown by unroaded and undeveloped area, including totals by maintenance level, totals 

of motorized trails, totals of non-motorized trails, and unauthorized routes, see the Appendix B of the 

Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Specialist Report (USDA 2009l). 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.14. Cultural Resources 

The information in this section is summarized from the Cultural Resources Specialist Report

prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009f). Please see that report for more detail on 

the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.14.1. Affected Environment 

The cultural resources of the Dixie National Forest represents a wide diversity of site types, 

cultural groups, time periods, and even resources (including paleontological resources). A 

limited number of sites have been identified for public use, though they are currently in various 

stages of formal designation. These include the Spanish Trail designated by Congress as a 

National Historic Trail in 2002, and the Hell’s Backbone Bridge. Several administrative sites, 

including the Podunk, Cowpuncher, and Aquarius guard stations, have been designated for use 

under the Forest Service Rustic Cabin Rental program. Lower and Upper Enterprise Reservoir 

Dams, Leeds Creek Kiln, and several other sites are in the process of being designated. 

Two sites on the Forest and one adjacent with features on the Forest have been listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places: Long Flat Archaeological Site, designated in 1978; the 

Mountain Meadows Massacre District, designated in 1975; and Historic Iron Town, designated 

in 1978. Many other sites on the Forest are potentially eligible for nomination to the National 

Register. 

By 2006, less than 8 percent of the Forest had been inventoried for cultural resources. 

Approximately 2,000 cultural resource sites have been recorded and evaluated. Only a very 

few of these have been investigated scientifically. Because most of the cultural resources on 

the Dixie National Forest have not been inventoried or evaluated and very few have been 

scientifically investigated, the knowledge of past cultures occupations is inferred from other 

better-studied regions adjacent to the Forest. A majority of the sites are in fair to good condition 

because of their current isolation, but this isolation is becoming reduced as increased access to 

these isolated areas grows. 

Archaeological resources, historical sites, and paleontological resources are valuable for 

scientific, public interpretive, and educational uses. American Indian groups consider sites and 

areas to be sacred and important to the ongoing existence of their culture. Cultural resource 

site locations are not disclosed in this document. In order to protect and preserve cultural 

resources, detailed descriptions and locations are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act as stated in Forest Service Policy (FSH 6209.13, section 11.12) in accordance 

with the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 170hh) and the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470w-3). Identification and records are supplied to 

the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer to concur with the Forest Service’s Determination of 

Eligibility and Effects. 

Cultural resources, including paleontological resources, are non-renewable resources. As such, 

federal regulations have been passed which prohibit destruction of these resources and obligate 

the federal land managing agencies to protect and manage these resources. The Antiquities 

Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(amended in 1992), the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and the Native 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-116 Cultural Resources 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 are the most important regulations 

concerning the protection of the cultural resources on federal land. 

The primary threats to cultural resources on the Forest are vandalism, collection of surface 

artifacts and fossils, OHV use, erosion, and livestock use. Intentional vandalism occurring on 

the Forest includes sites damaged or destroyed by illegal excavations, collection of artifacts and 

fossils off the surface, destruction of sites by people using metal detectors (followed by digging 

to remove artifacts), and destruction or removal of rock art. Unintentional vandalism to the 

resources occurs from driving off-road across sites; touching, chalking, paint balling, or marking 

rock art sites; creating trails, both non- motorized and motorized, across or near sites with 

fragile features, removal of features or objects that are part of sites, and dispersed camping on 

sites. The Dixie National Forest will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute all 

intentional vandalism and continue to provide education to the public about the protection and 

preservation of heritage resources on the Forest. 

3.14.1.1. Resources of Traditional Importance to American Indians 

American Indian groups have either currently or historically lived in or adjacent to the Dixie 

National Forest and have cultural ties to the area. American Indians consider Traditional 

Cultural Properties (TCPs), power places, sacred sites, and many natural resources to be linked 

to parts of an ecosystem. If a site is within a group’s traditional territory, the members of the 

group often assume it as part of their heritage. 

Individuals from adjacent American Indian tribes continue to utilize areas within the Dixie 

National Forest visiting sites and gathering and using resources from the area. Some have ties 

to natural features, ancient villages, campsites, rock art, and burial sites that they consider 

sacred. There are no Treaty Rights within the boundaries of the Forest with any of the Tribal 

groups adjacent to the Forest. 

Tribal groups who have interest and have identified traditional lands and ties within the Forest 

have been contacted and initial consultation has resulted in identification of some resource 

areas, spiritual locations, and sites important to their cultures. The Utah State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have been 

consulted on this project. 

3.14.2. Effects Analysis 

Considering cultural resources in comprehensive travel management planning is an 

interdisciplinary process. Cultural resource information from the Forest’s inventory maps and 

reports, the professional judgment of the Forest’s Heritage Staff, and other existing cultural 

resources information were all considered when analyzing the range of possibilities in proposed 

route designation. This information was included in the interdisciplinary identification effort 

during the initial route designation process, and is documented in the Route Reports. 

During the analysis of the routes and of the potential for effects to unknown sites on the Forest, 

it was determined that there would be a need for a complete inventory of all new designated 

routes identified on the Forest, regardless of which alternative or combination of alternatives 

was selected. These “new designated routes” include routes that are both user-created and 

Cultural Resources 3-117 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

routes that were never made part of the forest road system; in either case, these routes were 

not inventoried for effects to any resources even though all these routes currently exist on the 

ground and are receiving use. It will take approximately five years to inventory these routes. 

As the inventory proceeds, we will consult with the Utah SHPO on sites found and recorded. 

The associated routes will be evaluated, after which the measures identified in the 

Programmatic Agreement may need to be conducted. Measures could include monitoring, 

fencing, rerouting, closure, excavation, or burial of the site. Areas and routes open to OHV use 

are to be monitored for impacts to resources, especially routes in areas of known Historic 

Properties. These areas are known from previous inventories conducted during development 

activities conducted on the Forest. 

3.14.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.14.2.1.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives 

All OHV use is subject to prohibitions against operation of vehicles on federal lands in a 

reckless, careless, or negligent manner, and operation in excess of established speeds or in a 

manner causing or likely to cause undue damage to cultural and other resources. Where an 

authorized officer determines that OHV use is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects to 

cultural resources, federal law allows for the immediate closure to the type or types of vehicles 

causing the adverse effect until those adverse effects are eliminated and measures are 

implemented to prevent recurrence. 

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, federal agencies must take 

into account the affect their actions would have on cultural resources and TCPs. As part of the 

stipulation outlined in the Programmatic Agreement with the Utah SHPO, before implementing 

this travel plan, areas of high probability within areas proposed for ground disturbance and/or 

reclassification of routes never surveyed will be surveyed and evaluated by an archaeologist in 

an effort to locate and record any archaeological or historical sites or TCPs. Survey methods 

will include pedestrian transects and visual assessments of the project Area of Potential Effects 

for all site-specific undertakings. 

Each site identified is evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Those 

sites found to exhibit the characteristics for inclusion on the Register are identified as Historic 

Properties and actions undertaken near or adjacent to them must identify what affect they will 

have. These effects are identified as “no effect,” “no adverse effect,” or “adverse effect.” 

Project design features must be undertaken for those actions that will pose a no adverse effect 

or adverse effect. These measures can range from fencing, rerouting, burying the site, and full 

scale excavation, and are identified on a site-by-site basis. A Programmatic Agreement 

between the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Utah SHPO, and the Dixie National 

Forest will outline how the surveys, evaluations, and measures will be implemented. 

The following assumptions are made for cultural resources within the Forest under all 

alternatives: 

1. All laws for the management and protection of cultural resources will be followed, 

2. Section 106 inventories and measures will be conducted for all proposed projects, as 

required by the National Historic Preservation Act, under those alternatives that involve 

ground disturbing activities, 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-118 Cultural Resources 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3. The cultural resources on the Forest will continue to be monitored for vandalism and 

protected or stabilized, as necessary, and 

4. All surface disturbing activities include measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources. 

3.14.2.1.2. Alternative A 

Use of motorized routes and areas open to cross-country travel in this alternative would result in 

continued and increasing impacts to cultural resources. Sites and paleontological resources 

would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by visitors and natural processes. 

TCPs would still be accessible by Tribal members and groups, but this alternative would also 

allow for continued access damage and vandalism to these TCPs by other visitors using 

motorized and mechanized vehicles. Access for research would be easier and more costeffective under this alternative. 

3.14.2.1.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B fewer roads would be open for use as this alternative emphasizes 

protection for natural, paleontological, and cultural resources. Cross-country travel would be 

prohibited forest-wide. Sites would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by 

visitors and natural processes. Most TCPs would still be accessible by Tribal members and 

groups, though this alternative would also allow for continued access damage and vandalism to 

these TCPs and sites by other visitors using motorized and mechanized vehicles using existing 

roads. 

3.14.2.1.4. Alternative C 

The types of impacts under Alternative C would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. Impacts would be more intense than under Alternatives B due to the increase of 

miles of roads that would be open to motorized public travel. Impacts would be less intense 

than under Alternatives A, D, and E due to fewer miles of roads that would be open. Crosscountry travel would be prohibited forest-wide. 

More unauthorized routes, including routes that must remain open for access to private 

property, permitted use, and administrative access, would be added to the system. Sites and 

paleontological resources would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by 

visitors and natural processes. Most TCPs would still be accessible by Tribal members and 

groups, but this alternative would also allow for continued access damage and vandalism to 

these TCPs by other visitors using motorized and mechanized vehicles on existing routes. 

3.14.2.1.5. Alternative D 

With the exception of Alternatives A and E, the greatest access for all motorized and 

mechanized vehicles users, including the OHV community, would be provided under Alternative 

D. Sites would continue to be impacted intentionally or unintentionally by all ranges of visitors 

and natural processes. TCPs would still be accessible by Tribal members and groups, but this 

alternative would also allow for continued access damage and vandalism to these TCPs by 

other visitors using motorized and mechanized vehicles. Access for research would be easier 

and more cost-effective under this alternative. Cross-country travel would be eliminated across 

the entire Forest, which would provide more protection than under Alternative A. 

Cultural Resources 3-119 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-120 Cultural Resources 

and Effects Analysis 

Two proposed motorized trails comprising 1.26 miles would be developed and built under this 

alternative. The locations of both of the proposed motorized trails have been surveyed. There 

would be no adverse effects to historic properties. Review and concurrence from the Utah 

SHPO would be conducted on these routes prior to construction. 

3.14.2.1.6. Alternative E 

This alternative provides for the most motorized access on designated routes. Under this 

alternative all non-system or unauthorized routes would be added to the system unless 

addressed otherwise through previous and pending decisions. These additions would be 

designated as open to public motorized travel. Cross-country travel would be prohibited forestwide. Sites and paleontological resources would continue to be impacted intentionally or 

unintentionally by visitors and natural processes. TCPs would still be accessible by Tribal 

members and groups, but this alternative would also allow for continued access damage and 

vandalism to these TCPs by other visitors using motorized and mechanized vehicles. Access 

for research would be easier and more cost-effective under this alternative. 

Two proposed motorized trails comprising 1.26 miles would be developed and built under this 

alternative. The locations of both of the proposed motorized trails have been surveyed. There 

would be no adverse effects to historic properties. Review and concurrence from the Utah 

SHPO would be conducted on these routes prior to construction 

3.14.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

The increase in regional population and popularity of the Dixie National Forest is correlated to 

an increase in damage to archaeological and historical resources from visitation, including that 

caused by vandalism. As the popularity of OHVs and recreation activities increases, the 

increase of impacts to all cultural resources on the Forest is now at a critical stage. As cultural 

resources are nonrenewable, it is critical that we preserve and protect those remaining 

resources. Public education and information is vital in efforts to preserving the past. Education 

must be expanded beyond the local level to reach those who visit the Forest from regional 

urban areas. 

Archaeological resources, historical sites, and paleontological resources within the Forest would 

continue to be impacted by natural process. The agency and other development projects 

conducted by non-agency groups would continue to be conducted in the foreseeable future. 

Prior to any activities either conducted by the Forest Service or outside groups under special 

use permits, all ground-disturbing activities would have cultural resource surveys conducted 

prior to their implementation as outlined in law governing the protection of these resources. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.15. Transportation 

The information in this section is summarized from the Transportation Specialist Report

prepared for this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009o). Please see that report for more detail on 

the affected environment and effects analysis. 

3.15.1. Affected Environment 

Transportation facilities provide important access to the Forest for a variety of uses including 

timber harvest, livestock grazing, mining, and recreation. The Dixie National Forest Motorized 

Travel Plan will affect future access for forest management and public activities. 

In 1996 the Dixie National Forest began inventorying all motorized routes on the Forest. This 

effort resulted in a Global Positioning System (GPS) motorized route inventory that was 

completed in summer 2005. This inventory provides the base data layer for this travel planning 

project. This section addresses roads and the road system. Motorized trails are not addressed 

in this analysis or in any of the mileages portrayed in any of the tables in this section. 

Table 3-27. Total Miles of Road on the Forest 

Area Current 

System Miles 

Current 

Non-System 

Miles 

Total 

Cedar City 1,011 393 1,404

Escalante 794 333 1127

Pine Valley 468 198 666

Powell 805 455 1260

Teasdale 348 104 452

Forest-wide 3,426 1483 4,909

Includes miles from previous and pending decisions. 

3.15.1.1. Road Operation and Maintenance 

There are five maintenance categories of Forest Service System roads. The following 

descriptions are from FSH 7709.58, 10. 

Level 1 

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 

Transportation 3-121 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

traffic. However, while being maintained at Level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, 

but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses. 

Level 2 

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. 

Level 3 

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. 

Level 4 

Assigned to roads that provide a moderate 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. 

Level 5 

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." 

The maintenance categories vary the frequency and intensity of all maintenance activities. 

Road maintenance standards are set by the road’s maintenance level and are described in the 

Forest Service’s Road Preconstruction Handbook (FSH 7709.58,10). The following table 

summarizes the maintenance levels of the current system. 

Table 3-28. Miles of Road by Operational Maintenance Level 

Miles by Operational Maintenance Level Area 1 2 3 4 5 Total 

Cedar City 84 753 140 19 15 1,011

Escalante 226 423 145 0 0 794

Pine Valley 9 364 87 8 0 468

Powell 27 694 75 9 0 805

Teasdale 27 291 29 1 0 348

Forest-wide 373 2,525 476 37 15 3,426

The Forest performs road maintenance on the Forest road system as funding allows. On the 

Dixie National Forest it is estimated that approximately 25 percent of the road system miles 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-122 Transportation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

receives some annual maintenance, including maintenance done by the counties. Higher 

standard “passenger car” roads (Levels 3, 4, and 5) receive more maintenance than lower 

standard roads (Levels 1 and 2) due to the differences in the amount of use. Priorities are 

based on environmental concerns and the need to implement Forest projects. The Forest also 

cooperates with local counties to perform maintenance or improvements on primary Forest 

access roads. Forest maintenance prescription guidelines are found in the Transportation 

System Maintenance Handbook, FSH 7709.58, 12.6, Exhibit 01 (Appendix C in the 

Transportation Specialist Report [USDA 2009o]). 

Maintenance figures for years 2004 through 2007 are displayed in the following tables. All 

figures include county maintenance. 

Table 3-29. Maintenance Figures for Fiscal Year 2004 

Dixie National Forest 

FY 2004 

1 

Total System Miles 

(End of FY) 

2 

Roads Receiving 

Maintenance (Miles) 

3 

Maintenance Level 1 377.05 10.00 

Maintenance Level 2 2,385.48 315.00 

Maintenance Level 3 595.90 405.00 

Maintenance Level 4 94.46 40.00 

Maintenance Level 5 16.46 16.00 

Total Miles 3,469.35 786.00 

% of Road Miles Receiving Maintenance 23% 

Approximate Annual Cost Per Mile $256.00 

Total Cost $201,216.00 

Table 3-30. Maintenance Figures for Fiscal Year 2005 

Dixie National Forest 

FY 2005 

1 

Total System Miles 

(End of FY) 

2 

Roads Receiving 

Maintenance (Miles) 

3 

Maintenance Level 1 359.13 0.00 

Maintenance Level 2 2355.64 220.00 

Maintenance Level 3 593.63 403.00 

Maintenance Level 4 87.17 60.00 

Maintenance Level 5 16.46 16.00 

Total Miles 3,412.03 699.00 

% of Road Miles Receiving Maintenance 20% 

Approximate Annual Cost Per Mile $267.00 

Total Cost $186,633.00 

Transportation 3-123 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-31. Maintenance Figures for Fiscal Year 2006 

Dixie National Forest 

FY 2006 

1 

Total System Miles 

(End of FY) 

2 

Roads Receiving 

Maintenance (Miles) 

3 

Maintenance Level 1 362.00 0.00 

Maintenance Level 2 2334.52 398 

Maintenance Level 3 593.63 474 

Maintenance Level 4 87.17 87 

Maintenance Level 5 16.46 15 

Total Miles 3,393.78 974 

% of Road Miles Receiving Maintenance 28% 

Approximate Annual Cost Per Mile $300.00 

Total Cost $292,200.00 

Table 3-32. Maintenance Figures for Fiscal Year 2007 

Dixie National Forest 

FY 2007 

1 

Total System Miles 

(End of FY) 

2 

Roads Receiving 

Maintenance (Miles) 

3 

Maintenance Level 1 370.50 0 

Maintenance Level 2 2522.60 447.00 

Maintenance Level 3 474.70 295 

Maintenance Level 4 37.20 37 

Maintenance Level 5 14.80 15 

Total Miles 3,421.80 794 

% of Road Miles Receiving Maintenance 23% 

Approximate Annual Cost Per Mile $350.00 

Total Cost $277,900.00 

For a discussion of trail maintenance, see the Trail Maintenance section within the Recreation

section on page 3-75. 

3.15.2. Effects Analysis 

3.15.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.15.2.1.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives maintain primary access to major sites and facilities. Alternatives B, C, and D 

reduce the miles of designated roads, which reduces overall motorized access to the Forest. 

However, even under Alternative B, which has the lowest miles of designated roads, access to 

private property, most permitted activities, and forest administrative uses should remain intact. 

1. All Operational Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads (all of which are addressed in the 

Roads Analysis Report for the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests [USDA 2003b]) would 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-124 Transportation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

remain open as recommended in the Roads Analysis Report. These roads provide 

important access for Forest management activities and form the backbone of the Forest 

Transportation System. 

2. The existing public access to and through the Forest provided by county and state roads 

would remain the same for all alternatives. The Forest would continue to work with 

adjacent counties and private landowners to maintain and improve public access to the 

Forest as opportunity allows; this coordination would not be dependent on which 

alternative is selected. 

3. Private land access would be provided within National Forest boundaries as required by 

Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Routes 

on private land within NFS lands are not the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and would 

remain open to the public through rights-of-way or easements obtained for purposes of 

public access. Routes without rights-of-way or easements may not be open to public 

access, depending on landowner permission. 

4. The travel plan does not restrict responses to emergency events to protect human life, 

property values, structures, or forest resources. These activities would be coordinated 

through an authorized official. 

5. Permitted activities, such as livestock operations, mineral development, and access to 

special use developments, are authorized through the permit process and operation 

plan. Some routes are not designated for public use and are depicted as administrative 

use on the maps of the alternative. In all cases, these permitted uses are nonrecreational, intended to allow maintenance of utilities, water improvements, etc., and/or 

to haul materials needed for the permitted operations. Permit holders and agency 

officials are allowed motorized access only for official purposes. 

6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 212.50 of the final Travel Rule, a number of previous and pending 

administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on National 

Forest System roads, trails, or areas have been incorporated as previously designated 

into this travel planning project. 

3.15.2.1.2. Alternative A 

Approximately 61 percent (1,150,113 acres) of the Forest currently open seasonally or yearlong to motorized cross-country travel would remain open. Cross-country travel would remain 

prohibited on 39 percent, or 735,943 acres, of the Forest. Site-specific planning and 

enforcement of OHV regulations would occur at current levels. The motorized network of 

unauthorized routes would continue to grow (USDA 2009o). 

This alternative consists of management and restrictions for travel routes and areas as depicted 

on the 2005 Dixie National Forest Travel Map (USDA 2005a). The Travel Map uses the 

following designations: 

 L1 and L2 Limited Areas. Areas available for motorized use subject to certain user 

restrictions. L1 Use is limited to routes of travel shown on the map. L2 Opportunities 

and restrictions vary in these areas. Cross-country travel is limited to snowmobile use 

with 12 inches of snow. 

o Area Described. All National Forest System lands located within the boundaries 

of the Dixie National Forest as it relates to open, restricted, or closed areas, 

roads, trails as designated on the ground and/or shown on the Dixie National 

Forest Travel Map. 

 L3 (Duck/Swains Area). L3 – Special closure area. See attached closure order 

pertaining to this area. 

Transportation 3-125 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 Closure Described. Any road or trail not designated as open to motorized travel in 

Area L3 on the Dixie National Forest Travel Map (Open Roads and ATV Trails). 

 Closed Area. Areas closed to all motorized use. Trails shown in closed areas are for 

non-motorized use only. 

 Exemptions. Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from this 

Order: 

1. Persons with a permit specifically exempting them from the effect of this Order. 

2. Any Federal, State, or local officer or member or an organized rescue or 

firefighting force in the performance of an official duty. 

 Other National Forest Lands. These areas are open to cross-country travel on the 

current Dixie Travel Map. 

3.15.2.1.3. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) 

1. Closing the Forest to motorized cross-country travel would reduce the potential for direct 

and indirect off-route interactions and impacts with other land uses. This would have the 

effect of reducing actual and potential cumulative impacts to nearly all other resource 

values and uses on the Forest. 

2. The installation of barriers as part of road closure efforts is not expected to generate 

enough site disturbance to adversely affect biological or physical resource values. In 

fact, physical barriers are expected to reduce resource impacts and use conflicts by 

improving compliance with the travel plan. 

3. The existing condition of the Forest illustrates the existence of a large number of 

unauthorized roads (roads not currently part of the National Forest System of roads). 

While some of these unauthorized routes were user-created through public recreational 

use, the majority were created over the course of decades by the Forest Service to 

facilitate range, timber, and special use activities. In some cases these routes have 

acquired recreational value. This travel plan considers the uses and impacts of 

unauthorized routes and proposes to add some of them to the system. The miles of 

route proposed for addition to the system varies by action alternative. 

4. Road operation and maintenance activities are not anticipate to change much between 

the alternatives. Currently, approximately 25 percent of the road system receives annual 

maintenance. Generally the roads that are receiving this limited annual maintenance 

would remain open and would continue to receive annual maintenance as funding 

allows. Many of these roads are the Level 3, 4, and 5 roads noted above on page 3-124

under Effects Common to All Alternatives. The lower standard, Level 2, lesser-used 

roads only receive maintenance to reduce environmental effects and to provide for 

safety. Currently less than 20 percent of Maintenance Level 2 roads are maintained 

forest-wide. This number is not expected to increase dramatically unless National 

direction changes. 

5. Routes that are not designated for public or administrative use in this decision would be 

closed and decommissioned from the National Forest System. If a route is proposed to 

be closed, the closure method would be the same for all alternatives that recommend 

that particular closure (USDA 2009o, Appendix A). Some routes proposed for closure 

would be decommissioned (ripped and seeded) and others would be allowed to 

revegetate naturally. Some routes proposed for closure are already brushed in (revegetating naturally), a process that would be left alone to continue. For roads that are 

proposed for decommissioning, there would be a one-time cost to accomplish those 

activities, as detailed in the following tables. Additionally, portions of some routes may 

require relocation or improvement to meet Forest Service standards; these route 

sections have been identified through the route evaluation and analysis process. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-126 Transportation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Authorization of some of the actual road relocation work may require supplemental 

analysis and, in some cases, a subsequent decision made according to National 

Environmental Policy Act provisions. 

6. There would be impacts in the administration of adding unauthorized routes to the 

system in that system route numbers and linear events3

 would need to be assigned to 

each unauthorized route in the Forest’s Infra Database. The number of routes in the 

current 2 percent random sample of Level 2 routes requiring Condition Surveys each 

year would increase slightly. Signing requirements would increase by adding these 

unauthorized routes to the Forest Transportation System. 

Table 3-33. Decommissioning Costs 

Equipment Costs 

Quantity Equipment Equipment 

Rate Labor Rate Total Rate Total Hourly Rate 

1 D-7 Dozer $133.40 $36.19 $169.59 $169.59

Scarifying Costs 

Estimated Time per Mile Costs Equipment Hours Hourly Cost Cost per Mile 

Dozer 16.00 $169.59 $2,713.44

Earthen Barrier 

Estimated Time per Barrier Costs Equipment Hours Hourly Cost Cost per Mile 

Dozer 1.00 $169.59 $169.59

Table 3-34. Miles Proposed for Decommissioning by Alternative 

Alternative Type A B C D E 

System Miles 0 62 48 31 5

Unauthorized Miles 0 39 32 12 7

Total Miles 0 101 80 43 12

6. Motorized Mixed Use Analysis. NFS roads are designed primarily for use by highwaylegal vehicles (motor vehicles that are licensed or certified for general operation on 

public roads within the State) such as a passenger car or log truck. Some NFS roads 

also provide recreational access for ATVs and other non-highway-legal OHVs. For the 

purpose of this document, motorized mixed use is defined as designation of a NFS road 

for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. Designating NFS 

roads for motorized mixed use involves safety and engineering considerations. 

The Dixie National Forest’s Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed-use on Forest 

System Roads demonstrates consideration of the effects on public safety and conflicts 

 

3

 Linear events describe attributes for a road. Linear events include surface type, jurisdiction, and primary 

maintainer. 

Transportation 3-127 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

among different classes of motor vehicle uses on National Forest system lands and/or 

neighboring federal lands (USDA 2008e). The Forest is not proposing to authorize 

motorized mixed use where it is not currently authorized. The analysis includes Mixed 

Use Analysis Reports and Judgments. The Forest used the direction found in national 

guidelines and handbooks in preparing the analysis (USDA 2004a, 2005b). 

3.15.2.1.4. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 34 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the Forest 

Transportation System, to include routes that must remain open for private property, permitted 

uses, or administrative access. The remaining 1,424 miles of unauthorized roads would be 

closed. In this alternative 1,501 miles of motorized system routes would remain open for public 

access and 1,913 miles of motorized system routes would be closed to the public and removed 

from the Forest Transportation System. Alternative B retains the fewest miles of motorized 

routes of all of the action alternatives. 

3.15.2.1.5. Alternative C 

Under this alternative, 55 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the system, to include 

routes that must remain open for private property, permitted uses, or administrative access. 

The remaining 1,390 miles of unauthorized roads would be closed. In Alternative C 1,670 miles 

of motorized system routes would remain open for public access and 1,650 miles of motorized 

system routes would be closed to the public and removed from the Forest Transportation 

System. Motorized access for recreation and administrative and permitted uses is allowed to a 

higher degree than under Alternative B. 

3.15.2.1.6. Alternative D 

This alternative generally allows for a higher level of motorized access than does Alternative C. 

Under Alternative D, 151 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to the system (1,301 

unauthorized miles would be closed), including routes that must remain open for private 

property, permitted uses, or administrative access. In this alternative 2,290 miles of motorized 

system routes would be open for public access and 1,195 miles of motorized system routes 

would be closed to the public and removed from the Forest Transportation System. Motorized 

access for recreation and administrative and permitted uses is allowed to a higher degree than 

under Alternatives B and C. This alternative generally allows for a higher level of motorized 

access than does Alternative C. 

3.15.2.1.7. Alternative E 

This alternative provides the most motorized access by designating all system routes as open to 

public motorized use, with the exception of routes already designated through a specific 

previous decision. All non-system or unauthorized routes would also be designated as open to 

public motorized travel and therefore added to the Forest Transportation System. Trails that are 

currently designated as non-motorized would not be designated for motorized travel under this 

alternative. 

Alternative E designates 1,253 miles of unauthorized routes to the system of routes for 

motorized travel (those remaining unauthorized routes were identified for closure through 

previous decisions, which are excluded from analysis as described earlier in this report), and 

includes routes that must remain open for private property, permitted uses, or administrative 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-128 Transportation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

access. Under Alternative E, 3,074 miles of motorized system routes would be left open for 

public access and 557 miles of motorized system routes would be closed to the public and 

removed from the Forest Transportation System. 

Table 3-35. Road Mileage Comparison by Alternative 

Alternative Category A B C D E 

System Open 2,922 1,501 1,670 2,290 3,074 

System Closed 691 1,913 1,650 1,195 557 

Current Decommissioned (154) (154) (154) (154) (154)

Current Converted to Trails (37) (37) (37) (37) (37)

Total System 3,422 3,223 3,129 3,294 3,440 

Difference from Current Condition 0 (199) (293) (128) 18 

 

Unauthorized Open 1,111 34 55 151 1,253 

Unauthorized Closed 372 1,424 1,390 1,301 233 

Total Unauthorized 1,483 1,458 1,445 1,452 1,486 

Difference from Current Condition 0 (25) (38) (31) 3

Total Miles (Total System + Total Unauthorized) 4,905 4,681 4,574 4,746 4,926 

Difference from Current Condition 0 (224) (331) (177) 21 

3.15.2.1.8. Administrative Routes 

Administrative routes are routes that are (or were) typically built by the Forest to remove timber 

from various areas. Once the timber has been removed and other administrative activities 

completed, the routes are closed. When closed, these roads must be physically closed with 

barricades, berms, gates, or other closure devices. Closures of these roads must exceed one 

year. When opened, these roads may be maintained at any other maintenance level. 

Maintenance on these roads is only performed for the purposes of drainage control and 

minimizing erosion. 

Table 3-36. Administrative Miles Summary by Alternative 

Alternative Measure A B C D E 

Miles of Administrative Roads 

(Maintenance Level 1) 631 959 1,037 962 399 

3.15.2.1.9. Seasonal Closures 

Some roads on the Escalante Ranger District are currently closed seasonally. These 

seasonally-designated roads are closed to minimize wildlife disturbance or to protect the road 

surface from motorized vehicles when conditions are wet and muddy. There are additional 

routes in each alternative recommended for seasonal closure. These closures would continue 

to affect fall and spring motorized access for activities like hunting and gathering of forest 

products. 

Transportation 3-129 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 3-37. Miles of Road with Seasonal Closures by Alternative 

Miles by Alternative Area A B C D E 

Cedar City 0 0 4 9 0

Escalante 87 36 44 64 36 

Pine Valley 0 0 1 0 0

Powell 0 0 0 2 0

Teasdale 0 2 4 0 0

Forest-wide 87 38 53 75 36 

3.15.2.2. Cumulative Effects 

 Utilities. Current and historic access for utilities considered as part of the existing 

condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. Maintenance and access 

to utilities would continue to require a special use permit with Forest Supervisor 

approval. There would be no effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable utility 

projects. 

 Oil and gas. Current and historic access for oil and gas considered as part of the 

existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. The Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenarios (RFDSs) for future oil and gas exploration and 

development on both the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests predict miles of new road 

construction and road maintenance, which could impact the Forest Transportation 

System. These impacts would be the same under all alternatives. 

 Minerals. Current and historic access for locatable mineral-related exploration and 

development considered as part of the existing condition is ongoing and would continue 

under all alternatives. Work associated with locatable minerals (e.g., cinders, sand, and 

gravel) would continue to require a permit with District Ranger approval. There would be 

no effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable mineral projects. 

 Recreation. Current and historic access for developed recreation considered as part of 

the existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. There are no 

effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable developed recreation projects. 

 Vegetation treatments. Current access for vegetation treatments considered as part of 

the existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. The 

collection of forest products, such as firewood and Christmas tree removal, would 

continue to require a permit with District Ranger approval. Effects to transportation from 

reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatment might occur if permanent routes need to be 

constructed or if temporary roads are not closed. However, this would be covered under 

separate NEPA evaluation. 

 Land exchanges. Current and historic access for land exchanges considered as part of 

the existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. There would 

be no effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable land exchanges. 

 Easements. Current and historic easements considered as part of the existing condition 

are ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. There may be an effect to 

transportation from reasonably foreseeable easements because the Forest would be 

required to administer the terms and conditions of each easement for compliance; these 

would be the same across all alternatives. 

 Special uses. Current and historic access for special uses considered as part of the 

existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. Special uses 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-130 Transportation 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Transportation 3-131 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 

would continue to require a permit with Forest Supervisor approval. There would be no 

effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable special uses. 

 Livestock grazing. Current and historic access for livestock grazing considered as part 

of the existing condition is ongoing and would continue under all alternatives. Livestock 

grazing would continue to require a permit with District Ranger approval. There would 

be no effects to transportation from reasonably foreseeable livestock grazing. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.16. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As 

declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including 

financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

This chapter and the specialist reports prepared for this project provide the required disclosure 

of effects from anticipated use associated with the current travel plan (Alternative A) and the 

travel plans proposed in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

As detailed in this chapter, Alternative A allows the most short-term use of Forest resources, but 

it would also result in the greatest impact to long-term productivity. The action alternatives 

provide varying amounts of motorized opportunities, and they have varying impacts to the shortterm uses of the Forest. All action alternatives reduce the existing and potential impacts to 

long-term productive from those of the existing condition. 

3.17. Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Effects on the environment that might result from implementation of any of the alternatives are 

analyzed in this chapter. Impacts from roads and trails cannot be eliminated, though they can 

be minimized. Under any alternative, unavoidable adverse effects could include: 

 Temporary disturbance to wildlife from human activity on designated routes or areas, 

 Adverse effects to water quality and associated biota from existence of and travel on 

designated routes or areas in riparian influence zones, and 

 Impacts to soil productivity, including accelerated erosion and sediment delivery, from 

existence of and travel on designated routes or areas. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-132 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

and Effects Analysis and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.18. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction 

of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line right-of-way or a road. 

With the exception of the two motorized trails proposed for construction in Alternatives D and E, 

all routes analyzed in this project currently exist on the ground. Road and trail corridors are 

irretrievable commitments of resources as they can be closed or decommissioned in the future, 

and the roadbed can be allowed to reclaim naturally or be obliterated and actively reclaimed 

through management actions. 

Soils. All proposed motorized trails represent a total resource commitment; the total 

commitment for Alternatives D and E is 0.8 acres. Route T34070 is not suited for new 

motorized trails. Route U24028A is suitable for new construction with proper design features to 

minimize effects to the soil resource. 

Noxious Weeds. Areas of the Forest that contain infestations of noxious weeds would be 

irretrievably lost to other uses until noxious weed abatement is successful. In some cases, 

these infestations, if left uncontrolled, could reduce biodiversity. No irretrievable effects have 

been identified for noxious weeds. 

Cultural Resources. Irreversible commitment of resources refers to the loss of future options 

and applies primarily to the effects of the use of nonrenewable resources such as cultural, 

paleontological, and traditional ceremonial areas. An irretrievable commitment of resources 

involves the loss of use of these resources over a period of time due to actions in the areas of 

these resources such as in the case of traditional ceremonial sites used by the Native 

Americans. As the population gets older, access to an area where they currently are or have in 

the past gathered resources for traditional use or access to ceremonial areas is important to 

them and total closure of roads accessing these resources would constitute an irreversible 

commitment. Traditional access has changed over the years as the people began to have 

access to motorized vehicles. Loss of access to these areas of traditional gathering of natural 

resources is irretrievable but the locations of new natural resources would make it reversible. 

As ceremonial locations are tired to specific sites and actions associated with these ceremonies 

can not for the most part be moved to a new location so loss of access to these locations would 

make it irreversible. 

Authorized mitigation of cultural sites prior to disturbance and unauthorized collecting and 

vandalism would result in an irreversible commitment of the resource. Authorized and 

unauthorized collection of fossils would result in an irreversible commitment of the resource. 

Erosion of the soil in the immediate area of these resources caused by unauthorized OHV use 

would cause irretrievable commitment of the resources. Restoration of unauthorized OHV use 

near these resources would reverse the commitment to these resources. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 3-133 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Commitments of Resources and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.19. Other Required Disclosures 

3.19.1. Forest Plan Consistency 

The Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) published after release of the decision will function as the 

new Travel Map for the Dixie National Forest. As noted on page IV-3 of the Forest Plan, 

“Review the travel map annually and revise as necessary. The most current revisions will 

become a part of the management direction for the Forest Plan.” The MVUM meets this 

requirement and will become part of the management direction of the Forest Plan. 

In general, all alternatives are compliant with the Forest Plan with the exception of the areas 

noted below. More detail on each resource area’s review of Forest Plan consistency can be 

found in the specialist reports. 

3.19.1.1. Road Density 

Guideline 1 in the Forest Plan under Transportation System Management states, “Road 

densities should not exceed 2 miles per square mile of wildlife habitat. The higher the road 

density, the more wildlife habitat effectiveness is decreased” (USDA 1986, p IV-50). In 1998, 

the Dixie Forest Supervisor provided direction on interpreting and using the two miles per 

square mile open road density guideline on the Forest. The following question and answer are 

taken from his memo. 

Question #5: How do we apply the guideline to areas currently having more than two 

miles/square mile? 

Answer: Where there is an existing condition of open, motorized travelway density 

greater than the two miles/square mile guideline, the new project should strive to reduce 

or achieve this guideline. Compliance with the Forest Plan is assumed if habitat 

effectiveness on the project area remains constant or is increased, even if open, 

motorized travel density exceeds two miles/square mile (USDA 1998, p. 2). 

Useable habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk were analyzed for habitat effectiveness. 

The Wildlife Specialist Report calculated road densities within individual Wildlife Management 

Units (WMUs) (USDA 2009p). Habitat effectiveness would remain constant or increase within 

all WMUs under all of the alternatives, even though some WMUs would continue to have an 

Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) exceeding two miles/square mile. The bulleted list 

below identifies those WMUs that exceed two miles/square mile by alternative. 

 Alternative A: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion WMUs 

 Alternatives B, C, and D: Zion WMU 

 Alternative E: Panguitch Lake, Paunsaugunt, and Zion WMUs 

3.19.1.2. Cross-country Travel 

Cross-country travel is currently allowed on 61 percent of the Forest (USDA 2005a). All of the 

action alternatives would require an amendment to the Forest Plan in order to comply with the 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-134 Other Required Disclosures 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Travel Rule, which prohibits motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails, and areas (36 CFR 

212.50 (a)). The amendment would revise all references to cross-country travel to reflect the 

prohibition on cross-country motorized travel. 

3.19.1.3. Scenery Integrity 

In 2000 the Forest Plan was amended to move from the Visual Management System to the 

Scenery Management System. As part of the amendment, the Forest was mapped for Concern 

Levels, which describe the current condition of the scenic resources, and Scenic Integrity 

Objectives, which describe the objectives for management or desired future conditions. 

Two motorized trails comprising 1.26 miles are proposed for construction in the Brian Head area 

on the Cedar City Ranger District in Alternatives D and E. Both of these trails would reduce the 

Scenic Integrity Objectives of their surrounding areas from High to Moderate, but would still 

meet the identified Concern Levels as identified in the Forest Plan. As such, the resulting drop 

in Scenic Integrity Objectives in these two alternatives would be within the parameters of the 

Forest Plan amendment and no further amendment would be needed. See the Scenery section 

beginning on page 3-85 for more information on the effects of the two trails on scenery and on 

the 2000 amendment. 

3.19.1.4. Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Implementation of any of the alternatives would be consistent with the Dixie National Forest’s 

Forest Plan. Every alternative except Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, where crosscounty travel is allowed, would reduce the risk of additional impacts to roadless and unroaded 

and undeveloped characteristics. Alternative E would require approval from the Regional 

Forester to designate additional system routes within IRAs while the RACR is in place, but no 

Forest Plan amendment would be required. 

3.19.2. Compliance with Laws and Other Direction 

3.19.2.1. Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions of federal agencies do not 

jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally-listed species. No critical habitat for 

any listed aquatic species would be adversely impacted with implementation of any of the 

alternatives. No critical habitat for any listed terrestrial species would be impacted with 

implementation of any of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E). 

3.19.2.2. Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act requires each state to implement its own water quality standards. The 

State of Utah's Water Quality Antidegradation Policy requires maintenance of water quality to 

protect existing instream Beneficial Uses on streams designated as Category 1 High Quality 

Waters. All surface waters geographically located within the outer boundaries of the Dixie 

National Forest, whether on private or public lands, are designated as High Quality Waters 

Other Required Disclosures 3-135 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

(Category 1). This means they will be maintained at existing high quality. New point sources 

will not be allowed, and non-point sources will be controlled to the extent feasible through 

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or regulatory programs (UAC 2008b). 

The State of Utah and the Forest Service have agreed through a 1993 Memorandum of 

Understanding to use the standards and guidelines in the Dixie National Forest’s Forest Plan 

and FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) as the BMPs (USDA 1993). 

The use of SWCPs as the BMPs meets the water quality protection elements of the Utah 

Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 

Increased contributions to any 303d listed stream is not anticipated in any alternative except 

Alternative A, where cross-country travel would allow additional impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and stream channels. The Beneficial Uses and High Quality of water in the streams 

draining the analysis area would be maintained to the extent feasible during and following 

project implementation through the proper implementation of Best Management Practices (the 

Soil and Water Conservation Practices) as described within the project-specific design features. 

3.19.2.3. Executive Order 11644 of February 8, 1972 

Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands 

As amended by Executive Order 11989 of May 24, 1977. 

Executive Order (EO) 11644, as amended, provides direction for federal agencies to establish 

policies and procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on public lands to: 1) protect the 

resource of those lands; 2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and 3) minimize 

conflicts among various users of those lands. In response, the Forest Service developed 

regulations at 36 CFR 216, 219, and 295. Under these regulations OHV use can be restricted 

or prohibited to minimize: 1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the 

public lands; 2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; or 3) conflicts between the use of OHVs and 

other types of recreation. 

Travel planning is an allocation process based on social and resource concerns. The Dixie 

National Forest has restricted motorized travel to designated routes in some areas of the Forest 

since the late 1970s. Additionally, the Forest issues a Travel Map that defines travel 

opportunities and restrictions on Forest roads and trails. The Dixie Travel Map is reissued 

whenever substantial changes have been made, with the most recent version dated 2005 

(USDA 2005a). 

Each of the action alternatives analyzed in this EIS makes substantial improvements in reducing 

redundant routes and minimizing resource impacts and use conflicts as required by 36 CFR 

212.55 and EO 11644. 

3.19.2.4. Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977 

Floodplain Management 

This order requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize 

adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-136 Other Required Disclosures 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Hydrology: The Forest Service is proposing to reduce or maintain the number of roads within 

the riparian influence zone in every alternative except Alternative A, where cross-county travel 

would allow for additional impacts to floodplains. 

Aquatic Biota: None of the alternatives would result in an increase in impacts within floodplain 

areas. Alternative A would result in a continuation of the current motorized travel management 

strategy across the Forest. All action alternatives would result in a decrease of impacts within 

floodplain areas, primarily through the elimination of open cross-country travel on the Forest. 

Thus, all alternatives ultimately comply with the intent of Executive Order 11988. 

3.19.2.5. Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977 

Protection of Wetlands 

This order requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands. 

Hydrology: The Forest Service is proposing to reduce or maintain the number of roads within 

the riparian influence zone in Alternatives B, C, and D. In Alternatives A and E, road density in 

the riparian influence zones would either increase or remain the same. In Alternative A, crosscountry travel would allow for additional impacts to wetlands, while in Alternative E, road density 

in riparian influence zones would increase. 

Aquatic Biota: None of the alternatives would result in an increase in impacts within wetland 

and riparian areas. Alternative A would result in a continuation of the current motorized travel 

management strategy. All action alternatives would result in a decrease of impacts within 

wetland and riparian areas, primarily through the elimination of open cross-country travel on the 

Forest. Thus, all alternatives ultimately comply with the intent of Executive Order 11990. 

3.19.2.6. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Lowincome Populations 

Executive Order 12898 directs the agency to identify and address, “...as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations....” In its outreach 

and scoping (public involvement) processes, the forest did not identify any potentially 

disproportionately high and adverse human-health or environmental effects to minority or lowincome populations. 

The Dixie National Forest is located within six counties: Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, 

Washington, and Wayne. Within these counties, the largest minority groups are Native 

Other Required Disclosures 3-137 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Americans and Hispanics of any race. Their percentage of the total populations of these 

counties in 2000 is shown in the table below. 

Table 3-38. Native American and Hispanic Populations by County 

County 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native Population 

(% of Total) 

Hispanic (of any 

Race) Population 

(% of Total) 

Garfield 1.8 2.9 

Iron 2.2 4.1 

Kane 1.6 2.3 

Piute 1.2 4.5 

Washington 1.5 5.2 

Wayne 0.4 2.0 

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget 2003. 

The Native American Tribes bordering the Dixie are the Navajo, Hopi, Southern Utah Paiute, 

and Kaibab Paiute. The Forest consulted with the Tribes through letters during the scoping 

period. The alternatives have been analyzed for their effect on the human and natural 

environment, and specifically on their effect to cultural resources. See the Cultural Resources 

section of this chapter beginning on page 3-116 and the Cultural Resources Specialist Report

(USDA 2009f) for more information. 

Low-income populations are present in the six counties. The following information is from the 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB 2003). 

 As of 1999, 8.1 percent of Garfield County’s population was in poverty (the federally 

established poverty threshold in 1999 for a family of four was $16,895). Garfield 

County’s economy in the past was based on lumber, farming, and cattle. Now much of 

the economy is based on tourism, spurred in part by the establishment of Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Slow job growth and relatively high 

unemployment are constant concerns. 

 Iron County had a 19.2 percent poverty rate in 1999. It has a more balanced and 

broadly based economy than many other southern Utah counties. Cedar City, the 

largest community, is a regional trade center and supplier of services. It is also home to 

Southern Utah University, the Utah Shakespearean Festival, and other festivals. 

Proximity to national parks and monuments is also an important element in Cedar City’s 

economy. 

 Kane County had a 7.9 percent poverty rate in 1999. Recreation and tourism, based 

primarily on Lake Powell and national parks and monuments, have long been a 

substantial part of the county’s economy. 

 Piute County had a 16.2 percent poverty rate in 1999. Agriculture is the primary 

employer in the county, although government employment also plays an important role. 

Tourism has not played as large a role as in the surrounding counties, but many 

businesses rely on some tourist trade to remain viable. 

 Washington County had a poverty rate of 11.2 percent in 1999. Washington is the most 

urbanized county in southern Utah. While it began as an agricultural area, tourism and 

winter residences began to change the region’s character in the 1960s. As St. George 

grew into an urban area, trade, transportation, and utilities became the largest sectors of 

the county’s economy. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-138 Other Required Disclosures 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 Wayne County had a 15.4 percent poverty rate in 1999. Agriculture was the dominant 

industry into the 1980s. Since then, agriculture’s economic role has declined, and the 

tourism and education sectors (e.g., youth wilderness therapy programs) have grown 

significantly. 

3.19.2.7. Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001, and the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs federal agencies to protect migratory 

birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities 

and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory birds’ 

resources when conducting agency actions. This order directs agencies to further comply with 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent 

statutes. This analysis is compliant with the National Memorandum of Understanding between 

the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. FWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds 

(USDA 2008g). In addition, the Dixie National Forest is compliant with the letter of 

understanding to the U.S. FWS Utah Field Office (USDA 2007a) concerning compliance with 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. This letter provides an updated statewide strategy for addressing migratory birds in Forest Service planning and project documents. 

Species selected for this analysis were chosen based on the process identified in this strategy. 

Bird species selected for this analysis were derived from a compilation of species included in 

the Utah Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy (Parrish et al. 2002), the Utah Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Gorrell et al. 2005), and the U.S. FWS Birds of Conservation 

Concern bird lists (USDI 2002). Birds included in these publications include those at higher risk 

due to habitat loss or degradation, with highest-risk species given priority status in the Utah 

Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy listing (Parrish et al. 2002). 

For this analysis, the black-throated gray warbler, Brewer’s sparrow, and broad-tailed 

hummingbird were selected as representative species to analyze the effects of motorized 

impacts on potentially suitable habitats. Additional migratory bird species were not selected 

because effects to all other habitat types were analyzed for other species in this analysis. The 

U.S. FWS was informed of the selection of these neotropical migratory species for the 

Motorized Travel Plan analysis in April 2009 (USDA 2009a). 

3.19.2.8. Executive Order 13443 of August 16, 2007 

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation 

This order directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable 

effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management to facilitate the 

expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species 

and their habitat. 

This DEIS and the associated specialist reports have considered the management of wildlife 

habitats (Wildlife and Aquatic Biota reports), trends in and effects on hunting opportunities, and 

Other Required Disclosures 3-139 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

economic and recreational values of hunting (Social and Economic and Recreation and Scenery

reports). Resource specialists have considered the programs and plans of other state and 

federal wildlife agencies, have worked collaboratively with them in their professional roles, and 

have coordinated with them in development of this travel management plan. These other 

agencies have been kept abreast of this travel management plan (see Chapter 4: Consultation 

and Coordination). 

3.19.2.9. Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

The Forest Service identified IRAs nationwide as part of its 1972-1985 Roadless Area Review 

and Evaluation process. The purpose of the process was to identify all lands exhibiting 

wilderness characteristics, which could be considered for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. All the IRAs in the nation were reviewed again by the Forest Service in 

1999 under the Roadless Area Conservation Initiative. The initiative recognized the value of 

large tracts of land not yet fragmented by roads and sought to protect these areas from 

increasing development pressure. In November 2000, the Forest Service issued the Final EIS 

for the proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR), which was published in the Federal 

Register on January 21, 2001 (66 FR 3244). 

The RACR currently applies to Forest Service actions in all IRAs. RACR prohibits a Forest 

Service responsible official from approving road construction and reconstruction and the cutting, 

sale, or removal of timber in IRAs except when the responsible official determines certain 

circumstances apply. The rule also does not apply in the following circumstances: 

1. 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. 

2. A road is needed to conduct a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or to conduct a natural resource restoration 

action under the Act, Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act. 

3. A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by 

statute or treaty. 

4. Road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from the 

design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified road and that cannot be mitigated by 

road maintenance. Road realignment may occur under this paragraph only if the road is 

deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource management, or public 

health and safety. 

5. Road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety improvement project on a 

classified road determined to be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or 

accident potential on that road. 

6. The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid Highway project, authorized 

pursuant to Title 23 of the United States Code, is in the public interest or is consistent 

with the purposes for which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable 

and prudent alternative exists. 

7. A road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral 

lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of January 12, 

2001 or for a new lease issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease. Such 

road construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes 

effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface 

disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease requirements, land and resource 

management plan direction, regulations, and laws. Roads constructed or reconstructed 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-140 Other Required Disclosures 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Other Required Disclosures 3-141 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 

pursuant to this paragraph must be obliterated when no longer needed for the purposes 

of the lease or upon termination or expiration of the lease, whichever is sooner. 

Several groups and states have filed lawsuits challenging the 2001 RACR. As a result of ruling 

on February 6, 2007, the 2001 RACR currently governs the management of IRAs on NFS lands. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

3.20. Resources Not Discussed in Detail 

3.20.1. Air Quality 

As required by the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. NAAQS have been set for the following six 

principal pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter 

(PM), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

The State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, monitors the 

levels of these pollutants. When pollutants are above specified levels, an area is described as a 

non-attainment area; when below specified levels, an area is described as an attainment area. 

The Dixie National Forest is in attainment for all NAAQS pollutants (UDAQ 2006). 

In addition to NAAQS, federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, added to the 

Clean Air Act by amendment in 1977, limit the degradation of air quality in any area that is in 

attainment. All areas are in one of three classes: Class I, II, or III. Class I areas include 

wilderness areas meeting specific criteria and all national parks over 6,000 acres in size. Class 

III designation is for industrial areas. All other areas are considered Class II. The Dixie National 

Forest is a Class II area for air quality, while neighboring Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Zion 

national parks are Class I areas (UAC 2008a). 

Motorized vehicle use on the Forest can contribute to air pollution through particulate matter 

(fugitive dust from travel on unpaved surfaces) and emission of carbon monoxide. All action 

alternatives would reduce fugitive dust sources through a reduction in the miles and/or areas 

open to motorized travel (while Alternative E would increase the miles of designated routes, the 

elimination of cross-country travel on 61 percent of the Forest would still result in a decrease in 

potential fugitive dust sources). The amount of carbon monoxide emitted from recreational 

motorized vehicle use or administrative motorized vehicle use in implementing the travel plan is 

not expected to vary significantly between alternatives. Even under Alternative A there would 

be no increase in impacts to air quality over the existing condition where the Dixie National 

Forest is in attainment. 

Attainment of air quality standards would likely continue under all alternatives. Implementation 

of any of the alternatives is not expected to negatively affect air quality or affect the Forest’s 

Class II classification or the Class I designation of any of the national parks in southern Utah. 

3.20.1.1. Climate Change 

The information in this section is summarized from the Climate Change Analysis prepared for 

this motorized travel plan (USDA 2009c). Please see that report for more detail. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-142 Resources Not Discussed in Detail 

and Effects Analysis 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

 

3.20.1.1.1. Background 

The Forest Service is currently investing in considerable research and study of the potential 

effects of forest management on climate change.4

 Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell has 

organized an agency-wide response to climate change and has directed the agency to 

concentrate on 16 priorities for action. While many of these priorities and much of this 

information is generally not applicable at the project level, we have consulted much of this 

research (Loewen 2008). 

On January 16, 2009, the Washington Office of the Forest Service released guidance to Forest 

Service units regarding the incorporation of climate change science into project-level NEPA 

documents (USDA 2009d). This guidance document provides that units should consider two 

kinds of climate change effects. First, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect of a 

project on climate change. Second, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect of climate 

change on a proposal. This latter category may include the effect of changed snowfall regimes 

on special use permit issuance for ski areas or the effect of rainfall changes on reforestation 

following a timber sale. Because potential changes in climate will have no effect on the 

designation of motorized routes, this second category of effects will not be considered further. 

3.20.1.1.2. Effect of Motorized Route Designation on Climate Change 

Agency direction defines the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) as the direct climate change 

effect of a project. Further, the interaction of emissions with atmospheric concentrations of 

GHG such that they impact the climate is defined as the potential indirect climate change effect. 

Under this definition, there is no direct effect associated with any of the motorized travel plan 

action alternatives. The action alternatives do not authorize the emission of GHG; the action 

alternatives do not limit the emission of GHG; the action alternatives are unlikely to change the 

emission of GHG as compared to the no action alternative. In short, GHG emissions from 

motorized travel on the Dixie National Forest are not directly affected by the designation of 

routes. 

On the other hand, route designation may have a slight beneficial effect on climate change by 

restricting motorized vehicles to designated routes and protecting forest resources from 

damaging traffic. Forest Service direction on climate change consideration notes, “[i]t is 

possible, and in some projects likely, that proposals may meet the Agency’s mission while also 

enhancing the resilience or adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate 

change. For example, projects designed to restore the health, resilience, and productivity of 

forested ecosystems may also improve the capability of the stands or landscape to withstand 

climate change stresses” (USDA 2009c). While this project is not specifically designed to 

reduce the emission of GHG, it may have a slight benefit associated with enhancing the 

resilience and productivity of forested ecosystems. 

Regarding indirect effects, Agency direction states, “[b]ecause greenhouse gases mix readily 

into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect 

effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). Also, because the large majority 

of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, it is not 

presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on 

individual projects” (USDA 2009c). Again, the designation of motorized routes on the Dixie 

4

 See http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/. 

Resources Not Discussed in Detail 3-143 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 and Effects Analysis 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-144 Resources Not Discussed in Detail 

and Effects Analysis 

National Forest does not have a measurable indirect effect as compared with the no action 

alternative. 

Because the designation of motorized routes has no quantifiable direct or indirect effect on 

climate change, it cannot have a cumulative effect. 

3.20.1.1.3. Summary 

Understanding and documenting the effects of Forest Service decisions on climate change is an 

important priority for the agency under Chief Abigail Kimbell. The Washington Office has issued 

guidance to units outlining procedures for assessing the effect of proposals on the climate. 

Following that guidance, the Interdisciplinary Team considered the potential direct effect of route 

designation on the emission of GHG and determined that it would have no direct effect. The 

Interdisciplinary Team also considered the indirect effect of potential emissions causing 

changes in the climate due to increased atmospheric gases and concluded that there are no 

measurable indirect effects from route designation. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 

4.1. Preparers and Contributors................................................................................................4-2 

4.2. Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement..........................................................4-5 

4-1 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 

4.1. Preparers and Contributors 

Table 4-1. Interdisciplinary Team Members 

Name and Unit Qualifications Team Role/Responsibility 

Lydia Allen, Cedar City 

and Pine Valley RDs (now 

Idaho Panhandle NFs) 

West Zone Wildlife Biologist Route evaluation, Wildlife Specialist 

Report (through September 2008) 

LeeAnn Beekman, 

Supervisor’s Office GIS Specialist GIS data management, mapping 

David Bolsover, 

Supervisor’s Office (now 

Modoc NF) 

Writer/Editor Project Record, Environmental Justice 

(through May 2007) 

Steven Brazier, 

Supervisor’s Office (now 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF) 

Forest Fisheries Biologist Route evaluation, Aquatic Biota Specialist 

Report 

Chris Butler, Cedar City 

and Pine Valley RDs West Zone Hydrologist Route evaluation, Hydrology Specialist Report 

Andi Falsetto, Supervisor’s 

Office 

Writer/Editor, Forest Plan 

Revision Team 

Team Leader (July 2007-December 

2008); Co-Team Leader (December 

2008-present); Writer/Editor 

Kirk Flannigan, Pine Valley 

RD 

Recreation, Special Uses, and 

Wilderness 

Recreation and Scenery Specialist 

Report, Special Uses Specialist Report 

(September 2007-present) 

Bill Goodman, Escalante 

and Powell RDs East Zone Hydrologist Route evaluation, Hydrology Specialist Report 

Keith Harris, Supervisor’s 

Office NEPA Coordinator 

Roadless and Unroaded and 

Undeveloped Specialist Report, project 

oversight 

Marian Jacklin, 

Supervisor’s Office Forest Archaeologist Route evaluation, Cultural Resources Specialist Report 

Rich Jaros, Supervisor’s 

Office 

Soil and Water Program 

Manager Soils Specialist Report 

Jenna Jorgensen, 

Supervisor’s Office Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Specialist Report (September 2008-present) 

Lew Jump, Contractor Vegetation Specialist Vegetation and Fire and Fuels Specialist 

Report 

Matt Lee, Supervisor’s 

Office GIS Specialist GIS data management, mapping 

Susan Leslie, Supervisor’s 

Office Civil Engineering Technician Route evaluation, Transportation Specialist Report, Data Management 

Noelle Meier, Supervisor’s 

Office (now BeaverheadDeerlodge NF 

Forest Landscape Architect/ 

Recreation Program Manager 

Team Leader; route evaluation, 

Recreation and Scenery Specialist 

Report; Social and Economic Specialist 

Report (March 2004-June 2007) 

Gretchen Merrill, 

Supervisor’s Office Public Service Staff Officer Project oversight 

Brian Monroe, Cedar City 

RD Range Management Specialist Rare Plants Specialist Report 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 4-2 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Name and Unit Qualifications Team Role/Responsibility 

Andrew Orlemann, 

T.E.A.M.S. Environmental Coordinator Team Leader (December 2008-present) 

Laurie Parry, Supervisor’s 

Office GIS Specialist GIS data management, mapping 

Ron Riggs, Powell RD 

(retired) Civil Engineering Technician Route evaluation, Transportation Specialist Report (July 2004-July 2007) 

Kathy Slack, Supervisor’s 

Office 

Forest Realty Specialist/ 

Special Uses Route evaluation 

Lucretia Smith, T.E.A.M.S. GIS Group Leader, Range 

Specialist 

Livestock Grazing Specialist Report, 

Noxious Weeds Specialist Report, Rare 

Plants Specialist Report, Data 

Management 

Table 4-2. Forest Leadership Team Members 

Name Position and Unit 

Joseph G. Black Forest Engineer, Dixie NF (retired) 

Kenton Call Public Affairs Officer, Dixie NF 

Davida Carnahan Public Affairs Officer, Fishlake NF (transferred) 

Mary Erickson Forest Supervisor, Fishlake NF (transferred) 

Dayle Flanigan Cedar City District Ranger, Dixie NF 

Diane Freeman Ecosystem Group Leader, Fishlake NF 

John Harris Forest Engineer, Dixie NF 

Glen Heaton Administrative Officer, Dixie and Fishlake NFs 

Bevan Killpack Pine Valley District Ranger, Dixie NF 

Gina Lampman Escalante District Ranger, Dixie NF 

Rob MacWhorter Forest Supervisor, Dixie NF 

Gretchen Merrill Public Service Staff Officer, Dixie NF 

Donna Owens Powell District Ranger, Dixie NF (transferred) 

Max Reid Public Service Staff Officer, Fishlake NF (retired) 

Fran Reynolds Public Affairs Officer, Dixie NF (transferred) 

Kurtis Robins Fremont River District Ranger, Fishlake NF 

Allen Rowley Forest Supervisor, Fishlake NF 

Bob Russell Forest Supervisor, Dixie NF (retired) 

Kevin Schulkoski Ecosystem Staff Officer, Dixie NF 

Lori Wood Powell District Ranger, Dixie NF 

John Zapell Public Affairs Officer, Fishlake NF 

Most all ranger district and Supervisor’s Office employees assisted in the Roads Analysis 

process, district-level route evaluation, reviews of alternatives, review of specialist reports, 

and/or provided general support to the project. 

Table 4-3. Employees Providing Project Support 

Name and Unit Position 

Keith Adams, Escalante RD Assistant Fire Management Officer 

Dave Bell, Fremont River RD Recreation Specialist 

Evan Boshell, Powell RD Range Management 

Joni Brazier, Cedar City RD (transferred) Hydrologist 

Cindy Calbaum, Escalante RD Recreation Specialist/Wilderness 

4-3 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Name and Unit Position 

Bryan Carter, Fishlake NF Recreation Technician/OHV Manager 

Alton Chappell, Fremont River RD Recreation 

Gregg Christensen, Powell RD Zone Fuels Specialist 

Daniel Condie, Cedar City RD Range Management 

Garry Domis, Cedar City RD (transferred) Silviculturist 

Dirk Durfey, Escalante RD (transferred) Range 

Phil Eisenhauer, Supervisor’s Office (transferred) Forest Silviculturist 

Robert Fillmore, Fremont River RD (retired) Timber Sale Administrator 

Nick Glidden, Supervisor’s Office Forest Wilderness, Trails, and Dispersed 

Recreation Specialist 

Kevin Greenhalgh, Supervisor’s Office Forest Fire Management Officer 

Chett Hatch, Powell RD Assistant Fire Management Officer 

Pam Heavysege, Supervisor’s Office Water Rights Specialist, Ass’t FOIA Coordinator 

Bill Hipp, Pine Valley RD (retired) Recreation Manager 

Randy Houston, Cedar City RD (retired) Recreation Technician 

Frank Jones, Pine Valley RD Range Management 

Dave Keefe, Escalante RD Supervisory Forester 

Mark Loewen, Supervisor’s Office (transferred) Vegetation Specialist 

Mark Madsen, Supervisor’s Office Forest Botanist 

Amanda McAdams, Dixie and Fishlake NFs Fire Ecologist 

Dan Misciagna, Pine Valley RD Recreation 

Max Molyneux, Supervisor’s Office (retired) Forest Landscape Architect 

Wayne Monger, Pine Valley RD Fire Prevention Technician 

Ron Mortensen, Escalante RD Range Management 

Andrew Orlemann, Escalante RD (transferred) Lands/Special Uses, NEPA Coordinator 

Colby Peterson, Cedar City RD Forester 

Justin Peterson, Powell RD Range/Recreation 

Joe Rechsteiner, Powell RD Recreation Specialist 

Steve Robinson, Cedar City RD Recreation and Lands Staff Officer 

Ron Rodriguez, Dixie and Fishlake NFs Wildlife Biologist 

Randy Russell, Pine Valley RD Range Management 

Pam Salmond, Supervisor’s Office Office Automation Assistant 

Jake Schoppe, Powell RD Wildlife Biologist 

Cindy Sidles, Pine Valley RD (transferred) Fuels Specialist 

Boyd Smith, Powell RD Resource Clerk 

Bryant Sorensen, Supervisor’s Office (retired) Transportation Engineer 

Joanne Stenten, Fremont River RD Wildlife Biologist 

David Tait, Fishlake National Forest Forest Botanist 

Kent Traveller, Cedar City RD (retired) Recreation Manager 

Vicki Tyler, Supervisor’s Office (transferred) Writer/Editor 

Charlie Vaughn, Washington Office (retired) Law Enforcement (Special Agent) 

Christopher Wehrli, Fishlake NF Environmental Coordinator 

Kevin Wheeler, Cedar City RD Forestry Technician 

Nate Yorgason, Cedar City and Pine Valley RDs West Zone Wildlife Biologist 

Lisa Young, Escalante RD Wildlife Biologist 

Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc., was contracted to provide technical support for the route 

evaluation process. The individuals listed in the following table worked with the Interdisciplinary 

Team in the route evaluation process. 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 4-4 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table 4-4. ARS, Inc. Employees 

Name Position 

Nate Holland Planner 

David Kiel GIS/Software Specialist 

Ren Scammon (transferred) Planner/Software Specialist 

Les Weeks Land Use/Recreation Planner 

4.2. Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 

Hard copies of the FEIS are available for review at all Dixie National Forest offices and the 

Supervisor’s Office and Fremont River Ranger District on the Fishlake National Forest. 

Dixie National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office and 

Cedar City Ranger District 

1789 N Wedgewood Lane 

Cedar City, Utah 84720 

Fishlake National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office 

115 E 900 N 

Richfield, Utah 84701 

Escalante Ranger District 

755 W Main Street 

Escalante, Utah 84726 

Fremont River Ranger District 

138 S Main Street 

Loa, Utah 84747 

Pine Valley Ranger District 

196 E Tabernacle Street, Suite 40 

St. George, Utah 84770 

Powell Ranger District 

225 E Center Street 

Panguitch, Utah 84759 

Copies are also available for review at the following libraries: 

Boulder Community Library 

Cedar City Public Library 

Garfield County Bookmobile Library 

Garfield County Bookmobile Library, Escalante Branch 

Kanab City Library 

Kane County Bookmobile Library 

Panguitch City Library 

Parowan Public Library 

Piute County Bookmobile Library 

Washington County Library 

Washington County Library, Enterprise Branch 

Washington County Library, Hurricane Valley Branch 

Washington County Library, New Harmony Branch 

Washington County Library, Santa Clara Branch 

Washington County Library, Springdale Branch 

Wayne County Bookmobile Library 

4-5 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

This section lists those individuals and organizations who received hard copies or CDs of this 

FEIS. We will continue to provide hard copies and CDs to those who request them. This FEIS 

is also available online on the Dixie National Forest’s website at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP. 

Federal Officials 

Congressman Rob Bishop 

Congressman Jason Chaffetz 

Congressman Jim Matheson 

Senator Bob Bennett 

Senator Orrin G. Hatch 

Tribes 

Chemehuevi Tribe 

Havasupai Tribe 

Hopi Tribe 

Hualapai Tribe 

Indian Peak Band of Paiutes 

Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

Kanosh Band of Paiutes 

Koosharem Band of Paiutes 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

Moapa Band of Paiute 

Moapa Tribe 

Navajo Nation Forestry 

Navajo Nation Traditional Cultural Program 

Paiute Indian Tribe 

San Juan Paiute 

Shivwits Band of Paiutes 

Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management 

Arizona Strip Field Office 

Cedar City Field Office 

Kanab Field Office 

Richfield Field Office 

St. George Field Office 

Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region 

Forest Service 

Fishlake National Forest 

Manti-La Sal National Forest 

Kaibab National Forest, North Kaibab Ranger District 

National Park Service 

Capitol Reef National Park 

Cedar Breaks National Monument 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Loa Service Center 

U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Management 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 4-6 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities, NEPA Compliance Division 

EIS Review Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

Utah State Agencies 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Resource Development Coordinating Committee 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Parks and Recreation 

Division of Water Quality 

Division of Wildlife Resources 

Utah Department of Transportation 

Piute Soil Conservation District 

County, City, and Other Local Agencies 

Five County Association of Governments 

Six County Association of Governments 

Garfield County 

Iron County 

Kane County 

Piute County 

Washington County 

Wayne County 

Bicknell Town 

Escalante City 

Panguitch City 

Organizations and Businesses 

Back Country Horsemen of Utah, Southwest Chapter 

Boulder Community Alliance 

Brian Head OHV Association 

Burton Livestock 

Campfire Wood Products 

Colorado State University Library 

Deschutes National Forest 

Eagle Mining Company 

Evans Beefmasters 

Forest Resource Management 

Frontier Corp USA 

Garkane Energy 

Magotsu Water Company 

Off-Road Business Association 

Sand Rock Ridge Riders ATV Club 

Slick Rock Ranch 

Sunset Cliffs Inc. 

The Wilderness Society 

Utah Environmental Congress 

Utah Snowmobile Association 

4-7 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 4-8 

Wasatch Mountain Club 

White Sage Ranch 

Individuals 

Steve Albrecht 

Mark Austin 

Belles Family 

Kay N. Benson 

Tom Biller 

Craig Booth 

John Borg 

Jeff Bulloch 

Former Congressman Chris Cannon 

Jim Case 

Cabe and Charles Chappell 

Danny and Barbara Cowan 

Dustin and Harmony Cox 

Mike and Kara Curtis 

Barbara Fullman 

David and Joyce Gardner 

Max, Cody and Katie Gardner 

Kevin Glassett 

Walter Gove 

Stan Grunewald 

Brent and Julie Jackson 

Helga Love 

Todd R. Minchey 

Ronald M. Roth 

Mike Russell 

Rex B. Smith 

Scott E. Sojourner 

Craig and Ramona Sorenson 

Richard Spotts 

Rita Martin Squillante 

Brian Swanson 

Roy P. Urie 

Karen and Shirl Wade 

William and Margaret Weppner 

Robert Zur 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Appendix A: Data Tables and Designation Key 

Route Designation by Alternative.............................................................................................. A-2 

Summary of Routes Open and Closed to the Public ................................................................ A-5 

Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative................................................................... A-6 

Designation Key: Route Designation Descriptions and Crosswalks ........................................ A-9 

 A-1 Appendix A: Data Tables and 

 Designation Key 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Appendix A: Data Tables and Designation Key 

The tables in this appendix display route data broken out by ranger district. This is the same 

data displayed in the aggregated forest-wide tables in Chapter 2. All mileages are rounded to 

the nearest 1 mile. The designation key, including crosswalks to the open and closed summary 

and the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) designations, is located on page A-9. 

Table A-1. Route Designation by Alternative – Cedar City Ranger District 

Miles by Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 231 331 317 287 202

Closed Classified 78 250 198 149 67

Closed Unauthorized 210 368 340 312 127

Existing Motorized Trail 46 46 46 46 46

Existing Non-motorized Trail 143 142 142 143 135

Existing Highway 67 67 67 67 67

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 182 0 0 0 0

Open – Street Legal 28 49 18 61 18

Open to All 724 414 511 606 1,046

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 1 32 46 13 1

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 1 1

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 0 9 18 9 0

Seasonal 0 0 4 9 0

 Total 1,708 1,708 1,708 1,708 1,709

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. 

Table A-2. Route Designation by Alternative – Escalante Ranger District 

Miles by Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 305 236 285 408 169

Closed Classified 19 256 196 65 17

Closed Unauthorized 62 266 249 213 72

Existing Motorized Trail 21 25 16 27 18

Existing Non-motorized Trail 134 132 132 133 133

Existing Highway 28 28 28 28 28

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 184 0 0 0 0

Open – Street Legal 1 1 2 1 0

Open to All 517 304 317 358 885

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 5 28 29 21 6

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 1 53 66 47 1

Seasonal 87 36 44 64 36

 Total 1,364 1,364 1,364 1,364 1,364

Appendix A: Data Tables and A-2 

Designation Key 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Table A-3. Route Designation by Alternative – Pine Valley Ranger District 

Miles by Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 15 183 160 55 5

Closed Classified 4 78 36 35 3

Closed Unauthorized 5 174 159 131 0

Existing Motorized Trail 0 0 0 0 0

Existing Non-motorized Trail 203 203 203 203 202

Existing Highway 18 18 18 18 18

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 193 0 0 0 0

Open – Street Legal 0 0 0 0 0

Open to All 482 215 254 456 692

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 0 10 69 12 0

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 0 39 20 9 0

Seasonal 0 0 1 0 0

 Total 920 920 920 920 922

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. 

Table A-4. Route Designation by Alternative – Powell Ranger District 

Miles by Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 50 137 196 171 22

Closed Classified 11 259 152 93 2

Closed Unauthorized 65 429 403 334 8

Existing Motorized Trail 9 9 9 9 9

Existing Non-motorized Trail 208 209 208 208 204

Existing Highway 8 8 8 8 8

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 377 0 0 0 0

Open – Street Legal 0 0 0 0 0

Open to All 693 339 372 563 1,169

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 0 13 42 15 0

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 0 18 32 18 0

Seasonal 0 0 0 2 0

 Total 1,420 1,420 1,420 1,420 1,420

 A-3 Appendix A: Data Tables and 

 Designation Key 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Appendix A: Data Tables and A-4 

Designation Key 

Table A-5. Route Designation by Alternative – Teasdale Portion of the Fremont River 

Ranger District 

Miles by Alternative Designation A B C D E 

Administrative 30 72 79 41 2

Closed Classified 92 200 175 118 90

Closed Unauthorized 12 99 97 83 6

Existing Motorized Trail 21 21 18 21 17

Existing Non-motorized Trail 132 136 131 134 130

Existing Highway 18 18 18 18 18

Not Closed (Unauthorized) 87 0 0 0 0

Open – Street Legal 3 3 3 3 3

Open to All 352 172 194 301 479

Proposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Motorized Trail 0 9 17 23 2

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 2 15 13 5 2

Seasonal 0 2 4 0 0

 Total 748 748 748 748 748
Mot

Table A-6. Summary of Routes Open and Closed to the Public 

Alternative 

Area Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Cedar City Open to Public 1,171 75% 608 39% 710 45% 794 51% 

Closed to Public 394 25% 948 61% 855 55% 749 49% Total 1,565 100% 1,556 100% 1,565 100% 1,543 100% 

Escalante Open to Public 844 69% 422 36% 437 37% 499 42% 

Closed To Public 385 31% 758 64% 730 63% 685 58% Total 1,229 100% 1,180 100% 1,167 100% 1,184 100% 

Pine Valley Open to Public 693 97% 243 36% 342 49% 487 69% 

Closed to Public 24 3% 435 64% 355 51% 221 31% Total 717 100% 678 100% 697 100% 708 100% 

Powell Open to Public 1,086 90% 368 31% 430 36% 596 50% 

Closed to Public 126 10% 825 69% 750 64% 598 50% Total 1,212 100% 1,193 100% 1,180 100% 1,194 100% 

Teasdale Open to Public 481 78% 226 38% 254 42% 366 60% 

Closed to Public 134 22% 371 62% 350 58% 243 40% Total 615 100% 597 100% 604 100% 609 100% 

Forest-wide Open to Public 4,275 80% 1,867 36% 2,173 42% 2,742 52% 

Closed to Public 1,063 20% 3,337 64% 3,040 58% 2,496 48% Total 5,338 100% 5,204 100% 5,213 100% 5,238 100% 

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. 

 A-5 Appen

 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

Table A-7. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Cedar City Ranger Dist

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 210 53% 369 94% 341 87% 313 79Added as "administrative" <1 <1% 12 3% 26 7% 39 10Added as "open to all" 2 0% 3 <1% 11 3% 25 6Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% 4 1% 1 <1% 5 1Added as "seasonal" 0 0% 0 0% <1 <1% 1 <1Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 3 <1% 11 3% 9 2Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 1 <1% 4 1% 4 <1% 3 <1Not closed (unauthorized)* 182 46% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 395 100% 394 100% 394 100% 395 100

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. * Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61% of Forest open to cross-country travel. 

Table A-8. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Escalante Ranger Dist

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 62 19% 265 80% 248 75% 212 64Added as "administrative" 13 4% 34 10% 50 15% 78 24Added as "open to all" 72 22% 6 2% 7 2% 11 3Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% <1 <1% 0 0% 0 0Added as "seasonal" 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 6 2% 8 2% 11 3Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 0 0% 19 6% 19 6% 18 6Not closed (unauthorized)* 183 55% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 330 100% 330 100% 333 100% 330 100

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. * Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61% of Forest open to cross-country travel. 

Appendix A: Data Tables and A-6 Designation Key 
Mot

Table A-9. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Pine Valley Ranger Dis

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 5 3% 174 88% 159 80% 131 66Added as "administrative" 0 0% 17 9% 28 14% 19 10Added as "open to all" <1 <1% 5 2% 5 3% 37 19Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Added as "seasonal" 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 6 3Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 0 0% 3 1% 5 3% 4 2Not closed (unauthorized)* 193 97% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 198 100% 198 100% 198 100% 198 100

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. * Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61% of Forest open to cross-country travel. 

Table A-10. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Powell Ranger Distr

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 65 14% 429 94% 402 89% 334 74Added as "administrative" 5 1% 18 4% 40 9% 84 18Added as "open to all" 7 2% 3 1% 6 1% 25 6Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Added as "seasonal" 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 0 0% 1 <1% 7 1Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 0 0% 5 1% 5 1% 5 1Not closed (unauthorized)* 377 83% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 454 100% 454 100% 454 100% 454 100

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. * Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61% of Forest open to cross-country travel. 

 A-7 Appen

 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS

Table A-11. Disposition of Unauthorized Routes by Alternative – Teasdale Portion of the Fremont Riv

Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles % 

Closed as "unauthorized" 12 11% 98 98% 94 94% 82 82Added as "administrative" 0 0% 1 1% 3 3% 8 8Added as "open to all" 5 5% 1 1% 1 1% 5 5Added as "open to full size vehicles only" 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Added as "seasonal" 0 0% <1 <1% <1 <1% 0 0Added as "proposed motorized trail" 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 4 4Added as "proposed non-motorized trail" 0 0% <1 <1% <1 <1% <1 <1Not closed (unauthorized)* 87 84% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0Total 104 100% 100 100% 100 100% 100 100

Differences between totals by alternative due to minor mapping discrepancies in GIS. * Only applicable to Alternative A. These are unauthorized routes in the 61% of Forest open to cross-country travel. 

Appendix A: Data Tables and A-8 Designation Key 
Mot

 A-9 Appen

 

Table A-12. Designation Key: Route Designation Descriptions and Crosswalks 

Designation Description Crosswalk to Open and Closed Summary 

Administrative Maintenance Level 1 routes Closed to the public N/A Closed Classified Classified routes to be decommissioned from the system Closed to the public N/A Closed Unauthorized Unauthorized routes to be closed to the public (not added to 

the system) 

Closed to the public N/A 

Existing Motorized Trail* Motorized trails currently on the system Open to the public Tra

Les

Existing Non-motorized Trail* 

Non-motorized trails currently on the system Open to the public N/A 

Existing Highway* Highways currently on the system Open to the public OthNot Closed (Unauthorized) Unauthorized routes in the 61% of the Forest currently open 

to cross-country travel. Only applicable to Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. 

Alt. A - Open to the public 

Alts. B-E - Not included in either category

N/A

Open – Street Legal Open to all street legal vehicles; no ATVs permitted Open to the public Roa

Leg

Open to All Open to all motorized vehicles Open to the public RoaProposed Admin/Permittee ATV Only 

Proposed as admin ATV only and permittee ATV only Closed to the public N/A 

Proposed Motorized Trail Either a classified road or an unauthorized route proposed 

to be added to the system as a motorized trail 

Open to the public Tra

Les

Proposed Motorized Trail Construction 

Proposed new motorized trail construction Open to the public Tra

Les

Proposed Non-motorized Trail 

An unauthorized route proposed to be added to the system as a non-motorized trail 

Not included in either category N/A 

Seasonal Seasonal closures for wildlife concerns; open to the public 

after closure season. All are unique routes; no duplicates of previous categories 

Open to the public Sea

* Miles are the same across all alternatives. ** Under Alternative A, those unauthorized routes in the 61% of the Forest currently open to cross-country travel would 

Forest Transportation System and would therefore not appear on the MVUM as routes. However, but again only in A

areas currently open to cross-country travel would be shown as “Open to Cross-country Travel” on the MVUM and un

those areas would be available for public use. 

N/A: Not applicable as the MVUM only shows those routes open for public motorized use. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix A: Data Tables and A-10 

Designation Key 
Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Appendix B: Response to Comments 

Table of Contents 

B.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... B-2

B.2. Concern Outside the Scope or Irrelevant to the Proposed Action.................................... B-3

B.3. Implementation ................................................................................................................. B-4

B.4. Already Decided by Law, Regulation, or Policy.............................................................. B-17

B.5. Concern Can be Better Addressed Through Another Decision Process........................ B-20

B.6. General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion ....................................................... B-24

B.7. Soils................................................................................................................................ B-31

B.8. Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... B-33

B.9. Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... B-37

B.10. Terrestrial Wildlife......................................................................................................... B-38

B.11. Social and Economic Resources.................................................................................. B-41

B.12. Livestock Grazing......................................................................................................... B-46

B.13. Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................ B-47

B.14. Special Uses................................................................................................................. B-48

B.15. Recreation .................................................................................................................... B-50

B.16. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas ....................................................... B-78

B.17. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... B-83

B.18. Transportation .............................................................................................................. B-84

B-1 Appendix B: Response to Comments 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.1. Introduction Approximately 175 letters, emails, and other documents were received during the 60-day public comment period original 45-day comment period was extended in response to public request from May 23 to July 22, 2008. All pevaluated by a content analysis team comprised of Interdisciplinary Team members. This appendix constitutes substantive comments as required by 40 CFR 1503.4(b). All comments themselves are available from the projerequest. Comment text included here is included verbatim except for minor spelling and formatting standardizatIn accordance with 40 CFR 1503, the Agency has evaluated the comments that were received in response to thEnvironmental Impact Statement. A number of comments were received that were general in nature and did no

40 CFR 1503.4. These comments did not: 

 Modify an alternative, including the proposed action,  Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the Agency,  Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses, or  Make factual corrections. 

The Forest Service has identified categories for those comments that were general in nature and did not warran

These were categorized under the following headings: 

 Concern is outside the scope or irrelevant to the proposed action and decision (such as implementation) Means of addressing the concern are already decided by law, regulation, or policy,  Concern can be better addressed through another decision process, and  General comment, opinion, or position statement. 

While some of the comments were general in nature, a reference to the analysis was provided in the response w

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-2 
 Mot

B.2. Concern Outside the Scope or Irrelevant to the Proposed Action 

LetterComment Comment Response 

18-2 ...one of my dreams is to be able to watch my children “grow up” on the 

Boulder Mountain with my parents – their grandparents. I am excited to take them to the Boulder top to see the earth below them and gain some perspective about this great big world we all live in as my parents did with me many times over. It will be impossible for both my children and my parents to traverse to the mountain tops without road access in the future. 

The Boulder Top management plan decision and is thus outside the scoPlease see FEIS section 2.4.12 for 

100-1 we are in favor of more NON motorized areas to be set aside, we want 

to protect the fragile land down here, to have places for QUIET, and cleaner air. 

Outside scope of this decision. Pleasection 1.12. 

50-2 The current travel plan fails the make any provision for “lay down areas 

or trail heads”. These facilities are necessary for visitors from outside the Dixie national Forest that arrive with their ATV’s on trailers or pickups. A “lay down area or trail head” should be defined as a parking area with basic restroom facilities and a kiosk containing a current trail map and trail information of the normal travel lanes to a supporting highway. 3. Several recommend “lay down areas or trail heads” are. A. Upper Bear Flat area just south of Brian Head no UT 143. B. Sidney Valley Road and Red Desert trail on UT 143 C. Deer Valley area no UT 14 west of Duck Creek(co-locate with proposed snowmobile parking area) D. Location to be determined off UT 20 convenient to motorized travel trails. 

This topic is better addressed throuanalysis based on current and anticCreation of new parking/unloading ascope of this project. Please refereFor a list of current loading/unloadinto the Recreation and Scenery Spec3.3.3.1. Also see FEIS section 1.5. 

Concern Outside Scope or Irrelevant to Proposed Action B-3 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.3. Implementation 

LetterComment Comment Response 

95-3 I believe you need to add a fourth “E” to your planned strategy – 

evaluation. A monitoring plan which includes performance measures and ongoing evaluation should be developed and implemented to assess your success in implementing the Motorized Travel Plan. 

Implementation of the Dixie NationTravel Plan is outside the scope of however, the Forest will develop an that will comply with guidance provVehicle Route and Area Designatiopages 34-36). 

119-53 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: Every effort should be made to encourage and enhance multiple uses of this forest through an active motorized travel management plan. That plan should consist of proper signing, good maps, proper education in responsible use, and appropriate enforcement. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

125-22 Implement a timeline and priorities for route decommissioning...Each 

route, of course, has its own set of circumstances that require appropriate 

closure methods. In order to make the closure implementation process speedy and effective, we suggest that the Dixie NF make and implement 

a clear plan of priorities and methods for individual route closures. In addition to heightening the importance of physical closures, such a plan would be a valuable tool in securing additional funding for priority areas, working with volunteer groups to implement easier closures, and soliciting expertise on more complex topics such as recontouring. The Three Forests Coalition, particularly Wildlands CPR, would be happy to offer help with this part of travel plan implementation. We recommend that such a plan could include the following elements: • A complete list of all closed routes, with nearby or linked routes that can be served by the same closure project grouped together. For each route, the following variables should be determined: 1. A “damage occurring” level, 1-5 or similar rating, based on the amount of damage occurring or imminent to the route area (e.g. potential slope failure, stream sedimentation, intrusion into critical habitat, incursions onto nonmotorized trails) 2. A “recommended method of closure” category, based on the nature of 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-4 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

the surrounding terrain and the current use situation (e.g., full road removal and slope recontour, blocking with logs, ripping the first hundred yards, lining a roadside with large rocks) 3. An “anticipated law enforcement presence” level, estimating the number of times per year (or month, or week) a law enforcement officer could visit the closed route 4. An “ease of physical closure” level, based on the recommended method of closure and the ease of implementing that method (e.g. accessibility of site for equipment) 5. Estimated cost of physical closure • Priority Schedule. Based on the above factors, a priority category for closure should be assigned to each route group. Each category should have a deadline for completion of closures. For example, a route group with a high damage level that could be fairly easily accessed, ripped and blocked might receive a Category One designation, with closure to be accomplished within one year. • Creative implementation suggestions (e.g., use of professional contractors, involvement of citizen volunteer groups, availability of funds from the Legacy Roads Remediation Initiative or other sources)

125-139 

Response to public assistance in monitoring, mapping, or evaluation. SMU Alternative: The Forest provides a response to individuals who submit independent monitoring, mapping or evaluation that meets the Forest’s standards, indicating how the information has been or will be 

used by the Forest. If the Forest judges the mapping, monitoring, or evaluation to have not met its standards, the Forest explains this to those who have submitted the data. (p. 85) 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

115-13 We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the resources 

management planning of the Dixie National Forest and request cooperation on specific road closures (i.e., method and level of closure) that may affect our ability to patrol our border or respond to emergency situations. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Implementation B-5 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-9 We also recommend that the Dixie National Forest coordinate with park 

and monument staff to determine the most effective means of providing access to agency personnel and other appropriate individuals to the Dry Bench area. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

59-2 Monitoring: Please describe or reference the document that provides 

details regarding monitoring of resource impacts (improvement or decline). Will an adaptive management plan be used? Please describe how the Forest Service will conduct the essential monitoring to ensure that the project is meeting objectives and mitigating impacts as predicted. Please describe financial resource commitments to such activities. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

17-1 What will happen on the ground once the Plan is approved and filed? 

After a career working as a Ranger with the NPS and BLM, I saw over and over again plans developed, finalized, then filed, then forgotten. I hope we don't see the same here! Once the Plan is printed, how is it going to be implemented? 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

108-14 Local stake holder community groups familiar with local issues could be 

formed to partner with DNF to assist with on-going implementation of the Plan, such as route signing, monitoring and maintenance issues. We support the idea of establishing a standing citizen Task Force. This could 

also promote local community ‘buy-in’ and education. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

121-2 As we understand it, it is very questionable whether the Forest Service 

has adequate resources to effectively implement a Motorized Travel Plan. We support the alternative that includes the fewest motorized road miles and places the most stringent restrictions on motorized travel. Failing the adoption of Alternative B, we would support Alternative D, if the Forest Service actually has the resources to implement the "Three E" Strategy. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

108-2 We recommend a continuing ground-truthing monitoring process will be 

needed to effectively implement the MTP and provide a realistic assessment of evolving conditions on the forest. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-6 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-15 In order for this plan to be successful, however, adequate funding would 

need to be secured. The installation and maintenance of appropriate signing, adequate law enforcement, essential maintenance staff, and the production of user-friendly recreational maps will all be required for the Dixie NF MTP to achieve long-term success. A deficiency in any of these areas would likely result in the failure of this planning effort. Regardless of which alternative is chosen and future funding levels, implementation of the Dixie MTP will be a long and difficult process. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

33-1 No matter what alternative is chosen, I don't believe the Forest Service 

will enforce any new rules. Currently rules and regulations are routinely 

ignored and the Forest Service management is considered "loose" by the locals. Whether it is by will or just plain poor management, I am not sure. I truly believe this situation is out of control and the Forest Service is 

totally helpless to regain control of our national forest (at least by current 

managers). Again, whether it's by will, incompetence or lack of financial support, I don't know. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

95-1 I must support Alternative B found in the Motorized Travel Plan Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). I also strongly support limiting 

motorized cross country travel. My previous comments consistently ask whether the Forest Service has adequate resources to effectively 

implement a Motorized Travel Plan. Without this information, I can only support the alternative that includes the fewest motorized road miles and places the most stringent restrictions on motorized travel. I possibly could 

support Alternative D, but not without knowing whether the Forest Service actually has the resources to implement the “Three E” Strategy you 

presented at the open house. 

 See response to comment 95-3 on 

125-21 We urge the Dixie NF to establish a standing citizen Task Force that will 

review the reality of implementation, environmental impacts, and enforcement of the Record of Decision and Alternative adopted by the Forest following release of the Final EIS. This Task Force should be selected by the Forest Supervisor from among applicants who have demonstrated: 1. Active interest in sound implementation of the new Dixie Travel Plan 2. Ability to work in a collegial manner with people who may not agree with them 

 See response to comment 95-3 on 

Implementation B-7 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

3. Interest in examining on-ground outcomes of the Travel Plan 4. Interest in considering verifiable field and scientific data regarding efficacy of specific mitigation methods; and impacts of motorized use on ecosystems, communities, species sensitive to motorized use, and nonmotorized forest users. The Task Force should include a balanced membership of those who have a track record of advocating for motorized use of the Forest and those who have a track record of advocating for effective limits on motorized uses of the Forest. All meetings should be open to the public and media. The Task Force should be able to select its own facilitator (e.g., each year a different member might be “chair” and facilitate the meetings) and should be small enough to work effectively as a standing, regularattendance work group (e.g., three advocates of motorized use; three advocates of restraint on motorized use; plus a neutral 7th member selected by the six) While the Task Force should structure its own work plan, those who apply for the position should be aware that each member would be expected to: 1. Work as a Task Force within (1) the decisions made in the Final EIS and Record of Decision; and (2) the legal obligations within which the Forest, as a federal agency, must operate. 2. Provide evidence for claims made 3. Carry a fair share of the Task Force workload. 4. Consider objectively all concerns or ideas brought to the Task Force by the Forest or any members of the public, and offer suggestions to the Forest in response to such concerns or ideas. 5. Provide public documentation of all Task Force work and suggestions. 6. Support, and not undermine, the work of the Task Force as a whole. Such a Task Force would provide an essential forum to which citizens could bring documented evidence, concerns, and good ideas, knowing 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-8 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

that they will be taken seriously. It would also provide the public with “eyes and ears” regarding motorized use on the Dixie NF.

72-4 Lets find ways to work together if we make law breaker pay a fine and do 

service hour to repair the areas that they destroy there would be [much] 

less [impact] on our lands. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

72-4 I feel the your so call maintenance trial should be for public use or shut 

off, if I cannot ride on them why should you???. That goes back to the 

use of trails if its no motorized use that means you. 

Administrative routes are Maintenaare closed to the public, but may be administrative or permitted purposeaccordance with the OHV Rule 36 CFR 261. 

82-3 I would like to see Dixie National Forest Service be able to employ 3-4 

more officers to patrol our area. I’d like to see the fees raised fro a out-of –state ATV use permits. I would like to see people ticked and heavily fined for tearing thing up (like meadows), driving drunk, unsafe driving, speeding and to have a noise restriction put on. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

58-3 People who do not stay on the legal paths should be given a warning 

ticket the first time, and if there is a second time in the same trip, their vehicle should be taken away for a month and a fine should be paid. If they are caught on the same path, with a different trip, take vehicle for a 

month and a fine. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

58-3 It was said at the meeting people need to be educated. I agree! See response to comment 95-3 on 58-4 But people also need to be held accountable for their actions. The Helmet 

law for under aged children; the signs, do not ride in the meadow, CrossCountry riding; littering, leaving trash in a fire pit and at the camp site (if a camp site looks trashed, sure give them a warning, still the Forestry 

service person should take down the license plate #s of the people at the site, and if the site is still trashed when the people leave, the owners of 

the license plates should be tracked down and fined). My family; like most 

of the people at the meeting agree, that the Forestry service needs to start handing out more tickets with fines and less verbal warnings. With a verbal warning, people think they have gotten away with something and more than likely will do it again Give the violator an educational pamphlet with the ticket. I truly believe more people will learn the rules and respect the forest if they are made to pay a fine for breaking the rules.

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Implementation B-9 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

58-7 I believe the Forestry is trying to close down to many of the main trails and 

if only they would slow down and take a few trails at a time and work on these problems, people could except the closures of some of the trails. Still I believe enforcement with education is most important. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

72-3 I think that if responsible riders are given the training and ability to enforce 

land policies it would minimize the impact on the government. The people that use our lands for travel and use on a daily basis such as all of the out of staters that live and ride on our forest needs to pay access fees to help maintain the existing approved trails. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

125-131 

Route "permanence." SMU Alternative: Forest Travel Maps will include a 

clear warning that all ORV routes are provisionally open, dependent upon 

appropriate use, and can be closed without further public notice if unauthorized travel outward from the route occurs (p. 76) DEIS Alternatives: No indication the Forest would explicitly explain that each FEIS/ROD ORV route is provisionally open dependent upon appropriate use of the routes. Significance: No Dixie alternative mentions this powerful “Abuse It and Lose It” (i.e., ORV routes) approach to encouraging self-regulation

See response to comment 95-3 on 

134-2 30560A. Dayle Flanigan would spend a lot of time to try to keep it Admin. See response to comment 95-3 on 148-2 30092B. Motorized access, also a potential enforcement issue. See response to comment 95-3 on 124-16 The following are roads that we use that we DO NOT want closed or Atv 

access Denied. These are on the Map D option. We would like it modified to allow these...G2362 Limiting Atvs will only add to law enforcement problems and a decline in related uses and revenues. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

150-147 

U31544...questionable whether you can keep people off. See response to comment 95-3 on 

108-13 Adaptive management will be an essential component of a successful 

plan. It needs to be clearly stated up front that all route designations are provisional only and dependent on appropriate use; if a motorized route is abused then the management review team should have the option to remove it from the system temporarily or permanently as necessary. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-10 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

170-39 All of the public meetings I've attended where the Forest has proposed 

closing roads have met overwhelming objections by the public. We have used these roads for years and they have become a big part of having an 

enjoyable forest experience. As Forest Service employees, you are public 

servants and as such you have an obligation to meet the public's needs as well as provide good stewardship over the Forest. Individual likes, dislikes and agendas have no place in public land management. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement policies that are contrary to the local publics desires. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

125-132 

Trigger for halting use of motorized routes. SMU Alternative: Motorized 

use is changed from “suitable” to “unsuitable” in areas where irresponsible behavior or willful disobedience is not being successfully curtailed by the Forest or users within one year (p. 77) DEIS Alternatives: No clear consequences for failure to abide by route regulations. Significance: The DEIS fails to provide any meaningful incentives for ending user creation of routes.

See response to comment 95-3 on 

49-6 Maybe a stronger enforcement on ATV patrol, and less road closures 

would be a better solution. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Implementation B-11 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-136 

Display of unique identification number. SMU Alternative: Off-road vehicles cannot operate on the Forest without registering (free) and displaying a photographable registration number with font at least 4” in 

height and visible from 150 feet (p. 83) DEIS Alternatives: The DEIS does not mention making unique identification numbers visible in the manner of automobile license plates. Significance: The ability of the public to assist with documenting/reporting illegal ORV use is severely compromised in the absence of identifiable numbers, just as it would be if automobiles and trucks did not have to display unique identifier numbers (i.e., large-font license plates). The Forest has claimed that since the state registers vehicles, they cannot implement this aid to reporting illegal motorized activity. However, the Forest could require display of Forest-specific registration numbers (even a self-registered number) while driving ORVs on the Forest. Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations for NEPA note that an agency should “Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency” (CEQ regulation 1502.14(c))

See response to comment 95-3 on 

125-158 

Since hiking and other nonmotorized trail use activities are more than ten times as popular as ORV use on the Dixie (according to the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM), FS should take special care to ensure 

that:...2) Motorized incursions and user construction on nonmotorized trails is NOT rewarded with the designation of that trail for motorized use; 3) Any place where ORV use has spread onto a nonmotorized trail is effectively signed, physically blocked and enforced, and; 4) Repeated 

illegal incursions onto a nonmotorized trail will result in the closure (temporary or permanent as appropriate) of the motorized route linking to that trail (unless the route is necessary to reach a necessary destination such as private property—in which case FS should consider an “administrative use only” designation). 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-12 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-155 

[I]nviting agile motorized vehicles far into remote areas that will see little 

or no law enforcement presence is inherently problematic. This is especially troubling since the preferred alternative allows 150 ft. dispersed 

camping off all motorized routes. The DEIS provided no information on how enforcement will be directed to ensure legal use of these routes. Given the staggering number of user-created routes in the inventory, this 

is a demonstrated existing problem that must be addressed routespecifically. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

89-9 The issue of enforcement needs more consideration. Since there is not a 

ranger for the Escalante district and one is not anticipated at this time, the Forest Service has said that it will rely on education first, engineering second and enforcement third to ensure compliance with the new motorized plan. Motorized users should be encouraged to provide selfpolicing and if abuses exist, DNF should close routes either temporarily or permanently. Local stakeholders could also partner with DNF to assist with monitoring and maintenance. Finally many conflicts can be avoided by careful planning and separation of user groups. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

18-4 The Boulder Mountain is remote and it should be left open to the public to 

enjoy its majestic beauty. I feel strongly that the time and money 

expended to ensure that new road closures are respected will be more 

costly than advantageous. The best way to save resources is to leave the mountain access as is and let responsible sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts enjoy the Boulder Mountain as it has been enjoyed for the past hundred years. 

The effects to the resources of havbeen disclosed in the FEIS, Chapteof Alternatives A and E. 

Implementation B-13 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

33-3 The Forest Service personnel need to get out of their cubicles, turn off the 

coffee pot and computer, and get out into the forest and take control of 

our natural resources. (I know, I'm dreaming. Nethertheless, the Forest Service needs to establish a presence in our forest. Guard Stations need to be open and not boarded up. Employees should have ticket books and carry weapons, if necessary. Rules should be enforced and consequences should result for illegal behavior. They cannot depend on silly little signs that are easily shot up or removed or are knocked over by cows that seem to be everywhere because the fences are not maintainedbut that's another story). Vandals have no respects for signs. Forest Service personnel cannot be intimidated by "good ol' boys" that attend the same church they attend. They need to quit wasting valuable time writing big plans that most likely won't be enforced. They need to work weekends, especially three day weekends when most vandalism takes place. Get out there and DO SOMETHING!!!!! 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

108-12 We appreciate your long-term implementation policy of ‘EducationEngineering-Enforcement’...larger identification plates would enable 

members of the public to safely report abuses; and stiffer penalties, such as confiscation of machines, would help to deter abuse of the privilege of using the Forest routes, while protecting continuing use by law-abiding riders. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

105-4 My wife and I spend countless hours in the Dixie National Forest and can 

not tell you the numerous times we have seen people disturb the beauty of our forest. Yet for the number of times we have seen this, we have rarely seen law enforcement patrolling the forest for such individuals that have placed us in the predicament we are in today. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-14 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

17-2 Nowhere did I see any mention of expanding the LEO numbers on the 

district; a critical part of gaining compliance of a major undertaking like this one. Many "managers" see the job done once the plan is written and filed. They have no idea what it takes to gain compliance on the trails, 

campground, and in the meadows during busy weekends. If there are no LEO's out working with the public you will see little change in the type of abusive land uses which have developed over the last few decades of mis-management. So, please consider addressing the need to expand the LEO's on the Dixie NF. I expect you'll find that 6 would be the minimum number needed just for the Cedar City office. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

34-2 Closing routes to the general public, but allowing administrative access 

will be almost impossible to enforce. Most administrative routes cannot be gated or otherwise closed. It is doubtful that the Forest Service has the capacity to effectively enforce such closures. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

115-17 ...interagency coordination. There are 29 routes, both motorized and 

non-motorized that cross jurisdictional boundaries between the Dixie NF, Pine Valley Ranger District and the BLM, St. George Field Office. In Alternatives B, C, and D, over half of these routes are classified as closed or limited to administrative access only. From a spatial perspective, the designations for these routes are perfectly logical. In many cases, it is even likely that a number of these routes have been pushed into the forest 

illegally by motorized users coming from adjacent routes on BLM lands. The question is how these closures would be performed. Will there be signs, fences, and increased patrols? If motorized users come upon a road closure deep in the backcountry, are they likely to honor it? SGFO staff believe that in many cases, they will not. It may be more successful 

to place signs further back on BLM lands saying, “road closed to motorized use six miles ahead.” If users are expecting to see a closure they may plan accordingly and are more likely to honor it. The SGFO would be happy to work with the Dixie NF on signing during implementation of the MTP.

See response to comment 95-3 on 

Implementation B-15 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-16 

LetterComment Comment Response 

59-3 Enforcement: Please describe the Dixie Forest's enforcement plan for 

implementation of the prohibition on cross country travel and new 

designated routes. How will Dixie National Forest evaluate or determine 

compliance with procedures established in Executive Order 11989 (1977) regarding the use of off-road vehicles on public lands. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

108-11 We appreciate your long-term implementation policy of ‘EducationEngineering-Enforcement’...It will be critical to encourage self-policing by 

motorized users through education 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

71-1 ATV users need ongoing education about the fragility of the forests, need 

to be closely supervised, and must be restricted to established forest service roads only. 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

72-2 We need to educate those that break the law by creating their own trails 

the destroy the beauty of our land. Their is a big concern about being able to fund such an undertaking... 

See response to comment 95-3 on 

58-10 When a person comes to our Forest and enjoys motorized riding and 

camping; Ect. They to should know and respect the rules. If pamphlets with the Forest rules were available at pull offs at the start of 

going up the mountain, with a sign with an arrow pointing to the pull off. As well the sign could say: Know the rules of the Forest, Don’t be Fined, Rules Est. 2008. Thus change the date and people will know rules have changed and a new rule book has been written. Only with education and enforcement of the rules can we truly protect the Future of our Forest.

See response to comment 95-3 on 
 Mot

B.4. Already Decided by Law, Regulation, or Policy 

LetterComment Comment Response 

122-12 All school districts in the state of Utah are required to follow Utah 

administrative rule R277-400 for the establishment and maintenance of school emergency response plans. This rule provides guidance in the establishment of general criteria for both emergency preparedness and 

emergency response plans required of schools and districts in the event of natural disasters or school violence emergencies. This rule is authorized under Utah Constitution Article X Section 3 which vests general control and supervision of public education in the local school board, Section 53A-1-401(3) which allows the school board to adopt rules in accordance with its responsibilities, and Section 53A -1-402(1) (b) which directs the school board to adopt rules for student health and safety. This rule also calls specifically for alternative routes of evacuation to be identified and practiced. Garfield County is a rural school district, and many of its schools are served by only one major 

highway or road in or out of a locality. The Garfield County School Board strongly believes that the most precious natural resource in this count is our children and their safety is of utmost importance. For our board to address the safety of our school children and comply with state law, we must identify and have properly maintained alternative evacuation routes for school bus travel across portions of the Dixie 

National Forest. Please review the following evacuation routes for specific schools...As further background information, Garfield County has been designated by the federal government as a low income population by meeting the U.S. Department of Human Health and 

Services guidelines. Garfield County School District also meets the designation of a public transportation carrier as defined by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Department of Transportation. Given these facts, the Garfield County School Board respectfully requests that the National Forest Service comply with the Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, the DOT Order on 

Environmental Justice and any other applicable law or regulation relating to this issue. 

Already decided by other law, policy

Already Decided by Law, Regulation, or Policy B-17 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

150-233 Henderson Canyon Trail. The Henderson Canyon trail is a road that 

has been in existence since prior to the turn of the century and predates forest designation. It was the main route from Widtsoe to Loseevill. It is shown on the GLO plats that predate the forest and is 

asserted by Garfield County as a valid existing right. 

Already addressed by law, regulatiothe Dixie National Forest’s Forest Parea map (USDA 1986). Public entwant to assert their rights under R.S

58-6 Henderson Canyon Trail. Portions of the route shown on the forest 

base map indicate that it is a jeep trail, and it is shown on Garfield County's Class D road system. It is necessary to provide OHV access 

from the John's Valley/Bryce Canyon area to the Tropic area. Garfield 

County is anxious to consider other viable routes. However this route currently provides Garfield County with its strongest claim for motorized access that is needed. 

Already addressed by law, regulatiothe Forest Plan final management aPublic entities or individuals who waunder R.S. 2477 may still do so. 

100-3 Under all of the alternatives ATVs are allowed on a substantial part of 

the Non-Motorized SWT. This is irrational and unacceptable. There exists a separate GWT for ATVs and there is no rational for allowing ATVs on the Non-motorized GWT as this trail has been set up to prevent conflict between motorized and non-motorized use. 

Already decided by law, regulation, Travel Map for the Dixie National Fomotorized and non-motorized mixed segments of the GWT. 

125-134 Seasonal closure during wet periods. SMU Alternative: Seasonal 

closure of roads/routes without hardened surfaces that are subject to 

damage and erosion during wet periods such as spring and early fall rain/snow conditions (p. 77) DEIS Alternatives: Some routes are subject to similar seasonal closure Significance: Some differences in which routes are so designated

This comment has already been decregulation or policy. The Forest Pladirection to classify areas as to manseasonal closure (USDA 1986, page

514-1 Public Comment. All area around Pine should be closed to ATVs until 

after April. 

This comment has already been decregulation, or policy. The Forest Pladirection to manage motorized use (USDA 1986, pages IV-49 and IV-50D, and E prevent cross-country travsection 2.2. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-18 Already Decided by La
 Mot

Already Decided by Law, Regulation, or Policy B-19 Appendix B: 

LetterComment Comment Response 

108-3 Long-distance connector routes. User-created routes are opening up 

connector routes that are changing the scale of motorized recreation infrastructure on the DNF, e.g. McGath Lake over the Boulder Swale creating a long-distance connector to the north side of Boulder Mountain (30475B & 31406). Also of concern within the Boulder and Escalante communities are potential long-distance connector routes resulting from Garfield County and State policies. For example, the Street Legal ATV bill (SB181) would connect routes that the County has designated for ATV use - Burr Trail, Hell’s Backbone Road and the Garkane Power Plant road (Road Draw). That combination would funnel ATV recreation traffic directly through the center of our town, and create a primary long-distance route 

through the county and beyond; clearly a stark conflict with the desire of Boulder residents, business owners and visitors to protect our quality of life, peace and quiet. 

Already decided by law, regulation, general comment, position statemen

108-20 The whole Great Western Trail that runs through this area is overlapped 

with some type of OHV route. Even areas where only non-motorized travel is permitted, ATVS are encroaching on those trails because of their proximity to portions of the GW non-motorized trail that overlaps with an ATV or OHV route. Non-motorized trails should be returned back to their non-motorized status and not be shared with ATV and 

OHV routes. 

Already decided by law, regulation, Travel Map for the Dixie National Fomotorized and non-motorized mixed segments of the GWT. Reference 2(USDA 2005a). Access conflicts haFEIS section 1.10.1 and section 2.1

Development. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.5. Concern Can be Better Addressed Through Another Decision Process 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-100 U4701A - Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative: C [Closed] 

DEIS Alternative B: O [Open] DEIS Alternative C: O [Open] DEIS Preferred Alternative: O [Open] These two routes facilitate further damage to Antimony Creek and adjacent meadows. 

This comment is better addressed tSee FEIS section 2.4.12 and Table 

25-4 A trail from the Great Western Trail at the end of Podunk/Bullrush 

should be open to ATV/MC to Meadow Canyon to allow connection to Crawford Pass and continuation of the Great Western Trail and Fremont trail for OHV travel. 

Concerns better addressed through decision. 

34-35 The Dixie N.F. has not provided a continuous ATV trail system to ride 

through the forest on an ATV. There needs to be more thought and planning put into providing continuous trail systems for ATVs. There 

are numerous short, broken segments that dead end and/or terminate on highways or other unauthorized ATV travel routes (non-motorized trails, closed roads or administratively open roads). This causes several problems for both the ATV rider and the Forest Service. The inclination for the ATV rider is to continue on, therefore breaking forest rules or State laws and causing you law enforcement problems and potential resource damages. ..The Forest should be looking for opportunities to provide ATV riders with trail systems that will take the rider for several miles across the forest. Routes should be designed so a rider could start at one forest boundary and travel across the forest visiting several points of interest along the way to the other side of the forest. And, not just one route across the Forest but several. 

Please see FEIS section 1.12 regardecision. This proposal is better adseparate decision process. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-20 Concern Better Addressed Through A
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

9-1 Closure of parallel trails. Parallel trails are the answer. One for hikers 

and horseback riders and one for motorized vehicles. They would be easier to patrol and perhaps act as a fire break. Construction costs could be reduced by getting of clubs and organizations involved. 

Concerns better addressed through Please refer to FEIS section 1.5. 

79-1 We have regularly discussed how great it would be to have this 

complete ATV trail access via Brian Head. We support this 

recommendation and hope the local and state officials will provide this access to local and national rider enthusiasts. 

Concerns better addressed through 

125-128 No "trail heads" or "off loading areas" are identified on the maps of the 

various alternatives. The analysis should include staging areas as part of the MTP and shown on the maps as either existing or proposed and so identified on the legend. 

Concerns better addressed in anothreference Recreation and Scenery Ssection 3.3.3.1 for a list of current lo(USDA 2009k). 

60-3 [Trailheads and off loading areas] should be included as part of the 

MTP and shown on the maps as either existing or proposed and so identified on the legend. . . Displayed trails information should be a part of the "Trail Head" site. If appropriate, other desired facilities should be considered in the MTP analysis. 

Concerns better addressed in anothreference section 4.2.1.6 in the RecSpecialist Report for a list of current areas (USDA 2009k). 

107-2 Even our few monitoring reports for D4 and D5 indicate that there are 

increasing examples of motorized routes conflicting with designated non-motorized trails. This is especially evident along many parts of the Great Western Trail - a prime long-distance hiking trail...We recommend that routes and/or trails be rerouted to avoid conflicts between 

incompatible uses, and that effective measures be taken to keep motorized users off non-motorized trails. 

This comment is better addressed in process. 

167-1 Government Creek. Not showing on our map. County may propose to 

make it motorized trail. 

Concerns better addressed in anoth

Concern Better Addressed Through Another Decision Process B-21 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-227 Upper Antimony Watershed Area 

Recommendation: close all routes in shaded area [small 2x2" map included with comments] unless they serve a specific and needed destination (we do not know of any such destinations in this area). Route should be severely minimized in the shaded area below. The upper Antimony Creel watershed is in disrepair, and has severe problems with erosions and steep hillsides. The Dry Lake area is antelope fawning area, and there are a lot of elk in there. Much of the area is scree, meadow or tundra. The route, shown in green on this map, that comes from the southeast side of the area towards the center, was closed a long time ago, but the closure was never enforced. The number of user-created routes in the area is damaging, and testifies to the necessity for better enforcement. This area is of concern to local hunters and wildlife enthusiasts. 

Concerns are better addressed in aPlease refer to FEIS section 2.4.12 

34-36 Iron County proposes a motorized route from USF 30052A at the 

junction with T34052B and following T34052B to route 31599; following 31599 to its junction with T34052A; thence along or parallel to route T34052A to it's approximate junction with T34052; thence construct a new route of approximately .75 miles to the Midway Valley divide near the Bristlecone Pine trail head; continuing approximately .75 miles to its 

junction with route 31633; thence follow route 31633, 31632, 31661A and 31661 to its junction with Highway U-14. Crossing U-14 construct a dividing route; one that leads north to route 31656 (approx .15 miles), and a second route that leads south to route G2681. The north route follows route 31656, T34101, and 30796 to its junction with the Red Desert road 30240 or 30381. The south route follows routes G2681, 30797A, G2680, 30382, 30800, and 30383 to it's junction with U-14. Thence crossing U-14 to route 30053; thence following route 30053 to route 30054; thence following 30054 to its junction with the Cascade Falls motorized trail. 

Concerns better addresses in anothsee response to comment 119-2 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-22 Concern Better Addressed Through A
 Mot

Concern Better Addressed Through Another Decision Process B-23 Appendix B: 

LetterComment Comment Response 

105-8 Snowmobile travel. SMU Alternative: Tracked vehicles use designated 

over-snow routes only and only when at least 8 “ of snow is present. 

DEIS Alternatives: Snowmobile use is allowed cross-country in “most” areas of the Forest when “adequate” (not specified) snow is present. Significance: Section 3(a) of Executive Order 116441 requires that 

regulations be based on protecting the resource, promoting the safety of 

all users, and minimizing conflicts among various off-road vehicle users. Specifically, the regulations further require that the location of areas and trails minimize— 

 Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources 

[bold]; 

 Harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife 

habitats; and 

 Conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or 

proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands [bold]. 

The DEIS indicates only “big game winter range” conflicts could result in 

future restriction of over-snow vehicles to designated routes.

Concerns better addressed through Outside scope of this project. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.6. General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion 

LetterComment Comment Response 

10-5 One consideration in reclaiming impacted wildlife habitats is the ability 

to enforce the travel management plan. If existing roads are closed at 

the base of the mountain, the closure is more enforceable. Once vehicles get up into the mountain, there are so many places for them to travel illegally, that enforcement isn't practical. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

76-3 I do not agree with Garfield County's claim that more non-motorized use 

will create a social and economic burden on us. Our tourism economy is based on non-motorized recreation and increased motorized recreation will hurt that, as well as affecting our quality of life. 

General comment, position statemeConsideration of motorized recreatioconcerned has been considered in tEconomic Specialist Report, pages 

27-2 The Forest Service also needs to consider the undermining of the 

fragile economic well-being of the area that depends on ATV and other motorized use of the National Forest. 

General comment, position statemeConsideration of motorized recreatioconcerned has been considered in tEconomic Specialist Report, pages 

100-2 As a business owner in the Town of Boulder interacting with visitors to 

our area everyday, the overwhelming majority of people express 

appreciation for the quiet, rural nature of our town and its environs ( the GSENM and Dixie Forest). Many business owners, including myself and my husband who is a permitted outfitter on the Dixie, have based our business plans on the unique aspects of our remote, 'undiscovered', quiet landscape. Business owners and residents of Boulder have petitioned the FS and the Garfield County Commissioners to help us 

preserve this special and increasingly scarce attribute. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

23-1 I think it would be a major disappointment if this did not pass (alternative 

D) and link to the other trails. What is Brianhead missing in economic benefits by not having this in place. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

86-1 From an economic perspective, the area I represent (eastern Garfield 

County) should focus on non-motorized recreation and should not be designed in ways that encourage recreational ATV tourism. In contrast, 

in the area to the west, it makes economic sense to have an ATV trail system that encourages recreational ATV tourism. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-24 General Comment, Positio
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

21-1 I want you to know that my family and I support option "D" of the 

Motorized Travel Plan project and DEIS. We feel that It would do a great disservice to many of the citizens of BrianHead and surrounding areas to apply any of the other options. We also feel that any choice other than "D" would hurt the businesses of BrianHead by restricting these Motorized sports and blocking city access. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

304-1 After reviewing your consultation documents, historic preservation 

department – traditional cultural program (HPD-TCP) has concluded the 

proposed undertaking/project area will not impact any Navajo traditional cultural properties or historic properties. 

This is a general comment, opinion, 

108-10 The support that we have received from local businesses in Boulder 

and Escalante for our Quiet Use brochure clearly shows that our businesses support non-motorized tourism. There are also many 

research studies (Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Southern Utah University, Outdoor Industry Foundation, etc.) that consistently show that the non-motorized recreation sector constitutes around 80-90 % of users. OIF quotes the top four outdoor recreation activities as bicycling, wildlife viewing, trails (non-motorized), and camping. 

This is a general comment, position 

47-1 However, we note that even on this trail, the Off-Road-Vehicles keep 

making it wider and wider to avoid the "wet spots". 

This is a general comment, position 

34-9 There are wonderful trails to enjoy ATV riding, but it is limited as we 

cannot connect to the larger trail systems. 

This is a general comment, position 

15-1 Finally, we can remember during our participation in the Duck Creek 

Travel Management Plan folks identifying a need for a connector route 

from Mammoth Creek Road and Panguitch Lake. It seems an obvious need to provide a route that gets folks through without having to travel through Hatch. In fact, it is my recollection that all involved in the Duck Creek planning agree that connector route is critical to a well managed trail system in the area. 

This is a general comment, position 

110-12 Loop route Habbeshaw suggested adding. Spirit of "all reasonable 

alternatives" Loop was already closed after a Kaibab Timber Sale is not driven now. There are new points off it. 

This is a general comment, position 

General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion B-25 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

62-22 Recreational use of public lands has also changed. Besides hikers, 

hunters, and horse riders that have typically used the back country for generations, we now have a very viable contingent of ATV riders as 

well. They are just as deserving of a place to "ride" as any of the other 

and users. Closing off roads to ATVs but allowing foot and horseback travel may indeed be grounds for discrimination. 

This is a general comment, position 

5-1 This distresses me even more since I brought the property to make their 

lives happier and to have the freedom to enjoy the outdoors. 

This is a general comment, position 

6-5 Closure of dead end trails. Or as Public Affairs Officer, Kenton Call said 

"trails to nowhere". All trails go somewhere. At the end may be a favorite picnic spot, or pine nut gathering area. Many families have set 

up hunting camps on these "dead end trails" in Pine Valley for generations. These are great trails to ride because most people only drive them once. They are easier to police, there is only one way in and out. 

This is a general comment, position 

38-3 We do use a lot of Little Valleys, 5 Mile, Horse Valley, Williams Hollow 

and all the small adjacent roads over to Hwy. 20, up Paragonah Canyon, up on Bunker, on over the top between Yankee and Panguitch. We use these hunting and some fishing and wood gathering as a main source of heat. 

This is a general comment, position 

10-2 The DNF needs to implement the Combined Use concept that several 

states and public agencies have adopted, catering to any special group will never be successful they all need to work together and improve and 

enjoy the provided routes and trails. The idea that different groups cannot use the same area is old school thinking. We have hiked, ridden 

and packed on horseback, driven 4x4 vehicles, and rode Atvs in all of these areas and when we knew we might encounter another type of trail user we were alert, we have never had any problems or had a bad experience. 

This is a general comment, position 

25-2 Closing down main roads and creating corrals to camp in is not the 

answer. 

This is a general comment, position 

86-2 The terrain and habitat in the Escalante Ranger District, the Top of 

Boulder Mountain and the Teasdale/Powell Ranger District tend to be particularly sensitive to the problems caused by ATV use and to be 

particularly well adapted to non-motorized recreation use. 

This is a general comment, position The Boulder Top travel managemendecision and is thus outside the scoPlease see FEIS section 2.4.12 for 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-26 General Comment, Positio
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

51-1 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 2. The forest area below Powell Point and Barney Top is a beautiful area that is easily accessed from SH12 and is near to services in Escalante. Every effort should be made to develop and enhance the motorized travel through this area. The Stump Springs forest is an excellent example of the benefits of proper timber management through 

selective harvesting. There is also easy access across SH12 to the Caanan Mountain area. This area is a great example for further OHV development. It can be well defined and managed, has great resources, and can be easily reached from either Tropic or Escalante for economic development. 

This is a general comment, position The motorized travel opportunities aAlternative D are found in FEIS TabAlternative D map in section 2.7: DEscalante and Teasdale. 

170-14 The proposed road closures would severely handicap my ability to enjoy 

the Boulder Mountain during brief visits and breaks from work. 

This is a general comment, position Please see FEIS section 2.2.1, Tab(Alternative A map). 

49-3 The Dixie National Forest is a very large forest. The Boulder Mountain 

or Aquarius Plateau is a huge area. Road closures should be kept to a minimum. 

This is a general comment, position Reference FEIS Table 2-6 and sectprevious decisions. Also reference Alternative A, and 2.2.5 Alternative 

99-9 As the population increases so will use and with no logical plan or 

thinking it will create a very difficult problem for the DNF 

This is a general comment, position Please refer to FEIS section 1.5. 

30-2 Our family travel from New Mexico and California just to see the back 

country. We go hunting up in the red desert every year on back roads that are there already. My cousin she comes up for a month every year and she loves to see the back country. We’ve made traditions up there and I want to keep going up on the mountain to Sydney Valley, Red Desert, and the Hatch road. This is what I love to do. So Alternative E is my final choice. 

This is a general comment, position Alternative E is considered in FEIS 

75-2 I choose Alternative E because those are the roads that we hunt and 

camp on. Every year we have all our family come up. We like to go up on the mountain to ride our four wheelers and look for those big deer. 

This is a general comment, position Please refer to FEIS section 2.2.5. 

General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion B-27 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

7-1 I began enjoying outdoor sporting activities during my teenage years 

and the Boulder Mountain is where I learned to fish, hunt, camp and enjoy the beautiful country with my friends who were familiar with that area. It immediately became a part of who I am and I cannot imagine enjoying a place more with my wife and future family. I have since married a southern Utah girl whose family loves the Boulder Mountain and respects that land as it is also tied so integrally to their memories and family experiences. I support Option A as it will impact less of the mountain range that I love so dearly. 

This is a general comment, position Consideration for Alternative A is resection 2.2.1. 

105-9 Why do we have to specify the exact trail in our comments? There are 

2496 miles of trails that you have proposed to close (but opening 1.26 

miles of trails. Thanks, nice trade off). I have only scratched the surface of the miles of trails through the Dixie National Forrest, yet I am expected to name the exact trail I want to keep open. Since the individual making the decision to close all 2496 miles of trails has "vast" experience exploring this area, he should be fully aware that no one likes to do the same trails over and over again. So I can only assume that he had drove all 5238 miles of trails and roads within the Dixie National Forrest, this is what gives him the "right" to shut it down. 

General comment, position stateme212 and 261 have given the Forest manage OHV use and provide specagencies based on Executive OrderPlease refer to FEIS section 1.11. 

105-7 Why is one man making the decision for such an important issue that 

will affect thousands of people who utilize the National Forest? 

General comment, position stateme212 and 261 have given the Forest manage OHV use and provide specagencies based on Executive OrderPlease refer to FEIS section 1.11. 

115-14 The BLM Cedar City, Richfield and Kanab FOs also reviewed the 

document and do not believe that the Dixie MTP would affect BLM lands and resources in those FO areas. 

This is a general comment, position 

135-1 32094. Bear Valley. Proposed ATV only - County supports it. This is a general comment, position 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-28 General Comment, Positio
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

29-1 As time progresses, there is more and varied use of the National 

forests. I also believe that each and every situation mandates close scrutiny as decisions that are made regarding local circumstances. The Cedar City Ranger District is far different. The topography is much 

more gradual, and the geography lends itself much more to recreational uses as a tourist destination. It is home to several major sect's of private property complete with residential homes and an increasing population. 

This is a general comment, position 

150-1 Garfield County is concerned with the extensive number of routes that 

are being closed to public use and motorized access. 

This is a general comment, position 

83-158 The County recognizes that multiple-use has inherent challenges, but 

multiple-use is still a valid and required tool for the management of federal, state and local lands. 

This is a general comment, position 

76-4 I prefer your Alternative 'C' as proposing a realistic balance between 

various users and the health of the forest itself - particularly as it is the only Alternative using a decision-making process based on local and public knowledge of specific routes (rather than the ARS computer tool). 

This is a general comment, position Consideration for Alternative C can section 2.2.3. 

140-3 Alma Adams would like to go on the ground to see some of the Virgin 

river Rim ATV connection suggestions. 

This is a general comment, position 

19-2 I have a father who is somewhat disabled, however, he can ride an ATV 

to enjoy the beauty of the forest. 

General comment, position statemealternatives accommodate ATVs. P2-3 and Chapter 2: Alternatives. 

26-1 I am in favor of a trail or trails that would connect the Piute ATV System 

to further extend my rides into other riding areas in the State. As the 

Piute ATV Trail has been a real blessing to our local economy as I live in Richfield. People come from all over the United States and the World for that matter to experience the ATV Trail System. 

This is a general comment, opinion, and outside the jurisdiction or authoNational Forest. 

113-1 The Forest should be looking for opportunities to provide ATV riders 

with trail systems that will take the rider for several miles across the 

forest. ..An ATV rider should be able to travel from Cedar City to Panguitch or Paragonah over Forest trails. Or travel from Navajo Lake 

to Panguitch Lake or Yankee Meadows. Or, travel from Duck Creek to Orderville or Bear Valley. 

This is a general comment, position Better addressed in separate decisi

General Comment, Position Statement, or Opinion B-29 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-30 General Comment, Positio

LetterComment Comment Response 

20-1 The Forest Service should strictly regulate off-road vehicles so they will 

not damage the great public values of the land. 

This is a general comment, position The Forest Service has the authority manage OHV use and provide reguFEIS section 1.11. The final Travel use of motor vehicles off the designuse of motor vehicles on routes and consistent with the designations (36 

113-2 I believe that a combination of Alternative D and Alternative E would be 

the most effective. Another demand that I have encountered is the limited trail heads that 

are needed within the Brian Head and Panguitch Lake area. These would include, but are not limited to, parking for trailers, kiosk that would identify trail maps and information available to the public. 

This is a general comment, position Please see response to comment 5

Consideration for Alternatives D and 

sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5. 
 Mot

The following comments did warrant a detailed agency response. B.7. Soils 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-19 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM-managed lands. The SGFO [St. George Field Office] feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate. The following is a list of affected resources: 3.1 Soils. Table 3.1 (page 3-5) measures change by alternative using soil indicators. It shows positive effects for Alternatives B, C, and D, 

and negative effects of Alternative A and E. Because soils on adjacent BLM-managed lands are similar, and it is likely that Alternatives B, C, and D will result in increased use on adjacent BLM lands due to displacement, the impacts to BLM lands could be the reverse of what is shown in this table. 

Cumulative impacts to the soil resouFEIS section 3.1.2.2. In response to have added a paragraph in the Soils in FEIS section 3.1.2.1. 

20-8 Check the erosion-resistance of every route to be opened to ORVs. 

Forest Service national standards should be used to make sure ORVs will not cause erosion and gullying on any open route. 

An analysis of miles of roads that arpotential soils was conducted within 3.1.2.1.3. This analysis was compleGeographic Information System anathe Forest. 

Soils B-31 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-32 

LetterComment Comment Response 

6-3 I will agree that the roads [on the Dixie] are often poorly planned. They 

were built in time when environmental concerns were not important to most people. However, it is unfair to say these road causes significant erosion, especially on the Boulder Top. The Boulder Top is a plateau -- essentially a flat area. I was driving my truck on it last weekend, and very little erosion has occurred. Any thinking individual can ride these roads and realize that erosion cannot happen much because of the flat 

land. The roads have been there for a hundred years, and all except the main road are essentially in the same order they were when built. It might be true that some roads on the sloping areas (North or East 

slopes) have environmental issues, but these should be dealt with by new and better roads. Closing roads, especially on the tope area, solves a nonexistent environmental problem. 

The effect to the soil resource from minor, as you have stated, but otheconcerns (e.g., wildlife, hydrology, sconsidered and addressed in other the FEIS. The Boulder Top decision has alreaand is outside the scope of this projsection 2.4.12 and Table 2-6 . Alternative A maintains the existing to soil can be found in FEIS section 
 Mot

B.8. Hydrology 

LetterComment Comment Respon

59-7 Water Quality - The FEIS should identify any existing perennial streams 

and lakes in the watershed(s) of the Forest that may be impacted by new road construction. If impacts are expected, current water quality data should be disclosed and potential impacts discussed. 

These impacts were recognized Hydrology Specialist Report und2009g). Table 1 in the report lison the 303d list or have an existLoad (TMDL). The effect of new route construcperennial streams, and lakes waSpecialist Report, Chapter 4.

59-8 In addition, the DEIS does not mention wetland impacts. Please indicate if 

impacts of wetlands or other critical habitat will occur as a result of this project. 

We acknowledged that impacts FEIS section 3.2.2.1. Effects to wetlands were analyzHydrology Specialist Report, seFEIS section 3.2.2.1. Wetlands section 3.19.2.5 when referring For impacts to “other critical habFEIS section 3.6, Wildlife. 

115-20 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM managed lands. The SGFO feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate... 3.2 Hydrology. The watersheds that comprise the southern slope of the 

Pine Valley Mountains are shared with the SGFO. The 5% threshold analysis used is applicable for entire watersheds, and if motorized users are displaced onto BLM-managed lands by Alternatives B, C, and D, negative impacts in the lower reaches of these watersheds could occur.

Cumulative effects were consid

watershed, which often included land. Please refer to Hydrology 

1, pages 3-8 (USDA 2009g). Action alternatives proposed in restrict motorized use to varying additional motorized impacts on administered lands. See Hydrosection 4.2.4, Cumulative EffecE (USDA 2009g).

Hydrology B-33 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Respon

87-8 Failure to Consider Impacts from Unauthorized Trails... 

There are numerous unauthorized trails that have not been inventoried or acknowledged by the Forest Service. Concentrated OHV use on FS Route #30050 is a major reason leading to the creation of unauthorized trails. The unauthorized trails are the biggest threats to the sensitive Clear Creek headwater areas. The DEIS should consider better means to eliminate all motorized trails within the Clear Creek watershed boundaries to ensure that the sensitive headwater areas are protected. 

Unauthorized routes developed disclosed in FEIS section 1.7, pWatershed falls within the Ipson 

watershed. Effects to the Ipson in Appendix A (A- 4 and A-9) in Report (USDA 2009g). 

125-235 Routes in the Pine Creek and North Creek watersheds should be severely 

minimized, and eliminated if possible. These watersheds are Escalante’s water, supplying the town irrigation company. These are both Type 2 irrigation districts. The East and West Boulder Creek and Bear Creek watersheds should be treated similarly. 

Effects to municipal watersheds A in the Hydrology Specialist Re

FEIS analyzed a range of altern3.2.2). Impacts to irrigation watdisclosed in the Hydrology Spec

125-236 Ex-FS employees and biologists in the area say that a great deal of effort 

(much of it decades ago) was put into projects repairing the southern slope of Boulder Mountain (the watersheds for Boulder Town and Escalante). Designating high numbers of routes for ORVs is bad watershed management, and degrades the projects’ effectiveness. In desert towns, water quality should come before recreation. 

Please refer to response to com34. 

108-1 Watershed protection is of prime importance to our local communities, as 

well as protection of riparian areas in general terms. We urge you to give special consideration to watersheds such as Pine Creek, North Creek, Lake Creek, East & West Boulder Creeks, The Baldies, Bear Creek and 

the Boulder Swale. We suggest closing or minimizing roads/motorized routes in watershed areas, which will also benefit habitat and wildlife. 

Please see response to comme

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-34 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Respon

125-129 Proximity of campsites to water. SMU Alternative: Designated and signed 

undeveloped camping sites, non-motorized and motorized are at least 200 feet from the nearest water source (p. 77). DEIS Alternatives: The only width mentioned in relation to dispersed 

camping is the 150-foot swath on each side of a route (2-18). Significance: The Dixie NF website gives this “tip for low-impact camping”: “Dispersed camping is allowed... 200 feet from any stream, spring, or other water source. Likewise, the ORV User page on the Dixie website sports the “Tread Lightly” logo. Tread Lightly is “the nation’s signature ethics message for outdoor enthusiasts that use motorized and mechanized vehicles” The Tread Lightly website states, “Camp at least 200 feet from water...” However, the DEIS is silent on making this a reality, as numerous dispersed campsites are within a few feet of water. The DEIS fails to acknowledge the damage motorized campsites are causing to riparian areas and fish habitat.

Designating dispersed campsitethis decision. See FEIS sectionDesignating dispersed camp sitphysical and social conditions redeemed necessary (see FEIS sThe Hydrology Specialist Repormotorized routes in riparian aresections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5, 4.1.11, and 4.1.17) (USDA 2009

125-133 'Limits to riparian bare ground. SMU Alternative: Allow no more than 15 

percent total bare ground (i.e, from all vehicle, recreation, and livestock use) per 200 feet of stream bed. Coordinate with livestock management a progressive removal system to decommission roads and routes that exceed this limit (p. 81) DEIS Alternatives: No alternative describes a clear means of avoiding cumulative denudation of stream beds among livestock grazing, recreation, and motorized travel (e.g., stream crossings). Significance: The Forest’s Level II riparian inventory data sheets, for instance, often note where both livestock and ORV travel, dispersed camping, and/or roads are affecting a given stream or creek.

The Hydrology Specialist Reporeffects in the riparian influence section 4.2). 

Hydrology B-35 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-36 

LetterComment Comment Respon

125-138 Riparian routes. SMU Alternative: Ten percent of unnecessary roads and 

routes within 100 feet of creeks/streams should be decommissioned each year. (p. 78) DEIS Alternatives: The DEIS proposes no priorities for road/route decommissioning. Significance: Absent goals for decommissioning of the most ecologically problematic routes, the DEIS offers no guidance for implementation of route closures. 

Please see response to comme

89-4 Watersheds are a major concern for wildlife, irrigators and community 

water supplies. The Escalante and Boulder watersheds already suffer from siltation problems. Roads and illegal ATV routes along the waterways and adjacent to the reservoirs only add to the problem. Due to the occasional need to do maintenance, it may not be possible to eliminate all roads in the Pine Creek, North Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Lake Creek watersheds, but a compromise solution should be sought. Decreasing motorized access along these waterways and their reservoirs would decrease erosion, sedimentation and habitat loss to the benefit of irrigators and wildlife. 

Please see response to comme

20-3 Keep vehicles out of watercourses. ORVs should be barred from traveling 

in any streambeds or dry washes, and from crossing streams except on bridges. ORVs fording a stream leave pollution from engine fluids and sediment washed from the undercarriage. Vehicles traveling in dry 

washes degrade these areas' value as wildlife habitat; they are often the richest habitat in an arid landscape because subsurface water is tapped by deep-rooted plants. 

Please see FEIS section 1.5. Arequire OHVs to remain on desiFEIS section 2.2). Impacts from ATVs crossing strpollutants were described in the Report (see sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.10) (USDA 2009g).
 Mot

B.9. Vegetation 

LetterComment Comment Response 

83-160 The residents of Wayne County rely on the ability to access the forest in 

search of firewood in order to supply heat for homes due to the fact that Wayne County does not have the option of using natural gas for heating. The residents of Wayne County rely on the ability to access the forest in order to extract resources such as firewood, fence poles, cedar posts, wood timber, etc. as a means of supplemental or main source of income. 

Firewood gathering is a permitted aNational Forest. Access to adminisareas open to off-road travel for woospecified by the firewood collection issuance (FEIS section 2.4.10). The on firewood collection has been ana3.4.2.1.1. Under FEIS section 3.4.2the exception of the No Action Altersecond only to Alternative E in the leto firewood collectors. 

38-2 I would like all roads on the Dixie National Forest left open. Alternative 

E. My reason: My parents are in their 80's, they still heat their home 

(the old fashion way) with wood. My husband and I buy wood permits, and gather wood all summer long, so that it will be enough to keep them 

warm all winter. With all the roads open, it makes it easier for us to do. Sometime there is not a lot of wood along the road. 

Please see response to comment 8

124-1 Our Families use wood stoves and fire places to heat several of our 

homes here in the Cedar City area. Some of us heat entirely with firewood collected from the DNF. The closing of the forest to cross country travel will limit access to these resources. 

Please see response to comment 8

127-1 I would like to see the Dixie National Forest roads left open. Alternative 

E. The reason: My family needs to go and gather wood for me, because we still heat our home, with a wood burning stove. These roads makes it a lot easier for the family to do this job. 

Please see response to comment 8

Vegetation B-37 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.10. Terrestrial Wildlife 

LetterComment Comment Response 

Regarding desert tortoise habitat, ne

suitable habitat for this species exists area. See FEIS section 3.6.2.1.3. 

125-162 Examples of faulty or incomplete analysis...[excerpt beginning 

"Alternatives B, C, and D: Implementation of any of these three 

alternatives would result in an incremental decrease in motorized access"] (DEIS, Mojave Desert Tortoise Impacts Analysis, p. 3-37). 

First, this analysis does not disclose any site-specific route impacts. It is hard for the public to make informed decisions as to the appropriateness of certain route designations, as NEPA requires, without knowing what impacts will occur in what places. Merely counting route miles is not adequate analysis, as one route can be far more damaging than another of the same length. Some routes are also more necessary than others. Second, the DEIS must demonstrate that all routes are avoiding damaging known Mojave Desert Tortoise habitat. Simply noting that reducing route miles will result in better habitat is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, or other laws and regulations protecting sensitive species. This criticism applies to all analysis of threatened, endangered or sensitive species in the DEIS. 

The Wildlife Specialist Report has be2009i). Site-specific impacts for knowThreatened, Endangered, and Sensitanalyzed in section II, Direct and Ind18-48 (USDA 2009p). 

125-163 Examples of faulty or incomplete analysis...[excerpt beginning "up to 18 

[northern goshawk] nest sites would be impacted] (DEIS, Northern Goshawk Effects Analysis, p.3-48) When routes are going to cause nest abandonment (or other significant and measurable ecological degradation) the DEIS must provide a specific explanation as to why the 

damaging routes are not being closed and how impacts are being minimized. Otherwise, the Dixie NF is not meeting the minimization criteria of the Executive Orders and the Travel Management Rule here. Further, the mitigation measures explained here seem both strange and 

inadequate. If routes are going to disrupt habitat, simply marking a new place on a map that the displaced wildlife can go will not ensure that the 

population will be preserved. This is one of the few specific habitat mitigation measures listed in the DEIS, and it is either not well explained or is not at all realistic.

The Wildlife Specialist Report has be2009i). The revised report applies updata and refined analysis of route imgoshawks. Site-specific analysis for northern goshawk nests are included and Indirect Effects, pages 30-33 (US

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-38 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-164 Examples of faulty or incomplete analysis...[excerpt beginning "The 

recommended OMRD of 2.0 miles/square mile"] (DEIS, Mule Deer Effects Analysis, Alternative D, p. 3-62) Though the preceding paragraph discloses that the preferred alternative 

crosses recommended route density thresholds, there is no explanation as to why this is allowed. The next paragraph simply says, without 

justification, that viable populations of mule deer are still likely to be maintained. Again, the DEIS must demonstrate that the Dixie NF took a hard look at the impacts of high route densities in the affected areas, show why all the routes in the area are necessary, and demonstrate that the minimization criteria are being met. 

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986, p. IV-5guideline of 2 mi/sq mi. The Preferre(Alternative D) would move OMRDs tguideline, and therefore in a direction improved wildlife habitat effectivenesForest Service 1998 letter, ImplemenMiles/Square Mile Open Road Densi1998). The analysis of effects to mule deer cWildlife Specialist Report (pages 39-4analysis discloses effects by Wildlife (WMU). The minimization criteria weDixie LRMP IV-50 3.G.1, 2 mi/sq mi oeffects to this criterion are disclosed pages mentioned above.

115-21 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM managed lands. The SGFO feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate... 3.6 Terrestrial Wildlife Any species whose habitat extends beyond the Dixie NF boundary could be subject to increased impacts on BLM-managed lands. These impacts would be created by the displacement of motorized users onto 

adjacent BLM lands in Alternatives B, C, and D.

This has been included in the Wildlife 

section II, Direct and Indirect Effects, 

Terrestrial Wildlife B-39 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-40 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-135 Road/route density limits. SMU Alternative: Not including currently 

developed campgrounds and picnic areas, road/route density for each District does not exceed 1 mile per square mile. In no sixth field watershed does road and motorized trail density exceed 1.3 miles per square mile. There is no more than 2.5 miles per square mile in any given square mile on the Forest (p. 77) DEIS Alternatives: The DEIS alternatives offer no particular aims limit on road density. Significance: We find that the SMU Alternative does include some areas in which there is more than 2.5 miles per square mile motorized routes. Under the SMU Alternative, wherever possible, additional routes should be eliminated to meet this density standard.

The Dixie Forest Plan offers guideline(pages IV-50, 3.G.1). Please see the the DNF Two Miles/Square Mile OpeGuideline (USDA 1998). 

59-8 In addition, the DEIS does not mention wetland impacts. Please 

indicate if impacts of wetlands or other critical habitat will occur as a 

result of this project. 

We acknowledged that impacts will oFEIS section 3.2.2.1. Effects to wetlands were analyzed anHydrology Specialist Report, section 3.2.2.1. Wetlands were addressed in FEIS sereferring to Executive Order 11990. For impacts to “other critical habitat,” the FEIS section 3.6, Wildlife.
 Mot

B.11. Social and Economic Resources 

LetterComment Comment Response 

27-4 The negative impact on my property value is incalculable. Effects to the social economic resou

Social and Economic Specialist RepTable 7). 

The Social and Economic Specialis

USU Study (see page 2). 

303-1 The Six County area comprising Juab, Millard, Wayne, Sevier, Piute, 

Sanpete is concerned about the lack of a viable socio and economic database utilized by public lands administrators in developing their 

management plans. Dealing with similar issues across the state, Utah officials contracted with USU to complete a state-wide baseline socio and economic analysis of public lands. The purpose of this research is to fill the void of flawed and disparate data currently utilized as the socio 

and economic component of management plans governing public lands administration in Utah. After nearly eighteen months, USU is nearing completion of the Study. Even though not fully published, data from this research is becoming available for use and distribution. As the Dixie National Forest is completing their Motorized Travel Plan, I realize that time constraints will not allow this data to be utilized in the main body of the Plan. However, it is my understanding that it can be referenced in the Specialist Report. 

127-2 I would like to see the Dixie National Forest roads left open. Alternative 

E. The reason : I worked for the Forest Service for many years. I 

graded and maintained most of the roads. I have been retired for over 25 years, put I am still proud, of those roads, and a job well done. Plus, 

the Forest Service provided good jobs for the local people. These roads still need to be maintained, and the local people, still need the job. 

Socio-economic effects under Alternconsidered in FEIS section 3.7.2 anEconomic Specialist Report, pages 

Social and Economic Resources B-41 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

The FEIS analyzes the impacts of th

on the Forest and Forest-user expeto FEIS section 3.11.2.1.7. The socanalysis does not foresee major chatrends and challenges” facing rural cMotorized Travel Plan, regardless oselected. Please reference the SocSpecialist Report sections 4.1.2 and 

125-173 The DEIS fails to take a hard look at the social and economic impacts of 

roads and OHV use in the Dixie NF...To accurately account for the social and economic impacts of any changes to the Travel Plan, the Dixie NF, must include analysis that is not so simplistic, overbroad, and obviously biased towards more roads and ORV use. The current analysis does not reflect the history or current trends of life in rural Utah. 

In particular, analysis should account for the cumulative impacts of routes used to connect larger road or trail systems to each other (such as the proposed motorized trail leading down Boulder Swale to McGath Lake). Such connector routes, and any other routes used to facilitate future increases ORV tourism, are clearly contrary to the desires of a significant part of the residents of the Dixie NF area who wish to see the 

peace and quiet of their rural way of life preserved. 

150-4 Closure of the routes identified in your preferred alternative coupled with 

other federal agency action could have a significant detrimental effect 

on the County's custom, culture, economic base, as well as opportunities for the public to use public forest lands. 

Cumulative effects are disclosed in and pages 50-52 in the Social and EReport. Profiles of economic base afound in the Social and Economic S

pages 2-34. 

76-3 I do not agree with Garfield County's claim that more non-motorized use 

will create a social and economic burden on us. Our tourism economy is based on non-motorized recreation and increased motorized recreation will hurt that, as well as affecting our quality of life. 

This is a general comment, position Consideration of motorized recreatioconcerned has been considered in tEconomic Specialist Report on page

27-2 The Forest Service also needs to consider the undermining of the 

fragile economic well-being of the area that depends on ATV and other motorized use of the National Forest. 

This is a general comment, position Consideration of motorized recreatioconcerned has been considered in tEconomic Specialist Report on page

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-42 Social a
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

89-8 I find it interesting that Alt. C would increase the social and economic 

impacts on the county. With the vast amount of motorized trails that are already in existence, including such well known routes as the Markagunt and Paunsagaunt, there is no basis to assume that ridership will decrease and thereby impact local businesses catering to motorized users. On the contrary, many businesses on the east end of the county are dependent on non-motorized users and visitors for their income and could be adversely affected by an increase in motorized use. The blanket statement in the DEIS (p. 3-86) needs to be researched with real data before making such assertions. 

Effects by alternative are described Economic Specialist Report pages 4section 3.7.2.2.1. 

125-172 The DEIS fails to take a hard look at the social and economic impacts of 

roads and OHV use in the Dixie NF...The primary outdoor tourism draws to Wayne, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington counties are lands mostly protected from OHV use: National Parks and Monuments. Therefore, suggesting that Alternatives B and C will cause, as the DEIS 

states, “greater pressure on the county’s economy to change and provide services to non-motorized visitors” (p. 3-86) is not at all supportable. Nearly every tourism-related business in the Dixie NF 

area already caters to non-OHV tourists, many of them exclusively (e.g. river runners and horse packers). Lower road densities in the Dixie NF would not likely cause the Dixie to become a tourism draw similar to Parks or Wilderness, and so Alternatives B and C would not require agrarian communities to accommodate significantly larger numbers of tourists. As the DEIS states, “Motorized opportunities at this scale could create a disincentive for other visitors...to visit the county. This could have economic implications for many county businesses.” Indeed, many businesses and residents in the Dixie NF area have expressed their desire to see more public land protected from ORV damage, noting that their businesses depend on the attractions of an unspoiled landscape [three examples given]. 

Effects by alternative are described Economic Specialist Report pages 4section 3.7.2.2.1. 

Social and Economic Resources B-43 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

108-9 In Clause 3.7.2.2.1. [of the DEIS] Garfield County tries to make the case 

that more non-motorized recreation will place additional burdens on the 

county. In our view the opposite is true - increased emphasis on motorized recreation will incur more burden on law enforcement, EMTs, fire crews. Further, it will adversely affect our local quality of life, and deter our lucrative non-motorized tourism base. 

Effects by alternative are described Economic Specialist Report section 

120-5 The State through the Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Please see response to comment 3

Office (PLPCO) contracted with Utah State University to complete a 

number of economic and social-attitude studies regarding the use of, and values attributed to, public land resources by Utah residents. Several of these studies, including Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle 

Use an Public Lands in Utah, Economic Impacts of Land Use Restrictions Statewide on OHV Recreation in Utah (Draft), and Public Lands and Utah Communities: A Statewide Survey of Utah Residents, are provide herewith. Although some of the information is in draft form, PLPCO encourages the Dixie national Forest to consider the information in its analysis. 

81-7 I cut a lot of firewood for my house. ..Wood is the only way I have to 

heat my house, and with petroleum products rising in price like they are I think it is going to come back in style. If you were to close many of these roads it would dramatically impact my way of life. 

Wood cutting will continue to be a uThis activity will continue to be authand will not be impacted by the Motpermits will identify areas permitted See FEIS section 2.4.10. 

124-15 ...with escalating gas, fuel, and heating costs it can and will place a 

financial hardship on our families if we are not able to continue this practice [firewood gathering]. 

See response to comment 81-7 on 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-44 Social a
 Mot

Social and Economic Resources B-45 Appendix B: 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-11 The DEIS fails to take a hard look at the social and economic impacts of 

roads and OHV use in the Dixie NF. The DEIS’ analysis of the potential social and economic impacts of the various alternatives is overgeneralized and inaccurate. Most of the section seems to rest on the unsupported assumption that limitations on OHV travel and route 

mileage will be “disruptive” to social and economic systems in nearly every county in the Dixie NF area. However, while OHV use is a very visible and high-impact use, it represents a very small portion of total use of the Dixie, by either tourists or locals. Several studies point to the limited popularity of OHV use among Dixie NF users, and the far greater popularity of nonmotorized recreation. 

The most obvious is FS’ 2004 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey. The NVUM found that approximately 2.45% of Dixie NF users 

visited the Forest specifically to ride an OHV. 12.84% of users indicated some participation in OHV use, though it was not their primary activity. Much higher numbers were assigned to activities such as hiking, wildlife watching, hunting and fishing (presumably the hunters or fishermen that rode in on OHVs listed show up in the 12.84% participation figure). “Hiking/walking” had more than double the numbers of OHV use, with 5.90% listing it as their main activity and 42.14% participating. Downhill 

skiing was by far the most popular main activity in the Dixie, nearing 30% in both categories. Even in the Fishlake National Forest, with its much-advertised and massive Paiute ATV Trail, the NVUM reported that nonmotorized trails were the most popular facility. 

See response to comment 125-172 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.12. Livestock Grazing 

LetterComment Comment Response 

69-8 Grazing Permittees such as myself need to be protected. Livestock we 

run on these permits need to be protected for the abusive nature of ATV riders. They continue to harass livestock and vandalize fences, gates and structures associated with permitted Livestock grazing. Along with other personal and private property. 

In response to your comment, we hin the Livestock Grazing Specialist R

section 3.8.1 addressing current coand livestock harassment. This document is to look at the effeclawful activities in compliance with tlaw enforcement of vandalism and houtside the scope of this document. Purpose and Need for Action.

10-4 To say that roads do not have an impact upon grazing lease holders is 

incorrect. The resulting lost of range habit, vandalism, and harassment are a major impediment to grazing leasers. 

Please see response to comment 6

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-46 
 Mot

B.13. Noxious Weeds 

LetterComment Comment Response 

The displacement of dispersed recre

FEIS section 3.11.2.2. 

115-22 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM-managed lands. The SGFO [St. George Field Office] feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate... 3.9 Noxious Weeds. The implementation of Alternatives B, C, or D could result in increased motorized traffic on BLM-managed lands in the SGFO. Since noxious weeds can be transported by vehicles, a corresponding increase in the spread of noxious weeds could occur. 

We have addressed the increased ropen to cross-country travel. This din FEIS sections 3.9.2.1 and 3.9.2.2The correlation between roads and weed is addressed in FEIS section 3

Noxious Weeds B-47 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.14. Special Uses 

LetterComment Comment Response 

68-33 We request that we be allowed to engage in cross country travel in 

emergency situations. We have an internal Emergency Response Team that is activated in the case of medical emergency, lost or runaway students, or in response to a natural disaster such as forest fire or lightning strike. Cross country travel would only occur when circumstances required it and only to the degree necessary to ensure the safety of clients. 

Emergency cross-country travel is asection 2.4.2, and activities covered addressed in section 2.4.5. Also seSpecialist Report, section 3.4. 

68-32 We request that we be allowed to engage in cross country travel in 

emergency situations. We have an internal Emergency Response Team that is activated in the case of medical emergency, lost or runaway students, or in response to a natural disaster such as forest fire or lightning strike. Cross country travel would only occur when circumstances required it and only to the degree necessary to ensure the safety of clients. 

Please see response to comment 6

102-2 Second, the road up “The Narrows” or on your map, the second over 

from the top. counter clock wise. There is an irrigation access up that 

trail/road. I vote to keep it open, but close the unauthorized road made to the left, to the deer fence north west center. 

Dixie National Forest employees coNarrows” on any map. Alternatives motorized routes as “open to all” in described in the comment letter. Pl2.2 for more information on Alternatfor more information on Alternative Alternatives A and E can be reviewe2.7. 

150-260 The non-motorized trail from the Dark Valley Lake to Row Lake is 

shown on 1923 survey plats and is believed to be an RS 2477 right-ofway. Garfield County believes that additional discussion needs to take place between the Forest Service and the County prior to designating 

the route in a manner that prohibits vehicular traffic. 

R.S. 2477 provided right-of-way for highways over public lands, not reseR.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976; hoSection 1769 preserved valid existinrecognizes that roads that existed pDixie National Forest Reserve was swould be considered a valid existing or individuals who want to assert the2477 may still do so. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-48 
 Mot

Special Uses B-49 Appendix B: 

LetterComment Comment Response 

68-1 The following comments are with respect to ... Alternative D...There are 

many routes marked as "administratively open" that we have used historically in the operation of our business. We request that as a permittee we are allowed to continue to use these routes. 

As noted in FEIS section 2.4.5, permlivestock operations, mineral develooperations, and access to special usapproved or denied through the peroperating plan. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.15. Recreation Also see the Transportation section beginning on page B-84; many comments in the Transportation and Recreasimilar. 

B.15. Recreation ................................................................................................................................................

General ...........................................................................................................................................................Big Game Retrieval/Antler Gathering..............................................................................................................Motorized – General........................................................................................................................................Motorized OHV – Insufficient Opportunity.......................................................................................................Motorized OHV – Excessive Opportunity........................................................................................................Non-motorized – Insufficient Opportunity........................................................................................................Conflicts Between Motorized and Non-motorized ...........................................................................................Recreation Experiences..................................................................................................................................Access – Sense of Place ................................................................................................................................Access – Discrimination..................................................................................................................................Over-snow Travel............................................................................................................................................Dispersed Camping.........................................................................................................................................Law and Regulations.......................................................................................................................................Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................................................................Administrative Routes .....................................................................................................................................Concentrating Use ..........................................................................................................................................Wilderness ......................................................................................................................................................

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-50 
 Mot

General 

LetterComment Comment Response 

98-1 I believe a trail connecting Brian Head with the rest of Utah would be a 

great benefit for the economy of the town. Also, it would ease the 

frustration and cost of having to trailer ATVs out of town for Brian Head locals. I believe it would bring more people to the area and help stimulate the local economy. 

Please see FEIS section 2.2., Altern

Detail, regarding new trail construct

125-153 Trail Design Parameters and the Appropriateness of Full Size Vehicle 

Designation...The FS “Trail Design Parameters” guidance has no design parameter for anything larger than an ATV. Forest Service Manual Section 7705 defines an ATV as “a type of off-highway vehicle that...has handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be straddled by the operator.” 

The scope of this guidance leads us to conclude that the Forest Service makes a distinction between categories of users and conveyances that are appropriate for trails, and others such as UTVs, Jeeps, Hummers, 

rock crawlers, etc., which are not appropriate for use on trails. If the FS 

has no established methodology for designing, constructing, or maintaining a trail for vehicles larger than an ATV, then it is inappropriate for the agency to allow use of these vehicles on trails. This would include use on routes which exceed 50 inches—the typical cutoff between a road and trail--but are nonetheless “managed as a trail” The "Trail Design Parameters" guidance states that "exceptions and variances to these parameters can occur, however, when site-specific circumstances demand such exceptions.” We read that to mean that in certain cases trail width may exceed established parameters, but it is a stretch to conclude that this exception is intended to encompass entirely 

new classes of vehicles, such as UTVs and larger full-size vehicles such as jeeps, pickups and Hummers. 

None of the action alternatives conswhich would allow a vehicle greater width. Please refer to FEIS Appendfuture decision allowing vehicles grewidth on trails would be addressed specific analysis. 

Recreation B-51 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-18 There are several places in the plan where the following statement is 

made: “Currently, the Richfield, Kanab, Arizona Strip, Ely, and St. 

George Field Offices are in the process of updating their respective Resource Management Plans (RMPs).” The St. George Field Office RMP was signed in March 1999 and is not currently being updated. The Arizona Strip Field Office RMP was completed and the ROD was signed in May 2008. The statement is correct for the remaining BLM offices. 

Please see the updated section 4.3and Scenery Specialist Report and and 3.11.2.2. 

Big Game Retrieval/Antler Gathering 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-18 I would like to see us be allowed to recover game with an ATV. Please see FEIS section 2.6.3. 82-2 The proposal to prohibit Game Retrieval off of designated routes is 

essential. Opening the door to game retrieval is open a flood of off road travel that cannot be controlled. 

Please see FEIS section 2.6.3. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-52 
 Mot

Motorized – General 

LetterComment Comment Response 

The Main Canyon (Corn Creek fire) 

previous decision and is thus outsiddocument. Please see FEIS section information. FS route 31449 is listeopen in Alternatives B, C, and D. Rin the project file. 

10-3 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 1. The recent Corn Creek fire presents an opportunity to develop the burned area into a recreational area, especially for additional single track motorcycle trails. The DNF OHV TWIG "suggested" the development of designated OHV recreational areas close to towns to provide economic development and to better manage OHV usage. Such single track trails could be easily built and managed while the vegetation regrows. Part of the burned area was designated as "Travel Restricted" but that designation is unnecessary due to the devastation of the fire. The trails could be built paralleling Corn Creek Road off of FH17 and meander through the burned area to provide sufficient trail length. A trailhead or staging area exists at the beginning of FH17 right off of SH12 that is currently a gravel quarry on Utah 

School Trust Land. Route 31449 should be kept open to motorized travel and connected in some way to the suggested single track system. There are excellent elevation changes and view points for several pink cliffs, Powell Point and the GSENM that make for wonderful 

destinations. DNF recreational staff should work with the public to develop this area into a useful recreational destination. Previously, this forest was overgrown and underutilized, making it ripe for fire. 

119-1 There is logical route extensions in the area south of Enterprise that 

should be considered as "proposed motorized trail" to create additional loop opportunities in this area. 

See response to comment 98-1 on 

99-4 My simple request is to adopt option "D" of the proposals. I believe it 

will be a huge benefit to the Brian Head area and promote responsible riding with more alternatives. 

See response to comment 98-1 on 

Recreation B-53 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

15-2 I strongly support Alternatives “D” or “E” as they are the only proposed 

alternatives which provide for the construction of two short motorized travel trails which will interconnect with existing motorized travel trails and provide a continuous route from Brian Head to Duck Creek and the currently existing trail system in Garfield County. The two routes 

proposed for construction will motorized travel recreationalists an opportunity to access other trails in the areas not previously available from Brian head, Duck Creek and Garfield County. Hopefully with an increase in trail availability and adequate standardized signage motorized travel users will utilize the designated trails and refrain from unauthorized cross country travel and thus preserve the environment. 

See response to comment 98-1 on 

50-1 I am in full support of a loop type ATV trail that would connect the towns 

of Brian Head, Panguitch, and Duck Creek. Although there are many ATV trails in the area, none support a main loop trail to attach each of these communities to one another, which would be beneficial to everyone who enjoys riding through such a scenic area of Utah. 

See response to comment 98-1 on 

119-2 The [Iron County] Commission appreciates that the MTP has 

considered provisions to provide for new road/trail construction in the 

DEIS that provides motorized access to communities and tying connecting routes to other counties, communities and facilities. However, it did not include, in any alternative, the proposal made by the County in written comments dated January 10, and February 26, 2007 (attached) to provide a motorized trail that would connect from Iron County's facility at Woods Ranch to tie to the Red Desert and Cascade Falls trails/roads. 

Please see response to comment 5

60-1 WHEREAS, the Brian Head Town Council also recognizes the need to 

form a partnership with the Forest Service in order to provide a designated trail system throughout the Dixie National Forest, Counties and Town areas linking Brian Head to other communities for recreational purposes and access...NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by Brian Head Town Council of Brian Head, Iron County State of Utah...The Town Council is in strong support of Alternative "D: which would create two new trails that would provide OHV trail access from Brian Head Town to the Dixie National Forest, Duck Creek area, Panguitch Lake and the Piute ATV trail systems. 

Please see response to comment 5

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-54 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

107-3 WHEREAS, one of the proposed alternatives the Forest Service has 

identified is "Alternative D" (Attachment A) Which would create two new trails that would link Brian Head Town to designated trails in the Dixie National Forest, Duck Creek area, Panguitch Lake and a major trail 

system known as the Piute ATV Trail...NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Brian Head Town Council of Brian Head, Iron County, State of Utah...The Town Council in favor of forming a partnership with the Dixie National Forest Service in order to assist the Forest Service in completing a designated OHV trail system. 

Please see response to comment 5

47-3 The Piute trail is there for those who want to adventure out on far trips. 

If any thing I think we need to focus on making sure Brian-head, Duck Creek, the Red Dessert [sic] and other sites all have access to the Piute. 

Please see response to comment 5

150-244 At the meeting I made mention that some people enjoy a short ride and 

other like trails that link together. When I made this statement I was speaking within the Red Desert, or within Brian-Head. I do not believe we should build the 1.26 trail. Yes some people would like to see these two sites hooked together by a trail. I think it will cause more destruction of the forests. 

Please see response to comment 5

58-5 I understand works are in place to open the trail on Thompson Ridge to 

permit Brian Head riders to get to Sydney and that's a step in the right direction. This can all be done without adversely effecting the wonderful wildlife in the area. 

Please see response to comment 5

Recreation B-55 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Motorized OHV – Insufficient Opportunity 

LetterComment Comment Response 

117-2 I am writing to encourage you to consider Option A with regard to the 

proposed road closures that will impact the Boulder Mountain. There are already significantly fewer roads that we are able to access via ATVs and other motorized vehicles and further closures would severely hinder our ability to utilize the beautiful recreational areas on the 

Boulder Mountain. 

Consideration for motorized access located in FEIS Table 2-2 and in the FEIS section 2.7. Previous decisionFEIS section 2.4.12 and Table 2-6. 

18-1 The Grand View Trail should be open to ATV/MC 2 to 3 days a week 

such as Tue, Wed, and Thursday. The UT/AZ ATV Club has for a long time offered volunteer service to do the trail work. This may be a unique idea but it just might work for everyone and deserves a try. 

Refer to FEIS section 2.4.12, PrevioDecisions. 

117-3 We imagine you have already heard about the problem at Casto 

Canyon. Please add us to the list of folks who strongly request reconsidering the need to retain the Casto to Limekiln ATV trail “loop” opportunity. Honestly, if not corrected in the Final Plan, this is going to be a huge problem. 

Showing route U31510 as UnauthorAlternative D of the DEIS was an ershow this route as a motorized trail. 

110-11 We use the Sidney Valley, Hancock Peak, Red Desert and Tippets 

Valley areas quite regularly. These roads and trails should remain open [to ATVs]. 

All alternatives consider leaving routo motorized use. Reference FEIS T2.7, Alternative Maps. Also referenproject file. 

24-2 I have a suggestion. Rather than closing many of the roads on top of 

Boulder, loop them so people can access the lakes, or maybe start at 

the Aquarius Ranger Station and develop a trail system that would extend across the top of Boulder and go down that old road an the east 

side to the Wildcat Ranger Station. 

Reference FEIS Table 2-6 and sectprevious decisions. 

49-4 I believe that a combination of Alternative D and Alternative E would be 

the most effective. Brian Head is cut off from the ATV trail systems and there is an overwhelming demand in Brian Head to expand ATV trails to other communities and outside riding areas. 

Consideration of Alternatives D and FEIS. Reference FEIS sections 2.2

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-56 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

170-18 Make an addition and change to Alternative "E" by providing for a 

motorized trail that connects the Iron County facility at Woods Ranch to the Red Desert road and Cascade Falls trail by proposing a new constructed route and changing the identified designations in Alternative 

"E" of existing trails and routes. 

Please see response to comment 5

170-17 Specific trails that should be considered for future motorized trail 

construction include a trail that would connect Iron County's facility at 

Woods Ranch to tie the Red Desert and Cascade Falls trails/roads. 

Please see response to comment 5

146-1 The Wet Sandy route segment (above) connects with the locally known 

"Italian Trail" that connects via Italian Wash with the Silver Reef Road 

north of Leeds. The Italian Trail segment is not shown on the DEIS maps indicating a glaring hole in the route inventory. 

Alternative A considers leaving this FEIS section 2.7, Alternative A map

124-3 I would like to see good ATV access in the East Fork Sevier River and 

on Mount Dutton. 

All alternatives provide ATV access of the Sevier and Mount Dutton. Plesection 3.11.2.1 and Table 3-17. 

170-35 We further encourage the access to be provided to both traditional and 

side x side ATV vehicles such as the Rhino and Ranger - thus making these trail rides more family friendly and safer (roll bars, bucket seats and seat belts) for young families due to the 4 up seating capability. They also allow disabled individuals the opportunity to comfortably enjoy trails rides. 

None of the action alternatives conswhich would allow a vehicle greater width. Please refer to FEIS, Appendfuture decision allowing vehicles grewidth on trails would be addressed specific analysis. 

Recreation B-57 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Motorized OHV – Excessive Opportunity 

LetterComment Comment Response 

12-2 I ask you to consider reducing the number of motorized trails in the 

Dixie Forest on the lands adjacent to the Town of Boulder, especially since new state laws and county road claims would allow forest ATV users to use county and state roads though our town. 

Please see FEIS section 2.3, Range Table 2-2 regarding the differences designations. 

86-11 The explosion of ATV use on forest lands is a phenomenon no one 

predicted. The impact of motorized use on the land and on 'quiet users', (hikers, horsemen, fishermen, etc.) is significant. While ATV use 

is a suitable option for some areas, I am asking you to consider a more mosaic approach to motorized use in the Dixie. 

Please see FEIS section 2.3, Range Table 2-2 regarding the differences designations. 

Non-motorized – Insufficient Opportunity 

LetterComment Comment Response 

97-1 We are also concerned about maintaining sufficient mountain biking 

trails for use by the "baby boomer" generation and older. What we mean is trails like the Lower Louder Pond trail that is beautiful but 

doesn't take a twenty-something buff biker dude to negotiate. 

Non-motorized mountain bike trails EIS document, and are thus outside decision. Please refer to FEIS sect

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-58 
 Mot

Conflicts Between Motorized and Non-motorized 

LetterComment Comment Response 

108-4 There are many places where ATV's are getting onto non-motorized 

trails, particularly [sic] along the Great Western Trail. This highlights the issue of conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses. As with 

noise issues, the concept of 'multiple-use' is not realistic, and the nonmotorized users always lose out. Please address these issues in this DEIS as you move towards a comprehensive travel plan avoiding conflicting uses. 

Within the Recreation and Scenery 

the action alternatives should work t(including conflict stemming from nocurrent levels through alleviation of country travel. Please see sections 4.2.7.1, and 4.2.10 in that report. Psection 1.10.1 and section 2.2.2, Al

76-2 Since hiking and other nonmotorized trail use activities are more than 

ten times as popular as ORV use on the Dixie (according to the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM), FS should take special care to ensure that: 1) The EIS includes a site-specific analysis of every place where an open route crosses a nonmotorized trail, with a report on any motorized incursions and a plan to stop them in the implementation phase 

Please see response to comment 1

125-157 During series of field checks...we found that every section of the GWT 

we visited had been visited by ORVs. In many cases, the GWT had seen both damage and illegal user construction. This situation is unacceptable; the GWT should be a crown jewel of the Dixie NF, providing an experience for hikers, equestrians and other quiet recreationists to experience the Forest away from the noise and crowds of civilization. This type of experience is becoming more and more 

difficult to find...All alternatives propose to change the designation of 

this portion of the GWT trail from non-motorized to motorized. This renders the GWT it essentially unusable for the hikers, bikers, and equestrians for whom the GWT was intended. Allowing the GWT to be converted to ORV use is in clear violation of presidential executive orders (discussed in greater detail below) to minimize ORV routes’ conflicts with other recreational uses. 

Please see response to comment 1

Recreation B-59 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-9 Looking at alternative "D" I am struck by the large number of roads 

open to motorized travel that directly connect to non-motorized routes. 

Regarding the effects of motorized aroutes on the recreation resource, psections 3.11.2 and 3.11.2.1.5, and to the Recreation and Scenery Spec4.2.5. 

56-1 Multiple use of trails is a fallacy with non-motorized users losing the 

peace and quiet that they are seeking. 

Regarding the effects of motorized aroutes on the recreation resource, psections 3.11.2 and 3.11.2.1.5 and Tto Table R4-7 in the Recreation and Report.

89-6 With the current number of miles of motorized routes outnumbering the 

miles of non-motorized routes by 3:1, it only seems appropriate to downsize the number of motorized miles and to protect the nonmotorized miles. 

Alternatives B, C, and D reduce mofrom both A and E Alternatives. Ple2.2 and Table 3-17. 

89-5 Although this process relates to motorized travel, current and potential 

conflicts with non-motorized trails can and should be addressed within the scope of this process in order formulate an integrated travel plan for all users. We refer you to ‘Best Management Practices for Off-Road Vehicle Use on Forest Lands’ by Wild Utah Project and Wildlands CPR, and specifically paragraph 5.1.1 ‘Planning and Decision-Making BMPs for Use Conflicts’. 

Conflict between motorized and nonbeen addressed in the Recreation aReport section 4.2 and FEIS section 

108-5 The results of the various alternatives including Alt. D do little to noting 

to meaningfully reduce user conflict. 

Please see response to comment 8

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-60 
 Mot

Recreation Experiences 

LetterComment Comment Response 

29-3 We would like to see the roads left open so that we can continue to do 

the things the we enjoy, but also so people don’t just start new trails the will interfere with our hunting grounds. The more roads that are closed will just create more problems in meadows and on hillsides when the disrespectful 4-wheeler enthusiast starts looking for places to ride. 

Alternatives A and E analyze the effopen. Please refer to FEIS sections 3.11.2 and the Recreation and Scensection 4.2. 

60-2 WHEREAS, Brian Head Town is known as a recreational resort 

community that has identified trails as an important factor in providing safe and enjoyable experiences to the residents and guests of Brian Head Town...NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Brian Head Town Council of Brian Head, Iron County, State of Utah...The Brian Head Town Council strongly encourages Dixie National Forest to adopt the implementation of Alternative "D" as the preferred system of designated motorized routes, which include OHV trails. 

Please see response to comment 5

47-2 Several of the Atv routes go nowhere or dead end this is the type of trail 

that causes problems. We feel this is an area of the plan that was not given much thought and was done only by looking at a map. We have rode several hundred miles of the Piute Atv trail and the trail systems these are well thought out and designated trails with little or no off trail travel. The DNF needs to put more thought into the trails and Atv routes or the problem will not go away. 

Please refer to FEIS sections 1.5 anRecreation and Scenery Specialist Rdescribing consideration for motorizroutes). Also see FEIS section 2.7, 

124-4 I would strongly encourage you not to close any roads if possible. The 

Boulder Mountain range is one of the few places that is truly a land on "many" uses that can be enjoyed by hikers, campers, hunters, fishers, 

4-wheelers, 4-wheel drive vehicles and even pickups and cars. Any road closures you undertake will significantly impact one or more of these user groups. 

Please see response to comment 2

4-2 I'm concerned about closing down roads... because the forest should 

be there to enjoy. 

Please see response to comment 2

Recreation B-61 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

2-4 Noise pollution. Engine noise is obviously an integral aspect of 

motorized use. As above, we recommend relocating incompatible uses to avoid conflicting uses. This conflict always adversely affects the nonmotorized users, while being a non-issue for motorized users. You may know that several national parks have used noise monitoring studies to evaluate impacts. We are at risk of deterring visitors seeking a peaceful 

experience of nature - at our cost. 

Please refer to FEIS section 3.11.2.Recreation and Scenery Specialist Rand 4.2.8. 

108-6 I strongly feel that no more roads should be closed and that existing 

closed roads should considered to be re-opened. ... Many places were families once camped are now prohibited motor areas. Once these areas are limited or closed, many families no longer take time to find a new area and many even quite going to the mountains. If children do not learn to love the outdoors, nature, and the mountains as children they no longer find an interest it when they are in the teenage years. 

Please see response to comment 2

27-5 I was raised on the Boulder Mountain, and I am a better person 

because of it. Much of what I am goes back to lessons learned in the DNF. Now I have 5 kids of my own, and my oldest is just entering her teenage years. I need the Boulder Mountain to keep her on the right track throughout her teenage years. If these road closures go through, our trips to the DNF will go from several times a month to one backpacking trip each summer. The cost in money and time in taking a full week to backpack or bike to these lakes is simply too much for me to do it more than once or twice each year. Kids need to be in the mountains. They need to hike, backpack, bike, ride ATVs, hunt, fish, and learn to drive a stick shift truck. I need the Boulder Mountain. Please do not close its access. 

Please refer to the description of Altsection 2.2 regarding access opportalternatives. Also refer to the RecreSpecialist Report section 4.2. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-62 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

75-15 The Boulder region plan has massive closures to all motorized travel, 

essentially limiting access to biking, horseback riding, or hiking. However, because the Boulder is so expansive, walking or biking requires a week-long camping trip. I could never take my kids fishing to any of the lakes on a day trip. I would have to wait until they were teenagers and had the aptitude and strength to bike or walk through a week. This is totally unacceptable since my five kids are ages 12 and under. Our country has a hard enough time getting the current 

generation of kids into the mountains. Is this what our government wants to do to solve the problem? We need to encourage all types of access for all types of people, including the very young and very old. 

Please see response to comment 2

6-2 I would like to see some trails opened up so you can leave out of Cedar Please see response to comment 3

City and be able to go to Panguitch on an ATV. We used to do that a lot by horseback 

82-4 My cousin comes up from Vegas to stay with us for a month and the 

thing she looks forward to most is camping and fishing with us, so if you close the roads it would be really bad for my family. Please do not 

close the roads cause it would ruin my family fun. 

Please see response to comment 2

78-2 I enjoy the freedom of discovering and exploring new roads, and I don't 

want my right to do this removed. 

Please see response to comment 2

79-2 Other uses than that of ATV's need to be preserved. There are still 

people who enjoy and desire access to National Forest Lands by other means than that of ATV's, such as hiking and horse backing riding. There needs to be areas provided for this experience where the threat 

and danger of ATV's is not present. 

Please refer to FEIS sections 1.5, 1the decision to be made and the ranare considered. Also refer to the ReSpecialist Report sections 4.2.7 and effects of motorized route designatio

69-7 The Utah Fish and Game allows children to catch fish without a license. 

They also allow boys between ages of fourteen and eighteen to have 

special hunting privileges. Exceptions by the Fish and Game are made so children can develop a love for outdoor activities and enjoy them for the rest of their lives. By closing the roads, you take away this privilege 

from a lot of children. 

Please see response to comment 2

9-2 We have got to address this issue before there is even more damage 

done everywhere. We have a cabin at Rainbow Meadow Rancho's near Cedar Breaks and those of us up there are in constant conflict with riders who abuse the land. 

Please refer to FEIS section 1.7. 

Recreation B-63 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

25-1 I would like all roads on the Dixie National Forest left open. Alternative 

E. My reason: We have a teenage grandson living with us, I want him to know and love the forest as much as his grandparent and great grandparents has loved it. I want him to learn to love and respect it, 

and take care of it for year to come. 

Please see response to comment 3

Please see response to comment 2

Also see FEIS section 2.4.12 and T

previous decisions. 

82-1 We spend weekends with my own kids fishing and riding ATV's 

between the different lakes on the Boulder Mountain. It has come to my 

attention that there plans to be continued road closures on the Boulder 

Mountain and more specifically on the Boulder Top. To say the least, I am disgusted of the thought that places I loved to visit with my children may soon become inaccessible to families. Walking two or three miles with small children is not possible and we missed visiting one of our favorite lakes as a family. With more and more kids across America spending more and more time on the couch watching TV and playing video games, it is very sad that the few families that do enjoy the 

outdoors may soon be canceling outdoor vacations because of restricted travel. 

Access – Sense of Place 

LetterComment Comment Response 

12-1 Throughout my life, I have always dreamed of taking my children out on 

the Boulder Mountain to experience and cherish the memories that I had when I grew up. If the roads were to be closed, my future family (and many other families) wouldn't be able to have those cherished experiences together. 

Please see response to comment 2

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-64 
 Mot

Access – Discrimination 

LetterComment Comment Response 

24-1 The Boulder Mountain should not just be available to those who can 

hike or ride horses. It is one of the few Forest Service lands that still offers wide opportunities for everyone. 

Please see response to comment 2

4-4 We do a lot of Hunting, Recreating, Camping and Fishing in, on and 

around the DNF, restricting travel, limiting motorized access, and closing of roads and trails will be a tremendous blow to our lifestyles, it 

will also be discriminatory to the older people who cannot access our 

public lands by motorized means due to age and physical impairments, the forest should be open and accessible to all ages and physical abilities and in "all areas" not limited or restricted. 

Please refer to FEIS section 2.21 refor Alternative A. See FEIS sectionregarding agency regulatory authori

124-2 Please consider those who are unable to access the great outdoors 

without the aid of motorized travel when making your evaluations and recommendations. 

Please see response to comment 4

96-1 We fully acknowledge that the “primitive fishing experience” is highly 

valued and unique on the Dixie, and we understand the agency’s desire to protect and enhance that experience. However, we hope the agency will also acknowledge that limiting motorized use also limits this experience to those who are healthy and hardy enough to hike to these high mountain lakes. It is appropriate and reasonable to maintain motorized vehicle access to some of these small lakes for forest visitors who require the use of vehicles. 

Please see response to comment 4

110-10 I feel like you are treating ATV riders as second class citizens. Your 

trail systems cater to hikers and bike riders. Several of the existing trails offer the public scenic opportunities, but the best are restricted to foot or bike traffic. For example, I would like to see the scenic rim trail that follows the breaks south of Navajo Lake (Virgin River Trail?), open to ATV use. This is probably one of the most scenic trails on the Forest. When it was originally constructed, it was open to ATVs. But after a short period of time, it was restricted to foot, horse and bicycle traffic. 

Please see response to comment 8

Recreation B-65 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

170-4 I feel like you are treating ATV riders as second class citizens. Your 

trail systems cater to hikers and bike riders. Several of the existing trails offer the public scenic opportunities, but the best are restricted to foot or bike traffic. For example ..the spruce trail and the trails north of 

Lowder Ponds should be open for ATVs. 

Please see response to comment 8

170-5 I feel like you are treating ATV riders as second class citizens. Your 

trail systems cater to hikers and bike riders. Several of the existing trails offer the public scenic opportunities, but the best are restricted to foot or bike traffic. For example ..we should also be able to ride an ATV to Powell Point. 

Please see response to comment 8

170-6 Being handicapped has presented its own problems and challenges in 

getting around when we go camping. Being able to ride on our ATV has provided me with some of the access that I used to have to be able to get around in the forest without being limited to just riding down the road in a car. Now with the proposed Alternative D, more and more of the forest would be shut off from access to me and others with limited physical ability. 

Please see response to comment 4

170-37 I request the you consider reasonable access for the out of shape, short 

on time, elderly and infirm as you proceed with rash off road closures sweeping the nations public lands. 

Please see response to comment 4

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-66 
 Mot

Over-snow Travel 

LetterComment Comment Response 

41-4 Since part of the proposal is banning cross country travel. How does 

this affect snowmobiles? According to the National Forest website, unless I am mistaken, a snowmobile is treated the same as an ATV. Why was this not discussed? I fully agree with staying on the trail with 

an ATV but a snowmobile with four feet of snow under it is not tearing up the environment. There should be special exceptions made concerning snowmobiles. 

Please refer to FEIS section 2.4.7 rewinter travel. 

125-137 Opportunities for traditional wintertime experiences of solitude in the 

national forest have dramatically decreased because of allowing snowmobiles to encroach into areas that historically have required cross country skies or snow shoes. A request is made to dramatically reduce 

areas allowed for snowmobile access and to keep them on designated trails. Provide limited play areas and prohibit their use in the remainder of the forest. This is an area where vision is needed to preserve for the future. 

Please see response to comment 1

Recreation B-67 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Dispersed Camping 

LetterComment Comment Response 

Please see FEIS sections 1.5, 1.7, a

decision framework and the project 

58-2a Designated motorized camping sites. SMU Alternative: A reasonable 

number of undeveloped, signed [motorized] camping sites are permitted based on roads and route designation and density criteria. One hundred and fifty-foot stubs of closed routes and roads should be considered as potential undeveloped camping sites (p. 78) DEIS Alternatives: “Some” (i.e., three, see DEIS at 3-102) areas have been restricted to designated campsites only; more dispersed campsites and dispersed camping “areas” may be designated in the future “if physical and social conditions reach a level where it is deemed necessary.” Significance: The SMU Alternative suggests designation of many motorized camping sites at the stubs of appropriate closed routes, as one means of providing numerous dispersed camping sites. 

125-130 I ask as you create a plan, please try not to closedown to many of the 

campsites. 

Please see response to comment 5

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-68 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

Please refer to FEIS sections 1.5, 1

the project purpose and decision fraof the FEIS discloses that dispersed are not part of the decision. Chaptediscloses resource effects. 

58-2b The DEIS fails to address the significant resource damage caused by 

motorized. Off-route (i.e., “dispersed”) camping...the Travel Management Rule as published in the Federal Register states: “The Department expects the Forest Service to apply this provision sparingly, on a local or State-wide basis, to avoid undermining the purposes of the final rule and to promote consistency in implementation" (68285 FR Vol. 20 No.216). Instead, at 2-18, the DEIS indicates that a feature common to all alternatives included in the DEIS is the allowance of dispersed camping within 150 feet along designated open routes. This means that a swath of 300 feet (150 feet on both sides of a route) off-route driving and camping would be allowed unless specifically restricted. The width of this swath for off-route driving and camping, then, is a football field’s length (i.e., 100 yards). This cannot be considered “sparingly” applied, nor designated route by route. The decision to allow such a blanket exemption could be interpreted as a violation of the travel management rule, the executive 

orders relating to ORV damage, and made arbitrarily in violation of NEPA. Any preferred alternative needs to have the dispersed camping exemption applied sparingly, with route-by-route analysis that takes a hard look at potential impacts to each resource identified in the DEIS – Affected Environment chapter. 

125-166 On pp. 17 and 18 of our January 31, 2007 scoping comments, we 

described the serious resource damage that is often caused by driving 

to and using dispersed campsites...The SMU Alternative addressed this problem by proposing that undeveloped campsites be designated, but not within 200’ of water (scoping comments, pp. 75 and 77). The DEIS fails to acknowledge this proposal, in part because it fails to analyze 

and publish the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative. 

Please see response to comment 5

Recreation B-69 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-167 The DEIS is careful to indicate the width of allowed dispersed 

driving/camping, but provides no restrictions as to riparian areas. The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative’s proposed 200’ foot buffer along creeks, streams, and other wetlands, however, is entirely reasonable, given that the Dixie National Forest offers its visitors a 200’ foot “tip for low-impact camping” at its website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/recreation/campgrounds/dispcamp.html 

Please see response to comment 5

125-168 [A]t 2-18 - 2-19, the DEIS does state that areas will be designated for 

dispersed camping 150’ off-route. It fails, however, to consider the option of limiting non-developed camping to designated sites and fails to consider the option of prohibiting off-route motorized camping within 200’ of streams, creeks, and other wetlands. Aside from failing to limit off-route motorized camping within riparian areas, the DEIS fails to indicate any intent to limit such camping within any other of the areas our scoping comments and Sustainable Multiple 

Use Alternative indicated to be of concern, such as 

 meadows  aspen clones  ponderosa pine stands  potential habitat for recovery of Utah prairie dog, aspen, 

amphibians (e.g., boreal toad), sage grouse, native fish, and other species known to be declining and vulnerable to habitat destruction or harassment by motorized vehicles, noise, frequent travelers, or vehicle camping. 

Please see response to comment 5

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-70 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-169 

While the Forest may not want to consider designation of undeveloped 

campsites within this travel plan process, the reality is that dispersed camping does involve off-route driving, and results in proliferation of 

compacted, denuded, and weedy off-route sites; sloughs sediment into creeks and streams, reduces functional riparian areas; stresses already-stressed and declining aspen stands; compacts and reduces understory in ponderosa pine stands; compacts and reduces biodiversity in the Forest’s all-too-rare wet meadows; and ignores the Forest’s “tip” for low-impact camping and Tread Lightly’s recommendation that campsites be located 200’ from water. Thus the Forest has erred in refusing to include an alternative (i.e., the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative) that has proposed that undeveloped campsites occur (a) only at designated sites (as opposed to “areas”), and (b) only at least 200’ from creeks, streams, and other water. 

Please see response to comment 5

Recreation B-71 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-170 Off-road camping. SMU Alternative: Off-road driving for dispersed Please see response to comment 5

camping prohibited (p. 75). DEIS Alternatives: Off-road driving 150' from each side of a road allowed except where specifically prohibited. No limit is made as to width [underline] of the swath of off-road campsites. Significance: No Dixie alternative considers anything but allowance for a football-field’s width of cross-country driving and camping along roads and routes throughout essentially all the Forest. [powerpoint from So Rockies Conservation Alliance] The Forest does acknowledge that “adverse affects [sic] to soil quality [e.g., compaction, denudation, increased suitability for invasive exotic species] are expected” in these areas. However, the DEIS fails to 

acknowledge number of stream crossings or miles of routes within 150 feet of creeks, streams or other wetlands as a soil indicator of motorized vehicles (see DEIS at 3-5 to 3-7). Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 note that designation of “off-road vehicle routes” should include “protection of meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, and streams.” The DEIS alternatives provide no such protection within its allowed 150’ roadside swath given over to "dispersed" motorized driving/camping. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-72 
 Mot

Law and Regulations 

LetterComment Comment Response 

34-10 ...general comments...Wayne County does not support the closing of 

any roads or area in which any type of recreational or economic use is observed and documented. This is stance is part of the General Land Use Plan that Wayne County has established and follows. 

Please see response to comment 2

Recreation B-73 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Cumulative Effects 

LetterComment Comment Response 

Section 4.2.1.1 has been updated in 

Scenery Specialist Report. Also ple3.11.2.2. 

83-159 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM managed lands. The SGFO feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate... 3.11.2.2 Cumulative Effects. Travel Management Decisions on BLM 

and other Forest Service Lands Page 3-110, Paragraph 1: This paragraph states, “Generally speaking, the three main categories for OHV use on BLM lands are Open, Limited, and Closed.” There are actually four specific designations: Open, Limited to Existing Roads and Trails, Limited to Designated Roads and Trails, and Closed. Even though two of these area designations are considered “Limited,” there is an important distinction between the two: “Limited to Existing” means all roads and trails in that particular area are open to motorized use. “Limited to Designated” means that only specific roads and trails in that area are open to motorized use. Others may be closed or limited to administrative use. As an example, once the Dixie NF MTP is final, the entire forest would qualify under the “Limited to Designated Roads and Trails” category. 

115-24 Alternatives B, C, and D would provide beneficial outcomes for the Dixie 

NF, but could result in negative impacts for adjacent BLM managed lands. The SGFO feels that a simple disclosure of this in the individual Cumulative Impacts sections would be appropriate... 3.11 Recreation. The displacement of motorized and non-motorized users is adequately analyzed in this section, although the cumulative impacts by alternative, as described above, could be further fleshed out. 

Please see response to comment 8

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-74 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-23 [T]he DEIS does not take a hard look at the potential cumulative impact 

of a reasonably foreseeable increase in ORV use on the Forest. If efforts to increase the promotion of ORV tourism are successful, any parts of the route system that are currently or forseeably popular for ORV recreation may see a major increase in traffic within the life of this Travel Plan. NEPA analysis must take a hard look at such areas, 

showing how they will support increased use. 

Please refer to the Recreation and SReport section 4.2 for direct and indto FEIS section 3.11.2. 40 CFR 150220.4(f) discuss obligations to disclo

Administrative Routes 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-160 One of the primary objections to Alt. D is the number of administrative 

roads that have been left open. With the current lack of enforcement and no foreseeable increase, administrative roads are an attractive nuisance for ATV riders. Already most of these roads have been encroached upon by motorized traffic, and in many cases they are the conduits to illegal ATV use on non-motorized trails. There are numerous examples, such as off White's Flat and Hell's Backbone, where ATVs have used administrative roads to access and ride the Great Western Trail. In some areas, the number of administrative roads that have been left open create serious wildlife issues. For example the 

Allen Canyon area is a major deer migration and fawning area and is riddled with administrative roads. 

Please see FEIS section 1.10.2 regalternative development and section Considered in Detail. FEIS section management of administrative roaddiscloses route designation differen

89-3 If the roads are more important enough to keep open for administrative 

purposes then look more closely at keeping them open for camping purpose as well. 

Please refer to response to commen75. 

Recreation B-75 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Concentrating Use 

LetterComment Comment Response 

90-4 Please don't close our beloved trails or ruin our fantastic camping by 

cramming us all into confined spaces. 

Consideration for Alternative A can section 2.2.1. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-76 
 Mot

Recreation B-77 Appendix B: 

Wilderness 

LetterComment Comment Response 

110-8 Second, regarding the proposed Wilderness/recommended Wilderness 

issue, only Congress can designate Wilderness under the Wilderness Act. The act specifically states that, wilderness areas are “to be 

composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ‘wilderness areas’...no Federal lands shall be designated as ‘wilderness areas’ except as provided for in this chapter or by a subsequent act.” 16 USC §1131(a). Reviewing courts have agreed that this express command reserves the power to designate wilderness exclusively to Congress. State of Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 277 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1233 (D. Wyo. 2003), vac. On other grounds, 414 

F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2005); Parker v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 593, 597 (D.Colo. 1970), aff’d, 448 F.2d 793 (10th Cir. 1971). While the Secretary of Agriculture, and therefore the Forest Service, certainly has responsibilities under the Wilderness Act, those duties are succinctly summarized as “the duty to study and recommend.” Parker, 309 F.Supp. at 597. The Forest Service simply does not have the authority to make any Wilderness-specific management directives until Congress has made a 

determination of Wilderness status. Off-road vehicles use, which are generally prohibited in designated Wilderness areas, but frequently 

enjoyed within proposed wilderness areas, must be properly and effectively managed by the Forest Service in non-wilderness areas, 

including proposed or recommended wilderness areas. 

Please see FEIS section 1.5 regardand need and section 1.12 regardinmade. The Dixie National Forest Mdoes not propose or recommend wi
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.16. Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

LetterComment Comment Response 

The evaluation and subsequent des

areas was required by RARE I and those areas was established by the Conservation Rule at 36 CFR 294 sfor this project (FEIS section 1.5) is opportunities for both motorized and recreation as well as to designate a recreation management and enforcevehicle use. This includes managinuser groups. Access is not prohibiteaccess is still available forest-wide. the review and analysis, some previncorporated as authorized by the 3Travel Rule (FEIS section 1.6). Moton other resources like wildlife, wateresources, and the spread of noxiouin FEIS Chapter 3. 

119-52 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 32. We are opposed to the creation of large roadless areas in the DNF. It appears that that is the goal on Boulder Top. Roads and 

motorized travel are important components of a total forest management plan for issues like fire protection, wildlife management, pest/weed control, etc. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for use and to assure they are being managed 

correctly. The concept that making something roadless will protect it 

forever is flawed. Look to Cedar Mountain along SH14 as an example where access and multiple use had no bad effect. What destroyed that forest for generations was insect infestation and environmental extremists. 

119-51 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 31. The local residents, as a part of their rural culture, have always used the DNF as a location for family reunions. These outings frequently involve OHV use. The DNF motorized travel plan must take these local needs into account and help to preserve these traditions. The DNF recreational staff should work with local communities to better understand these needs. 

The Motorized Travel Plan planning several opportunities to engage the meetings, radio announcements, ancomment period. Please reference public involvement section of the pro

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-78 Roadless and Unroaded 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

89-7 There is a lack of non-motorized loop opportunities. On the other hand, 

ATV users have connecting routes all over the map - many of them user 

created and recognized. The Boulder Swale trail is an obvious example. Created by users and recognized by the Forest Service 

without any environment assessment, trail 31406 is a steep, erosion prone and a safety hazard. It is the one motorized trail in an otherwise roadless area. The Boulder Swale area along with the Bear Creek area and the Baldys should be left roadless as previously identified in IRA studies. 

Route 31406 is a Forest Service moand is not located within an IRA (Roand Undeveloped Areas Specialist RThe range of alternatives is discussSee also the alternative maps in FE

125-147 The DEIS states: “Under Alternatives B, C and D, no roads within IRAs 

are proposed to be added to the system with the exception of those routes needed for public water access and that fit the criteria in RACR” (p. 3-124). This statement, however, is confusing, as the Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule (RACR) specifically prohibits roads in IRAs, allowing only “motorized trails.” This point must be clarified. All alternatives in the DEIS designate a 

number of routes inside Inventoried Roadless Areas as either “open to all vehicles” or “administrative.” This decision, however, appears to be in direct conflict with the reinstated Roadless Rule as well as Region 4 guidance of May 2008... ...Designating a road in a roadless area is thereby violating the Roadless Rule’s prohibition on road construction and reconstruction in a Roadless Area. No alternative can include such roads. As all alternatives authorize many routes within IRAs that are open to all vehicles and are not called “motorized trails,” the Dixie NF must either 

change these routes to “closed” in all alternatives, or explain why each 

route’s status is not in conflict with RACR. If the explanation is that every one of these routes is actually a motorized trail, the Dixie NF must 

ensure that they are in step with the guidelines established for the designation of motorized trails in IRAs

The Roadless Area Conservation Renjoined again on August 12, 2008. road construction or reconstruction under certain exemptions 36 CFR 2not in effect during the inventory of resulted in our current IRA dataset. prohibit roads that already exist withremaining on the system or being utvehicles. The Rule defines “road co“addition” of road miles to the system IRAs are not wilderness and thus cahave motorized use (10th Circuit Co

2008. Wilderness Workshop vs. US Mgmt, no. 08-1165). If the routes asystem, the Rule does not prohibit cdesignations. Under RACR, if a nonadded to the system or if a system rreconstructed, it must meet the exerequire Regional Forester approval. route may be suitable for motorized opportunities and can be designated 

Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas B-79 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-154 [W]e would like to register our strong opposition to designating any 

openings for vehicle travel inside IRAs (with a very narrow exception for routes that have been well-established and maintained for decades, currently serve a needed purpose and destination that is not served by another route, and were simply overlooked by mistake in the IRA inventory). 

A purpose of the Motorized Travel Panalyze designating a system of rourecreation management and enforcemotorized use (FEIS section 1.5). Cwithin IRAs is recognized in FEIS sesection 2.2, Alternatives. Designatio

IRAs is not prohibited. Reference R

125-156 [T]he DEIS’ claim that all proposed motorized routes in IRAs are 

existing, and therefore will not damage the character of the IRAs, is highly suspect. First, any motorized route damages the character of an IRA. Many of these routes have been recently constructed or improved 

by ORV users, and are thus already illegally damaging the character of the IRA. Second, permanent designation of motorized routes in IRAs will undoubtedly result in increasing impacts on surrounding ecosystems as well as changes to the routes themselves as they receive higher levels of use and maintenance. 

The FEIS section 3.13.1.1 states, “HIRAs contain both constructed and tthe inventory datasets only included time” and in section 3.13.2, “Under AD, no roads within IRAs are proposesystem.” Effects analysis is disclosFEIS and effects to roadless characin FEIS section 3.13.2. 

125-148 Recently issued guidance from FS Region 4 elaborates current limits on 

the designation of motorized trails in IRAs...The 'motorized trail classification must not be used simply to avoid designating a road in an IRA [cite from May 30, 2008, R4 letter]... ...routes in IRAs that are not currently classified as “motorized trails” cannot be switched to that status simply to perform an end run around the Roadless Rule. They must truly conform to these guidelines, and they should be designated sparingly. As previously discussed, it is not entirely clear by the classification 

“open to all” that the Dixie uses whether the FS is attempting to designate these routes as “motorized trails open to full size vehicles.” If it is the Dixie’s intent to designate system and non-system routes as motorized trails open to all vehicle types, this raises many concerns. We challenge how these designations can be construed to minimize impacts, as directed by Executive Orders 11644 and 11189, when the management guidelines and monitoring requirements for motorized trails are more lax than those for roads.

The Rule does not prohibit changes existing system routes. The term "Oroads and refers to any size vehicle Table 2-5). Any non-system route twithin IRAs will be compliant with cu(reference seven exemptions at 36 system route within IRAs will only be trail less than 50 inches (reference FCFR 212.56 allows the responsible the MVUM the type of vehicle alloweinches restriction does not allow "alle.g., Jeeps or other 4-wheel-drive v

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-80 Roadless and Unroaded 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

20-4 Prohibit ORVs from all Inventoried Roadless Areas. These areas are 

protected by the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which recognizes their high value as wild lands. ORVs should be steered away from these roadless areas and into alternative areas where roadless character is not at issue. 

Please reference response to commB-80. 

20-5 Close ORV routes that approach the boundaries of wilderness, national 

parks and national monuments. We urge the Forest Service to terminate any open ORV routes at least 2 miles back from these boundaries, so riders will not be tempted to violate the boundary and drive on into the protected area. This closure will also cut down on noise pollution radiating into the wilderness and parks. 

FEIS section 1.9 discusses project sAlternatives were developed througscoping and public meeting commeAlternative effects are disclosed in F

20-6 Close ORV routes that lead into proposed BLM wilderness areas in 

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act (H.R. 1919, S. 1170). The Forest Service should not encourage ORV traffic into these areas, which have been found to have wilderness characteristics and are proposed for wilderness status by 178 Senators and Representatives in the US 

Congress. 

Please see response to comment 2

75-4 Wilderness access. I believe in wilderness areas and have enjoyed 

many horse back trips into the Pine Valley wilderness. But please remember only 4% of American households own a horse according to the American Pet food Products Manufacturers Association. (www.appma.org) Everyone needs to be able to access areas of national forests. 

Restrictions on motorized access ware controlled by Federal law and athis analysis (Wilderness Act of 196access is not prohibited. Please seDecisions to be Made. Please also Alternatives, regarding access. 

Roadless and Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas B-81 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Appendix B: Response to Comments B-82 Roadless and Unroaded 

LetterComment Comment Response 

110-7 Even if the 2001 Roadless Rule is deemed to be the applicable 

standard, the agency must not interpret the Forest’s authority in an unduly restrictive manner, concluding that existing unclassified (or unauthorized) routes effectively can not or should not be added to the designated route network without violating the 2001 Rule’s prohibition 

on “road construction” in IRAs. This interpretation is contrary to the 

regulation and to the representations of the Forest Service and 

preservationist groups, who contend that the Roadless Rule does not prohibit motorized access to IRAs. See, 2001 Roadless Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. 3251 (Jan. 12, 2001). 

The RACR (36 CFR 294.11) and th212.1) do contain differing definitionconstruction." However, within IRAsapplicable direction. Under Alternatsome non-system routes are being (FEIS Table 2-5, section 2.3, and seForest Service Washington Office dSupervisors to defer actions within Iwith either the Wyoming or Californi(USDA 2008n). The RACR does noconstruction or the addition of non-sprovides exemptions and requires hCFR 294.12 and Regional guidance June 13, 2008). 
 Mot

B.17. Cultural Resources 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-4 How is the Forest determining impacts to cultural resources in the 

alternatives summary? Is it primarily from direct impacts to roads and 

adjacent land used by motorized vehicles, or are potential impacts that 

would occur by increasing overall visitor numbers to an area that was previously more remote before OHV use was formally allowed being considered? And, what modifications to the proposal would occur if, as a result of archeological and cultural surveys, significant cultural 

resources were found in this area? 

Effects to cultural resources have beroute reports (USDA 2003b, 2006c)routes included evaluating potential using the Forest’s Cultural Resourcmaps. This information was includeand has been kept confidential undeInformation Act (FOIA). Direct, indireffects have been analyzed and con

Resource Specialist Report, pages sections 3.14.2 through 3.14.2.

2. 

This analysis is in compliance with aand laws (36 CFR 800). This will be with the Utah State Historic PreservProgrammatic Agreement (USDA 20

304-2 If there are any inadvertent discoveries made during the course of the 

undertaking, your agency shall cease all operations within the project area. HPD-TCP shall be notified by telephone within 24 hours and a formal letter be sent within 72 hours. All work shall be suspended until mitigation measures/procedures have been developed in consultation with the Navajo Nation. 

Any discoveries will be evaluated foas included in the following law and American Graves Repatriation Act (Preservation of Historic Properties (Historic Preservation Act of 1961 (1Archaeological and Historical Prese469-469c-2 ), American Antiquities A431-433), Executive Order No. 1300Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 199

Cultural Resources B-83 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS B.18. Transportation Also see the Recreation section beginning on page B-50; many comments in the Recreation and Transportation 

B.2.14. Transportation .......................................................................................................................................

General ...........................................................................................................................................................Motorized – General........................................................................................................................................Motorized OHV – Insufficient Opportunity.......................................................................................................Recreation Experiences..................................................................................................................................Access – General............................................................................................................................................Access – Historic Routes/RS 2477 .................................................................................................................Access – Discrimination..................................................................................................................................Cross-country Travel.......................................................................................................................................User-created Routes.......................................................................................................................................Mixed Use .......................................................................................................................................................Safety..............................................................................................................................................................Dispersed Camping.........................................................................................................................................Enforcement....................................................................................................................................................Maintenance....................................................................................................................................................Parking/Staging Areas ....................................................................................................................................Roads Analysis Process/Transportation Analysis Process (RAP/TAP) ..........................................................Administrative Routes .....................................................................................................................................Private Property ..............................................................................................................................................Concentrating Use ..........................................................................................................................................

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-84 
 Mot

General 

LetterComment Comment Response 

59-4 Transportation - 2.5.1.7 The Forest Service has responsibility for 

protecting vital watershed within the Forest. We recommend that all new road environmental impacts, including construction and maintenance, should be identified, evaluated and disclosed in this document. 

No new road construction or reconsthis project. The only proposed traiAlternatives D and E. This has beesection 2.5.1.7. 

10-1 Although more capable motorized vehicles can be produced, this does 

not justify their ever increasing encroachment into wild places in our public lands. Roads that are approved by the EIS for motorized access 

will likely remain open into perpetuity. It is easy to open more routes, 

but difficult to close routes once they have a history of use. This is a time of vision to preserve traditional forest values that are the attraction 

for nearly all groups of users. Most of the forest should be limited to a road density of less than 0.5 miles per square mile to limit the impacts of wildlife. 

Open road density direction is addrePlan under the General Direction seTransportation System Managemen50). Road density obligations are cImplementing the DNF Two Miles/SDensity Guideline letter (USDA 199

6-4 Most DNF roads get almost no travel anyway. During the summer, it is 

common to spend an entire day on the Boulder Top without seeing 

other parties during a day. The only time travel increases significantly is during the deer hunt, and most hunters won't obey road closure signs anyway. The impact of motorized travel cannot be the most significant problem in the DNF. Has a detailed traffic study been done? Do you have data on how much travel goes through the roads that might be closed (i.e. the non-main roads)? 

According to the National Visitor Usresults for the Dixie National Forest Forest received 773,789 visits in 20Recreation and Scenery Specialist RPrevious decisions are addressed in and Table 2-6. 

99-10 It appears that Alternative D would be the best alternative if it can be 

modified to provide for better connection of popular riding areas includes other routes that exist but were not inventoried. 

Consideration of Alternative D is prosection 2.2.4. Road and trail inventin the RAP (USDA 2003b, 2006c). 

Transportation B-85 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

Alternatives A and E maintain the sa

the existing condition. Please refer and 2.2.5. The roads closed on the covered under The Boulder Top prewere not revisited in this decision. Psection 2.4.12 and Table 2-6. 

4-1 The Boulder Mountain is much different than most mountain ranges in 

the State of Utah or elsewhere in the US. In that it is neither really steep (except for the final rim that rises to the Boulder Plateau) and it has very large plateaus on both the Boulder Top and the Griffin Top, as well as in many other places on and around the mountain. As a result, I am convinced that, unlike the Uinta or Wasatch Mountains, it is much more conducive to motorized travel. Hiking across much of the Boulder Top Plateau is unrealistic for both older and very young people. Similarly, hiking around the other vast plateaus such as Jacob's Valley, Big Lake Country, etc., is unrealistic for those same groups. Because of the vast, non-steep terrain of the Boulder Mountain, the many lakes 

for fishing and the few other forest lands that still have broad access, I 

would strongly encourage you to keep an open use policy on the Boulder Mountain. I don't believe any roads should be closed and that even those roads that are already closed should be opened back up. 

59-5 “The project engineer and hydrologist will determine which 

decommissioned roads would be best served by obliteration and will determine which type of closure would be the most effective”. What factors are taken into account when making this decision? Will there be consideration of environmental impacts when determining choice of roads and type of closure? Slope, erosion potential, stream crossings, critical habitat, etc. could be used as criteria to make such determinations. 

Decommissioning and obliteration athe methods described in Road Clothe Forest Service (USDA 1996). PFEIS section 2.5.1.7. 

125-152 [S]ince most non-system routes were not constructed to any standard, 

their environmental impacts could be, and likely are, greater than system routes. Therefore, the designation of any non-system route as a motorized trail should also include an assessment of current compliance with trail construction standards and how any areas of non-compliance will be addressed. 

For trail maintenance information, psection 3.11.1.1. Also please see trin FSH 2309.18. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-86 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-151 [I]f the Forest Service insists upon designating any motorized trails open 

to full size vehicles, the effects of these motorized trails should be evaluated the same way a road would be during wildlife and other environmental analysis. We recommend that to make this process easier and simpler for the Forest Service and to minimize future environmental impacts of these motorized routes, it would make more sense to designate motorized trails that are open to vehicles over 50” as OML 2 roads, which would receive more regular and more stringent maintenance. 

The Dixie National Forest Motorized proposing motorized trails greater thPlease refer to FEIS Appendix A, Ta

125-150 There is a long history regarding the definitions of “road” and “trail” as 

related to Forest Service management. The definition of “road” in the travel management rule is carried forward from the definition contained in the final Roads Rule, Roads Policy, and Roadless Rule, with minor modifications. The new definition is: “A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail” (36 CFR 212.1). Prior to the implementation of the travel management rule, trail was not defined in 36 CFR 212.1, but it was, and still is, defined in FSM 2350 as “a pathway for travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicles.” That definition will be changed by the final adoption of the draft directives to mirror the definition from the travel management rule. That definition, first adopted in 2005, is: “A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches 

wide that is identified and managed as a trail.” At a minimum, we recommend that the Forest Service provide detailed 

guidance on what “trail character” means and what “management as a motorized trail” will entail. Otherwise, the Forest Service can indiscriminately convert roads to “trails and the ecological impacts of a decaying road will remain unaddressed, and definitely not minimized. 

Trail design parameters, which inclucovered under other law, regulationrefer to FSM 2309.18. Definitions foreferenced in the FEIS glossary 

Transportation B-87 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-149 We also challenge the decision that a “trail” that allows vehicles over 

50” can be called anything other than a road. The definitions of road and trail provide very little guidance about the actual characteristics that separate these different types of routes, 

about the differences in management, or about the differences in onthe-ground impacts. One might suppose that the principle difference between a road and a trail is “what the Forest Service chooses to call it.” Once a road is reclassified as a trail, it is often no longer considered in road density analyses and it no longer receives the same maintenance. The definition of a trail under the Travel Management Rule allows the dimensions of a trail to extend beyond 50” in width, if it is designated and managed as a trail. However, this definition does not address the vehicle type that is appropriate to be permitted on a trail. That designation is left to the discretion of the forest and must be made with the objective of minimizing impacts to forest resources. Designating trails for use of vehicles that are over 50” ignores the increased impacts 

of motorized use by larger and heavier vehicles, ignores the lack of standards that are in place for trail construction and maintenance (as compared to those that are in place for roads), poses a threat to the 

integrity of cattle guards that are less than 50”, and blurs the distinction that should be maintained between roads and trails. Motorized trails that are designated for vehicles over 50” should be called what they are 

– Operation and Maintenance Level (OML) 2 roads - and maintained as such. 

Please see response to comment 1

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-88 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

The FEIS also defines administrativ

decommissioned/obliterated roads; glossary. Also please refer to FEIS discussion of decommissioned roadroutes are Maintenance Level 1 roathe public but may be used for admpurposes. This is in accordance witCFR0 212.5 and 36 CFR 261. Adddisclosure can be found in FEIS Chspecialist reports located in the proj

125-7 The DEIS fails to disclose or analyze the benefits of road obliteration as 

proposed by the SMU Alternative compared to any of the FS' alternatives...The DEIS does not provide adequate clarity or attention to 

the different kinds and degrees of impacts that occur from 

administratively closed roads versus roads that were obliterated/decommissioned. For example the DEIS defines “closed road” as a term inclusive of “administrative road” “decommission” and “obliteration”. It makes sense to combine decommission and obliteration as they both involve spending money with ‘shovels in the dirt’ to remove a road forever and take it off the system for good. But the term administrative road is very different and should not have been treated as one and the same as obliteration and decommissioning. Because the DEIS chapter 3 analysis of environmental consequences repeatedly lumps the analysis of administrative roads (i.e. OML 1) together with obliterated and decommissioned roads, it fails to disclose 

and consider the increased degrees of long term negative presence impacts to administratively (closed) road when compared to those obliterated or decommissioned. 

83-156 We believe that the data we present here demonstrates the actual 

condition of the roads and the ability to access the National Forest grounds. We believe that it more than adequately proves that these roads are not damaging the forest and are of significant importance to the residents of Wayne County. We therefore ask the Forest Service to 

explain why these roads should be considered for their designated classifications under the Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative A considers no change iAlternative E was developed to provaccess on designated routes. Pleassections 2.2.1, 2.2.5, and Table 2-2designations were considered in FEIssues, and section 2.1, Alternative 

Transportation B-89 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Motorized – General 

LetterComment Comment Response 

140-1 Biggest conflict with County is that there is no way to get from Cedar 

City to the Navajo Lake Basin without going through private or going way around. 

Please see response to comment 1

119-49 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 28. The DNF should review the OHV maps provided by the 

Garfield County Trails Committee (DNF participated in there creation) and assure that all major loop routes are preserved in the new motorized travel plan. 

Consideration of Alternative A is dis2.2.1 and shown in section 2.7, Altecriteria for designating motorized roCFR 212.55 and are summarized in statement (FEIS section 1.5). 

54-1 The road closure and limited access plans that were proposed at the 

public meeting in Bicknell are totally unacceptable to me. 

Please see response to comment 8

Alternative A considers no change i

Alternative E was developed to enhopportunities. Please refer to FEIS and Table 2-2. Routes in the Duck closed under the Duck Creek-Swainand were not revisited in this decisioFEIS section 2.4.12 and Table 2-6. authorizes motorized travel on road

27-1 Although I can't attend the meeting in Cedar City on July 10, 2008, I 

want to voice my concern that the Forest Service is eliminating far too many ATV trails in the Dixie National Forest. I reviewed the database for decisions that lead to the closure of over 1000 trails already and it 

was clear that a thorough review of the trails eliminated was performed. For example, my cabin located in the heart of Dixie National Forest, has no legal access to any ATV trail in the Duck Creek area and we have been threatened by the Sheriff and Forest Service is we drive along the 

highway or cut our own trail to provide access. Note that access existed for several decades before closure by the National Forest 

Service. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-90 
 Mot

Motorized OHV – Insufficient Opportunity 

LetterComment Comment Response 

83-161 ...general comments...Wayne County will state that all roads be 

reclassified as Open to All in order to maintain access to all parts of the forest, however, the County in not totally opposed to the road classification of Administratively Open as long as this classification is kept to a minimum and is not used to restrict access to a large area. Wayne County feels that Administratively Open can still be restrictive 

but can be accepted as a last resort in order to keep accessibility to areas available. 

Please see response to comment 8

Please refer to FEIS section 2.4.12 

regarding previous decisions. 

Recreation Experiences 

LetterComment Comment Response 

119-50 My comments on the DNF Motorized Travel Plan Alternative D are as 

follows: 30. Many visitors to the DNF have no other way to see this 

beautiful land than by motorized vehicle. Many choose to use OHV's to experience as much of the forest as possible. Not everyone is physically able to hike long distances over such complicated terrain. The DNF motorized travel plan must incorporate these accommodations for adult, children, and handicapped visitors. 

Please see response to comment 1

Transportation B-91 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

8-7 Motorized access to the Boulder Top allows me to take my family and 

experience a great escape in only a couple of days, and then be back to my office to treat patients. Without this access accessing the Boulder Top lakes is something I will only be able to share with my children once every one or two years. 

The routes closed in this area were Top decision and were not revisited Please see FEIS section 2.4.12 and 

Access – General 

LetterComment Comment Response 

57-1 I strongly disagree with the proposed alternative D. If I am 

understanding it correctly, this plan will significantly reduce the areas 

available for public use. I am 51 years old and I have traveled this area for most of my life...No one should have the right to tell me I can no longer travel the roads my grandparents and great grandparents traveled. 

Alternative A retains all existing Natroads and trails as open. Reference Current restrictions remain in place. section 2.4.12 and Table 2-6. 

102-4 I am in favor of the least restrictive and most open roads. Lets keep our 

historic, most used, not made by unauthorized vehicles, roads. I like 

the fact I can go look for deer, wildflowers and firewood. 

Alternative A retains all exiting Natioroads and trails as open. Reference 

30-3 Please consider leaving ALL the roads open. Alternative A retains all exiting Natio

roads and trails as open. Reference 

78-1 Me and my family camping and fishing and hunting and hiking almost 

every weekend and we have family reunions on the roads you want to close to motorized vehicles so I recommend alternative E. If you close the road me and my family won’t be able to do all of the things we love. We mostly use the roads to hatch Mountain, Sydney Valley, and Red 

Desert. 

Consideration for Alternative E is prsection 2.4.5. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-92 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

72-1 I would like to see all of the trails and logging roads left open to the 

public, I do not believe by trying to ban roads and trails is going to cure the problems. 

Please see response to comment 5

58-1 Yet I don’t agree maintenance roads, well worn roads and well worn 

dead end roads should be closed to the public. B road and Hatch road and others like this are great places to camp and a way to allow a child 

to ride yet stay out of the main stream of more aggressive riders. 

Please see response to comment 5

170-3 A large majority of the roads you are proposing to close to the public 

have been assigned a road number. This means that the roads are on the Forest's transportation system. These roads were approved for 

construction by the public and paid for by public funds. Therefore, the 

public should have access to the facilities for their use and enjoyment. And, the Forest Service has a management need for the roads. 

Please see response to comment 5Also refer to the OHV Rule 36 CFR 

48-1 I would like to comment on the Dixie National Forest Travel Plan. I 

would prefer Alternative A the no action Alternative. I feel that no 

Roads should be closed. 

Please see response to comment 5

40-2 I propose that all previous logging roads (not maintained) such as exist 

on the Boulder Mtn Top and the north slope be opened and added to the Nat'l Forest system of roads and motorized traffic, horse or ATV, thereby becoming authorized routes. 

Please see response to comment 5

20-2 Close unauthorized user-created routes. These routes started when an 

ORV rider drove off a NFS road and pioneered a cross-country trajectory. They reflect no engineering principles nor any concern for avoiding damage to the lands and waters through erosion or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Many are too steep to resist erosion. Few have any erosion-resistance features built in, such as water bars or dips. Taken all together, these routes fragment wildlife 

habitat by creating too high a density of motorized routes. 

For the disposition of non-system rosection 2.5.3 and Table 2-7. 

X-2 I recommend leaving as many roads open as possible. By closing 

roads, you are only causing people to seek out new places to ride, whether that is in a meadow, on a hillside. Or even on the highway. 

People will continue to ride 4-wheelers. Let’s just make it nicer by 

having roads and trails that we’ve used for years still available to us! 

Please see response to comment 5

115-6 For at least as long as ten years, and as recently as 2005, the Dixie 

National Forest Travel Map (1998, 2005) has shown what is now 

Routes 30180 and 30180A provide improvements for special use permi

Transportation B-93 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

access to a scenic overlook of Gran

National Monument. Route 31348 arange improvements for special use 2003b, 2006c). 

proposed route 30180 as an open ATV (=OHV) two-track trail as far as its junction with 31348. Route 31348, a spur off of the main route that terminates at the park boundary to the north of 30180, is indicated as open on these maps, and 30180 is not designated as open east of the junction. From its origin at Highway 12, route 30180 passes to the east across roughly eight miles of Forest Service land before reaching, and terminating at, the boundary of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (at the northern edge of Section 22, Township 32 South, Range 6 East, SLB&M). An administrative road passes through the Monument for approximately 3⁄4 of a mile. Route 30180 begins again at the forest boundary at the northeast corner of Section 22, and continues across about 2.8 miles of Forest Service lands before terminating at the Monument boundary. Significantly, neither the 1998 or 2005 travel maps nor the maps associated with the current planning document show the portion of road passing through the Monument as open. However, in order to reach route 31348 and the portion of 30180 east of its termination at Section 22, a vehicle operator would have to pass through the Monument on a road that is closed to public motorized use. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument identifies the road that passes across Section 22 as an administrative road (Map 2, Management Zones and Transportation System, 1999 Grand StaircaseEscalante Management Plan). The Monument’s 1999 plan indicates, in part, that such routes ...”lead to developments which have an administrative purpose, where the BLM or some permitted user must have access for regular maintenance or operation. These authorized developments include such things as ...spring developments, corrals, and water troughs...Access will be strictly limited and will only be granted for legitimate and specific purposes. Authorized users could include grazing permittees, researchers, State or Federal agencies, Native American Indians accessing recognized traditional cultural properties, and others carrying out authorized activities under a permit or other authorization.” The portion of the route that passes through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument through Section 22 is 

The designation of these three routesegment of 30180) by alternative is 30180 

 A and E: Open to all  B, C, and D: Proposed mot

30180A 

 A, C, and E: Open to all  B: Closed  D: Open to all 

31348 

 A and E: Open to all  B and C: Closed  E: Proposed motorized trai

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-94 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

an administrative road that is closed to the public; this is designation has been in effect since 1999, when, during a public lanning process, the monument determined that an administrative function for the road was appropriate. The National Park Service would oppose amending the Monument’s Management Plan to allow public motorized travel across the Monument on this road. 

19-1 

Please leave existing roads open. 

Please see response to comment 5

102-1 It is hard to see, but there is a small access road the travels east along 

the "Deer Fence" joining up with the road to Kelsey Mare Hollow. The real road starts a mile or so farther north on Pace's draw. Over time, as you know, vehicles have "cut" and driven down the steep bank along 

the deer fence and created a new way. I am in favor of a "new way" being closed, as long as the original access to Kelsey Mare Hollow and Bumblebee Mountain remains open. 

Please see response to comment 5

70-1 We are definitely opposed to such closer because it will effect so many 

people of our area, and of our state, such as sportsman, cattlemen, people who are traveling, and those who have wood permits for down and dead fire wood to keep their homes warm this winter. 

Please see response to comment 5

8-1 I strongly oppose further road closure on the Boulder Mountain. Please see response to comment 530-1 For I don't want any of the roads closed. Please see response to comment 5140-2 Still a concern about connecting counties (Look at Iron County proposal. Please see response to comment 1145-1 Hay Canyon. Alt. route to Cedar Mtn to N. Fork, to Hay Canyon and up 

into Strawberry or Swains. Is there public access? Kane Co does not claim ROW thru the Muddy. 

Motorized public access opportunitiesection 2.2, Alternatives Considered 

2.7, Alternative Maps. 

99-6 (need #) Near Pinto there are "single track" routes that are shown on 

the Dixie NF travel map (1998) that are not even shown on the DEIS 

maps. There is also a route shown on the travel map as "ATV two-track 

trail) that is not shown on the DEIS maps. The inventory appears to be inadequate. 

The existing condition maps still shoas single track trails: Trail numbers and 31049. This has been correctemaps. 

99-7 There are routes west of Pinto that appear to be "unauthorized closed". 

These should be "open to all". 

Please see response to comment 5

Transportation B-95 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

86-83 Posy Lake Area: The Area around Posy Lake is very popular. On 

Preferred Alternative D there are a large number of Administrative roads that serve no obvious purpose. Such roads invite abuse and most of these roads should be closed. Alternative C and B close these roads. 

In sum, in the area around Posy Lake the roads closed in Alternatives C and B should be closed. 

Alternatives C and B analyze the effroads. Please see FEIS sections 2.

8-5 I also am in favor of keeping the Boulder Top open because it is already 

such a remote and in many ways unused area. I can't think of a time when I have been on the Boulder Top and seen more than one or two other people. I can understand closing an area that is being beat down by masses of people, but I can in no way see that the Boulder Top can be abused by what little traffic and little impact I have experienced. 

The routes on the Boulder Top were Boulder Top previous decision and this decision. Please see FEIS sect2-6. 

34-1 We...maintain that an extensive system of authorized routes open to 

motorized use is vital. We therefore support Alternative E because this alternative accommodates the widest array of legitimate motorized access across the forest. 

Consideration of Alternative E is det2.2.5. 

34-3 If a route has been established for motorized access, it should be 

maintained in such a fashion that all users can access the rout without impairing resource values. 

This is a general comment, position 

120-4 For some time there has been a recognized need for a motorized 

connecting route between the Mammoth Creek Road and the Panguitch Lake that does not travel through the town of Hatch. The existing 

connector route from Mammoth Creek to the Black Rock area passes through the town of Hatch, but has been closed with locked gates. For this reason Utah State Parks proposed and flagged in a suitable route from Mammoth Creek to Dry Lake to make the needed connection. A map and GPS tracks were provided to the Dixie National Forest. Apparently this route was dropped from alternative D because Garfield 

County has said the existing road across the hatch property is a public right-of –way and intended to force the landowner to remove the locks and allow public passage. This would be a satisfactory solution, if it takes place. We recommend however, that provision be made in the travel plan to permit the construction of the proposed State Parks route should the county be unsuccessful in getting the existing road opened within the next year. 

Motorized travel on existing public rSB 181 (State of Utah 2008). Decisadjacent private lands are disclosed Consideration of future proposals is another project analysis. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-96 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

117-1 Access from the west side of Pansagunt Plateau from the valley to the 

top should be considered. 

Decisions regarding adjacent private FEIS section 1.7. 

150-2 At a minimum, Garfield County needs the routes identified in the 

specific comments to be left open for motorized use in order to preserve the custom and culture in the area and to provide, needed motorized recreation opportunities. 

Please see response to comment 5

7-2 Any more closures would be disappointing to many, including future 

generations that would take advantage of being in the outdoors. My recommendation would be to open some of the closed roads on the mountain and to do all we can to prevent further road closures. 

Please see response to comment 5

Access – Historic Routes/RS 2477 

LetterComment Comment Response 

102-3 Third, let’s talk about the road up Main Canyon. This is also an access 

road to irrigation equipment. Until the floods of 2005, this road was actually in pretty good shape. Now it needs some work, and that in itself is self regulating. This road traverses through some private 

property, and amazingly once this property was sold to Charlie Judd, the actual real access road was blocked by workers hired by Charlie. I for one see a need to keep the old historical access open, and if Charlie wants to put up a gate, a locked gate to his house, he can. Oh, wait, he already has! Let’s open the historic access, and allow New Harmony Irrigation Company, and the general Public a way to get to beautiful, historic Main Canyon and Frogs Mouth. 

Alternative A retains all exiting Natioroads and trails as open. Reference 

Transportation B-97 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

150-5 At the beginning of the motorized travel planning process, Garfield 

County submitted detailed maps identifying the routes that were known to exist prior to creation of the forest. Garfield County asserts those routes as valid County transportation facilities, and RS 2477 rights-ofway. It seems reasonable to evaluate those transportation facilities and 

their existence prior to the forest. If found to be per-existing rights, they 

should be left open for public use. 

R.S. 2477 provided right-of-way for highways over public lands, not reseR.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976; hoSection 1769 preserved valid existinrecognizes that roads that existed pDixie National Forest Reserve was swould be considered a valid existing or individuals who want to assert the2477 may do so. 

83-157 We believe that the roads identified as having Unauthorized Use or 

Closed Classified characteristics within the boundaries of Wayne County and the Fremont River District Teasdale Portion should be 

managed for multiple use-sustained yield, and we believe that the date we have supplied support this position, indicate that the roads and lands have had long and diverse use. 

Alternatives A and E maintain the sathe existing condition. R.S. 2477 prthe construction of highways over preserved for public uses. R.S. 2477 however, 43 U.S.C. Section 1769 prights. The Forest recognizes that rto 1903, when the Dixie National Foaside for public use, would be consiright. Public entities or individuals wrights under R.S. 2477 may do so. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-98 
 Mot

Access – Discrimination 

LetterComment Comment Response 

38-1 I would like all roads on the Dixie National Forest left open. Alternative 

E. My reason: I am not a young person. I cannot hike like I used to, but I still love the forest and what it stand for. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

75-3 Americans with Disabilities Act. Has this been addressed? There was 

no mention of it in the meeting I attended. Will special permits be available to allow disabled people to access some wilderness areas? Don't forget the baby boomers and hippies. We may not have handicap license plates yet, but we can't hike like we use to. Our ATV's allow us access. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

49-1 I have to say the road closures being proposed will limit access to many 

of the locals and others favorite fishing lakes and hunting areas. This action will discriminate against the elderly and the every young making access to many areas impossible except for a few ardent hikers, mountain bikes and horse owners. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

170-1 I've reviewed the proposed alternative and I'm very concerned that you 

intend to eliminate a lot of the access we've enjoyed over the years and 

restrict our use of our national forest. My wife has been physically handicapped for the past 15 years and unable to walk to enjoy the places we've used over the years. We rely on the use of an ATV to be able to enjoy the beauty and tranquility of the forest. By closing access you're negatively impacting our enjoyment and use of the Dixie National Forest. I feel that you're discriminating against the handicapped and elderly. We don't have the ability to walk, ride a horse, or ride a bike to enjoy the forest. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

Transportation B-99 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

LetterComment Comment Response 

54-2 Wayne County is a home to many retired people and senior citizens that 

are still active hunters and fishermen. However, if your road closure and 150 ft access policy is implemented, they will no longer be able to participate in these activities. They could not retrieve game or cut firewood. This policy definitely discriminates against the very young, disabled, and older citizens who cannot hike a long distance. For years, hiking ant top of Boulder Mountain has been an enjoyable thing to us. But as we get older, we can no longer do that but still enjoy trips via 4-wheeler and four wheel drive vehicles. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

Please see response to comment 5

alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

8-6 Another reason I object to closing roads on the top is that it 

discriminates against those who are disabled or physically impaired. 

While in Montana I had dozens of patients who complained that 1) there was so much private land limiting access to the forests for those who 

found it physically challenging to take alternative routes around miles of private land to reach the forests, and 2) once they reached the forests they could not access the lakes and streams because the trails were closed to motorized vehicles. Not only does road closure of so much area discriminate against physically impaired, but it also discriminates 

against the very young. It is impossible to load my four kids all under age 12 with a pack and ask them to walk long distances so that we can camp and fish at the Boulder Top lakes. The Boulder Mountain is an area unlike any other. When the Boulder Top is accessible, people from all walks of life can enjoy all it has to offer. If motorized travel is restricted, only the most fit people in the prime of their life will have access. But wait till these folks are old and can no longer do the 20 mile hikes and see if they still believe in restricted access. 

27-3 Lastly, and ending a personal note, when the National Forest Service 

restricts access to horse riders and hikers they are discriminating 

against those of us who are retirement age and need motorized assistance to enjoy our national forests. I suspect the AARP along with our US Senators and Congressman should be made aware of the uproar against closing motorized access to the Dixie National Forest and National Forest in general and the impact on its older citizens. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-100 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

72-4 I would like to see Alternative (E) in place, being the nature of my 

limitation this is my means of transportation to enjoy the beauty of our great lands. In restricting access to roads and trails the areas that my self and others can enjoy. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

61-1 In general, I think these road closures are impacted by the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

70-2 We are older people who enjoy going on the boulder mountain with our 

4-wheeler. We have traveled almost all of the off shoot roads on our wheeler, and really enjoy the days outing. We are unable to walk the distances, and try to obey the rule of staying on the roads. Why would you want to close these roads to our older Americans who enjoy the beauty of the boulder mountain? 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

54-3 This mountain should be open to everyone. Not just a select few who 

are young and fortunate enough to be able to have time and energy to hike long distances or own their own horses. This group would be a very small percent of the people who would enjoy this area. 

Please see response to comment 5alternatives accommodates ATVs. 

2-3. 

Transportation B-101 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Cross-country Travel 

LetterComment Comment Response 

58-9 It is important we stop Cross-Country riding and the abuse done to the 

Forest. Still I think it is important that we don’t make the mistake of closing down roads that should stay open to the public. 

Please see response to comment 5

20-7 Prohibit all cross-country ORV travel. No "free play" zones should be 

allowed in Dixie NF, because the landscape cannot withstand the impacts of this type of use. ORVs should be restricted to designated routes the Forest Service has identified for their use. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E analyze alternatives analyze the impacts of ecountry travel. Please see FEIS sec

User-created Routes 

LetterComment Comment Response 

125-14 [S]ince non-system routes were never constructed to any standard, their 

environmental impacts could be, and likely are, greater than system 

routes. Therefore, the designation of any non-system route as a 

motorized trail should also include an assessment of current compliance with trail construction standards and how any areas of non-compliance will be addressed. 

Please see response to comment 1

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-102 
 Mot

Mixed Use 

LetterComment Comment Response 

170-2 My other concerns are that your preferred alternative forces all the 

traffic, vehicles and ATVs, to use the major arterial routes. This will 

diminish the satisfaction of taking a leisurely ATV ride without being concerned with dodging vehicle traffic and dust. It also makes it hazardous for vehicular traffic encountering ATVs. This will make forest travel congested and hazardous. You are also eliminating the 

opportunity to be able to explore the forest for unique and scenic experiences. 

Please see response to comment 5Also please refer to pages 11-26 in 

Specialist Report for analysis on moEffects of Alternative D are disclose

Transportation B-103 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Safety 

LetterComment Comment Response 

108-8 Safety and route grade standards. 

Our monitoring and input from other residents indicate that many sections of motorized routes are dangerously steep for all but the most advanced users. Despite official cautioning of users, inevitably riders who are not suitably experienced will be risking their lives, and the lives of others, in attempting such routes. It would seem more appropriate for the Forest Service to limit the risks by defining standards for maximum grades and severity of terrain. 

Roads on the Forest do not have a Instead, each road is assigned a Robetween 1 and 5. Please see FEIS trail degree of difficulty, please refer Scenery Specialist Report, section 4

115-12 The Rigg’s Spring loop trail is a popular destination within the [Bryce 

Canyon]park’s southern section. In the event of an injury or public 

health emergency, Park Rangers can access the area near the trail with 

a response vehicle via several public and Forest Service roads. The park requests that the Forest Service consult with our Chief Park Ranger regarding permanent closures to potential emergency vehicle access roads adjacent to the southeast section of the park. 

The Travel Plan does not restrict resevents to protect human life, properand Forest resources. Emergency acoordinated through the authorized section 2.4.2. 

2-2 One other concern, we have on specific subdivision called Ponderosa 

Ranch in which the ATV road coming out of the subdivision has been closed down. This has been a VERY bad thing because now those residents have to ride down the HWY to get to an opened road to ride on. This is not only a danger to them but all those around. 

The routes in this area were closed Swains previous decision and were decision. Please see FEIS section 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-104 
 Mot

Dispersed Camping 

LetterComment Comment Response 

58-1 The concern is how many camp sites will be lost to the closure of roads. Effects of road closures on recreatio

range of alternatives. Please see Fand Table 3-20. Also see the RecreSpecialist Report, section 4.2. 

Transportation B-105 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Enforcement 

LetterComment Comment Response 

115-7 Designating the routes on Dry Bench as open to public motorized travel Please see response to comment 1

would be, we believe, very problematic. As proposed, the routes would terminate at or near the park boundary. However, the routes are 

passable beyond the boundary; OHVs presently regularly travel onto park lands. Although the park boundary is marked, boundary signs are frequently vandalized and removed. The areas where these routes pass across the boundary are typically flat and open—gating or fencing would not be effective at these locations. Several other existing two-track trails persist in the area, and though the preferred alternative indicates that these routes (several of which pass onto park lands and onto the Monument) would be closed, we believe that effective closure of these routes would be very difficult if 

public motorized traffic is permitted in the area. 

115-11 Several currently open roads adjacent to the [Bryce Canyon National] 

park’s western and southeastern boundaries will be affected by implementation of the Motorized Travel Plan. Changes in road designations from “open to all” to “administratively open”, “closed classified”, and “unauthorized closed” could benefit resources on the forest as well as reducing negative impacts to the park’s border area. One issue we continually address on the park’s western side (west and south of the rim road) is poaching. Individuals that participate in this 

illegal activity often access the park on ATVs using existing Forest Service roads. If roads will be closed in this area, the park requests that they are completely closed off (using appropriate barriers) to prevent ATV access. By closing these roads using berms or partial gates/barriers, our Park Rangers will not be able to patrol the area and 

poachers will have greater access to the park with less law enforcement. 

Disposition of motorized routes neaNational Park are detailed FEIS secConsidered in Detail, and Section 2Specific route dispositions are detairoute reports found in the project file

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-106 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

8-4 My first objection to closing the roads on the Boulder Top is that 

because this area is so open with numerous access sites, it will be 

physically impossible to prevent people from taking motorized vehicles on these roads. Rather than stick to an approved designated road, motorized vehicles will tread all over the meadows and fields as they work their way to access the roads that were once open. This will create much more damage and will be a greater environmental impact than simply keeping the road open and allowing ATV riders to stick to a designated open road . There is simply no way in such an vast and open area to forcefully disallow people from making improvised trails to get where they want. 

Routes on the Boulder Top were coBoulder Top previous decision and this decision. Please see FEIS sect2-6. 

Transportation B-107 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Maintenance 

LetterComment Comment Response 

53-1 There are many reasons to select Alternative B... 

Data presented in Section 3.15.1.1 Road Operation and Maintenance, discloses that over the period from 2004 to 2007, budgets have limited maintenance to less than 30% of the classified road systems. Clearly, maintenance is more costly when deferred as compared to performing the maintenance on schedule. Even with the current system of classified roads, maintenance budgets are woefully insufficient... Forest Service policy requires that the transportation system be limited 

to those which can be maintained given expected budgetary constraints. Alternative B best fits this policy.

Consideration for Alternative B is de2.2.2. Maintenance priorities and boutside the scope of this project. Pl3.15.2.13. 

40-1 By not maintaining roads for the past 10-15 years the Forest Service 

has caused use conflicts and resource impacts. Some problems have occurred in riparian areas and on highly erosive slopes. Types of impacts include the introduction and spread of invasive plant, displacement and compaction of soils, impacts on rare plants, rutting of wetlands, displacement of wildlife and livestock, damage to cultural resources, degradation of water quality, and impacts on riparian and fisheries habitat, road maintenance 3, 4, 5 roads. These are higher standard roads that are maintained to low clearance (passenger cars) 

vehicles. 

Resource effects of the alternatives FEIS Chapter 3 and are included in located in the project file. Maintenabudget allocations are outside the sPlease see FEIS section 3.15.2.13. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-108 
 Mot

LetterComment Comment Response 

59-6 Affected Environment - 3.1.5.2.2.3 It appears that besides potential 

construction impacts of new unauthorized roads, other long term impacts of these roads may result due to low maintenance levels. The maintenance categories of the new roads to be constructed are not 

described. It appears that, since they are for administrative or permit 

usage, that the maintenance levels will be low - Level 1. Less than 20 percent of Maintenance Level 2 roads are maintained forest-wide. What are the maintenance levels of the new roads and what percentage of the new roads will be maintained? Please explain what is meant by "maintenance to reduce environmental impacts" for Level 2 (low level) road maintenance for the existing and new construction roads. 

No new road construction is proposPlease see FEIS section 2.2. OperLevel discussions can be reference

Parking/Staging Areas 

LetterComment Comment Response 

51-2 I believe a good location for the main parking/laydown area for autos 

and trailers would be the Bear Flat/Sugar Loaf area. 

Please see response to comment 5

Transportation B-109 Appendix B: 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS Roads Analysis Process/Transportation Analysis Process (RAP/TAP) 

LetterComment Comment Response 

59-1 While the project does minimize new road construction, we have 

concerns about the resource impacts caused by construction of new or relocation of designated routes. The DEIS references the RAP which considers the need for the remaining system and non-system roads and trails and weighs those needs against possible environmental, social and safety concerns. Will the RAP analysis be used to predict areas of highest resource impacts and inform decisions concerning routes for these new relocated roads? If not, how will the least environmentally 

damaging new or relocated route be determined? 

No new road construction is proposPlease see FEIS section 2.2. Pleasroute reports which are part of the Rproject file. Consideration for physiresources is detailed in FEIS sectio

Administrative Routes 

LetterComment Comment Response 

170-36 I propose that instead of implementing your Preferred Alternative D, that 

you consider Alternatives A or E. Or, make all the Administrative Use roads in Alternative D open to the public. 

Consideration for alternatives is det2.2.1 and 2.2.5. See also response page B-92. 

34-4 Administrative closures should be minimized. Alternative E 

accomplishes this objective. 

Alternative E has been analyzed ansee FEIS section 2.2.5. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-110 
 Mot

Transportation B-111 Appendix B: 

Private Property 

LetterComment Comment Response 

120-3 The “open to all” route south of Crawford Pass along the Great Western 

Trail stops short of the Forest boundary. We recognize the reason for this is the lack of any public right-of-way south of the boundary. It is 

recommended that a provision be included in the travel plan to open this short section if and when right-of -way is established in the future. 

Alternatives A and E analyze keepinPlease refer to FEIS section 2.7, Al

Concentrating Use 

LetterComment Comment Response 

90-5 By closing many of these roads that don't seem to go anywhere you are 

confining a lot of people into smaller areas just making a recipe for disaster by not letting us spread out so everyone is free to engage in whatever particular activity they like without encroaching on somebody else's good time. 

Please see response to comment 5
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix B: Response to Comments B-112 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

References 

A & A Research. 1994. Dixie National Forest customer satisfaction and communication 

workbook: summary of findings by Dr. E. B. Eiselein. Kalispell, MT. 

Adelman, B. J. E., T. A. Heberlein, and T. M. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological 

explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft 

users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5(1): 45-61. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. U.S. Public Law 96-487. December 2. 

Belt, George H., Jay O'Laughlin, and Troy Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips 

for the protection of water quality: analysis of scientific literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife 

and Range Policy Analysis Group report No. 8. June. 

Campbell, Robert B. 2006. Rare plants, management indicator plant species, invasive species. 

Specialist report for off highway vehicle (OHV) access management and route 

designation project, Fishlake National Forest. Richfield, UT. December 5. 

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Forman, T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29:207-231. 

Forman, T. T. and X. Deblinger. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14:18-30. 

Forman, T. T. and D. Sperling. 2003. Road ecology. Science and solutions. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 

American Fisheries Society special publication 19:297-324. 

Gelbard, Jonathan L. and Jayne Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in 

a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. 

Gibbons, S. and E. J. Ruddell. 1995. The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on 

select goal interference among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17, 171-

183. 

GOBP. See Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. 

Gorell, J. V., M. E. Andersen, K. D. Bunnell, M. F. Canning, A. G. Clark, D. E. Dolse, and F. P. 

Howe. 2005. Utah comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

 References-1 References 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Grand Canyon Trust. 2007. Scoping comments for Dixie National Forest motorized travel plan 

environmental impact statement. With attachments. January 31. 

Gucinski, Herman, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes, Editors. 

2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. General technical report 

PNW-GTR-509. May. 

Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management (2nd 

ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection 

of resources and values (3rd ed.). Colorado: Fulcrum. 

Jackson, E. L. and R. A. G. Wong. 1982. Perceived conflict between urban cross-country 

skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research 14(1):47-62. 

Jaros, Rich. 2005. Rendezvous salvage timber sale soils monitoring project. Dixie National 

Forest. 

———. 2007a. Barney Top resource management project soils monitoring. Dixie National 

Forest. 

———. 2007b. Bunker timber sale soils monitoring. Dixie National Forest. 

Jump, Lewis. 2008. Vegetation and fire and fuels specialist report: motorized travel plan. 

Prepared for the Dixie National Forest. 

Loewen, Mark. 2008. Climate change: addressing legislative requirements for the Dixie and 

Fishlake national forests. Version 3.2. April 18. 

Luce, Charles H. and Thomas A. Black. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns in erosion from 

forest roads. 

MacWhorter, Robert G. 2007. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding migratory bird 

treaty act on the national forests in Utah. Representing all forest supervisors in Utah. 

August 1. 

Madsen, Mark. 2004. Dixie National Forest rare plant list. Dixie National Forest internal 

document (taxa with confirmed presence on the Dixie National Forest). February. 

Magill, A. W. 1976. The message of vandalism. IN: Vandalism and outdoor recreation: 

symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PSW-17, 

50-54. 

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction (2nd 

ed.). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 

McGurk, B. J. and D. R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative 

effect of logging. Environmental management; vol. 19, no. 4: pp. 602-621. 

References References-2 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Parrish, J. R., F. Howe, and R. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight avian conservation 

strategy. Version 2.0. UDWR publication number 99-40. Utah Partners in Flight 

Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

PLAE, Inc. 1993. Universal access to outdoor recreation: a design guide. PLAE, Inc. 

Berkeley, CA. 

Plant Protection Act. 2000. Public law 106–224. June 20. 

Ramthun, R. 1995. Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure 

Sciences 17(3): 159-169. 

Rasker, Alexander, and Holmes. 2003. The changing economy of the west: employment and 

personal income trends, by region, state, and industry. Sonoran Institute. 

Rodriguez, Ron L. 2004. Dixie National Forest management indicator species monitoring 

summary, 1986-2002. Cedar City, UT. January. 

———. 2008. Life history and analysis of endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive and 

management indicator species on the Dixie National Forest. Version 5.0. Dixie National 

Forest, Cedar City, UT. July. 

Satterlund, Donald R. 1972. Wildland watershed management. Pp. 273-289. 

State of Utah. 2005. 2005 baseline projections. Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Budget. 

———. 2006. Notes on the economy 2006: economic summary. Utah Governor’s Office of 

Planning and Budget. 

———. 2008. S.B. 181. Off-highway vehicle use on public highways. 

Sullivan, A. P., P. M. Uphus, C. I. Roos, and P. B. Mink. 2002. Inadvertent vandalism: the 

hidden challenge for heritage resource management. NPS Cultural Resource 

Management. Volume 25, no. 2. 

Summers, P.R. 1998a. Effects of timber harvest on selected wildlife species. Cedar City 

Ranger District, Cedar City, UT. 

———. 1998b. Effects of prescribed fire on selected wildlife species. Cedar City Ranger 

District, Cedar City, UT. 

Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits 

and impacts of road removal. 

Thomas, J. W., H. Black Jr., R. J. Scherzinger, and R. J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk. IN: 

Thomas, J. W., ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests – the Blue Mountains of Oregon 

and Washington. USDA Agriculture Handbook 553. Washington, DC. 

 References-3 References 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Thomas J .W., D. A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen, and L. D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat 

effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. USDA Pacific Northwest 

Research Station general technical report PNW-GTR-218. 

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial 

and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 18-30. 

UAC. See Utah Administrative Code. 

UDAQ. See Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Air Quality. 

UDWR. See Utah Department of Natural Resources. Division of Wildlife Resources. 

U.S. Census Bureau. See U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. 

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1986. Land and resource management plan 

for the Dixie National Forest. As amended. 

———. 1993. Memorandum of understanding between the Division of Water Quality, Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality, and the Utah Department of Agriculture, and the 

Forest Service to protect, maintain, and restore the beneficial uses of the waters of the 

State. January 7. 

———. 1995a. A comprehensive literature review of the effects of livestock grazing on natural 

resources. Dixie National Forest. Prepared to disclose the effects of livestock grazing. 

August. 

———. 1995b. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 701. Washington, DC. 

———. 1996. Road closure and obliteration in the Forest Service. EM-7700-9677 1205. 

 

———. 1998. Implementing the DNF two miles/square mile open road density guideline. 

Memo to district rangers and staff. Signed by Hugh C. Thompson, Forest Supervisor. 

February 3. 

———. 1999. Soil survey of the Dixie National Forest. Prepared by Jim Bayer. 

———. 2000a. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for noxious weed 

management on the Dixie National Forest 

———. 2000b. Environmental assessment for noxious weed management on the Dixie 

National Forest. 

———. 2000c. Forest Service roadless area conservation final environmental impact 

statement. November. 

———. 2000d. Scenery management system. Amendment to the Dixie National Forest land 

and resource management plan. 

References References-4 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2000e. Utah northern goshawk project 

decision notice and finding of no significant impacts. Intermountain Region. March. 

———. 2001. Forest transportation system analysis; roadless area protection; notice. Federal 

Register vol. 66, no. 245, pp. 65796-65801. December 20. 

———. 2003a. Intermountain Region proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive 

species: known/suspected distribution by forest. December. Technical edits August 

2008. 

———. 2003b. Roads analysis report for the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. 

———. 2004a. Forest Service handbook 7709.59, chapter 50 supplement 7709.59-2004-1. 

Traffic studies and other road operation considerations. 

———. 2004b. Intermountain Region planning desk guide: a protocol for identifying and 

evaluating areas for potential wilderness. 

———. 2004c. National visitor use monitoring results: June 2004. Dixie National Forest. 

———. 2004d. Dispersed campsite inventory, Dixie National Forest. 

———. 2004e. Dixie National Forest special order: roads, trails, and areas. Order #0407-04-

03. March 30. 

———. 2005a. Dixie National Forest travel map. 

———. 2005b. Guidelines for engineering analysis of motorized mixed use on National Forest 

System roads. EM-7700-30. 

———. 2005c. Motor vehicle route and area designation guide. National OHV implementation 

team. Version 111705. 

———. 2006a. 2006 grazing statistical report, Dixie National Forest. 

———. 2006b Dixie National Forest motorized travel plan: notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. Federal Register vol. 71, no. 241, pp. 75477-75480. 

December 15. 

———. 2006c. Dixie National Forest motorized travel plan roads analysis report, supplemental 

to the forest-wide roads analysis. 

———. 2007a. Issues, strategy, and process developed between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Forest Service to address agency responsibilities under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. Letter to FWS from Robert G. 

MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor. August 1. 

———. 2007b. Timber suitability – Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. Prepared by Mark 

Loewen. Version 3.1. May 23. 

 References-5 References 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2008a. Aquatic biota specialist report: 

motorized travel plan. Prepared by Steve Brazier. 

———. 2008b. Cumulative effects summary for the motorized travel plan. 

———. 2008c. Comparison of SMUA and alternative B GIS layers. Dixie National Forest. 

Prepared by Susan Leslie. November 25. 

———. 2008d. Draft collaboration and process report. Dixie and Fishlake National Forests 

proposed forest plan. Unpublished draft. January 8. 

———. 2008e. Engineering analysis of motorized mixed-use on forest system roads. Dixie 

National Forest. 

———. 2008f. Field survey for Mojave Desert tortoise habitat. Dixie National Forest. 

November 5. 

———. 2008g. Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of 

migratory birds. Abigail Kimball (Forest Service Chief) and H. Dale Hall (Fish and 

Wildlife Service Director). December 8. 

———. 2008h. Noxious weeds specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Lucretia 

Smith. 

———. 2008i. Oil and gas leasing on lands administered by the Dixie National Forest draft 

environmental impact statement. October. 

———. 2008j. Rare plants specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Lucretia 

Smith and Brian Monroe. 

———. 2008k. Regional guidance to forest supervisors on roadless 

———. 2008l. Special uses specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Kirk 

Flannigan. 

———. 2008m. Tropic to Hatch 138kV transmission line project. Dixie National Forest, UT. 

Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. Federal Register vol. 73, 

no. 35, pp. 9517-9521. February 21. 

———. 2008n. Washington Office letter to regions: recent adverse district court decision 

concerning 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Wyoming v. USDA, No. 2:07-cv00017-CAB (D. Wyoming, August 8, 2008). August 18. 

———. 2009a. Addressing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 in NEPA 

documents; species selection for the Motorized Travel Plan. Letter to FWS from Ronald 

L. Rodriguez, Wildlife and Fisheries Program Manager. April 6. 

———. 2009b. Biological assessment clarification letter. Dixie National Forest. Kevin R. 

Schulkoski to Larry Crist. March 20. 

References References-6 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2009c. Climate change analysis: Dixie 

National Forest motorized travel plan. Prepared by Andrew Orlemann. January. 

———. 2009d. Climate change considerations in project level NEPA analysis. Washington 

Office. January 13. 

———. 2009e. Considering climate change in land management and project planning. Letter 

from Joel Holtrop to regional foresters, station directors, area director, IITF director, 

deputy chiefs and WO directors. Washington, DC. January 16. 

———. 2009f. Cultural resources specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Marian 

Jacklin. 

———. 2009g. Hydrology specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Bill Goodman 

and Chris Butler. 

———. 2009h. Livestock grazing specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by 

Lucretia Smith. 

———. 2009i. Motorized travel plan wildlife specialist report. Letter to forest supervisor, Dixie 

National Forest from the Dixie National Forest wildlife biologist. April 13. 

———. 2009j. Programmatic agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Dixie National 

Forest, and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer regarding motorized travel. 

Agreement #09-MU-11040700-007. April 7. 

———. 2009k. Recreation and scenery specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by 

Kirk Flannigan. 

———. 2009l. Roadless and unroaded and undeveloped areas specialist report: motorized 

travel plan. Prepared by Keith Harris. 

———. 2009m. Social and economic specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by 

Noelle Meier and C. Kenton Call. 

———. 2009n. Soils specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Rich Jaros. 

———. 2009o. Transportation specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Susan 

Leslie. 

———. 2009p. Wildlife specialist report: motorized travel plan. Prepared by Jenna 

Jorgensen. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. 100 fastest growing counties. 

———. 2005b. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Beaver County, 

AZ. Last revised November 7. 

———. 2005c. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Clark County, NV. 

Last revised October 7. 

 References-7 References 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005d. 2002 economic census: 

summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Coconino County, AZ. Last revised October 7. 

———. 2005e. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Lincoln County, 

NV. Last revised October 7. 

———. 2005f. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Millard County, 

AZ. Last revised November 7. 

———. 2005g. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Mohave County, 

AZ. Last revised October 7. 

———. 2005h. 2002 economic census: summary statistics by 2002 NAICS, Sevier County, 

AZ. Last revised November 7. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Last Chance townsendia 

recovery plan. Region 6. 

———. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery plan. June. 

———. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, Virginia. 

———. 2005. Dixie National Forest TE species concurrence letter. Region 6. 

USDI. See U.S. Department of the Interior. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Enviromapper for envirofacts. Mapping result: 

regulated sites. Accessed March 11. 

Utah Administrative Code. 2008a. Rule R307-405. Permits: major sources in attainment or 

unclassified areas (PSD). As in effect on February 1, 2008. 

———. 2008b. Rule R317-2. Standards of quality for waters of the State. As in effect on 

March 1, 2008. http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Air Quality. 2006. State of Utah 

national ambient air quality standards: areas of non-attainment and maintenance 

(updated July 2006). Map. 

Utah Department of Natural Resources. Division of Wildlife Resources. 2006. Utah sensitive 

species list. October 17. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/SSL101706.pdf. 

———. 2007. Deer and elk herd status. Dated March 29, 2007 from T. Bonzo. Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources. Cedar City, UT. 

———. 2008. Utah big game guidebook 2008: a proclamation of the Utah Wildlife Board. 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. 2003. People and the forests: socialeconomic assessment tools and data for forest plan revision. December. 

References References-8 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Van Gosen, Brad. 2008. Personal communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Office. 

January. 

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Hothausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, 

T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for 

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and 

management implications. Volume. 1—Overview. Portland, OR: US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Stations. General technical 

report PNW-GTR-486. 

 References-9 References 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

References References-10 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Acronyms 

ATV All-terrain Vehicle 

BBS Breeding Bird Survey 

BCT Bonneville cutthroat trout 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRCT Colorado River cutthroat trout 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FWS [U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service 

GHG Greenhouse gases 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GWT Great Western Trail 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

ML Maintenance Level 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MTP Motorized Travel Plan 

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF National Forest 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NOI Notice of Intent 

OMRD Open Motorized Road Density 

OHV Off-highway Vehicle 

PFA Post Fledgling Area (Goshawk) 

R4 Region 4 (Intermountain Region) 

RACR Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

RAP Roads Analysis Process 

RD Ranger District 

RIZ Riparian Influence Zone 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIO Scenic Integrity Objective 

SMUA Sustained Multiple Use Alternative 

TAP Travel Analysis Process 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

 Acronyms-1 Acronyms 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Acronyms Acronyms-2 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UDWR Utah Department of Wildlife Resources 

USC U.S. Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

WMU Wildlife Management Unit 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Glossary 

100-year flood 

A flood event of such magnitude it occurs, on average, every 100 years (this equates to a 

1 percent probability of occurring in any given year). 

adaptive management 

A type of natural resource management that implies making decisions as part of an on-going 

process. Monitoring the results of actions will provide flow of information that may indicate the 

need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also 

indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information. 

administrative road 

Authorized vehicle use of otherwise closed roads and/or areas to carry out Forest management 

activities. Includes but is not limited to access for prescribed burning, fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement, and timber sales. Also includes use by permittees as authorized by permit to 

conduct authorized activities. 

affected environment 

The natural, physical, and human-related environment that is sensitive to changes from the 

alternatives. 

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. 

all-terrain vehicle (ATV) 

See off-highway vehicle. 

allotment (grazing) 

An area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period 

of time according to an Allotment Management Plan. 

analysis area 

The geographic area defining the scope of analysis for the project. Sometimes for a particular 

resource, the analysis area may have to be larger when effects have potential to extend beyond 

the boundaries of the proposal. 

annual maintenance 

Maintenance performed to maintain serviceability or repair failures during the year in which they 

occur. 

aquatic nuisance species 

Aquatic and terrestrial organisms and plant species that have been introduced into new 

ecosystems throughout the U.S. and the world and are having harmful impacts on the natural 

resources in these ecosystems and the human use of these resources (Nonindigenous Aquatic 

 Glossary-1 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, amended by National Invasive Species Act of 

1996). 

archaeological site 

Any site that is attributed to prehistoric American Indian cultures. A site is any location of use or 

occupation by human beings. In this part of the country, including the areas of the Dixie and 

Fishlake National Forests, this generally refers to sites dated to pre-1700. 

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). 

beneficial uses 

Water uses necessary for the survival or well-being of humans, plants, or wildlife. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

A practice or combination of practices that are the most effective and practical means of 

achieving resource protection objectives during resource management activities. 

big game 

Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource.. 

capability 

The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses. 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 

protection from insects and disease. 

closed road 

See administrative road, decommission, and obliteration. 

collector road 

A forest road that serves smaller land areas than does an arterial road. Usually connects forest 

arterial roads to local forest roads (FSH – 7709.54 – Forest Transportation Terminology 

Handbook, no longer in print). 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the 

Executive departments and agencies of the federal government. 

community 

A group of one or more populations of plants and/or animals in a common spatial arrangement; 

an ecological term used in a broad sense to include groups of various sizes and degrees of 

integration. 

conifer 

Any of a group of needle and cone bearing evergreen. 

cover 

The present vegetation and litter of an area. 

Glossary Glossary-2 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

cross-country travel 

Traveling across the countryside (as fields and woods) rather than by roads or trails. Travel off 

of designated roads or trails. 

cultural resources 

The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) having 

scientific, prehistoric, or social values. 

cultural site 

Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use, or that has 

important sociocultural value. 

cumulative effect 

The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other actions over time and space. Individual impacts can either amplify or negate 

each other depending on the location, timing, and types of interactions involved. Individually 

minor but collectively significant actions can result from cumulative effects. 

cumulative effects area 

An area with a mapable boundary where individual impacts can accumulate and result in 

cumulative effects. Cumulative effects areas are often different for each resource or plant and 

animal species, and often require consideration of more than one spatial temporal scale. 

deciding official 

The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and carry out a specific planning 

action. For this project, the Forest Supervisor on the Dixie National Forest is the deciding officer 

for the Cedar City, Escalante, Pine Valley, and Powell Ranger Districts, and the Forest 

Supervisor on the Fishlake National Forest is the deciding officer for the Teasdale portion of the 

Fremont River Ranger District. 

decommission 

To deactivate or dismantle a road; the denial of use, elimination of travelway functionality, and 

removal of the road from the forest transportation system; and the return of the road corridor to 

resource production by natural or designed means. 

deferred maintenance 

Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was scheduled, and 

therefore was put off or delayed for a future period. 

designated road, trail, or area 

A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area on National Forest 

System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to § 212.51 on a motor vehicle 

use map (36 CFR 212.1). 

direct effects 

Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the initial cause of action. 

developed recreation 

Recreation that requires facilities and results in the concentrated use of an area (e.g., 

campgrounds or ski resorts). 

 Glossary-3 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

dispersed campsite 

Temporary undeveloped campsites that are typically created and maintained by forest users. 

Existing temporary campsites can be distinguished by evidence of rock fire rings, old tent sites, 

and tracks from earlier vehicle accesses. On the Dixie National Forest, motorized vehicles are 

used to access most of these sites. 

dispersed recreation 

Recreation that occurs outside a developed setting (e.g., hunting, scenic driving, or 

backpacking). 

disturbance 

Any event that alters the structure, composition, or function of an ecosystem, including grazing, 

human trampling, logging, foraging by wildlife ungulates, wind, flood, insects, disease, and fire. 

diversity 

The relative distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within an area. 

ecosystem 

A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of varied living and non-living interacting parts that 

are organized into biophysical and human dimension components. 

effects 

Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives) 

because of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which are caused by the action and 

occur at the same time and place, or indirect, which are caused by the action and are later in 

time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable of cumulative. 

endangered species 

“. . . [A]ny species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range . . . “ which is designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce 

(Endangered Species Act of 1973 Sec. 3(6)). 

environment 

The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an 

area. 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official when a major federal action that 

significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, alternatives to the 

proposed action provided, and effects analyzed. 

erosion 

Detachment or movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. Accelerated 

erosion is much more rapid than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, primarily because of the 

influence of activities of people, animals, or natural catastrophes.. 

existing route 

A road or trail that currently exists on the ground but that may or may not be designated as open 

to motorized use. Includes constructed roads and trails maintained by the Forest Service or 

cooperating agencies. Constructed roads and trails are often characterized by a road or trail 

Glossary Glossary-4 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

prism with cut and fill slopes or through-fills. An existing route may also be an evident two-track 

and single-track route with regular use that has resulted from continuous passage of motorized 

vehicles over a period of years where perennial vegetation is devoid or scarce. 

Federal Register 

A daily publication that reports Presidential and Federal agency documents. 

floodplain 

The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including, at a 

minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

forage 

Plant material (usually grasses, forbs, and brush) that is available for animal consumption. 

forbs 

Broadleaf ground vegetation with little or no woody material. 

forest highway 

A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to public 

travel (23 USC Section 101 (a)). 

Forest Plan 

Shortened name for a unit’s Land and Resource Management Plan. Provides strategic 

guidance to management activities on National Forest System lands. 

forest road or trail 

A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that 

the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of 

the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

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. 

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. 

four threats 

Management issues identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as the greatest threats to the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands. The four key threats are hazardous fuels, invasive species, 

loss of open space, and unmanaged recreation. These program areas are currently receiving 

the highest priority and funding emphasis in the Forest Service. See 

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/ for more information. 

fragmentation 

The process by which aquatic or terrestrial habitats are increasingly subdivided into smaller 

units, resulting in their increased insularity as well as losses of total habitat area. 

 Glossary-5 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

game species 

Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have been prescribed, and that 

are normally harvested under state or federal laws, codes, or regulations. 

geographic areas 

Sub-divisions of the forest defined by topographic, climatic, and geologic features or special 

habitats or uses that provide a sense of place. 

grazing 

The consumption of native forage by livestock or wildlife. 

ground cover 

The material covering the land surface. Ground cover can include live vegetation, standing 

dead vegetation, litter, cryptograms, and rock. 

habitat 

The place where a plant or animal lives and grows. 

historic 

After the introduction of written records. In this part of the country, including the areas of the 

Dixie and Fishlake National Forests, this generally refers to sites or uses of areas or landscapes 

dated from 1700 to the present. 

historical site 

Any site that is 50 years of age or older that is attributed to any historical cultures, including 

American Indian or European immigrant cultures. A site is any location of use or occupation by 

human beings. In this part of the country, including the areas of the Dixie and Fishlake National 

Forests, this generally refers to sites dated from 1700 to the present. 

Hydrologic Unit Code 

The U.S. is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units which are 

classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The 

hydrologic units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the 

largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) 

consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit 

system (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). 

Indian Tribe 

Any American Indian group in the U.S. that the Secretary of the Interior recognizes as 

possessing tribal status. 

indirect effects 

Secondary effects that occur in locations other than the location of the initial action or 

significantly later in time. 

interdisciplinary team 

A group of resources professionals with different expertise that collaborates to develop and 

evaluate resource management decisions. 

Glossary Glossary-6 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

invasive species 

An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health. Includes both native and non-native forest and rangeland pests. 

irretrievable impact or commitment 

The elimination of a resource, its productivity, and/or its utility for the life of the project. 

irreversible impact 

The start of a chemical, biological, and/or physical process that could not be stopped. As a 

result, the resource or its productivity and/or its utility would be consumed, committed, or lost 

forever. 

invasive plants 

Nonnative aquatic and terrestrial species that have the capacity to dominate, overwhelm, and 

replace native vegetation. A species is considered invasive if it is nonnative to the ecosystem 

under consideration, and if its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plants. 

landscape 

The aspect of the land that is characteristic of a particular region or area. 

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). 

leasable minerals 

Minerals subject to exploration and development under leases, permits, and licenses under 

various mineral leasing acts. Leasable minerals include oil, gas, coal, and geothermal 

resources. The Forest Service determines which lands are available for leasing and under what 

conditions, while the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) determines whether or not to offer the 

lease. 

lek 

A specific location where male grouse congregate and strut to attract and breed with female 

grouse. Most male grouse return to the same lek every year. 

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). 

locatable minerals 

Minerals subject to appropriation under the General Mining Law of 1872. Locatable minerals 

include gold, silver, copper, gypsum, uranium, and other hard rock minerals. The BLM is 

responsible for subsurface rights, while the Forest Service is responsible for the surface rights. 

By agreement with the BLM, the Forest Service administers locatable mining activities on 

National Forest System lands. 

 Glossary-7 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

maintenance 

The upkeep of the entire forest development transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary 

for its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212.2 (i)). 

Maintenance Level 

See Operational Maintenance Level. 

management direction 

A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, along with the associated 

management prescriptions and standards and guidelines to direct resource management. 

Management Indicator Species 

A species of wildlife, fish, or plant whose health and vigor are believed to accurately reflect the 

health and vigor of other species having similar habitat and protection needs to those of the 

selected indicator species. 

mineral materials 

Minerals that are sold instead of leased or located. Mineral materials include common varieties 

of sand, gravel, clay, and decorative stone. The Forest Service has sole discretion over mineral 

minerals. Also referred to as common variety minerals or salable minerals. 

mitigation 

Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the impact of a management 

practice. 

mixed traffic 

A National Forest System road designated for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles. 

monitoring 

The process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated results of a 

management action are being realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

motor vehicle 

Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; and (2) any 

wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for 

use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area (36 CFR 212.1). 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the National Forest System (36 CFR 212.1). 

motorized mixed use 

Designation of a National Forest System road for use by both highway-legal and non-highway 

legal motor vehicles (EM-7700-30 – Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed 

Use on National Forest System Roads). 

Glossary Glossary-8 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

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 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

An act mandating an environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act that requires the preparation of regional and forest plans and the preparation of 

regulations to guide that development. 

National Forest System 

All National Forest land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the U.S.; all National 

Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the National 

Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tenant Act; and other lands, waters, or interests therein that are administered by the 

Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the 

system (36 CFR 212.1). 

National Forest System road 

A forest road other than a road that has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way 

held by a state, county, or other local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). Previously referred 

to as a classified road. 

National Forest System trail 

A forest trail other than a trail that has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way 

held by a state, county, or other local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). 

National Register of Historic Places 

A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, 

architecture, archaeology, and culture. The register was established by the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

native species 

With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

NEPA process 

An interdisciplinary and environmental effects disclosure process, mandated by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, which concentrates decision making around issues, concerns, 

alternatives, and the effects of alternatives on the environment. 

 Glossary-9 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

nest area (for northern goshawk) 

The nest tree and stand(s) surrounding the nest that contain prey handling areas, perches, and 

roosts. 

new road construction 

An activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road miles (36 CFR 212.1, 

FSM 7705 – Transportation System). 

No Action Alternative 

An alternative required by regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14). The No 

Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. 

non-motorized travel 

Modes of travel that include hiking, equestrian, and mountain bikes and exclude all motorized 

use. 

noxious weed 

Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops 

(including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the U.S., the public health, or the environment 

(Plant Protection Act). 

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 Sec 12.3 – Transportation System Maintenance Handbook). 

obliteration 

To unbuild, decommission, deactivate, or dismantle a road; the denial of use, elimination of 

travelway functionality, and removal of the road from the forest development road system; return 

of the road corridor to resource production by natural designed means. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV)/off-road vehicle (ORV) 

Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, 

water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (36 CFR 212.1). Vehicle 

types include but are not limited to sport utility vehicles, jeeps, ATVs, mini-bikes, amphibious 

vehicles, over-snow vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts, motorized trail bikes, and dune 

buggies. Wheelchairs that are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for travel 

are not included in this definition. 

open to the public 

Except during scheduled periods, extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, a route open to 

the general public for use with a standard passenger auto without restrictive gates or prohibitive 

signs or regulations, other than general traffic control or restrictions based on size, weight, or 

class of registration (23 CFR 660). 

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 

Glossary Glossary-10 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

currently being maintained (FSH 7709.58 Sec 12.3 – Transportation System Maintenance 

Handbook). 

overland travel 

See cross-country travel. 

over-snow vehicle 

A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a 

ski or skis, while in use over snow (36 CFR 212.1). 

paleontological resources 

Any evidence of fossilized remains of multicellular invertebrate and vertebrate animals and 

multicellular plants, including imprints thereof. Organic remains primarily collected for use as 

fuel such as coal and oil are paleontological resources, but are excluded from the prohibitions 

under the rule (36 CFR 261.2). 

permittee 

An individual who has been granted a permit for a specific activity such as livestock grazing or 

an outfitter and guide operation. 

population 

A community of individuals that share a common gene pool. 

Post-fledgling Area (for northern goshawk) 

An area of concentrated use by the goshawk family after the young leave the nest. 

prehistoric 

Prior to written records being kept. As with archaeological sites, in this part of the country, 

including the areas of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests, this generally refers to sites or 

uses of areas or landscapes dated to pre-1700. 

prescribed fire 

See wildland fire. 

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). 

project area 

The spatial boundary that envelops the proposed actions and alternatives. 

project file 

An assemblage of documents that contain all the information developed or used during project 

development and environmental analysis. This information may be summarized and 

incorporated by reference in the environmental impact statement. 

Public Forest Service Road 

A designated public road under Forest Service jurisdiction that meets the definition of 23 USC 

Section 101. 

 Glossary-11 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

range/rangeland 

Land that supports vegetation that provides forage for grazing and browsing animals. 

Ranger District 

An administrative subdivision of a national forest, supervised by a district ranger who reports to 

the forest supervisor. 

Record of Decision 

A concise public document disclosing the decision made following preparation of an EIS and the 

rationale use to reach that decision. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation based on environments, 

activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining 

experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven classes: Primitive, 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, 

Rural, and Urban. Neither the Dixie or Fishlake National Forest contain any Roaded Modified, 

Rural, or Urban ROS classes. 

recreation residence 

A residence on National Forest System lands generally located in an established tract and built 

for recreation purposes with agency approval. These residences are authorized by special use 

permit. 

Research Natural Area 

“Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated in 

perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on National Forest 

System lands. Research Natural Areas are principally for nonmanipulative research, 

observation, and study. They also may assist in implementing provisions of special acts, such 

as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the monitoring provisions of the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976” (FSM 4063). 

responsible official 

The official with the authority and responsibility to oversee the planning process and to approve 

plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions (36 CFR 219.16). 

right-of-way 

An accurately located strip of land with defined width, beginning of point, and point of ending. It 

is the area within which the user has the authority to conduct operations approved or granted by 

the landowner in an authorizing document, such as a permit, easement, lease, license, or 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

riparian 

Related to, living, or located in conjunction with a wetland, on the bank of a river or stream, or at 

the edge of a lake or tidewater. 

road 

A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. A road 

may be a system road, unauthorized road, or temporary road. 

Glossary Glossary-12 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

road construction or reconstruction 

Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to the construction 

or reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1). 

Road Maintenance Level 

Roads assigned to maintenance levels 2-5 are either constant service roads or intermittent 

service roads during the time they are open to traffic. Maintenance levels 1-5 (operational and 

objective) are described below. 

1. Level 1: 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. 

2. Level 2: 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. 

3. Level 3: 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. 

4. Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate 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. 

5. Level 5: 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" 

(FSH 7709.58, 10). 

Road Management Objective 

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). 

route 

A generic term that includes roads and trails as defined in this glossary. 

 Glossary-13 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

R.S. 2477 

Revised Statute 2477 is legislation that allows counties to assert that they have access rights on 

roads and/or trails that existed prior to the establishment of the Forest. 

scale 

Geographic extent (e.g., regional, sub-regional, or landscape). 

Scenic Integrity 

A measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete. Scenic 

integrity is used to describe an existing situation, standard for management, or desired future 

condition. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or 

no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic Integrity 

ranges from Very High to Unacceptably Low, as defined below. There are no areas mapped as 

either Very Low or Unacceptably Low on the Dixie National Forest. All definitions are from 

Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA 1995b). 

Very High 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “is” intact with only minute if any 

deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the 

highest possible level. 

High 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be 

present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the 

landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. 

Moderate 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” 

Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed. 

Low 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” 

Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they 

borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being 

viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being 

viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. 

Very Low 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” 

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not 

borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape 

being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain 

(landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures 

do not dominate the composition. 

Glossary Glossary-14 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Unacceptably Low 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character being viewed appears extremely 

altered. Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little of any form, line, color, 

texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape character. Landscapes at this level of 

integrity need rehabilitation. This level should only be used to inventory existing 

integrity. It must not be used as a management objective. 

scoping 

The procedures by which the Forest Service determines the extent of analysis necessary for a 

proposed action, i.e., the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed, 

identification of significant issues related to a proposed action, and establishing the depth of 

environmental analyses, data, and task assignments needed. 

seasonal closure 

A route or area closed part of the year. The season of closure is defined by the reason for the 

closure (e.g., winter range, snow, etc.). 

Section 106 compliance 

The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that any project 

funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the federal government be reviewed for impacts to 

historic properties and that the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council of 

Historic Preservations be allowed to comment on a project. 

sediment 

Any material carried in suspension by water that will ultimately settle to the bottom. Sediment 

has two main sources: from the channel area itself and from disturbed sites. 

Sensitive species 

Those species identified 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, 

or habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. 

snag 

A standing dead tree. 

special use permit 

A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual, organization, or 

company for occupancy or use of National Forest System lands for some special purpose. 

species 

A unit of classification of plants and animals consisting of the largest and most inclusive array of 

sexually reproducing and cross-fertilizing individuals, which share a common gene pool. 

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. 

summer range 

A range, usually at higher elevation, used by deer and elk during summer. A summer range is 

usually much more extensive than a winter range. 

 Glossary-15 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

summer home 

See recreation residence. 

temporary road or trail 

A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or 

other written authorization that is not a Forest System road or trail and that is not included in a 

Forest Transportation Atlas (36 CFR 212.1). These routes are not considered necessary for 

long-term access, recreational use, or resource management. 

Threatened species 

“. . . [A]ny species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” which is designated by the Secretary of 

the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce (Endangered Species Act of 1973 Sec. 3(19)). 

Traditional Cultural Property 

A location or community that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that 

community's history, and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community. Properties can include buildings, structures, and sites; groups of buildings, 

structures or sites forming historic districts; landscapes; and individual objects (36 CFR 60.4). 

trail 

A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed 

as a trail. A trail may be authorized, unauthorized, or temporary. 

Tribe 

Term used to designate a federally-recognized group of American Indians and their governing 

body. Tribes may be comprised of more than one Band. 

unauthorized road or trail 

A road or trail that is not a Forest System road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not 

included in a Forest Transportation Atlas (36 CFR 212.1). The term “unclassified” was used in 

some of the earlier project file documentation that predated the Travel Rule. 

undesignated roads and trails 

Roads and trails that have not yet gone through site-specific travel planning to determine if they 

should be open, closed, or restricted to motorized vehicle use, or roads and trails that have 

gone through travel planning and determined that motorized vehicle use is not appropriate and 

is not allowed. 

watershed 

A land area that contributes all its water to one drainage system, basin, stream, or river. 

Watersheds can be described at multiple scales. 

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. 

wilderness 

As defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, “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 

Glossary Glossary-16 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

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 USC 1131). 

wilderness area 

An area designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, 

according to the criteria established in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

wildland fire 

Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. There are three types of wildland fire: 

wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. 

wildfire 

An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland 

fires where the objective is to put the fire out. 

wildland fire use 

The application of the appropriate management response to naturally-ignited wildland 

fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives. 

prescribed fire 

Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specified objectives. 

winter range 

A range, usually at lower elevation, used by migratory deer and elk during the winter months; 

usually better defined and smaller than summer ranges. 

 Glossary-17 Glossary 
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Glossary Glossary-18 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Index 

A 

Air quality................................................. 3-142 

Alternatives ................................................. 2-2 

 Alternative A............................................. 2-3 

 Alternative B............................................. 2-3 

 Alternative C ............................................ 2-4 

 Alternative D ............................................ 2-4 

 Alternative E............................................. 2-5 

 comparison of .......................................... 2-5 

 considered but eliminated from detailed study resources 

 ............................................................ 2-28 

 development of ........................................ 2-2 

 features common to all........................... 2-17 

 features common to the action alternatives 

 ............................................................ 2-22 

 no action. See Alternative A 

Amendment. See Forest Plan amendment 

American Indian Tribes ............... 3-116, 3-117, 

 ................................................... 3-138, 4-6 

Antler gathering................................2-29, B-52 

Aquatic biota ............ 2-10, 3-25, 3-135, 3-157, 

 .......................................................... 3-139 

Aspen ........................................................ 3-21 

B 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) ....... 2-22, 

 ..................... 2-23, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-136 

Big game. See mule deer or Rocky Mountain 

 elk 

big game habitat............................. 2-18, 3-133 

C 

Christmas tree collection........................... 3-21 

Climate change ...................................... 3-142, 

Construction, new motorized trail........ 2-5, 2-8, 

 ......2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 3-6, 3-19, 3-27, 3-51, 

 ............................3-86 through 3-91, 3-133 

Counties. See individual county names 

Cultural resources........................ 3-116, 3-133 

Cumulative effects 

 by resource ........ 3-8, 3-13, 3-19, 3-24, 3-28, 

 ....3-52, 3-59, 3-62, 3-66, 3-70, 3-81, 3-90, 

 ..3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-120, 3-130 

 

D 

Deer. See mule deer 

Design criteria. See project design features 

E 

Economics. See social and economic 

Elk. See Rocky Mountain elk 

Employment ............................................ 3-138 

Erosion .......... 1-5, 1-11, 2-23, 3-3 through 3-8, 

 .........3-11, 3-12, 3-65, 3-91, 3-117, 3-129, 

 ............................................... 3-132, 3-133 

F 

Fire ........1-7, 1-8, 2-10, 2-17, 3-10, 3-21, 3-64, 

 .......................................................... 3-140 

firewood.1-7, 1-8, 2-19, 2-24, 3-21, 3-38, 3-39, 

 .....3-40, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-60 

Fish. See aquatic biota 

Forest Plan amendment.......1-11, 2-27, 3-134, 

 .......................................................... 3-135 

Forest Plan consistency..........1-6, 1-11, 3-134 

Fuels. See Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

Fuelwood. See firewood 

G 

Game retrieval........................ 2-29, 3-68, B-52 

Garfield County ............................... 2-14, 3-55, 

 ..........3-56 through 3-60, 3-63, 3-70, 3-72, 

 ...............................3-81, 3-137, 3-138, 4-7 

Glossary ............................................. Glossary 

Grazing. See livestock grazing 

Great Western Trail...... 3-74, B-18, B-19, B-59 

H 

Heritage resources. See cultural resources 

Hunting..1-5, 1-10, 1-11, 2-3, 3-34, 3-44, 3-47, 

 ... 3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 

 .....................................3-83, 3-129, 3-139, 

Index - 1 Index
Dixie National Forest 

Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Hydrology ....................................... 3-10, 3-137 

I 

Income............................................ 3-56, 3-137 

Inventoried Roadless Areas.......... 3-92, 3-135, 

 .......................................................... 3-140 

Iron County...1-2, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-63, 3-70, 

 ..........3-72, 3-81, 3-88, 3-89, 3-137, 3-138 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

 of resources ......................................... 3-133 

Issues.......................................................... 1-9

K 

Kane County ......... 1-2, 2-14, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 

 ...........3-59, 3-60, 3-70, 3-72, 3-81, 3-137, 

 ................................................... 3-138, 4-7 

L 

Land and Resource Management Plan. See

Forest Plan 

Last Chance townsendia. See Townsendia 

 aprica

Livestock grazing 2-14, 3-10, 3-21, 3-26, 3-27, 

 ...........3-28, 3-53, 3-55, 3-61, 3-63, 3-121, 

Loading and unloading areas..3-74, B-3, B-21, 

M 

Macroinvertebrates ................................... 3-25 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)..... 3-32, 

 ............................................................ 3-33 

MIS. See Management Indicator Species 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............... 3-31, 3-139 

Mule deer ..2-11, 2-25, 3-32, 3-44, 3-51, 3-134 

MVUM, designation crosswalk....................A-9 

N 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Data....... 3-72, 

 ...............................B-12, B-45, B-59, B-85 

Noxious weeds.......................1-11, 2-12, 2-22, 

 ..................... 2-24, 3-16, 3-63, 3-84, 3-133 

O 

Open motorized road densities ....... 2-11, 2-12, 

 ............................3-44 through 3-49, 3-134 

Outfitter guides.... 2-14, 2-18, 3-55, 3-67, 3-68, 

 ............................................................ 3-72 

Over-snow vehicles.........1-9, 2-17, 2-18, 3-89, 

 .......................................3-125, B-23, B-67 

P 

Permittee(s)......... 1-10, 2-14, 2-18, 3-61, 3-67, 

 ...................... 3-68, 3-71, B-46, B-49, B-94 

Piute County.......... 1-2, 3-55, 3-58, 3-70, 3-81, 

 ........................................3-137, 3-138, 4-7 

Preparers .................................................... 4-2 

Project Design Features............................ 2-22 

Proposed action .......................................... 1-7 

Public involvement ...................................... 1-8 

R 

Rare plants................................................ 3-15 

Recipients ................................................... 4-5 

Recreation................................................ 3-72 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ......... 

 ................................................... 3-78, 3-79 

Road density. See open motorized road 

 density and total motorized road density 

Road maintenance.................................. 3-122 

Roadless. See Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Roads analysis..........................1-5, 1-6, 3-124 

Route evaluation ............2-2, 2-21, 2-27, 3-126 

Rocky Mountain elk.......2-12, 2-25, 3-21, 3-21, 

 .........3-47 through 3-49, 3-52, 3-75, 3-134 

R.S. 2477 ..............1-8, B-18, B-48, B-97, B-98 

S 

Scenery .......................................... 3-85, 3-135 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) .... 2-15, 3-85, 

 .......................................................... 3-135 

Shed gathering. See antler gathering 

Short-term uses and long-term productivity 

 .......................................................... 3-132 

Snowmobiles. See over-snow vehicles 

Social and economic resources ................ 3-55 

Soils.................................................. 3-3, 3-133 

Special uses.............................................. 3-67 

Staging areas. See loading and unloading 

 areas 

Suitable timber ................................. 2-10, 3-21 

T 

Transportation......................................... 3-121 

Index Index-2 
 Dixie National Forest 

 Motorized Travel Plan FEIS 

Index - 3 Index

Transportation Analysis Process (TAP)...... 1-6 

Terrestrial wildlife ...................................... 3-31 

Timber. See Vegetation and Fire and Fuels 

Total motorized road densities........ 2-11, 2-12, 

 .......................................3-44 through 3-48 

Townsendia aprica....................2-9, 2-24, 3-15

Trail maintenance............................. 2-21, 3-75 

Tribes. See American Indian Tribes 

U 

Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas......... 3-120 

V 

Vegetation and Fire and Fuels.................. 3-21 

Vicinity maps ........................................ 1-3, 1-4 

W 

Washington County.........1-2, 2-14, 3-55, 3-56, 

 ...3-58, 3-70, 3-72, 3-81, 3-137, 3-138, 4-7 

Watershed. See hydrology 

Wayne County....... 1-2, 2-14, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 

 .........3-59, 3-60, 3-70, 3-81, 3-137, 3-138, 

 ................................................... 3-139, 4-7 

Wildlife 

 aquatic ................................................... 3-25 

 terrestrial ................................................ 3-31