What’s the Difference?  

The Conservation Alternative and the MLNF Alternative

When the Manti-La Sal NF plan revision is final, it will consist of a number of  components, including Species of Conservation Concern, areas judged eligible for Wilderness designation and Wild and Scenic River status, and multi-year commitments regarding how the forest will be managed. Among these commitments, the most important are timeline commitments (Objectives), clear sideboards for both Forest and user projects and activities (Standards), and guidelines for projects, activities, and uses (Guidelines). The Conservation Alternative has also identified outcomes that  need to be monitored, though the MLNF has not yet identified what they propose to monitor. 

​

Forest plan commitments will be made for 60 topics, each topic having its own Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. The current Conservation Alternative and initial Forest Service draft propose similar approaches for some of these topics and starkly different approaches for others. We have prepared charts that  identify particularly important differences between the Conservation Alternative and MLNF proposal – and why those differences matter. Overall, the two proposals differ in how healthy, resilient, species-rich, and wild the forest - its forests, woodlands, wetlands, creeks, shrublands and grasslands - will be in the future. 

​

It’s important to understand the critical differences between Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines (see below). Then just pick out whatever topics  you’re interested in – Recreation? Cultural resources? Livestock grazing? Fire? The Monticello Watershed? – and find out how the two alternatives differ. We welcome your suggestions for improving the Conservation Alternative on any or all topics.

​

For a definition of each term, see  "A Guide to Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines" below.

Photographer Tim Peterson