manti-la sal national forest transportation analysis · manti-la sal national forest transportation...

Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Objective .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Process ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Product ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Area/Scale .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Interdisciplinary Team .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Plan for the Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Manti-La Sal NF Map…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Description of Transportation System……………………………………………………………………………………..5

The Transportation System ..................................................................................................................................... 5

General Description ........................................................................................................................................... 5-6

Meeting Forest Plan Objectives......................................................................................................................... 7

Assessing Benefits and Potential Risks ................................................................................................................... .8

Process ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Identified Benefits and Potential Risks ............................................................................................................... 9

Forest Service Final Transportation SYSTEM RULE ................................................................................ 9

Budget Allocation for Maintenance of Existing Facilities ....................................................................... 9

Watershed Management ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Management .................................................................................................. 10

Timber Harvest Activities ................................................................................................................................. 11

Non-Forested Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 11

Noxious Weed Management ............................................................................................................................. 11

Recreation ................................................................................................................................................................ 12


Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ................................................................................................... 12

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas - ........................................ 13

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Coordination of County, State, and Others ................................................................................................. 14

Access and Travel Management ..................................................................................................................... 14

Factors to Be Evaluated…………………………………………………………………………………………………15

Watershed Management .................................................................................................................................... 15

Terrestrial Wildlife............................................................................................................................................... 15

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas ....................................................................................................................... 16

Cultural resources ................................................................................................................................................ 16

Access……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16-17

Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Evaluation Process ............................................................................................................................................... 18

OBSERVATIONS……………………………………………………….………………………………………………………….18

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDIX A Map of Needed and Not needed Roads ….……………………………....………………………20

APPENDIX B- List of Likely Not Needed Roads ………………….………………….………………….……..21-38

APPENDIX C -_ List of Likely Not Needed Trails……………………………………………..……….…………39-43


1 September 21, 2015

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE This analysis of the transportation system assesses the current forest transportation system and

identifies issues and assesses benefits, problems, and risks to inform decisions related to

identification of the minimum road system (36 CFR Part 212.5(b)(1)) that is safe and responsive to

public needs and desires; is affordable and efficient; has minimal adverse effects on ecology; and is

balanced with available funding for needed management actions (Forest Service Manuals (FSM )

7710))

PROCESS Travel analysis requires a process that is dynamic, interdisciplinary, and integrated with all

resource areas. The Washington Office directed the Forests to use the travel analysis process

(TAP) as described in Forest Service Manual 7712 and Forest Handbook (FSH) 7709.55 Chapter 20.

The TAP is a science-based process that will inform future travel management decisions. Travel

analysis serves as the basis for developing proposed actions, but does not result in decisions.

Therefore, travel analysis does not trigger the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). The

completion of of the TAP is an important first step towards the development of the future minimum

road system, All NFS roads, maintenance level 1-5, are included in the analysis.

PRODUCT

Results from the TAP include:

A map displaying the roads that are needed and likely not needed

A list of likely not needed roads for future use

Travel Analysis Report

SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS AREA/SCALE

The analysis area is the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The analysis focuses on all authorized

motorized roads and trails currently shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map and inventoried in the

Forest transportation database.



INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

An interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach was used for this analysis. The team consisted of the

following core members:

Pete Kilbourne Interdisciplinary Team Lead - Soils/Hydrology

Seth Wallace Engineering

Daniel Luke Engineering

Bill Broadbear North Zone - Recreation

Brian Murdock South Zone – Recreation

Jeff Jewkes North Zone - Wildlife

Barb Smith South Zone - Wildlife

Karlton Moss North Zone - Range

Tina Marian South Zone - Range

Diane Cote North Zone - Timber

Greg Montgomery South Zone – Timber

Charmaine Thompson North Zone – Heritage

Don Irwin South Zone - Heritage

Joel Nowak Lands/Special Uses

Richard Warnick GIS Analyst



PLAN FOR THE ANALYSIS In complying with the WO direction, the steps contained in the Watershed Condition

Framework (WCF) and the six TAP steps contained in the FSH 7709.55 Chapter 20 were

integrated to eliminate redundancy and ensure an iterative and adaptive approach for both

processes. The six TAP steps are:

Set up the analysis

Describe the situation

Identify the issues

Assess benefits, problems, and risks

Describe opportunities and set priorities

Reporting

The team followed law, policy and direction found in the Forest Plan for the Manti-La Sal National

Forest; Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; Final Rule and Forest

System Transportation System; Final Administrative Policy as published in the Federal Register on

January 12, 2001; 36 CFR Part 212; Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700; Forest Service Handbook

(FSH) 7709; and Transportation System Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National

Forest Transportation System.

Due to limited timeframes associated with this analysis, the team was directed to fully utilize

existing information and data. Key sources of information and data included:

The Forest’s transportation management system database (INFRA)

The Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS) library

Transportation condition surveys

Professional knowledge and experience of Forest personnel

This information and data was utilized to describe the existing condition and develop issues.

This analysis is intended to provide direction and consistency in the evaluation of the

transportation system at the Forest-scale. Prior to making specific transportation management

decisions teams assigned to watershed or project scale analysis will have to validate data and

opportunities as well as consider additional localized issues.



THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

GENERAL DESCRIPTION Most roads on the Forest were originally constructed for commercial purposes including grazing,

timber, and mineral extraction. Others resulted from construction of water storage and

transmission projects for municipal water supplies. Over the past 100+ years, an extensive

transportation network has been developed and continues to serve commercial, recreation, and

administrative purposes while providing access to private lands.

Access and travel management is an important aspect of Forest management. Most of the private,

public and administrative access on the Forest occurs on this transportation system. The

transportation system contains National Forest System Roads (NFSR) and National Forest Syestm

Trails (NFST) under Forest Service jurisdiction that provides access to and through National Forest

System lands. Roads and Trails that are under municipal, county, state or private jurisdiction, that

provide access to the Forest, complete the transportation network. NFSRs and NFST’s are

authorized primarily for the administration, protection, and utilization of National Forest lands. A

travel management plan provides clear, specific direction on the appropriate levels of access to the

Forest to be made available and the forms of transportation this access will take.

Presently, motorized travel management across the Forest is identified in the current versions of

the MVUM (Motor Vehicle Use Map) by Ranger District. Travel plans will be updated periodically

by the Ranger Districts. These plans include routes and areas that are designated open to different

types of vehicles and vary by location and season. In addition, they address a number of complex

travel and access issues including:

Recreation uses and impacts

Legal public access to Forest lands

Legal public access to private in-holdings

Closed versus open policy

Economics of transporting commodities

Law enforcement

Public health and safety

Travel way maintenance costs

Effects and impacts on other Forest resources

There are currently approximately 2,849 miles of Authorized Roads and 1,076 miles of Authorized

Trails on the Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation System. Of these approximately 2,307

miles are NFSR’s and 1,056 miles are NFST’s. The three Ranger Districts (Sanpete, Ferron/Price,

Moab/Monticello) share management of the road system.

NFSR’s are maintained to varying standards depending on the level of use and management

objectives. Roads may currently be maintained at one level with plans for maintenance at a

different level at some future date. The operational maintenance level is the maintenance level

currently assigned to a road considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and



environmental concerns. In other words, it defines the level to which the road is currently being

maintained. The objective maintenance level is 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 than, the

operational maintenance level. The transition from operational maintenance level to objective

maintenance level typically depends on reconstruction. There are five maintenance levels used by

the Forest Service to determine the work needed to preserve the investment in the road. These

maintenance levels as described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58 – Transportation

System Maintenance Handbook are as follows:

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. 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 motorized and non-motorized trail

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

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.

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.

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 Manti-La Sal National Forest does not currently have any maintenance level 5 NFSR’s.

Approximately 300 miles (13 %) of NFSR’s are managed and maintained for public use with low-

clearance vehicles, passenger cars (NFSR Levels 3-4). These roads carry more traffic and are the

most costly to maintain. The Manti-La Sal National Forest desires (objective maintenance level)

that approximately 422 miles (19%) of the NFSR’s be maintained for public use with passenger

vehicles.

Many routes on NFS land are not recognized as part of the authorized transportation system. These

unauthorized routes on the Manti-La Sal National Forest have been identified by a variety of

methods, including Global Positioning System (GPS) alignments collected during field inventories,



alignments digitized from 1997 Digital Orthoquad photos, and alignments identified by Forest

employees. These routes will not be analyzed in this analysis.

MEETING FOREST PLAN OBJECTIVES FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Arterials and collectors are the roads used to provide primary access to large portions of NFS lands.

Arterials normally serve as connections between towns, major county roads, or state highways and

are main thoroughfares through the Forest. Collectors link large areas of the Forest to arterials or

other main highways.

The Manti-La Sal Forest Plan set the following goal or desired future condition for the Forest’s

transportation system:

The transportation system would be safe, functional, economical, and environmentally acceptable.

Road construction, reconstruction, surfacing, operation, and maintenance for coal, gas, oil, and

uranium exploration, development, and production would be coordinated with other resource

activities.

The basic arterial and collector, as well as the local system serving major rural recreation sites,

would be reconstructed, reconditioned, and/or surfaced, and then maintained to carry passenger

traffic at level 3 or higher maintenance for the intended season of use. This reconstruction and 20

percent of the surfacing placement should occur in the first 10 years. The remainder of the

surfacing should be placed in the second 10 years.

After the first 20 years, road construction would consist of that necessary for the support of timber

and some mineral activities, mostly temporary roads. In conjunction with maintenance activities, an

ongoing surface replacement program of 29 miles per year would be required.

Approximately 217 (39%) miles of 559 miles of NFSR’s authorized as an arterial and collector are

currently being maintained as level 3 or higher.

As such we are not meeting the management direction for the transportation system given in the

Forest Plan.



STATISTICS

TABLE 1. OPERATIONAL MAINTENANCE LEVELS OF NFSRS: ARTERIAL AND

COLLECTOR (MILES) MAINTENANCE LEVEL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR

1 0 2 2 0 343 3 41 168 4 5 0 5 0 0

TABLE 2. OBJECTIVE MAINTENANCE LEVELS OF NFSRS: ARTERIAL AND

COLLECTOR (MILES) MAINTENANCE LEVEL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR

1 0 0 2 0 135 3 41 376 4 5 0 5 0 0

Assessing Benefits and Potential Risks

PROCESS The IDT evaluated the existing condition of roads and assessed their benefits and potential risks to

natural resources on the forest. Assessing benefits and potential risks is based on present and

future anticipated access needs, current condition, impacts on the environment due to the existing

and planned transportation system and associated activities, current and projected funding and

social consideration such as historic, existing and desired future uses.

The Forest Plan Revision indicates that public scoping is important because travel management is

of interest and value to all users . Local counties have shown interest in maintaining mutually

beneficial partnerships for transportation maintenance and the need to provide access and

connectivity of the transportation network. Public meetings were held in the cities of Moab, La Sal,

and Monticello though involvement for this stage of the TAP was minimal .



The extent of potential risks and benefits range in scale from Forest-wide to District, watershed and

project level. Potential risks and benefits at the project level are not necessarily appropriate to

address at the Forest level and vice-versa. Since this analysis is to provide specific management

opportunities and observations for the transportation system in terms of individual transportation

segments, potential risks and benefits relative to the Forest-scale will be assessed. The other intent

is to provide direction for future analysis at District, watershed and project level.

IDENTIFIED BENEFITS AND POTENTIAL RISKS

FOREST SERVICE FINAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM RULE -This rule addresses the agency need

to ensure that transportation facilities are managed at a minimum level while maintaining

ecosystem health and providing for the needs and desires of the public for access. It also states that

agency should work towards balanced funding levels to ensure transportation systems are

adequately maintained.

BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FACILITIES. The current annual budget

for maintaining the transportation system on the Forest does not meet the funding needs to meet

maintenance of transportation management objectives. Fortunately, partnerships with certain

local counties currently provides substantial relief to the Manti – La Sal by providing road

maintenance service on the Forest. This benefit has allowed the Forest to maintain the current

passenger car system, addressing public safety and resource related issues while keeping roads at

their current maintenance levels (level 3 & 4), though the deferred maintenance for the level 2

portion of the transportation system is increasing.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT – The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is used for identifying

priority watersheds for restoration. The Travel Analysis Process (TAP) will be used in conjunction

with the WCF to identify priority areas to improve watershed conditions and provide a manageable

transportation system.

Routes located near or within wetlands, riparian areas and through areas of hill slope instability

have a higher potential to transport sediment, potentially degrading wetland connectivity, stream

function and riparian function. Water quality conditions can be directly related to erosion from

routes, and are believed to be major contributor to water quality problems in streams on the

Forest. In addition, route location relative to hill slope stability should be evaluated.

There are relatively few level 3, 4, and 5 routes in each watershed. However, many of these routes

have been in place for many years and reflect legacy construction practices that affect hydrology.

These practices include road drainage design and culvert sizing.

Historically, route drainage systems were designed with the sole objective of protecting the

structural integrity and utility of the route. While protection of route integrity remains important,

environmentally effective route drainage has developed as equally important objective. Now routes



are often fit more closely to the topography, with rolling grades providing natural drainage, rather

than the long uniform route grades used in the past. Routes are purposefully designed to discharge

water frequently, to minimize length of direct delivery, to discharge at locations chosen to minimize

delivery of water and sediment to streams, and to minimize concentration of water that could

contribute to slope gullying or landslides.

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT – Many species of wildlife and their habitats are

affected by the transportation system on the Manti-La Sal National Forest. Maintaining the integrity

of wildlife and their habitats, while also maintaining public access is important.

The configuration and distribution of the transportation system influence the degree of effects on

wildlife. Greater route densities have greater impacts than isolated routes or routes not located in

crucial habitat. Direct habitat loss is limited to the actual route and route right-of-way, but habitat

effectiveness can be lost due to avoidance behavior or through habitat fragmentation. For example,

many large mammal species are known to avoid routes including cougars, deer, elk, pronghorn,

bears, wolves, and others. Elk are among the most sensitive to routes and exhibit avoidance

behavior as far as 800 meters or more away from routes throughout the year. These avoidance

behaviors reduce “habitat effectiveness,” because otherwise suitable habitats close to routes are not

used. Routes can also fragment wildlife populations and habitat. For example, many amphibians

and small mammals altogether avoid crossing routes which effectively fragments their habitat and

isolates them from other populations. Greater route densities have been associated with crashes in

amphibian populations. Evaluating route density has been used as a metric to evaluate the effect

the transportation system have on patch size, habitat effectiveness, and habitat fragmentation.

Although analysis of route density addresses many effects of the transportation system, it does not

perform well to evaluate routes in key or important habitats. For example, a single route in a key or

crucial habitat would have a larger negative effect compared to routes in a low value habitat

regardless of overall route density. Habitat types that would qualify as key or important habitats

would be those that have higher biodiversity, those that are rare on a landscape, or those that are

crucial to rare or declining species.

Many wildlife species select the edges between habitat types because each habitat provides

different characteristics that contribute the needs of the species. For example, some species may

select to use the edges between two habitats because they use one habitat as a food source, and the

other for hiding cover. Because many wildlife species use edges, routes that traverse many habitat

types over short distances would have greater effects than routes traveling though monotypic

habitats.

Regardless, measures for the conservation of TES species are included in projects as standard

operating procedures. The Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment processes further

ensure that appropriate measures are included in management decisions. The impact of these

measures varies widely dependent upon the site-specific situations. These measures do, however,

tend to restrict when, where, or how construction, reconstruction, operation, and maintenance

activities would be applied. In some cases, these measures may restrict transportation

management activities and affect the timing of project implementation. Application of timing



restrictions would be required in key big game winter range. These restrictions limit

Transportation activities including operation and maintenance work during crucial times of the

year when wildlife can be stressed.

TIMBER HARVEST ACTIVITIES – Many areas being actively managed through timber sale activity

have been accessed at one time or another for similar reasons. New routes associated with timber

sales generally tend to be temporary; existing routes may be maintained or upgraded slightly to

accommodate transportation of logs from the sale area without causing resource damage.

Generally, the Forest offers commercial timber sales every year that involve route construction and

reconstruction activities. Within the last 15 years transportation activities with timber sale areas

have been relatively light. Most route construction is less than one half mile per year.

Reconstruction has averaged approximately one to two miles per year, which includes improving

and upgrading drainage structures, hauling and placing gravel, installing signs, and reconditioning

existing route prisms. Route construction and reconstruction is anticipated to remain at the same

level as in the past, slightly lower perhaps with the implementation of Roadless Area Conservation

Rule (RACR) and other management area allocations. The strategy is to continue emphasizing

stabilizing route surfaces with gravel and drainage and address safety issues and concerns. Timber

management activities should be addressed in terms of commercial users, shared route

maintenance opportunities and vegetation management.

NON-FORESTED VEGETATION - The most obvious direct effect of travel management is the loss of

vegetation from route prisms and associated cut and fill slopes when constructed. Routes located

in riparian areas also create a potential loss of recruitment for large woody material and detritus

into stream channels. Maintenance activities such as brushing and drainage reconstruction can

impact additional vegetation along routes. Runoff from the route prisms, where concentrated and

focused, can cause soil erosion and damage plants.

Direct effects from the transportation system are greatest in riparian areas. Route construction and

maintenance can remove a large proportion of the vegetation within these narrow zones. Runoff

from the route prism can erode soils and reduce vegetative cover. The transportation system

typically has only minor direct impacts on upland vegetation because they occupy only a small

proportion of the landscape.

NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT – The transportation system serves as corridors for both the

introduction of noxious weeds and weed treatment activities. Subsequently it can have dramatic

indirect effects on both riparian and upland vegetation. Noxious weed management is essential in

order to abate or slow the spread of undesirable plant species.

The repeated use of routes provides a continual supply of seed. Soil disturbances associated with

the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the transportation system create potential

habitat for weed invasion. Weed seeds can be carried long distances on heavy equipment, on the

undercarriage of vehicles (including all-terrain vehicles), and in the hair and digestive tract of

livestock.



The transportation system also provides access for weed treatment activities. The most cost-

effective way to apply herbicide is from a truck, tractor, or ATV.

Closure of routes without revegetation reduces the movement of seed but does little to reduce the

potential weed habitat or prevent establishment once seed enters the area. Revegetating closed

routes can further reduce the risk of noxious weed establishment by stabilizing the site and

providing competition.

The relationship of the transportation system and noxious weeds is best addressed through Forest

Planning by establishing standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements that can be

implemented at the project level. No further assessment of noxious weeds will be carried through

this analysis.

RECREATION - The transportation system provides access to both the interior and exterior of

Forest Service system lands for recreation users. Recreational use is the dominant activity that

occurs on the Forest. Access that is safe and convenient to the Forest visitor is critical to ensure a

positive experience. Recreation use will continue to grow as the population growth along the

Forests boundaries continues. Because the transportation system provides a defined access to

Forest Service system lands for a variety of recreation user groups there can be several issues that

can result from the management. While the transpiration system provides access for recreation

purposes and opportunities for motorized recreation it can also have impacts on non-motorized,

primitive and quiet forms of recreation.

Because the transportation system represents one of the major viewing platforms for recreation

users on the Forests a reduction of routes would have an effect on recreation users viewing

scenery. Through the reduction of routes viewing platforms would be eliminated, but through re-

contouring and environment mitigation of the decommissioning of routes the viewed landscape

would begin the process of returning to a natural appearing landscape. So reduction of the

transportation system is a possible negative or positive effect for a varied range of users on the

Forests.

New recreation route construction is expected. It is also anticipated that some reconstruction will

need to occur, but should be minimal as most of the infrastructure is already in place. Any

reconstruction will be commensurate with any planned recreation improvements. Most route

damage occurs in the spring or fall when route prisms are saturated and are more susceptible to

damage by vehicle travel. Transportation operation and maintenance activities will continue to be

essential in providing safe and convenient transportation facilities.

The relationship between; Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Unroaded Undeveloped and

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Travel Management Plans must be addressed because each has some

effect on the other.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) - Recreation managers generally concern

themselves with managing settings and with determining what types of activities may be

appropriate within each setting. To match the diversity of recreation interests with appropriate



opportunities, the Manti-La Sal National Forests offer a variety of recreation settings. These settings

are differentiated by remoteness, human modification, social interaction between users, managerial

presence and information that are incorporated into a recreation-planning tool called the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

The Forest Service uses this classification system to distinguish between different types of

recreation settings in the Forests. The ROS system provides a way to help managers and recreation

users understand the general characteristics of the physical, social and managerial attributes of the

managed for setting. By using these general characteristic the recreation user can identify the

setting that would best support the type of experience they are seeking.

The management of ROS categories has a direct relationship to the transportation system and their

management. If a route is eliminated off or added to the system, the physical, social and managerial

part of the ROS setting are affected and would change and effect recreation users. By eliminating or

increasing motorized access the remoteness in and the lack of human modification could change the

recreation used experience. The social interaction between users would go from vehicular to

biological or from biological to vehicular interaction. The elimination or inclusion of signs and

other vehicular control devices would reduce or increase the managerial presence in the landscape

thus changing the setting and the recreation user’s experience.

Change in the transportation maintenance level could affect the three characteristics of an ROS

setting by moving from primitive prism of maintenance level 2 routes (ROS, Semi-Primitive

Motorized) to the 3 and higher maintenance levels route prisms. The increase or decrease of

development of the route prism has a direct effect on the ROS setting being managed for and could

change the desire experience of users in a positive or negative manor depending on what

experience the recreation user is seeking.

Biological, social, and socio-economic considerations are necessary in the decision process for any

future route decommissioning, construction or reconstruction activity. These considerations are

important when it comes to the operation and maintenance of the transportation system as well.

Social impacts from route decommissioning are also a driving force in transportation management

activities. Some visitors would like a more primitive experience with fewer routes and others want

access to Forest Service system lands and consider reduction in routes a negative effect to their

desired experience. Public education and information sharing has been and would continue to be

critical in helping the public understand why certain decisions in transportation management are

made.

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA (IRA) AND UNROADED/UNDEVELOPED AREAS - Routes can

have a variety of impacts to the roadless and wilderness characteristics of the IRAs and

Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas. The primary characteristics that can be impacted by the

transportation system are; naturalness, undeveloped character, opportunities for solitude and/or

primitive recreation, “Naturalness” can be reduced by the impacts of routes to natural systems and

wildlife as discussed in other sections of this document. These impacts include damage to riparian

areas, streams, springs, wildlife habitat, and increased erosion, “Undeveloped” character is



impacted by the presence of the route which is a form of development. Impacts to opportunities for

solitude and primitive recreation are social impacts. Users seeking the experience of solitude and

primitive recreation are impacted by the sights and sound associated with motorized travel and the

transportation system. The ability to escape the sights and sounds of motorized travel and to

experience the sights and sounds of nature are critical for solitude and primitive recreation.

CULTURAL RESOURCES - The majority of the existing Transportation system was established

before sensitivity to cultural resources was established through the National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966. As a result, some roads and trails pass over or near sensitive archaeological sites.

Any changes in the Transportation System could have either a positive and negative affect on

cultural resources. Archaeological sites that are currently being adversely affected by the roads or

trails that run through them would benefit from closure of those routes or from moving routes

around them. A reduction in routes in areas of high site density (and site looting) could likewise

benefit archaeological sites by reducing access for illegal activities. On the other hand, providing

routes that allow public access to sites that are appropriate for public visitation supports cultural

resource management goals. Providing travel routes for American Indian traditional practitioners

is also a benefit of maintaining key parts of the Transportation System.

COORDINATION OF COUNTY, STATE, AND OTHERS - Routes to and through the Forest are to be

seamless (implying that the traveling public would not notice significant boundary differences of

routes between land owners) with routes and highways under other jurisdictions. This is the

direction under the Final Transportation System Rule, and many Routes on this Forest currently

meet this direction.

Most of the Forest Service’s authorized transportation system is generally continuously open to the

public for access. They can, however, be seasonally closed for protection of infrastructure values

and environmental needs.

Continual coordination and collaboration with state, county and other land owners in the

management of transportation facilities to and through the Forest would be continued to ensure

that access is maintained, standards are consistent, safety issues are addressed, and efficiency is

considered. Also, existing and future right-of-ways and/or easements would continue to ensure that

public access to National Forest System lands is maintained.

ACCESS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT – Presently, motorized travel management across the Forest

is identified in the current versions of the MVUM (Motor Vehicle Use Map) by Ranger District.

Future adjustments in travel management activities that occur across the forest will be made by

District Rangers or the Forest Supervisor based on resource considerations and land allocations

identified within the current or revised Forest Plan. Any alternative selected will have an effect on

travel management planning, which would include, but not be limited to, transportation

management objective changes based on current or new management prescriptions and the

implementation of the Recreational Opportunities Spectrum (ROS) and Scenery Management

System (SMS).



FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED To evaluate the current transportation system the IDT evaluated the assessed values and issues.

The primary areas that the IDT determined could be adequately evaluated at the forest-scale

include; watershed management, terrestrial wildlife habitat, Forest Plan consistency, cultural

resources, access and maintenance. Each issue has multiple factors that were used in a GIS filter

process to identify potential risks relative to the transportation system. Issues with multiple factors

are evaluated based on weighted values and given an overall rating (low, medium or high).

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Factors identified for evaluation:

Potential loss of riparian function;

Potential for sediment loading generated from transportation system;

Potential loss of connectivity and accessibility to habitat;

Potential for hill slope instability caused by transportation location.

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE Factors identified for evaluation:

High Risk Roads/trails that intersect sage grouse leks.

Roads/trails that intersect Mexican spotted owl PACs.

Roads/trails that intersect northern goshawk 30 acre active nest areas.

Roads/trails that intersect big game key winter range (north zone).

Roads/trails that intersect fawning and calving areas (south zone).

Roads/trails within ¼ mile and above the nest of golden eagle and or peregrine falcon nests.

Moderate Risk Roads/trails within 2 mile buffer of a lek.

Roads/trails within the Forest Service critical habitat layer for Mexican spotted owls.

Roads/trails within ½ mile of the 30 acre goshawk active nest areas.

Roads/trails that intersect big game general and transition range.

Roads/trails within ¼ mile of fawning and calving areas.

Roads/trails within ½ mile and above the nest of Golden eagle and or Peregrine falcon

nests.

Roads/trails that intersect all perennial streams. Will then have to screen through to check

if any should be moved to high risk due to Colorado River cutthroat trout, Bonneville

cutthroat trout, and Greenback cutthroat trout.



RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS), INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA (IRA) AND

UNROADED/UNDEVELOPED AREAS Factors identified for evaluation:

Route identification within Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS class. Motorized routes

should not occur in these areas.

Route identification within Semi-primitive motorized ROS class for route density. The

Forest Plan direction to close all or part of a unit to motorized travel when inconstant with

semi-primitive character.

Presence of roads and motorized trails in the areas

Routes that enable unauthorized motorized use into the areas

CULTURAL RESOURCES Factors identified for evaluation:

High risk – Road/trail intersects a site boundary or comes within 150 feet of the site. Moderate risk – Road/trail comes within ¼ mile of the site boundary. Low risk – No sites within ¼ mile of a road/trail.

ACCESS Factors identified for evaluation:

High value roads and trails Administrative Use

o Provides primary access to different parts of the Forest. Routes selected from

Forest Roads Analysis process (Arterial or collector)

o Leads to developed facilities (e.g., communication site) for which road access is

essential.

Important management access– a relatively high frequency of access (various uses)

Vital emergency access (e.g., . communication site, escape route from populated areas with

high fire risk

Provides important access to other jurisdiction lands (e.g., . other agency or tribal lands)

Public Use Provides access to a developed recreation site(campgrounds, established viewpoints,

trailheads)

Provides access to high use dispersed sites which have some established features but do

not qualify as developed.

Roads that provide Important Links in trail system (e.g. , Arapeen)



Designated Scenic routes (byways/backways), trail system, or other routes for which the

FS has publicized use.

Provides appropriate access to private/state inholdings that are being actively managed

or used on a recurring basis.

Moderate value roads and trails Administrative Use

o Leads to developed facilities for which motorized access is desirable but not essential

Public

o Provides access to moderate use dispersed sites which have some established

features but do not qualify as developed.

o Provides access to moderately used non-developed point or area of scenic or

recreational interest (viewpoint, lake)

o Moderately used recreational travel opportunity below the level of a publicized trail

or trail system.

o Provides access to important interpretive or research site even if low use.

o Provides access to private/state inholdings on which there is no active management

or recurring use.

Low value roads and trails

Administrative use

o Not specifically identified as desirable for administrative use

Public

o No identified value other than it exists

o Seldom used

o Limited access (e.g., route is only accessible by passing through non-federal lands and

there is no established R-O-W or easement). This situation exists for routes that start

at the Forest boundary but begin on adjacent private lands. (These routes can be of

high importance for maintaining public access in areas of expanding urban

development.)

Route Redundancy

MAINTENANCE COSTS

Factors identified for evaluation:

Erosion and land stability data

o identification of routes that were difficult to maintain on the landscape at all

without major investment

Transportation maintenance agreements

o Schedule A Agreements with counties,

Maintenance costs

o Maintenance costs from INFRA.



EVALUATION PROCESS In previous experience with watershed scale analyses, it was found that breaking a route down into

multiple segments for interdisciplinary team evaluation was overly complex and time consuming.

Given the resources available it was determined that a whole route approach would be used. A

finer grained analysis such as specific locations for improvements would be left to the project level.

The IDT utilized progressive GIS filters, run independently to analyze factors of route value

(importance), cost, and resource risk. These results were combined to provide the framework to

develop recommendations. It is important to emphasize that the use of GIS was primarily to flag

routes for evaluation by the interdisciplinary team. GIS generated factors were for the team to

consider, but in the end, their on-the-ground knowledge and professional judgment were used to

make recommendations.

The combination of results for all factors were considered and a recommendation was made based

on an apparent compelling need to change classification, close, or decommission a route based on a

combination of GIS modeling, maintenance/resource manage history, and on-the-ground

knowledge.

OBSERVATIONS

It is anticipated that the arterial and collector routes on the transportation system will likely

remain relatively unchanged. This is due to the fact that the Forest is presently well accessible with

many routes in-place and has been functioning this way for many years. These routes have been

maintained or reconstructed to a standard that provides a safe economical facility. Anticipated

future funding increases along with any potential sources for external funding and its benefits,

should be used to align the transportation system with forest plan direction.

Most of the local transportation system on the Forest have been in-place for a number of years and

will remain to provide access to and through the area. However, ecosystem integrity, public safety,

and available funding must be balanced with access needs and desires to define a minimum

transportation system.

All the transportation system will be designed, operated and maintained to accomplish and meet

the goals and objectives of the associated Forest Plan. Safe and efficient facilities will be operated

and maintained consistent with the implementation of agency policies and executive or

congressional mandates.

Recommendations for each authorized route were made in the analysis. Routes that were

recommended for decomissioning are routes that are considered likely not needed .

A list of likely not needed roads and a map of likely needed and likely not needed roads are in

Appendix A , B & C.



SUMMARY This Travel Analysis Report summarizes the forest-scale analysis of the Manti-La Sal National

Forest transportation system that evaluates current transportation system needs, resource

management plans, environmental risk, public benefits, and economic considerations.

Recommendations from this Travel Analysis report will inform future Forest Service decisions that

identify the minimum road system.



APPENDIX A - Map of Needed Roads and Likely Not Needed Roads



APPENDIX B - List of Likely Not Needed Roads

RTE_ID NAME RECOMMENDATION

50010 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed

50016 UPPER JOES VALLEY Likely Not Needed

50032 LOVERIDGE FLAT Likely Not Needed

50038 LOWRY WATER Likely Not Needed

50041 MARYS LAKE Likely Not Needed

50047 SIX MILE Likely Not Needed

50051 BENCH ROAD Likely Not Needed

50054 REEDER RIDGE Likely Not Needed

50056 BOULGER LAKE Likely Not Needed

50061 GEORGES FORK Likely Not Needed

50089 PEAVINE CORRIDOR Likely Not Needed

50113 SOUTH EAST MOUNTAIN Likely Not Needed

50115 STREAM GAUGE Likely Not Needed

50122 FISH CREEK RIDGE Likely Not Needed

50132 LOWER GREENS HOLLOW Likely Not Needed

50136 ISLAND LAKE CAMPROUND Likely Not Needed

50152 WHITE MOUNTAIN ADMIN SITE Likely Not Needed

50162 JULIUS RESERVOIR Likely Not Needed

50165 TROUGH SPRINGS Likely Not Needed

50166 BIRCH SPRING POINT Likely Not Needed

50191 GIANT ASPEN Likely Not Needed

50193 PATTON Likely Not Needed

50206 GREY DAWN Likely Not Needed

50211 MILL CREEK Likely Not Needed

50217 DRY CREEK Likely Not Needed


50219 MILL CREEK RIDGE Likely Not Needed

50231 NORTH FORK SIX MILE Likely Not Needed

50233 GREEN CANYON Likely Not Needed

50235 CABIN HOLLOW Likely Not Needed

50247 MUD CREEK Likely Not Needed

50253 MC CADDEN FLAT Likely Not Needed

50273 LOWRY TOP Likely Not Needed

50276 OLSEN BENCH Likely Not Needed

50278 HORSESHOE Likely Not Needed

50279 HAYSTACK Likely Not Needed

50280 CLAY BENCH Likely Not Needed




50290 BEAVER CREEK Likely Not Needed

50314 STEVENS CREEK Likely Not Needed

50315 SAGE FLAT Likely Not Needed

50317 EAST RIM Likely Not Needed

50346 ALPINE Likely Not Needed

50350 PHILADELPHIA FLAT Likely Not Needed

50501 IVES CANYON Likely Not Needed








51014 LOG CANYON - MARBLE HILL SPUR Likely Not Needed


































51077 UN- NAMED Likely Not Needed


































51160 BEAVER CREEK Likely Not Needed







51174 LITTLE SALT CREEK Likely Not Needed


51178 Likely Not Needed

51178 Likely Not Needed































51241 TWIN LAKE K Likely Not Needed

51243 COWBOY CAMP Likely Not Needed







51248 ORDER MTN-WOODS LAKE Likely Not Needed







51255 SOUTH HOLLOW Likely Not Needed









51278 ISLAND LAKE CAMPGROUND Likely Not Needed



51301 BEAR CANYON Likely Not Needed

51303 SIX MILE-LOWER PONDS Likely Not Needed





51318 STUMP HOLLOW Likely Not Needed





51512 PARLEYS CANYON Likely Not Needed

51514 LOVERIDGE FLAT TO FORBUSH COVE Likely Not Needed

51515 STOCK DRIVEWAY SPUR Likely Not Needed

52004 UPPER MEADOW Likely Not Needed


52007 MUDDY FORKS OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed

52018 FLAGSTAFF PEAK Likely Not Needed




52027 UPPER JASON CREEK Likely Not Needed

52029 GREENS CANYON OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed

52032 BOX FORKS OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed



52039 UPPER EAST FORK BOX CANYON Likely Not Needed

52050 EAST FORK BOX CANYON Likely Not Needed

52058 UPPER BOX CANYON ROAD Likely Not Needed


52087 COVE LAKE SPUR Likely Not Needed

52088 LAKE FORK CREEK Likely Not Needed







52116 UNNAMED Likely Not Needed



















52146 BECKS RIDGE Likely Not Needed


52152 THISTLE FLAT Likely Not Needed


52157 SOUTH HORN Likely Not Needed



















52211 BLACK CANYON Likely Not Needed













52248 HORSE CREEK Likely Not Needed




52259 HORSE CREEK OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed


52265 SPINNERS DISPERSED Likely Not Needed




52285 SEELY SNOW TEL SITE Likely Not Needed







52295 WHITE KNOLL Likely Not Needed





52310 JASON CREEK Likely Not Needed

52312 MEADOW GULCH Likely Not Needed

52320 SLIDE HOLLOW Likely Not Needed




52328 SNOW LAKE SPRING Likely Not Needed


52330 UPPER HORSE CREEK Likely Not Needed



52335 ENOS CREEK Likely Not Needed





52344 WILDCAT KNOLLS Likely Not Needed



52368 LORDS TRAIL EASTERN PORTION Likely Not Needed


52468 BOOTHS CANYON Likely Not Needed



















53157 BENNION RIDGE Likely Not Needed

53158 WATER HOLLOW Likely Not Needed







53208 JAPANESE CREEK Likely Not Needed

53220 BEAN RIDGE Likely Not Needed





54007 DECOMMISSIONED 1999 Likely Not Needed



































54647 DECOMMISSIONED 1999 Likely Not Needed

54648 OBLITERATED 1991 Likely Not Needed

54656 OBLITERATED 1991 Likely Not Needed



























































55088 DAVIS CANYON Likely Not Needed




















55156 OBLITERATE Likely Not Needed



55161 HORSE PASTURE TRAIL HEAD Likely Not Needed

55162 EXT. DRIFT - HORSE PAST. CYN. Likely Not Needed






































































55332 UTE CABIN Likely Not Needed






















55378 DARK CANYON CORRIDOR Likely Not Needed



























APPENDIX B - List of Likely Not Needed Trails

RTE_ID NAME RECOMMENDATION

5004 COMB WASH (004) Likely Not Needed

5008 COVE LAKE - WILLOW BUNCH Likely Not Needed

5009 BEEF BASIN Likely Not Needed

5019 LOWER BIG BEAR Likely Not Needed

5022 N FORK MUDDY CRK Likely Not Needed

5024 DRIFT CANYON Likely Not Needed

5029 SAGE FLAT Likely Not Needed

5031 HARRIS KNOLL Likely Not Needed

5038 LEFT FORK CLEAR CREEK TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5039 LITTLES - REEDER OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed

5042 LOWER MUDDY CREEK Likely Not Needed

5042 SWEAT CREEK Likely Not Needed

5043 JONES RIDGE TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5045 DRY CREEK TRAIL SOUTH Likely Not Needed

5046 COAL HOLLOW TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5048 DRY CREEK DRIVEWAY Likely Not Needed

5051 SOUTH THISTLE FLAT Likely Not Needed

5053 OAK CREEK Likely Not Needed

5054 5463 TO 5020 Likely Not Needed

5055 CCC TRAIL #055 Likely Not Needed

5056 MAPLE FORK Likely Not Needed

5057 COTTONWOOD RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5060 HELL HOLE Likely Not Needed

5065 LONE PINE TREE RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5066 EAST SANPITCH TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5070 CHRIS OTTESON Likely Not Needed

5071 TRAIL CANYON Likely Not Needed

5079 COW FORK Likely Not Needed

5081 KNOB MOUNTAIN Likely Not Needed

5081 MEADOW FORK Likely Not Needed

5089 FLY CANYON Likely Not Needed

5101 DEEP CREEK Likely Not Needed

5107 MUD SPRING Likely Not Needed

5127 VICTIM RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5128 JULIUS PASTURE CUTOFF Likely Not Needed

5132 CHRIS RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5133 MUDDY CRK N SLOPE LOOP Likely Not Needed



5139 NORTH HOLLOW EAST SLOPE Likely Not Needed

5143 NORTH FLAT Likely Not Needed

5144 TRAIL HOLLOW Likely Not Needed

5147 GARDNERS FORK Likely Not Needed

5151 FOUR MILE/PIGEON CREEK Likely Not Needed

5153 SAULS CANYON Likely Not Needed

5154 NORTH SANPITCH TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5158 TWELVE MILE TO FR 51243 Likely Not Needed

5167 BLIND CYN S SPUR Likely Not Needed


5181 CLEAR CRK FLATS - WHITLOCK Likely Not Needed

5182 ORDER MOUNTAIN Likely Not Needed

5182 ORDER MOUNTAIN Likely Not Needed

5183 NORTH FLAT CUTOFF Likely Not Needed

5189 PIGEON CREEK Likely Not Needed

5191 CHRIS CANYON Likely Not Needed

5192 JULIUS PASTURE SPUR Likely Not Needed

5200 BALSAM GROVE Likely Not Needed

5206 DARK CANYON NORTH FORK Likely Not Needed

5223 NORTH FORK OF THISTLE CREEK TR Likely Not Needed

5226 KNOB MTN WEST SLOPE Likely Not Needed

5240 BIRCH CREEK Likely Not Needed

5242 STEP FLAT Likely Not Needed

5263 DRY LAKE SPRING TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5266 EAST SANPITCH TRAIL CUTOFF Likely Not Needed

5271 RED PINE TRAIL Likely Not Needed




5273 ORDER CANYON Likely Not Needed

5325 IVES CANYON TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5328 SWEAT CREEK 2 TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5329 DRY CREEK TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5330 DIPPING PIN TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5331 SKY HIGH N SPUR Likely Not Needed

5332 EAST LAKE FORK TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5335 BIG RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5336 ROCK SPRING Likely Not Needed

5339 SKYLINE SPUR TO FISH CREEK Likely Not Needed

5340 SKYLINE SPUR TO FISH CREEK EXT Likely Not Needed

5351 TRAIL TO COMMISSARY SPRINGS Likely Not Needed



5353 SILVER CREEK Likely Not Needed

5360 SOUTH SPUR OF SILVER CREEK Likely Not Needed

5361 C CANYON RIDGE EAST SPUR Likely Not Needed

5362 CABIN HOLLOW NE Likely Not Needed

5363 CABIN HOLLOW Likely Not Needed

5366 BENNION Likely Not Needed

5368 ANDERSON CANYON Likely Not Needed

5369 WINTER QUARTERS CANYON Likely Not Needed

5371 PRIVATE ROAD TO ELECTRIC LAKE Likely Not Needed

5372 JAMES CANYON Likely Not Needed

5373 EAST DAIRY FORK Likely Not Needed


5374 SPUR OF EAST DAIRY FORK Likely Not Needed

5374 SPUR OF EAST DAIRY FORK Likely Not Needed

5377 RIDGE EAST OF DRIVEWAY FLAT Likely Not Needed

5378 TRAIL TO BOB WRIGHT Likely Not Needed

5379 LITTLE ECCLES CANYON Likely Not Needed

5385 JORDAN CANYON SPUR Likely Not Needed

5390 CRANDALL TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5393 EAST MTN EAST SPUR Likely Not Needed

5396 MONUMENT PEAK TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5406 N. FORK MEETINGHOUSE CANYON Likely Not Needed

5412 GRIZZLY GULCH TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5413 PINCHOT Likely Not Needed

5415 WEST JASON CREEK SPUR 1 Likely Not Needed

5416 WEST JASON CREEK SPUR 2 Likely Not Needed

5417 JASON CREEK Likely Not Needed

5419 DANDELION FLAT Likely Not Needed

5426 DAVIS CANYON Likely Not Needed

5428 EAST HORSE MOUNTAIN Likely Not Needed

5430 STARVATION POINT TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5431 THE WILDERNESS Likely Not Needed

5432 N. COTTONWOOD RIM EXT. Likely Not Needed

5433 N. COTTONWOOD RIM SPUR Likely Not Needed

5441 INDIAN CREEK RIM LOOP TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5442 INDIAN CRK RIM LOOP EXT Likely Not Needed

5447 EAST SHAY MINE TRAIL (447) Likely Not Needed

5450 CHIPPEAN RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5455 FR 55215 TRAIL SPUR Likely Not Needed

5460 GOLD QUEEN Likely Not Needed

5463 INDIAN CRK EAST SLOPE Likely Not Needed



5466 SQUAW WATER Likely Not Needed

5467 EAST TEXAS RIM Likely Not Needed

5471 TWIN SPRINGS Likely Not Needed

5472 WHISKERS TRAIL (472) Likely Not Needed

5473 SHORT POINT TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5474 LYMAN CANYON Likely Not Needed

5475 SALVATION KNOLL TRAIL (475) Likely Not Needed

5478 ALLAN CANYON EAST SLOPE SPUR Likely Not Needed

5488 MAVERICK POINT/ MORMON PASTURE Likely Not Needed

5489 KIGALIA POINT Likely Not Needed

5501 CHRIS CANYON Likely Not Needed

5546 QUAKING ASPEN CREEK TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5683 CEDAR CREEK Likely Not Needed



























5951 LEFT FORK FOURMILE CREEK RIDGE Likely Not Needed




5953 DES-BEE-DOVE-SPUR Likely Not Needed

5954 BLUE LAKE EAST LOOP Likely Not Needed

5957 SPUR OF EAST DAIRY FORK N Likely Not Needed

5960 BLUE LAKE EAST LOOP EXTENSION Likely Not Needed

5962 RILDA RIGHT FORK Likely Not Needed

5963 BLIND CANYON TRAIL Likely Not Needed


5966 BRUMLEY LOOP Likely Not Needed

5967 BRUMLEY RIDGE Likely Not Needed

5971 SHOEMAKER FLAT Likely Not Needed


5974 HIGHWAY 31 TRAIL Likely Not Needed

5975 CRANDAL CANYON MEMORIAL TRAIL Likely Not Needed

manti-la sal national forest transportation analysis · manti-la sal national forest transportation...

Documents