• The UEC won at the 10th circuit on MIS and National Forest Management Act, stopping the 8-9mmbf Monroe Mountain Timber Sale.

• Challenge to 'Healthy Forest Initiative' abuse (NEPA/FSH) and NFMA with the seven mile timber sale on the FLNF.   The revised version of this timber sale stays out of “IRA,” which is an improvement in and of itself from the 2000 version that UEC won at the administrative appeal stage.  However, two of the cutting units in this sale still enter qualifying roadless land that is inside our state wide wilderness proposal.

• Named four National Forests (WCNF, UNF, DNF, MLSNF) and six timber sale/road construction/gas development projects in a new lawsuit based on NFMA and MIS.  Volume involved is about 40 mmbf.  (All of these sales were administratively appealed in 2004 and the FS should have granted our request for relief in each sale, avoiding this lawsuit that is based on good case law we made at the Utah Federal District and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.)

• One was resolved favorably (Snowqualmie reservoir-WCNF conceded that classification of previously unclassified road is an activity that constitutes new road construction, and that is in violation of forest plan standards specifying no road construction.  This was used in subsequent comments across the state and all Forests now concede that classifying unclassified roads is new road construction – and this has resulted in more accurate road density calculations (barney top TS on the DNF, on-going travel plan revisions on southern forests that involve classification of hundreds of miles of unclassified roads), and more clearly obviates the need for an EIS when classifying unclassified roads inside IRA)

• One outstanding appeal: WPG heli-ski EIS (SOC-UEC joint appeal).  This is in informal appeal resolution and it looks like commitments to monitor and protect golden eagle, data collection on backcountry user numbers, gps tracking of WPG helicopters for buffer compliance monitoring, will be achieved. The FS may agree to reduce helicopter flight numbers as well.  Ongoing.

• Comments on 10 draft Environmental Asessments.

• Comments on 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statements.

• 112 comments on proposed actions (to be analyzed in EAs) and/or scoping comments.

• East Fork Sevier River Vegetation Management Project (DNF): EA that had alternatives including commercial logging of P. Pine resulted in a decision with no commercial logging.  Final decision was some pre-commercial thinning near campgrounds (with cut trees left on site) with emphasis on prescribed fire instead of logging.  No roadless in selected alternative.  Forester told Kevin on the phone that the FS selected this alternative partially in response to UEC comments, and partly in hopes that if there was no logging, the UEC would not file an appeal.  We decided not to appeal.

• The Stump Springs project (DNF):  Alternatives in the EA included logging of P. Pine, but the burn-only alternative was selected.  UEC did not appeal.

• The WCNF started to approve prescribed burn-only projects to regenerate aspen inside the Cache-Aspen project area.  This is an indirect victory because the UEC (Emily Woolley) won an administrative appeal circa 2002 of the Cache-Aspen project that included logging of aspen on steep slopes to regenerate stands.  This involves roadless, proposed wilderness, and roaded landscapes.

• The Telephone Hollow TS on the Uinta NF has been indefinitely shelved, partly in response to UEC comments.

• The Pine Valley Timber sale and campground expansion that the UEC successfully appealed administratively (in 2002) came back as a campground expansion without the timber sale in 2004.

• UEC won an appeal (circa 2000) on the Fishlake NF regarding an EA for 42 grazing allotment renewals.  The Forest has split it up into multiple EISes, the first being grazing on 8 allotments in the Tushars.  It’s at the DEIS stage, but the fact that the Forest had held that 42 allotments across the Forest was not a major federal action and now holds that only 8 allotments constitutes a major federal action is a win.

• Via comments, media, and other pressure, the MLSNF agreed to drop a proposal to take over a quarter mile of trout-bearing fish stream (that flows into a blue ribbon cutthroat trout stream) in a covered culvert to facilitate a new coal mine portal.  The revised proposal (currently at draft EA/EIS stage) is no longer a proposal to take this entire stream segment, as the revised alternative is to put the portal facilities farther away from the stream and its riparian habitat.

• Because of UEC’s involvement in the Pines Coal Tract, the MLSNF is now re-writing stipulation nine so that is it clear and adding language stating that stipulations and mitigation must be carried into coal company contracts by the BLM.  (As evidenced by the 180 acre Crandall canyon coal lease modification EA/DN/FONSI that just came out in December.)

• The Dahlgren Aspen project on the WCNF:  At face value, this project would fit several CE categories (HFI and non-HFI), but the FS did an EA.  UEC decided not to appeal because the FS put out a draft EA in response to comments (when it did not believe it had to), it re-wrote large sections of the EA and modified the proposed action (making it not as damaging) in response to UEC comments.  The final decision for this EA was to cut about 0.4mmbf of conifer ‘encroaching’ in aspen, leave a portion on site to dry and make the burn hot enough (a concern was that the burn would not be hot enough), emphasize prescribed fire over timber harvest, and obliterate a system road (physically restore and take classified road off the transportation system) after the project is done.  This was not appealed because the FS made honest attempts to improve the project in response to our concerns, put the EA out for comment, obliterated road, and to show that UEC does not automatically appeal every single project, regardless.

• Campground reconstruction project on the MLSNF:  UEC did not appeal this project because, in admitted response to UEC comments, the FS dropped a proposal to construct an ATV trail along Spring Creek where there is currently no motorized use.  (Spring creek has a pure, archaic population of Colorado cutthroat trout and is inside qualifying roadless lands.)  The FS also made commitments in the decision document to build formidable barriers to illegal ATV use along 2 or 3 designated pack trails inside IRA (that had been getting extensive illegal use), and to make a larger commitment to follow up with law enforcement.  UEC did not appeal, and made sure the planners involved with the project understood why UEC chose deliberately not to appeal.  

• UEC’s wilderness proposal was submitted to 4 National Forests with request that it be analyzed in detail as an alternative wilderness recommendation in the revision.

Ashley NF:

• Roadless inventory meetings and written comments resulted in the ANF including old ponderosa pine areas, old burn areas with fire lines, areas that the forest thought were cut but field work noted was not, and large fingers of rugged roadless lands inside their new roadless inventory.  The Forest’s draft roadless inventory and UEC’s now match at least 95% of the time.  This is an outcome of the roadless inventory and comments.

Dixie and Fishlake NFs:

• These forests are doing a joint forest plan revision, and are being used as a national pilot project for the new forest planning process.  UEC participated in a roadless/wilderness “topical interest working group” (TWIG).  While the forest planners admitted deliberately ignoring the CFR through the process, benefits included:  Educating forest planners and others participating about exactly what a roadless area is, how they are identified/criteria (resulting in huge improvements of both Forest’s draft roadless inventories), and a better understanding of why many rural Utahans do not trust Utah wilderness organizations. 

Manti-La Sal NF:

• This Forest is by far the farthest along in the revision process.  UEC submitted scoping/NOI comments at least 3 times during the year.  The UEC submitted comments in meetings and in writing regarding the disastrous early roadless inventory drafts, and the Forest adjusted many of the boundaries in response increasing the roadless acreage by a couple hundred thousand acres. 

• Because the forest is farthest along and is actually in the formal NEPA scoping period, UEC submitted much more detailed comments on our wilderness proposal outlining why each unit recommended for wilderness by the UEC makes an excellent wilderness candidate, and explained how the boundary changes we made for our wilderness proposal make each unit fare much better when run through the Agency’s tests of capability, availability, and need for (more) wilderness.