Upload
hakiet
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
2 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
3 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
4 September 21, 2015
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
5 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
6 September 21, 2015
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,
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
7 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
8 September 21, 2015
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 .
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
9 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
10 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
11 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
12 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
13 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
14 September 21, 2015
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).
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
15 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
16 September 21, 2015
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)
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
17 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
18 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
19 September 21, 2015
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.
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
20 September 21, 2015
APPENDIX A - Map of Needed Roads and Likely Not Needed Roads
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
21 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
22 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
23 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
24 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
25 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
26 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
27 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
28 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
29 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
30 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
31 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
32 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
33 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
34 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
35 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
36 September 21, 2015
55495 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55497 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55498 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55499 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55500 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55501 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55502 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55503 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55505 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55507 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55508 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55509 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55510 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55511 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55513 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55514 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55515 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55516 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55517 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55518 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55519 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55520 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55521 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55523 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55524 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55525 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55526 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55527 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55528 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55529 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55530 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55531 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55532 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55535 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55536 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55537 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55538 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55539 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55541 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55542 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55543 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
37 September 21, 2015
55545 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55546 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55547 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55549 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55551 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55552 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55553 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55554 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55555 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55556 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55558 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55559 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55563 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55565 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55567 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55568 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55571 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55573 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55575 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55577 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55579 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55580 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55581 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55583 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55584 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55585 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55586 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55587 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55588 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55589 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55590 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55591 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55592 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55595 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55596 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55597 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55598 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55599 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55600 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55601 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
55602 UN-NAMED Likely Not Needed
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
38 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
39 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
40 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
41 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
42 September 21, 2015
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
Manti-La Sal National Forest Transportation Analysis
43 September 21, 2015
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