manti-la sal national forest transportation analysis · the manti-la sal national forest does not...

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 50218 UN-NAMED 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



50285 UN-NAMED 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 50527 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 50589 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51001 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51002 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51004 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51009 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51011 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51014 LOG CANYON - MARBLE HILL SPUR Likely Not Needed 51018 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51018 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51020 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51022 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51023 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51026 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51028 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51031 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51033 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51034 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51035 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51038 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51040 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51041 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51043 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51044 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51048 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51049 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51049 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51050 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51052 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51054 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51057 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51059 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51060 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



51065 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51067 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51068 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51072 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51073 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51075 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51077 UN- NAMED Likely Not Needed 51078 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51080 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51081 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51081 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51082 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51087 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51087 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51088 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51092 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51093 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51094 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51095 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51096 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51097 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51106 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51111 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51111 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51112 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51115 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51120 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51127 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51128 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51130 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51131 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51137 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51140 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51141 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51144 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51145 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51147 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51149 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51150 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51152 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51160 BEAVER CREEK Likely Not Needed



51163 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51166 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51171 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51173 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51174 LITTLE SALT CREEK Likely Not Needed 51176 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51178 Likely Not Needed 51178 Likely Not Needed 51180 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51182 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51184 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51186 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51188 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51197 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51198 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51199 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51200 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51202 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51203 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51206 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51207 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51208 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51208 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51209 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51210 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51211 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51212 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51213 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51213 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51215 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51217 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51219 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51223 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51226 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51227 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51233 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51234 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51238 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51241 TWIN LAKE K Likely Not Needed 51243 COWBOY CAMP Likely Not Needed 51245 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



51245 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51246 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51247 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51248 ORDER MTN-WOODS LAKE Likely Not Needed 51248 ORDER MTN-WOODS LAKE Likely Not Needed 51248 ORDER MTN-WOODS LAKE Likely Not Needed 51248 ORDER MTN-WOODS LAKE Likely Not Needed 51249 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51253 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51254 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51255 SOUTH HOLLOW Likely Not Needed 51259 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51260 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51262 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51272 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51273 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51274 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51275 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51276 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51278 ISLAND LAKE CAMPGROUND Likely Not Needed 51280 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51300 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51301 BEAR CANYON Likely Not Needed 51303 SIX MILE-LOWER PONDS Likely Not Needed 51306 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51307 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51307 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51310 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51318 STUMP HOLLOW Likely Not Needed 51320 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51352 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51375 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 51511 UN-NAMED 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 52005 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52007 MUDDY FORKS OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed 52018 FLAGSTAFF PEAK Likely Not Needed 52019 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



52027 UPPER JASON CREEK Likely Not Needed 52029 GREENS CANYON OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed 52032 BOX FORKS OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed 52033 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52035 UN-NAMED 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 52073 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52087 COVE LAKE SPUR Likely Not Needed 52088 LAKE FORK CREEK Likely Not Needed 52091 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52094 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52095 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52100 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52112 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52115 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52116 UNNAMED Likely Not Needed 52118 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52120 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52121 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52122 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52123 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52124 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52125 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52126 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52127 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52128 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52129 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52130 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52132 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52133 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52136 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52137 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52139 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52142 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52146 BECKS RIDGE Likely Not Needed 52149 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52152 THISTLE FLAT Likely Not Needed 52155 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52157 SOUTH HORN Likely Not Needed



52164 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52165 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52175 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52177 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52178 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52179 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52180 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52181 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52182 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52187 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52192 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52196 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52197 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52203 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52208 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52210 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52211 BLACK CANYON Likely Not Needed 52219 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52220 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52221 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52222 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52225 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52227 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52229 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52230 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52231 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52236 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52240 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52244 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52248 HORSE CREEK Likely Not Needed 52250 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52252 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52255 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52259 HORSE CREEK OVERLOOK Likely Not Needed 52261 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52265 SPINNERS DISPERSED Likely Not Needed 52275 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52282 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52284 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52285 SEELY SNOW TEL SITE Likely Not Needed 52290 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



52291 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52293 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52294 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52295 WHITE KNOLL Likely Not Needed 52302 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52303 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52306 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52308 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52310 JASON CREEK Likely Not Needed 52312 MEADOW GULCH Likely Not Needed 52320 SLIDE HOLLOW Likely Not Needed 52321 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52322 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52326 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52328 SNOW LAKE SPRING Likely Not Needed 52329 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52330 UPPER HORSE CREEK Likely Not Needed 52331 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52333 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52335 ENOS CREEK Likely Not Needed 52336 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52338 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52339 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52340 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52344 WILDCAT KNOLLS Likely Not Needed 52345 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52348 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52368 LORDS TRAIL EASTERN PORTION Likely Not Needed 52466 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 52468 BOOTHS CANYON Likely Not Needed 53003 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53008 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53010 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53026 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53028 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53036 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53064 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53068 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53069 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53076 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53084 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



53100 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53101 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53102 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53149 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53151 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53157 BENNION RIDGE Likely Not Needed 53158 WATER HOLLOW Likely Not Needed 53166 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53189 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53190 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53192 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53195 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53207 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53208 JAPANESE CREEK Likely Not Needed 53220 BEAN RIDGE Likely Not Needed 53238 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 53308 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54004 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54005 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54007 DECOMMISSIONED 1999 Likely Not Needed 54009 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54101 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54112 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54113 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54115 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54116 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54118 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54119 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54120 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54122 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54123 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54124 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54125 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54131 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54133 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54135 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54136 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54137 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54148 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54151 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54152 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



54153 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54154 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54156 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54157 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54603 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54606 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54620 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54629 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54633 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54638 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54639 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54647 DECOMMISSIONED 1999 Likely Not Needed 54648 OBLITERATED 1991 Likely Not Needed 54656 OBLITERATED 1991 Likely Not Needed 54657 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54661 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54667 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54668 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54671 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54672 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54673 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54674 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54675 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54676 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54677 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54678 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54679 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54681 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54683 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54692 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54693 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54696 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54697 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54699 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54701 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54702 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54719 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54721 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54724 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54734 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54767 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



54773 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54802 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54826 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 54830 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55006 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55007 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55012 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55013 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55015 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55017 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55018 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55021 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55022 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55023 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55025 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55027 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55029 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55030 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55031 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55063 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55064 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55065 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55066 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55067 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55068 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55069 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55070 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55071 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55075 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55088 DAVIS CANYON Likely Not Needed 55095 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55101 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55110 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55112 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55119 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55120 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55135 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55136 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55137 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55138 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55139 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



55140 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55141 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55144 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55151 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55152 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55155 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55156 OBLITERATE Likely Not Needed 55157 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55158 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55161 HORSE PASTURE TRAIL HEAD Likely Not Needed 55162 EXT. DRIFT - HORSE PAST. CYN. Likely Not Needed 55163 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55164 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55166 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55168 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55169 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55172 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55173 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55179 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55185 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55192 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55193 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55195 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55205 OBLITERATE Likely Not Needed 55206 OBLITERATE Likely Not Needed 55207 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55211 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55212 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55213 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55214 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55217 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55232 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55233 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55234 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55236 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55241 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55242 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55252 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55259 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55260 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55261 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



55268 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55269 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55273 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55274 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55275 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55280 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55281 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55282 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55283 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55284 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55285 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55287 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55294 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55295 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55296 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55297 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55298 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55299 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55300 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55302 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55305 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55306 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55307 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55308 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55309 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55310 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55311 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55312 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55313 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55315 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55318 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55319 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55321 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55324 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55328 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55329 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55331 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55332 UTE CABIN Likely Not Needed 55334 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55335 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55336 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



55338 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55342 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55343 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55344 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55345 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55351 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55356 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55358 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55359 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55367 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55368 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55370 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55371 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55372 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55373 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55377 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55378 DARK CANYON CORRIDOR Likely Not Needed 55379 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55384 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55392 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55393 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55398 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55399 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55400 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55404 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55406 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55407 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55408 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55409 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55410 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55411 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55412 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55413 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55414 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55415 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55416 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55420 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55422 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55423 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55424 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55426 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



55427 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55428 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55435 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55438 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55440 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55441 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55442 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55443 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55444 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55445 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55446 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55447 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55450 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55452 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55458 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55460 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55461 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55462 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55463 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55464 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55467 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55468 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55470 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55471 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55472 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55474 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55476 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55477 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55478 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55480 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55482 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55484 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55485 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55486 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55487 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55488 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55489 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55491 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55492 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55493 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55494 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed



55603 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55604 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55605 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55606 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55609 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55610 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55615 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55625 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55626 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55629 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 55807 UN-NAMED 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 5173 UN-NAMED 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 5271 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5271 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5272 UN-NAMED 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 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 5904 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5905 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5906 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5907 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5908 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5909 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5912 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5913 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5919 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5925 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5926 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5927 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5928 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5929 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5930 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5932 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5933 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5934 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5935 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5936 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5937 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5938 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5939 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5940 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5941 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5942 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5951 LEFT FORK FOURMILE CREEK RIDGE Likely Not Needed 5952 EAST DAIRY FORK 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 5965 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed 5966 BRUMLEY LOOP Likely Not Needed 5967 BRUMLEY RIDGE Likely Not Needed 5971 SHOEMAKER FLAT Likely Not Needed 5972 UN-NAMED 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 · the manti-la sal national forest does not...

Documents