CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

3.5 Fisheries 

3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The effects to fisheries were analyzed by individual sixth level watershed (hydrologic unit) or 

combinations of sixth level watersheds determined by representatives of the Forest, FWS, and 

NMFS as most indicative of the quality of habitat for listed fishes on the Forest. 

Issues and Indicators 

Fisheries Issue 1: Travel management may impact habitats for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive fishes including the bull trout (a Management Indicator Species). 

Indicators: 

• Change in the watershed condition indicator for substrate embeddedness. 

• Change in the watershed condition indicator for stream bank condition. 

Background: 

This analysis determines the relative effects of alternatives to the existing travel management plan 

on fish species of concern and their habitat. Fish species of concern are defined as those species 

with long-term viability at risk. This includes species listed or proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq., and those on the Forest 

Service Intermountain Region sensitive species list. Collectively these species are referred to as 

TES species. Other species of interest or concern are Forest Management Indicator Species 

(MIS). Management Indicator Species are species designated by the Forest and used to track 

effects of management activities. 

The following species are listed as threatened under ESA (some with designated critical habitat): 

Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and their 

designated critical habitat, Snake River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and their designated 

critical habitat, and Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Bull trout were designated 

a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the PNF. Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki lewisi), are a Forest Service sensitive species. 

Effects to other fish species, such as redband trout, and other aquatic organisms were not found to 

be issues for a number of reasons including the species and/or habitat are widespread across the 

Forest. For these species, the discussion of changes to watershed conditions provides an 

indication of potential effects (see the Soil and Water Resources section). 

This analysis also determines the relative effects of alternatives to the existing travel management 

on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), in accordance with applicable requirements of section 305(b) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), implementing regulations in 50 CFR Part 600.920. EFH is 

coincident with designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon on the Forest, so all discussion of 

effects to critical habitat discloses effects to EFH. 

Effects to listed fish species on the PNF are typically analyzed through changes in habitat or 

population variables as defined in Appendix B of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 2003). These 

variables are called watershed condition indicators (WCIs). In this analysis WCIs are referred to 

simply as indicators. Travel management is most likely to affect the following two indicators: 

substrate embeddedness and stream bank condition. Selection of these indicators was based on 

studies of the effects of roads and trails on fish habitat. The indicators are indexed using 

modifications of definitions in Appendix B in order to use the best available information. 

3 - 140 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Substrate embeddedness was chosen as an indicator of fish habitat quality because it indicates the 

accumulation of fine sediment into fish habitat. Fine sediment accumulations are detrimental to 

habitat of TES trout and salmon on the PNF. Nelson et al. (2004) and other researchers have 

related increased road densities to increased sediment deposition in fish habitat. Relative future 

changes for this indicator were indexed by the relative change in total acreage open to motorized 

use, based on an assumption that embeddedness is related to the total area susceptible to erosion. 

This assumption is supported as discussed by the relationship to roads discussed below. 

Stream bank condition was used as an indicator for a variety of potential effects to fish habitat 

quality. Stream bank condition is assumed to be inversely related to the number of stream 

crossings indexed by system roads and trails intersecting streams. This number was obtained from 

the PNF Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS contains maps of roads and trails and 

waterways. This method likely underestimates the actual number of crossings, but does indicate 

relative changes by alternative. The potential number of spills of petroleum fuel and subsequent 

contamination of streams, as well as take of listed species from vehicles fording streams is 

assumed to be directly proportional to the number of stream crossings. This metric is assumed to 

be directly proportional to the areas adjacent to roads and trails open to camping, and the latter is 

not determined separately. 

In this analysis, road and trail mileage were assumed to be directly proportional to number of 

crossings and hence to stream bank condition. Road density was also used to make professional 

judgments about the likely condition of substrate embeddedness where there is limited data. In 

general, greater road densities have been correlated with greater impacts to fish habitat including 

increased substrate embeddedness, decreased stream bank condition, reduced large woody debris, 

and impaired habitat connectivity (Furniss et al. 1991, Nelson et al. 2004, Adams and Zurstadt 

2005). 

Changes in these indicators are analyzed by an individual sixth level watershed (hydrologic unit) 

or combinations of sixth level watersheds as directed by Appendix B of the Forest Plan (Forest 

Plan 2003). For simplicity, true sixth level watersheds as well as combination of watersheds are 

hereafter referred to as “watersheds.” 

Changes were analyzed for those watersheds containing TES and MIS fish species and where 

changes to the Travel Plan were proposed. Many watersheds occur within one management area 

(MA) on the PNF. The watersheds are listed in Table F-2 under their respective river basins. 

The functioning of each indicator in relation to habitat for listed fish species was determined 

based on definitions provided in the Forest Plan and Nelson and Burns (2005): “functioning 

appropriately” (FA), “functioning at risk” (FR), or “functioning at unacceptable risk” (FUR). A 

more in-depth description of these ratings is provided in the Fisheries Specialist Report and in the 

Affected Environment section. The Biological Assessments in the project record used for 

consultation pursuant to Endangered Species Act compliance also contain additional detail. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 141 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

3.5.2 Forest Plan Direction 

Forest Plan direction that guides management of fisheries and is pertinent to the Travel 

Management Plan is provided in Table F-1. 

Table F-1: Forest Plan Direction for Fisheries Pertinent to the Travel Management 

Analysis. 

Number Direction Page 

SWST01 Management actions shall be designed in a manner that maintains or restores water 

quality to fully support beneficial uses and native and desired non-native fish species 

and their habitat, except as allowed under SWRA Standard #4 below. Use the 

MATRIX located in Appendix B to assist in determining compliance with this standard. 

p. III-21 

SWST08 Fish passage shall be provided at all proposed and reconstructed stream crossings of 

existing and potential fish-bearing streams unless protection of pure-strain native fish 

enclaves from competition, genetic contamination, or predation by exotic fishes is 

determined to be an overriding management concern 

p. III-22 

SWGU01 Federal, state, county, tribal, and regulatory agency priorities should be considered 

early in the process of subbasin review, fine- and site/project-scale analyses, and 

restoration priorities to help ensure priorities compliment each other where possible, or 

at least minimize conflicts 

p. III-23 

SWGU02 When doing fine-scale assessments, the MATRIX in Appendix B should be used to 

assist in establishing reference and current conditions. Based on a comparison of 

current and desired conditions, identify management opportunities for watershed and 

aquatic restoration 

p. III-23 

TEST01 The Forest shall consult with the NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service as needed, and 

appropriate, to comply with consultation requirements under the Endangered Species 

Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

p. III-11 

TEST02 For Forest-wide, watershed, or project-level Biological Opinions (BOs) and Biological 

Assessments (BAs) with letters of concurrence, requirements shall continue to apply 

until their expiration date unless these documents are specifically updated during 

further review with related regulatory agencies. Exception to this standard: The 1995 

and 1998 Chinook and Steelhead Biological Opinions and 1998 Bull Trout Biological 

Opinion are replaced by the Biological Opinion for this Forest Plan revision... 

p. III-11 

TEST03 Design and implement projects to meet the terms of Forest Service approved portions 

of recovery plans. If a recovery plan does not yet exist, use the best information 

available (for example, BAs, BOs, letters of concurrence, Forest Service-approved 

portions of Conservation Strategies) until a recovery plan is written and approved. 

p. III-11 

TEST06 Management actions shall be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed 

species and their habitats. For listed fish species, use Appendix B for determining 

compliance with this standard 

p. III-14 

TEGU01 Discretionary actions should avoid take of listed species, and actions where the 

Forest’s discretion is limited should minimize adverse effects that could lead to a take 

p. III-14 

TEGU02 For proposed actions that may affect potential habitat of TEPC species, identify 

potential habitat and determine species presence within or near the project area. 

Document the rationale for not identifying potential habitat and determining species 

presence for TEPC species in the project record 

p. III-14 

TEGU03 Management actions in occupied Proposed or Candidate species habitat should be 

modified or relocated if the effects of the actions would contribute to a trend toward 

ESA listing for these species 

p. III-14 

The desired condition for all habitats of threatened, endangered and sensitive fishes is that they 

are functioning appropriately as defined in the Forest Plan, Appendix B (Forest Plan 2003), and 

Nelson and Burns (2005). 

3 - 142 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

3.5.3 Existing Condition 

Existing Condition - Fish Species of Concern 

The distribution of fish species of concern is shown for each watershed or combination of 

watersheds in Table F-2. The following species and habitat are addressed: 

Chinook salmon 

Species Distribution: Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon, listed as threatened 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal Register 1992: 57FR14653), occur on 

the Forest. Hereinafter, all references to Chinook salmon are for the listed species. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for Chinook salmon includes all river reaches presently or 

historically accessible and adjacent riparian zones, except reaches above impassable natural falls. 

The SFSR section 7 watershed and all of the subwatersheds previously defined contain habitat 

elements necessary to support Chinook salmon, and are at least partially accessible to the fish. 

Designation of critical habitat (Federal Register 1993: 58FR68543) specifically defines 

geographic areas, and essential habitat elements. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), is defined and analyzed in accordance with applicable requirements 

of section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), implementing regulations in 50 CFR Part 

600.920. EFH is coincident with designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon on the Forest. 

Steelhead 

Species Distribution: Snake River steelhead, listed as threatened by NMFS (Federal Register 

1997: 62FR43937), occurs on the Forest. Hereinafter, all references to steelhead are for the listed 

species. 

Critical Habitat: The final rule designating critical habitat for steelhead was published by 

NMFS on September 2, 2005 and took effect in 2006 (Federal Register 2006: 71FR52629). The 

Forest provides spawning and juvenile rearing, adult holding and migration habitat. 

Bull trout 

Species Distribution: Columbia River bull trout were listed as threatened by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Federal Register 1998: 63FR31647). Columbia River bull 

trout exist on the Forest. Hereinafter, all references to bull trout are for the listed species. Bull 

trout were identified as the only aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Payette 

National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan 2003). 

Critical Habitat: No critical habitat for bull trout was designated by the USFWS (Federal 

Register 2005: 70FR56211) that is affected by the Payette National Forest. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

Species Distribution: Westslope cutthroat trout are designated by the Regional Forester as a 

sensitive species and occur on the PNF. Westslope cutthroat trout were petitioned for listing 

(Federal Register 1998: 63FR31691) but were determined by the USFWS to not be warranted in 

2000 (Federal Register 2000: 65FR20120.) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 143 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable to Westslope cutthroat trout. 

Substrate Embeddedness and Stream Bank Condition 

The existing condition of the indicator of substrate embeddedness is displayed in Table F-2. 

Substrate embeddedness was evaluated from monitoring data using cobble embeddedness, free 

matrix counts, and core sampling or survey data based on percent fines, surface fines, or 

inferences based on roads. If these data were unavailable, then substrate embeddedness was 

evaluated based on professional judgment (PJ). The various datasets were reviewed for each 

watershed or a group of watersheds and a rating of “functioning appropriately” (FA), “functioning 

at risk” (FR), or “functioning at unacceptable risk” (FUR) was assigned based on direction 

provided in Appendix B of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 2003) and Nelson and Burns (2005). 

The existing condition of the indicator of stream bank condition is displayed in Table F-2. Stream 

bank condition is assumed to be inversely related to the number of stream crossings by roads and 

trails. The number of crossings is also assumed to be proportional to the potential number of 

spills of petroleum fuel and subsequent contamination of streams, as well as take of listed fishes 

from vehicles crossing fords. Stream bank condition is therefore a surrogate for many potential 

effects in this analysis. 

Stream bank condition was initially rated based on the number of stream crossings by roads and 

trails in each watershed or combination of watersheds. Then other factors were considered 

including the potential for fuel spills, disturbance of spawning fish, erosion at crossings, and take 

from vehicle fording of streams and a final rating was assigned of FA, FR, or FUR. Based on 

studies of the adverse effects of roads on fish habitat (Furniss et al 1991; Bonaminio 2004; 

Nelson et al. 2004; Adams and Zurstadt 2005) any crossing of a stream by a road was assumed to 

cause an adverse effect to listed fishes or their habitat and a rating of FA could not be assigned. 

Due to observed effects of trail crossings (Fisheries Specialist Report: Project Record), when the 

number of stream crossings per mile exceeded one the "Stream bank" indicator was rated as FR. 

When the number of stream crossings per mile exceeded more than twenty, the condition was 

considered FUR. These categories are used, because any single crossing can cause take of listed 

fishes, and because the level of use of fords that might cause take is unknown at the scale of this 

analysis. Distinction between FR and FUR is arbitrarily determined, because the distinction 

makes no difference to showing which alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Table F-2 shows that no watershed is rated as FA for both indicators of substrate embeddedness 

and stream bank condition. Most watersheds are FR or FUR for substrate embeddedness or 

stream bank condition, or both. A single summary of the habitat functionality is displayed here for 

the sake of clarity. In watersheds rated as FR or FUR for one or more indicators, any management 

actions must have short or long-term benefits to be consistent with the Forest Plan. More details 

about individual subwatersheds will be in the biological assessments prepared for consultation 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and those documents will be included in the project 

record. 

3 - 144 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-2. Existing Condition of Relevant Fish Habitat Indicators for Affected 

Watersheds and Combinations of Watersheds 

RIVER BASIN 

Watershed or combination 

of watersheds 

Species and 

Habitat 

Substrate Embeddedness Stream Bank 

Condition 

(# road / # trail 

crossings of 

streams) 

DEEP CREEK 

Deep Creek 

Bull trout (BT), 

Chinook salmon 

(CK), Critical Habitat 

(CH), Steelhead 

(SH), SH proposed 

CH(SHPCH) 

FR: 

Professional Judgment (PJ); 

2002:26.3 % embedded; 

2003: 20.9 % embedded; 

2004: 32.1 % embedded; 

2005: 28.5 % embedded; 

(Nelson 2006) 

FUR 

1 /16 

BROWNLEE RESERVOIR 

Indian Creek 

BT FUR: 

Data, PJ, Percent fines: 

Indian Creek (2004): 23.2% 

Un-named tributary (1992): 14.7% 

Placer Creek (1992): 5.7% 

Mann Creek (1992): 75.5% 

Ladder Creek (1992): 32% 

Huntley Gulch (2003): 20.6% 

Camp Creek (1992): 64% 

FUR 

39/14 

Bear Creek 

Crooked River 

BT FR: 

Data, PJ based on poorest condition, 

Percent fines: 

Bear Creek (2000): 7.2% 

Little Bear Creek (2000): 12.1% 

Mickey Creek (2000): 4.3% 

Wesley Creek (2000): 6.2% 

Crooked River (1994): 12.6% 

FUR 

566/35 

WEISER RIVER 

East Fork Weiser River 

BT FUR: 

Data, PJ, Percent fines: 

East Fork Weiser (2000): 7% 

Shingle Creek (1994): 30.9% 

Joker Creek (1994): 14% 

Dewey Creek (1994): 23.5% 

Cold Springs Cr (1994): 34% 

Bench Creek (2004): 19.8% 

FUR 

163/1 

Upper Hornet Creek 

BT FR: 

Data, PJ, Percent fines: 

Hornet Creek (2001): 6.9% 

Placer Creek (2001): 35.3% 

FUR 

24/0 

Upper Little Weiser River 

Anderson Creek 

BT FR: 

Data, PJ based on most bull trout being 

in Anderson and Sheep Creeks, 

Percent fines: 

Little Weiser Rvr (2005): 22.7% 

Fourbit Creek (1993): 95% 

Wolf Creek (2005): 19.2% 

Unnamed tributary (2005): 25.6% 

Anderson Creek (2005): 8.5% 

FUR 

194/28 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 145 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-2. Existing Condition of Relevant Fish Habitat Indicators for Affected 

Watersheds and Combinations of Watersheds 

RIVER BASIN 

Watershed or combination 

of watersheds 

Species and 

Habitat 

Substrate Embeddedness Stream Bank 

Condition 

(# road / # trail 

crossings of 

streams) 

Bull Corral Cr (2005): 23.3% 

Sheep Creek (2005): 3.3% 

LITTLE SALMON RIVER 

Mud Creek 

Big Creek 

Little Salmon River-Lower 

Goose Creek 

Upper Goose Creek 

Little Salmon River-Sixmile 

Creek 

Little Salmon River-Lower 

Meadows Valley 

Little Salmon River-Round 

Valley Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, Westslope 

cutthroat trout (WC) 

in downstream areas 

only 

FUR: 

Data, PJ, Percent fines: 

Goose Creek (2003): 19.2% (FA) 

Goose Creek (2004): 13.8% (FA) 

Goose Creek (2005): 25.3% (FR) 

Thorn Creek (2003): 27.5% (FR) 

Thorn Creek (2004): 23.7% (FR) 

Thorn Creek (2005): 9.8% (FA) 

Mud Creek (2003): 23.5% (FR) 

Mud Creek (2004): 27.3% (FR) 

Mud Creek (2005): 14.4% (FA) 

(Zurstadt & Bonaminio 2005; Nelson 

2006) 

Sixmile Creek (2005): 35.9% (FUR) 

Threemile Creek (2005): 32.1% (FUR) 

Cobble embeddedness; (calculated 

from free matrix data on file at PNF SO 

w/2004 formula) 

FUR 

386 /12 

Hard Creek 

Hazard Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data, PJ, Cobble embeddedness: 

Hazard Creek (2003): 21.3% (FR) 

Hazard Creek (2004): 10.3% (FA) 

Hazard Creek (2005): 18.2% (FA) 

Hard Creek (2003): 24.5% (FR) 

Hard Creek (2004): 21.1% (FR) 

Hard Creek (2005): 33.2% (FUR) 

(Zurstadt & Bonaminio 2005; Nelson 

2006) 

FUR 

84/41 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH 

FA: 

Data, PJ, Percent fines: 

Elk Creek (BLM 1994): 3% 

FUR 

4/14 

Upper Rapid River 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FA: 

Data, PJ, Cobble embeddedness: 

Rapid River (2003): 52.5% (FUR) 

Rapid River (2004): 36% (FUR) 

(Zurstadt & Bonaminio 2205; Nelson 

2006) 

Relatively unroaded watershed, though 

embeddedness levels are elevated, 

judged to be functioning appropriately 

for this watershed. 

FUR 

11/60 

Boulder Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data, M, PJ, Cobble embeddedness: 

Boulder Creek (2003): 21.9% (FR) 

Boulder Creek (2004): 17.4% (FA) 

Boulder Creek (2005): 17.0% (FA) 

(Zurstadt & Bonaminio 2005; Nelson 

2006) 

FUR 

144/14 

3 - 146 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-2. Existing Condition of Relevant Fish Habitat Indicators for Affected 

Watersheds and Combinations of Watersheds 

RIVER BASIN 

Watershed or combination 

of watersheds 

Species and 

Habitat 

Substrate Embeddedness Stream Bank 

Condition 

(# road / # trail 

crossings of 

streams) 

MAIN SALMON RIVER TRIBUTARIES: LITTLE SALMON RIVER TO SOUTH FORK SALMON RIVER 

Middle Salmon-Indian 

California Creek 

Middle Salmon-Bear 

Middle Salmon-Carey 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data, PJ, Surface fines: 

California Ck 4% (unpubl. data PNF 

1995), 25% (Overton et al. 1995). Carey 

Ck 16% (unpublished data, PNF 1995), 

15-22% (unpublished data, PNF 2005) 

FUR 

51/13 

Upper Warren Creek 

Middle Warren Creek 

Lower Warren Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data, PJ, Surface fines (Raleigh 1995) 

FUR 

71/31 

Little French Creek 

Lower French Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FUR: 

Data, PJ, Cobble embededness: 

Little French and French: 32.5% 

(Zurstadt and Bonaminio 2004) 

FUR 

36/58 

Elkhorn Creek BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data, PJ, 

Cobble embededness = 26% 

(Zurstadt and Bonaminio 2004) 

FUR 

14/15 

Partridge Creek BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FA: 

Data, PJ, Surface fines: 

6%, 82%, & low road densities 

FR 

0/13 

Lake Creek BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FA: 

Data, PJ, Surface fines: 

2, 6, 8, 25, 3, 5%, & low road densities 

FR 

0/13 

SOUTH FORK SALMON RIVER 

SF Salmon-Goat Creek 

Blackmare Creek 

SF Salmon-Fourmile 

SF Salmon-Camp Cr 

Buckhorn Creek 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FUR: 

Data (summarized in project record), PJ 

(Nelson et al. 2006a, Nelson et al. 

2006b, Nelson and Burns 2005) 

FUR 

93/134 

EF South Fork Salmon RiverLoosum Creek 

Lower EF SF Salmon 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FR: 

Data (summarized in project record), PJ 

(Nelson et al. 2006a, Nelson et al. 

2006b, Nelson and Burns 2005) 

FUR 

22/17 

Upper Secesh River 

Secesh River-Summit 

Secesh River-Victor Cr 

Secesh River-Zena Cr 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FA: 

Data (summarized in project record), PJ 

(Nelson et al. 2006a, Nelson et al. 

2006b, Nelson and Burns 2005) 

FUR 

87/53 

SF Salmon-Rock Creek 

Sheep Creek 

Bear Creek 

Pony Creek 

SF Salmon-Grouse Cr 

Lower SF Salmon 

BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FUR: 

Data (summarized in project record), PJ 

(Nelson et al. 2006a, Nelson et al. 

2006b, Nelson and Burns 2005) 

FUR 

40/94 

BIG CREEK 

Upper Big Creek BT, CK, CH, SH, 

SHPCH, WC 

FA: 

Data, PJ 

Big Creek: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 11.3% (FA) 

Free Matrix Data: 31.9% (FA) 

FUR 

34/20 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 147 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-2. Existing Condition of Relevant Fish Habitat Indicators for Affected 

Watersheds and Combinations of Watersheds 

RIVER BASIN 

Watershed or combination 

Species and 

Habitat 

Substrate Embeddedness Stream Bank 

Condition 

of watersheds (# road / # trail 

crossings of 

streams) 

Government Creek: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 37.6% (FUR) 

Free Matrix Data: 16.8% (FUR) 

Jacobs Ladder: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 20.3% (FA) 

Free Matrix Data: 41.0% (FA) 

Lower Logan: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 43.5% (FUR) 

Free Matrix Data: 13.5%(FUR) 

Upper Logan: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 25.8% (FR) 

Free Matrix Data: 27.2 (FA) 

Smith Creek: 

Cobble Embeddedness: 23.8% (FA) 

Free Matrix Data: 18.5% (FR) 

(Nelson and Burns 2004) 

Monumental Creek (3 sites): 

5-yr mean Free Matrix Data: 28-41% 

(FA) 

2003 Cobble Embeddedness: 2-20% 

(FA) 

2004 Free Matrix Data: 25-45% (FA) 

The weight of the data is assigned FA 

based on the condition the main stem of 

Big Creek, and the fact that 

Monumental Creek is FA 

(Nelson et al. 2006a and Nelson et al. 

2006b, Nelson and Burns 2005) 

Note: Affected fish species, and/or critical habitat may be in downstream areas. 

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct effects of travel plan implementation were analyzed for the portion of the watershed or 

combination of watersheds on National Forest System lands. Direct effects to listed, sensitive and 

MIS fish species from travel management are expected to be adverse in all alternatives, including 

the No Action Alternative. Adverse effects occur due to erosion and sediment generated by road 

and trail facilities and other uses, including motorized travel off roads and trails. Adverse effects 

occur due to stream instability caused at road and trail crossings, and take of listed salmonids at 

fords. Adverse effects would be minimized by activities proposed in the action alternatives (see 

description by alternative below). The action alternatives would lessen the rate of degradation, 

thereby benefiting fish species compared to the No Action Alternative except within 

subwatersheds in Alternative C. 

General effects of road crossings on stream bank condition are described by Furniss et al. (1991). 

On the Payette National Forest, Bonaminio (2004) documented a variety of effects to fish habitat 

3 - 148 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

that indicate as miles of access increase, the greater the degree of effect to fish habitat. Nelson et 

al. (2004) described that the amount of road was inversely related to fish habitat quality on the 

Forest. Adams and Zurstadt (2005) also demonstrated that fish passage barriers were directly 

related to the number of roads, because most road culverts on the Forest do not pass all life stages 

of all fish species. Roads and trails paralleling streams can interfere with large wood reaching the 

stream and cause increased erosion and decreased stream bank condition. 

Mitigation measures to reduce effects to listed species were identified for travel management 

during consultation with the NMFS and USFWS in 2001. These have not been effective at 

avoiding all take, especially at fords crossing streams in spawning habitats. In this analysis, we 

compare the relative differences of effects between the existing baseline and alternatives for 

travel management. 

Bull trout population viability and trends on the Payette National Forest have been documented 

by Burns et al. (2005). A variety of factors were used to assess viability including the number of 

life histories present, the degree of population fragmentation, the amount of road and other 

variables. Viability varies across the Forest. Decreasing populations of bull trout in the Weiser 

River and other westerly portions of the Forest are considered the least viable. Bull trout are most 

viable in the Salmon River basin of the Forest. Population fragmentation and lower population 

viability are associated with the highest road densities. 

No alternative would result in changes in road density. While some roads may be closed to use, 

the travel plan would not remove any roads or trails from the landscape through decommissioning 

and recontouring of the roadbed. Road density has a strong association with substrate 

embeddedness and stream bank condition. Because the number of roads and trails on the 

landscape does not change, only marginal changes are shown in the indicators used. Changes of 

roads or trails open to motorized use were not considered to be important in the analysis of effects 

when the estimated change was less than one mile by GIS calculation, because of uncertainty 

about the reliability of such small mapped changes; often, locations of roads and trails near 

watershed boundaries are mapped with a high degree of uncertainty with respect to actual 

direction of drainage. 

All action alternatives would change the amount of acreage open to motorized use. Cross-country 

motor vehicle use, particularly near streams, could cause disturbance and erosion leading to 

increased substrate embeddedness. The effects analysis of changes in the amount of acreage open 

to motorized use looked at two factors: 1) the amount of area currently open and 2) the location of 

the acres that remain open to motorized travel. The acreage change is of less significance when 

more of a watershed is already closed to use. For example, more of the South Fork Salmon River 

basin is closed to motorized use than the Weiser River basin. However, even where large areas are 

closed to cross-country motorized travel, the smaller areas that remain open to use could still 

cause erosion and sediment delivery if they occur near streams. Therefore, in the analysis of the 

effects of changes in areas open to motorized cross-country travel and the subsequent relative 

change in substrate embeddedness, professional judgments were made about the relative 

significance of the two factors described above. 

Professional judgments were based on the amount of area currently open, and the location of the 

acres remaining open to motorized travel. These two factors were also considered in the analysis 

of the effects of the alternatives on stream bank condition. For brevity, only the numbers of road 

and trail crossings of streams are displayed in Table F-2. The number of acres open to motorized 

travel is not displayed for the stream bank condition indicator, but the relative effects were taken 

into account. The effects on stream bank condition were determined to be greatest for roads and 

ATV trails followed by two-wheel motorized trails and then trails without motorized use. The 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 149 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

number of stream crossings by roads and trails was assumed to be directly proportional to road or 

trail length. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A (No Action), all but five watersheds are expected to degrade the substrate 

embeddedness indicator in the short and long term due to increased erosion from motorized use, 

especially in areas open to cross-country motor vehicle use (Table F-3). The exceptions are 

watersheds where conditions are expected to be maintained. The increased erosion is expected to 

result in increased substrate embeddedness in fish habitat. The existing condition would be 

temporarily maintained, because the time period is too short to realize the increased effects of 

increasing traffic. Direct effects of Alternative A are not consistent with Forest Plan direction to 

avoid degradation of watershed condition indicators, because there is no long term benefit. If long 

term Forest Plan objectives were to be met, they would likely be met piecemeal through the 

beneficial effects from other projects. Forest Plan direction is to revise the Travel Management 

Plan, so changes in travel and subsequent benefits would occur under Alternative A at some 

unknown rate. 

Stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in all watersheds under Alternative A 

because there is no change in the number or type of stream crossings. 

Table F-3. Effects of Alternative A on the Fish Habitat Indicators in Affected 

Watersheds or Combinations of Watersheds Based on Whether Conditions Would 

Be Improved (I), Maintained (M), or Degraded (D)

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative A 

Overall 

Effect 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Short-term Long-term Discussion of Effects 

Deep Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No change from FR 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No temporary change 

from FUR; roads and 

trails continue with 

existing effects. 

Indian Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No change from FUR; 

cross-country motor 

vehicle use accelerates 

erosion over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Bear Creek and Crooked River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

3 - 150 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-3. Effects of Alternative A on the Fish Habitat Indicators in Affected 

Watersheds or Combinations of Watersheds Based on Whether Conditions Would 

Be Improved (I), Maintained (M), or Degraded (D)

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative A 

Overall 

Effect 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Short-term Long-term Discussion of Effects 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

East Fork Weiser River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FUR; crosscountry motor vehicle 

use accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Upper Hornet Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Upper Little Weiser River, Anderson Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Mud Creek, Big Creek, Little Salmon River-Lower Goose Creek, Upper Goose Creek, Little Salmon RiverSixmile Creek, Little Salmon River-Lower Meadows Valley, & Little Salmon River-Round Valley Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FUR; crosscountry motor vehicle 

use accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Hard Creek & Hazard Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 151 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-3. Effects of Alternative A on the Fish Habitat Indicators in Affected 

Watersheds or Combinations of Watersheds Based on Whether Conditions Would 

Be Improved (I), Maintained (M), or Degraded (D)

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative A 

Overall 

Effect 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Short-term Long-term Discussion of Effects 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No temporary change 

from FA; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Upper Rapid River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change from FA; 

cross-country motor 

vehicle use accelerates 

erosion over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Boulder Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Middle Salmon-Indian Creek, California Creek, Middle Salmon-Bear Creek, Middle Salmon-Carey Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Upper Warren Creek, Middle Warren Creek, Lower Warren Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

3 - 152 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-3. Effects of Alternative A on the Fish Habitat Indicators in Affected 

Watersheds or Combinations of Watersheds Based on Whether Conditions Would 

Be Improved (I), Maintained (M), or Degraded (D)

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative A 

Overall 

Effect 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Short-term Long-term Discussion of Effects 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Little French Creek & Lower French Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FUR; crosscountry motor vehicle 

use accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects 

Elkhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change from FA 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change from FA; 

cross-country motor 

vehicle use accelerates 

erosion over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

South Fork Salmon River-Goat Creek, Blackmare Creek, South Fork Salmon River-Fourmile Creek, South 

Fork Salmon River-Camp Creek, Buckhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FUR; crosscountry motor vehicle 

use accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 153 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-3. Effects of Alternative A on the Fish Habitat Indicators in Affected 

Watersheds or Combinations of Watersheds Based on Whether Conditions Would 

Be Improved (I), Maintained (M), or Degraded (D)

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative A 

Overall 

Effect 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Short-term Long-term Discussion of Effects 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River-Loosum Creek, Lower East Fork South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FR; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Upper Secesh River, Secesh River-Summit Creek, Secesh River-Victor Creek, Secesh River-Zena Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FA; cross-country 

motor vehicle use 

accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

South Fork Salmon River-Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, Bear Creek, Pony Creek, South Fork Salmon-Grouse 

Creek, & Lower South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D No temporary change 

from FUR; crosscountry motor vehicle 

use accelerates erosion 

over time. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change from FUR; 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change from FA 

Stream bank 

condition 

M M M M No change from FUR 

roads and trails continue 

with existing effects. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Substrate Embeddedness 

Under Alternative B, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

degrade in the short and long term, but the rates would be lower than by making no change, hence 

Alternative B would benefit listed fish (Table F-4). The reduced rate would be due to the large 

areas closed to cross-country motor vehicle use. Some continued degradation is expected due to 

increased erosion over time from motorized use on designated roads and trails and the motorized 

travel allowed for dispersed camping and parking within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 

feet of motorized trails. The increased erosion is expected to result in increased substrate 

3 - 154 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

embeddedness in fish habitat. The existing condition would be maintained temporarily in the 

preceding watersheds, because the time period is too short to realize the increased effects of 

increasing traffic. Substrate embeddedness within the Upper Big Creek, Partridge Creek, and 

Lake Creek watersheds would be maintained. 

The watersheds with reduced rates of degradation and long-term benefits to fish are Deep Creek, 

Indian Creek, and the Wildhorse River, tributaries to the Weiser River basin, tributaries to the 

Little Salmon River basin, tributaries to the Salmon River between the Little Salmon River and 

the South Fork Salmon River, and the South Fork Salmon River except Partridge and Lake 

Creeks, tributaries in the Secesh River and downriver from there (Table F-4). 

Under Alternative B, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

improve because motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails and parking 

areas. No indiscriminate motorized travel would be allowed in a 300-foot area off designated 

roads and 100 feet off designated trails. The watersheds that would improve are tributaries to the 

South Fork Salmon River basin in the East Fork South Fork Salmon River and upstream in the 

South Fork Salmon River (Table F-4). 

For all watersheds, Alternative B is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to substrate 

embeddedness in fish habitat to avoid degradation of WCIs, unless there is demonstrable long 

term benefit. 

Stream Bank Conditions 

Under Alternative B, stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in many watersheds 

because there is no change in the number or type of stream crossings. No change in crossings 

would occur in Deep Creek, Indian Creek, tributaries to the Weiser River basin, tributaries to the 

Little Salmon River basin (except Rapid River, Hazard Creek, and Hard Creek), tributaries to the 

Salmon River between the Little Salmon River and the South Fork Salmon River, the South Fork 

Salmon River tributaries in the Secesh River and downriver from there, and Upper Big Creek. 

Stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in the Secesh River tributaries because the 

slight increase in stream crossings by motorized trails is expected to have only negligible effects. 

The rate of degradation is expected to be negligible compared to Alternative A because stream 

crossings on new designated routes would be improved as required by project design features (see 

Chapter 2). Most of these new routes occur in areas currently open to cross-country motor vehicle 

travel, hence the roadbeds and/or routes are being used. In addition, routes not designated for use 

could be proposed for decommissioning under future analysis, with potential long-term benefits. 

The indicator is improved in the following watersheds due to decreases in motorized use on trails: 

Bear Creek, Little Salmon River – Elk Creek, Middle Salmon River – Indian Creek, Warren 

Creek, French Creek, Partridge, Lake Creek, South Fork Salmon River – Goat Creek, East Fork 

South Fork Salmon River, and the South Fork Salmon River – Rock Creek. 

Alternative B is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to stream bank condition in fish 

habitat to avoid degradation of Watershed Condition Indicators (WCIs). Other areas are 

maintained or improved, so Alternative B is consistent with the Forest Plan (Table F-4). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 155 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-4. Effects of Alternative B on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative B 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Deep Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 95 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Indian Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

7,897 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Bear Creek and Crooked River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decreases by 

19,372 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 1.6 miles 

East Fork Weiser River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

15,916 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Hornet Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

15,916 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) No change 

Upper Little Weiser River and Anderson Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

21,982 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease by 0.9 miles 

Mud Cr., Big Cr., Little Salmon River-Lower Goose Creek, Upper Goose Cr., Little Salmon River-Sixmile Cr., 

Little Salmon River-Lower Meadows Valley, Little Salmon River-Round Valley Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

30,974 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Hard Creek & Hazard Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

1,506 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 10 miles 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 

3,095 

3 - 156 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-4. Effects of Alternative B on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative B 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 5.1 miles 

Upper Rapid River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 

1,722 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 7.1 miles 

Boulder Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

11,131 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease by 0.1 miles 

Middle Salmon-Indian Creek, California Creek, Middle Salmon-Bear Cr., Middle Salmon-Carey Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

16,150 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 3.5 miles 

Upper Warren Creek, Middle Warren Creek, Lower Warren Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

23,084 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.8 miles 

Little French Creek, Lower French Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,832 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 11.8 miles 

Elkhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 157 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease by 0.7 miles 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 124 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 5.3 miles 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 143 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 6.3 miles 

South Fork Salmon River-Goat Creek, Blackmare Creek, South Fork Salmon River-Fourmile Creek, South Fork 

Salmon River-Camp Creek, & Buckhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 727 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 157 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-4. Effects of Alternative B on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative B 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 31.5 miles 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River-Loosum Creek, Lower East Fork South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 340 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 15 miles 

Upper Secesh River, Secesh River-Summit Creek, Secesh River-Victor Creek, Secesh River-Zena Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

19,981 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 5.8 miles in areas 

open to cross-country motor 

vehicle use. 

Opportunities increase and 

PDF are applied. 

South Fork Salmon River-Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, Bear Creek, Pony Creek, South Fork Salmon-Grouse 

Creek, Lower South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,229. Affected by upstream 

improvements. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 10.1 miles 

Upper Big Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Acreage open to camping 

adjacent to roads and trails 

decreases on the Krassel 

District 

Stream bank 

condition 

M M M M No change 

3 - 158 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Alternative C 

Substrate Embeddedness 

Under Alternative C, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

degrade in the short and long term at the same rate as Alternative A due to increased erosion from 

motorized use, especially in areas open to cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

The condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to degrade in the short 

and long term, but the rates would be lower than by making no change, hence Alternative C 

would benefit listed fish in these watersheds (Table F-5). These watersheds include: Deep Creek, 

tributaries to the Brownlee Reservoir, tributaries to the Weiser River basin, tributaries to the Little 

Salmon River basin, tributaries to the Salmon River between the Little Salmon River and the 

South Fork Salmon River (except Partridge and Lake Creeks), and South Fork Salmon River 

tributaries in the Secesh River and downriver from there. 

Alternative C is not consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid degradation of the Watershed 

Condition Indicator (WCI) of substrate embeddedness, unless there is demonstrable long term 

benefit, in the South Fork Salmon River – Goat Creek, and the East Fork South Fork Salmon 

River watersheds. Increased erosion is expected to in increase substrate embeddedness in fish 

habitat resulting in degradation of the WCI. Temporarily, the existing condition would be 

maintained in the watersheds listed above, because the temporary time period is too short to 

realize the degrading effects of increasing traffic. 

Alternative C is consistent with Forest Plan direction for the indicator of substrate embeddedness 

in Upper Big Creek (Middle Fork Salmon River tributary), Partridge Creek, and Lake Creek 

(Main Salmon River tributaries) watersheds, because conditions in these watersheds are 

maintained. 

Stream Bank Conditions 

Under Alternative C, stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in some watersheds 

because there is no change in the number or type of stream crossings. No change in crossings 

would occur in the Deep Creek, Indian Creek, Bear Creek and Crooked River, tributaries to the 

Weiser River basin, tributaries to the Little Salmon River basin, tributaries to the Salmon River 

between the Little Salmon River and the South Fork Salmon River (except tributaries to Warren 

Creek, French Creek, and Middle Salmon River – Indian Creek), and the South Fork Salmon 

River tributaries in the East Fork South Fork Salmon River. 

Stream bank conditions are expected to be improved in some watersheds due to a decreased 

number of stream crossings. Tributaries to Warren Creek, French Creek, and Middle Salmon 

River – Indian Creek are expected to improve with decreased numbers of stream crossings. 

Stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in the Secesh River tributaries because the 

slight increase in stream crossings by motorized trails is expected to have only negligible effects. 

The rate of degradation is expected to be negligible compared to Alternative A because stream 

crossings on new designated routes would be improved as required by project design features (see 

Chapter 2). Most of these new routes occur in areas open to cross-country motor vehicle travel, 

hence the roadbeds and/or routes are currently being used. In addition, routes not designated for 

use could be proposed for decommissioning under future analysis, with potential long-term 

benefits. 

Stream bank conditions in the tributaries to the South Fork Salmon River (except those in the 

Secesh River and East Fork South Fork Salmon River) are expected to degrade because of the 

increase in stream crossings by motorized trails. The new motorized routes would occur in areas 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 159 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

currently closed to cross-country motor vehicle use. The Forest Plan requires associated activities 

to provide long-term benefits (SWST04). While roads and trails could be identified for 

decommissioning, the decision to do so is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Alternative C is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to stream bank condition in fish 

habitat to avoid degradation of Watershed Condition Indicators (WCIs), in all watersheds except 

for the tributaries to the South Fork Salmon River (excluding those in the Secesh River and East 

Fork South Fork Salmon River). Other areas are maintained or improved. However, the 

tributaries to the South Fork Salmon River (except those in the East Fork South Fork Salmon 

River) could be consistent with Forest Plan direction in the future as opportunities to rehabilitate 

closed roads are implemented (Table F-5). 

Table F-5. Effects of Alternative C on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative C 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Deep Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 95 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Indian Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

7,882 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M Decrease by 0.7 miles 

Bear Creek and Crooked River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) D (<A) D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

19,268 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M Increases 2.0 miles in an area 

now open to motorized use. 

Opportunities increase and 

PDF are applied. 

East Fork Weiser River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

15,905 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 0.4 miles 

Upper Hornet Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,281 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Little Weiser River & Anderson Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

21,824 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increases 5.9 miles in an area 

now open to motorized use. 

Opportunities increase and 

PDF are applied. 

3 - 160 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-5. Effects of Alternative C on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative C 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Mud Creek, Big Cr., Little Salmon River-Lower Goose Cr., Upper Goose Creek, Little Salmon River -Sixmile 

Cr., Little Salmon River-Lower Meadows Valley, Little Salmon River-Round Valley Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease from 

40,970 to 9,720 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Hard Creek & Hazard Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

14,812 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 0.4 miles 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,972 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Rapid River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

1,552 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Boulder Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

11,128 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Middle Salmon-Indian Cr., California Cr., Middle Salmon-Bear Cr., & Middle Salmon-Carey Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

16,444 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 3.5 miles 

Upper Warren Creek, Middle Warren Creek, & Lower Warren Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

23,084 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.8 miles 

Little French Creek, & Lower French Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,617 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.8 miles 

Elkhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 144 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 161 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-5. Effects of Alternative C on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative C 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

South Fork Salmon River-Goat Creek, Blackmare Creek, South Fork Salmon River-Fourmile Creek, South 

Fork Salmon River-Camp Creek, Buckhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D Open acres increase by 98 

Stream bank 

Condition 

D D D D Increase by 4.3 miles in areas 

now closed to motorized use 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River-Loosum Creek, & Lower East Fork South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D M D D Open acres increase by 13 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 0.3 miles 

Upper Secesh River, Secesh River-Summit Creek, Secesh River-Victor Creek, Secesh River-Zena Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

19,981 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 5.8 miles in areas 

open to cross-country motor 

vehicle use. Opportunities 

increase and PDF are 

applied. 

South Fork Salmon River-Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, Bear Creek, Pony Creek, South Fork Salmon-Grouse 

Creek, & Lower South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

21,732 

Stream bank 

Condition 

D D D D Increase 8 miles in areas 

closed to motorized use. 

Upper Big Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Acreage open to camping 

adjacent to roads and trails 

decreases on the Krassel 

District 

Stream bank 

condition 

M M M M No change 

3 - 162 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Alternative D 

Substrate Embeddedness 

The condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to degrade in the short 

and long term, but the rates would be lower than by making no change, hence Alternative D 

would benefit listed fish in the these watersheds (Table F-6). These watersheds include: Deep 

Creek, tributaries to the Brownlee Reservoir, tributaries to the Weiser River basin, tributaries to 

the Little Salmon River basin, tributaries to the Salmon River between the Little Salmon River 

and the South Fork Salmon River, and the South Fork Salmon River tributaries in the Secesh 

River and downriver from there. 

The increased erosion is expected to result in increased substrate embeddedness in fish habitat. 

The existing condition would be maintained temporarily in the preceding watersheds, because the 

temporary time period is too short to realize the increased effects of increasing traffic 

Under Alternative D, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

improve because motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads, trails and parking 

areas. No motorized travel would be allowed off roads and trails except for camping in a 300-foot 

area off designated roads and 100 feet off designated trails. The watersheds that would improve 

include tributaries to the South Fork Salmon River basin in the East Fork South Fork Salmon 

River, and upstream from it in the South Fork Salmon River. 

Alternative D is consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid degradation of the WCIs of 

substrate embeddedness, unless there is demonstrable long-term benefit. This is the case in all 

watersheds except Upper Big Creek (Middle Fork Salmon River tributary) where the existing 

condition is maintained. 

Stream Bank Conditions 

Under Alternative D, stream bank conditions are expected to be improved or maintained in all 

watersheds because the number or type of stream crossings decreases or shows no change. No 

change in crossings would occur in Deep Creek, Indian Creek, tributaries to the Weiser River 

basin (except the Little Weiser River), and tributaries to the Little Salmon River basin (except 

Rapid River, Hard and Hazard Creeks, and Elk Creek). Stream bank conditions in the following 

watersheds would improve with decreased numbers of stream crossings: tributaries to Bear Creek 

and Crooked River, Little Weiser River, Rapid River, and Hard Creek, Hazard Creek, and Elk 

Creek (Little Salmon River tributaries), Warren Creek, Partridge Creek, Lake Creek, and the 

entire South Fork Salmon River basin. 

Alternative D is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to stream bank condition in 

fish habitat to avoid degradation of WCIs, because all watersheds are maintained or improved 

(Table F-6). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 163 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-6. Effects of Alternative D on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative D 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Deep Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 95 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Indian Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

7,897 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Bear Creek and Crooked River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

19,372 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 1.6 miles 

East Fork Weiser River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

15,916 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Hornet Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,281 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Little Weiser River & Anderson Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

22,082 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 4.9 miles 

Mud Creek, Big Cr., Little Salmon River-Lower Goose Cr., Upper Goose Cr., Little Salmon River-Sixmile Cr., 

Little Salmon River-Lower Meadows Valley, Little Salmon River-Round Valley Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

30,974 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Hard Creek & Hazard Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

15,131 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 12.9 miles 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

3 - 164 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-6. Effects of Alternative D on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative D 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 

3,106 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 5.6 miles 

Upper Rapid River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

1,722 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 7.1 miles 

Boulder Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

11,131 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease 0.1 miles 

Middle Salmon-Indian Creek, California Creek, Middle Salmon-Bear Creek, & Middle Salmon-Carey Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

16,604 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 9.9 miles 

Upper Warren Creek, Middle Warren Creek, & Lower Warren Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

23,084 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.8 miles 

Little French Creek & Lower French Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

2,928 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 15.8 miles 

Elkhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (A*) M D (A*) D (A*) Open acres decrease by 195 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.4 miles 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 124 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 5.3 miles 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 143 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 165 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-6. Effects of Alternative D on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <D). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative D 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 6.3 miles 

South Fork Salmon River-Goat Creek, Blackmare Creek, South Fork Salmon River-Fourmile Creek, South 

Fork Salmon River-Camp Creek, & Buckhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

I M I I Open acres decrease by 727 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 31.5 miles 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River-Loosum Creek, Lower East Fork South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

I M I I Open acres decrease by 340 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 15 miles 

Upper Secesh River, Secesh River-Summit Creek, Secesh River-Victor Cr., & Secesh River-Zena Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M (A*) M M (A*) M (A*) Open acres decrease by 

20,296 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 7.6 miles 

South Fork Salmon River-Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, Bear Creek, Pony Creek, South Fork Salmon-Grouse 

Creek, & Lower South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 

22,353. Affected by upstream 

improvements. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 12.7 miles 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Acreage open to camping 

adjacent to roads and trails 

decreases on the Krassel 

District 

Stream bank 

condition 

M M M M No change 

Alternative E 

Substrate Embeddedness 

Under Alternative E, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

degrade in the short and long term, but the rates would be lower than by making no change, hence 

Alternative E would benefit listed fish (Table F-7). The reduced rate would be due to the large 

areas closed to cross-country motor vehicle use. Some continued degradation is expected due to 

increased erosion over time from motorized use on designated roads and trails and the motorized 

travel allowed for parking and dispersed camping within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 

feet of motorized trails. The increased erosion is expected to result in increased substrate 

embeddedness in fish habitat. The watersheds that would degrade at reduced rates with long-term 

3 - 166 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

benefits to fish are Deep Creek, tributaries to the Weiser River basin, tributaries to the Little 

Salmon River basin, tributaries to the Salmon River between the Little Salmon River and the 

South Fork Salmon River, and the South Fork Salmon River tributaries in the Secesh River and 

downriver from there (Table F-7). 

Under Alternative E, the condition of substrate embeddedness in some watersheds is expected to 

improve because motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails and parking 

areas. No indiscriminate motorized travel would be allowed in a 300-foot area off designated 

roads and 100 feet off designated trails. The watersheds that would improve are tributaries to the 

South Fork Salmon River basin in the East Fork South Fork Salmon River (Table F-7). Upper Big 

Creek is maintained. 

For all watersheds, Alternative E is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to substrate 

embeddedness in fish habitat to avoid degradation of WCIs, unless there is demonstrable long 

term benefit. 

Stream Bank Conditions 

Under Alternative E, stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in many watersheds 

because there is no change in the number or type of stream crossings. No change in crossings 

would occur in the Deep Creek, Indian Creek, Bear Creek, Crooked River, tributaries to the 

Weiser River basin, tributaries to the Little Salmon River basin in Mud Creek... and Little 

Salmon- Elk Creek and Boulder Creek, Elkhorn, Partridge and Lake Creek (Salmon River 

tributaries) and in the Secesh River and downriver from there in the South Fork Salmon River - 

Rock Creek. 

Stream bank conditions are expected to be maintained in the Secesh River tributaries because the 

slight increase in stream crossings by motorized trails is expected to have only negligible effects. 

The rate of degradation is expected to be negligible compared to Alternative A because stream 

crossings on new designated routes would be improved as required by project design features (see 

Chapter 2). Most of these new routes occur in areas open to cross-country motor vehicle, hence 

the roadbeds and/or routes are currently being used. In addition, routes not designated for use 

could be proposed for decommissioning under future analysis, with potential long-term benefits. 

Improvement would occur in Hard Creek and Hazard Creek, Rapid River, Middle Salmon River – 

Indian, Warren Creek, French Creek, South Fork Salmon River – Goat Creek, and East Fork 

South Fork Salmon River because of reduced trail mileage open to motorized use. 

Alternative E is consistent with Forest Plan direction with respect to stream bank condition in fish 

habitat to avoid degradation of WCIs. Other areas are maintained or improved, so Alternative E is 

consistent with the Forest Plan (Table F-7). 

Table F-7. Effects of Alternative E on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative E 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Deep Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D(<A) M D(<A) D(<A) Open acres decrease by 95 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 167 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-7. Effects of Alternative E on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative E 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Indian Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 7,882 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M(A*) M(A*) M(A*) Increase by 0.7 mi. 

Bear Creek and Crooked River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decreases by 19,169 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M(A*) M(A*) M(A*) Increases 6.9 mi. in an area now 

open to motorized use. 

Opportunities increase and PDF 

are applied. 

East Fork Weiser River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 15,916 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Hornet Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 2,201 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) No change 

Upper Little Weiser River and Anderson Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 21,845 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increases 5 mi. in an area now 

open to motorized use. 

Opportunities increase and PDF 

are applied. 

Mud Cr., Big Cr., Little Salmon River-Lower Goose Creek, Upper Goose Cr., Little Salmon River-Sixmile Cr., 

Little Salmon River-Lower Meadows Valley, Little Salmon River-Round Valley Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 30,974 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Hard Creek & Hazard Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 14,937 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 4.8 mi. 

Little Salmon River-Elk Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 2,972 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Rapid River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Open acres decrease by 1,602 

3 - 168 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-7. Effects of Alternative E on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative E 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2 mi. 

Boulder Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 11,131 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease by 0.1 mi. 

Middle Salmon-Indian Creek, California Creek, Middle Salmon-Bear Cr., Middle Salmon-Carey Cr. 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 16,429 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 2.9 mi. 

Upper Warren Creek, Middle Warren Creek, Lower Warren Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 23,048 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 1.4 mi. 

Little French Creek, Lower French Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 2,684 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 5.7 mi. 

Elkhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 157 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Decrease by 0.7 mi. 

Partridge Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Lake Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M No change 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

South Fork Salmon River-Goat Creek, Blackmare Creek, South Fork Salmon River-Fourmile Creek, South Fork 

Salmon River-Camp Creek, & Buckhorn Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 727 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 15 mi. 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River-Loosum Creek, Lower East Fork South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

I M I I Open acres decrease by 340 

Stream bank 

Condition 

I I I I Decrease by 15 mi. 

Upper Secesh River, Secesh River-Summit Creek, Secesh River-Victor Creek, Secesh River-Zena Cr. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 169 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table F-7. Effects of Alternative E on the Fish Habitat Indicators 

In affected watersheds or combinations of watersheds based on whether conditions would be improved (I), 

maintained (M), or degraded (D). Change negligibly different than the No Action Alternative = (A*), rate of change 

lower than other alternatives = (<A, <B, <C). “Change” represents approximate change from Alternative A in acres 

open to motorized use (for Substrate Embeddedness) or miles of roads and trails (for Stream Bank Condition) 

Pathways & 

Indicators 

Effects of Alternative E 

Effects 

Expected Trend 

Temporary Change 

Shortterm Longterm 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 20,022 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M (A*) M (A*) M (A*) Increase by 3.7 mi. in areas open 

to cross-country motor vehicle 

use. 

Opportunities increase and PDF 

are applied. 

South Fork Salmon River-Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, Bear Creek, Pony Creek, South Fork Salmon-Grouse 

Creek, Lower South Fork Salmon River 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

D (<A) M D (<A) D (<A) Open acres decrease by 21,949. 

Affected by upstream 

improvements. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

Upper Big Creek 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

M M M M Acreage open to camping 

adjacent to roads and trails 

decreases on the Krassel District. 

Stream bank 

Condition 

M M M M No change 

3.5.5 Cumulative Effects 

Under all action alternatives, habitat for listed fishes is expected to trend toward Forest Plan 

objectives in the long term, because Forest Plan direction requires that management actions be 

implemented to benefit watershed conditions. These other actions could include road and trail 

maintenance and decommissioning and mine rehabilitation. The rate of change would be 

influenced by direct effects of changes in travel management as they incrementally interact with 

other portions of Forest Plan implementation. These other potential effects of Forest Plan 

implementation are not quantified in this analysis and are not a result of the travel plan. 

Effects of Alternatives combined with effects of other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions are expected to be as described for the independent effects of the action. A list of those 

other actions is available in Appendix D and the Project Record. For example, the Burgdorf Road 

Management Decision will result in activities that trend that area toward meeting the Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) goals in all alternatives; whereas the Paddy Flat Vegetation 

Management Project would have no effect to listed and sensitive fish species. The Project Record 

contains Biological Assessments for all other ongoing federal actions that have combined effects 

to listed fishes in the river basins analyzed herein. Even though the issue evaluated in this text is 

for listed species, the definition of cumulative effects herein is that for NEPA and not the 

definition used under the ESA; the latter usage is reserved for Biological Assessments prepared 

under the ESA for the federal action that will be written based on this NEPA analysis. 

Implementation of the ACS would be piecemeal so that effects of other activities on substrate 

embeddedness and stream banks are extremely uncertain. 

3 - 170 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
F I SHERI E S CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

When Alternative A is combined with the effects of ground disturbing actions in the watersheds 

evaluated, and uncertainty about restoration actions is taken into account, it is the least likely to 

be consistent with Forest Plan implementation in the long run. Alternative C has a similar 

probability to Alternative A, while Alternatives B, D, and E have a higher probability to meet 

long-term Forest Plan objectives for fish habitat rehabilitation. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

Permanent facilities are not changed in any watershed containing TES or MIS species to an extent 

that loss of production occurs for an implemented action. With no changes in the transportation 

system (roads and trails) there are expected to be no irretrievable or irreversible changes to fish 

habitat, because permanent facilities are not changed. Irretrievable loss of fish production would 

only occur in a case where an action was implemented that caused permanent loss of some fish 

production. Avoidance of this would be insured through the consultation process with NMFS and 

FWS. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to listed species will be developed 

through consultation and made a part of any implemented alternative. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

Forest Plan direction other than that described below is beyond the scope of this analysis 

(Fisheries Specialist Report: Project Record). Forest Plan consistency is represented by 

consistency with standards and guidelines. Specifically, SWST12 (Forest Plan 2003: III-23) 

applies for any construction related to redesign of roads or trails to accommodate changed traffic; 

however, those designs and this standard would be required during implementation. Applicable 

guideline SWGU01 (Forest Plan 2003: III-23) would be met for all alternatives by considering 

other agency and entity comments on this draft EIS. SWGU02 (Forest Plan 2003: III-23) is 

adhered to by completion of evaluation of the appropriate Watershed Condition Indicators (WCIs) 

as directed by Appendix B. SWGU11 (Forest Plan 2003: III-24) applies because transportation of 

hazardous materials must comply with 49 CFR 171 in all alternatives. SWGU13 (Forest Plan 

2003: III-24) is complied with by identifying which watersheds containing TES fishes are 

affected. Standards for TES (Forest Plan 2003: III-11) from TEST01 through TEST06 apply and 

consultation with NMFS and FWS will occur for listed fishes before the Record of Decision 

(ROD) is approved. Likewise the travel plan will comply with guidelines TEGU01 through 

TEGU06 (Forest Plan 2003: III-14) by consulting with FWS and NMFS. TEGU14 does not apply 

because no changes in fish passage are within the scope of this action. 

Management area direction was reviewed by the Ranger Districts’ staffs and compliance with that 

direction was confirmed. In general, no new facilities would be constructed in MPCs that require 

restoration of TES fish habitat (such as 3.1 and 3.2), with the exception of the proposals in 

Alternative C in the South Fork Salmon River watersheds (see discussion below). Opportunities 

to rehabilitate roads and trails would still exist apart from this action. 

Forest Plan standards SWST01, and SWST04 require analysis of Watershed Condition Indicators 

(WCIs) as defined in Appendix B and also require that indicators not be degraded without short or 

long-term benefits. To elaborate, these standards require that no management action will degrade 

or retard attainment of properly functioning conditions except where outweighed by demonstrable 

short or long term benefits, or where the Forest Service has limited authority. In the case of the 

Travel Plan, the Forest Service has discretion, so there must be long term benefits in order to 

comply with the Forest Plan. All action alternatives, with one exception (Alternative C), would 

reduce the rate of long-term degradation in a watershed when compared to No Action. This 

reduction in degradation rate is interpreted to be a benefit. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 171 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT F I SHERI E S 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Based on the analysis of the effects to the two watershed condition indicators (substrate 

embeddedness and stream bank condition) a determination was made on whether the watershed 

condition would be maintained, degraded, or improved over time based on definitions provided in 

the Forest Plan, Appendix B. To maintain means that conditions stay within the range of FA 

where that condition occurs at present; in other cases (FU or FUR) a condition is not changed, or 

there is negligible change. To degrade means that an area that is FA declines in function to 

another category, or areas that are now at another functionality decline. To improve means that 

more than a negligible amount of functionality is increased. 

Under all alternatives degradation of some watersheds would occur in the long term because of 

anticipated increases in motorized use on roads and trails over time. Alternatives that lessen the 

rate of long term degradation are beneficial compared to no change, and are therefore considered 

to be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Action alternatives B, D, and E are consistent with the Forest Plan because proposed activities 

(such as closure of areas to cross-country motor vehicle use) would reduce the anticipated rate of 

degradation compared to doing nothing. 

Proposals in Alternative C would result in degradation of WCIs in some watersheds and therefore 

would not be consistent with the Forest Plan, Appendix B. This degradation would occur in areas 

currently closed to motorized travel that are proposed for new motorized uses – the South Fork 

Salmon River – Goat Creek, and East Fork South Fork Salmon River. The new motorized use is 

expected to cause degradation without “demonstrable short or long-term benefits” (SWST04). 

Such benefits could be shown by decommissioning of other roads and trails in these watersheds, 

but those activities were determined to be outside the scope of the Travel Plan analysis. 

Opportunities to rehabilitate roads and trails would still exist apart from this action. If there is 

degradation and presently no long-term benefit in a watershed, then mitigation might include road 

decommissioning and other measures that are beyond the scope of this analysis. All action 

alternatives provide numerous opportunities to meet long-term Forest Plan fish habitat objectives 

by designating closed roads and trails that could be rehabilitated by future actions. 

Project Record 

The Fisheries Specialist Report in the Project Record is incorporated into this EIS (40 CFR 

1502.21). The fisheries specialist relied on the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, 

conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation in the Fisheries Specialist Report to 

make the conclusions presented in this EIS. 

3 - 172 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

3.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis 

Public comment, Forest Plan direction, and law and regulation shaped the scope of the wildlife 

analysis. This analysis describes the effects of differing systems of motorized and non-motorized 

roads, trails, areas, and over-snow use on wildlife species of concern. 

Wildlife species of concern are identified by the PNF Forest Plan (2003). They include species 

listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and those on the Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Other species or groups of species of concern include 

Management Indicator Species, migratory birds (due to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

Executive Order), and elk (species of special interest). 

Threatened and endangered species on the PNF include bald eagle, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and 

the northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS). Wolves within the designated Central Idaho Wolf 

Recovery Area (CIWRA) were classified as threatened, nonessential experimental populations 

under the ESA (USDI 2000) until March 2003. Since then, the distinct population segment within 

Idaho was re-classified by the USFWS and the threatened status was dropped. The population is 

treated as a proposed species with effects evaluated based on jeopardy to the population. The 

southern Idaho ground squirrel (SIDGS) and yellow-billed cuckoo are candidate species. The 

SIDGS was recently added to the list of species that may occur on the Weiser Ranger District, but 

neither this species nor the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on the PNF. 

Sensitive species known to occur on the Forest potentially affected by the proposed activities 

include Columbia spotted frog, boreal owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, northern goshawk, 

three-toed woodpecker, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, fisher, white-headed woodpecker, and 

wolverine. Candidate and sensitive species not known to occur on the Forest, have limited 

potential habitat or habitat that would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives are 

addressed in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record), but not included in the EIS. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are representative species whose habitat conditions or 

populations are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a 

particular area. Wildlife MIS for the PNF are the pileated woodpecker and white-headed 

woodpecker. 

The Payette National Forest, outside of Wilderness, was considered to be the area of analysis for 

direct and indirect effects. The FC-RONR Wilderness was included in the analysis area for 

cumulative effects for lynx and wolverine. In addition, the status of source habitat from historical 

to current times within the Central Idaho Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) was also 

disclosed for certain species. The disclosure provides a link to analyses of species and habitat 

status conducted at the larger scale of the Columbia River Basin. These larger scale analyses were 

conducted by a team of scientists in the late 1990s (Wisdom et al. 2000). The analyses looked at 

source habitat for ERUs. The Central Idaho Mountains ERU includes 90 percent of the Payette 

National Forest. The Blue Mountains ERU encompasses the remaining 10 percent of the Forest 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Public concerns related to wildlife were identified during the scoping process. The Wildlife 

Specialist’s Report provides a list of the concerns and how these are addressed in the wildlife 

analysis. Substantial concerns became issues that drove the analysis of effects to wildlife. These 

are summarized below in the background discussion for the issues and indicators. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 173 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Issues and Indicators 

Wildlife Issue 1: Motorized travel may affect summer and winter elk habitat and elk 

vulnerability during hunting season. 

Indicators – Summer and Hunting Season: 

• Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use. 

• Density (miles of road and motorized trail/square mile of area) of open NFS roads and 

motorized trails by watershed (5th hydrologic unit) in summer and fall. 

• Percent of elk security habitat available during hunting season by Elk Analysis Area (EAA) on 

NFS land. 

Indicators – Winter: 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within elk winter range. 

• Acres and percent of elk winter range open to over-snow vehicle use. 

Background: 

The public expressed a variety of concerns related to elk including elk security and availability 

for elk for hunting and viewing. Some publics wanted more opportunities for motorized hunting 

and viewing access, while others asked for more closures to improve the hunting experience and 

elk habitat. The Forest Plan also directs the analysis of effects to elk (p. III-28: WIGU08). 

Wildlife Issue 2: Motorized travel may affect Canada lynx habitat during summer and winter. 

Indicators – Summer: 

• Density of roads and motorized trails within lynx habitat. 

Indicators – Winter: 

• Acres open and closed to over-snow vehicle use in lynx habitat. 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within lynx habitat. 

• Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity. 

Background: 

The lynx is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(LCAS) provides a methodology for analyzing the effects of activities on Canada lynx habitat and 

populations (Ruediger et al. 2000). The PNF Forest Plan (2003) incorporates direction from and 

is consistent with the LCAS (see Table W-1). Some members of the public were concerned that 

lynx conservation measures are too restrictive, while others wanted all necessary conservation 

measures applied. See additional discussion under Wildlife Issue 5. 

Wildlife Issue 3: Over-snow vehicle use may affect wolverine denning habitat. 

Indicators: 

• Percent of wolverine denning habitat closed to over-snow vehicle use. 

• Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity. 

Background: 

The wolverine is a Forest Service Sensitive Species. The Forest Plan provides direction for 

wolverine conservation (see Table W-1). Some members of the public were concerned that 

measures to protect wolverine may be too restrictive, while others wanted all necessary 

conservation measures applied. The wolverine is a wide ranging species that may be particularly 

vulnerable to loss of habitat connectivity. See additional discussion under Wildlife Issue #5. 

3 - 174 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Wildlife Issue 4: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of the pileated 

woodpecker (PNF MIS for large tree and snag dependent species), the white-headed woodpecker 

(MIS and Sensitive Species), and the three-toed woodpecker (Sensitive Species). 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Background: 

The Forest Plan identified the pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker as MIS that 

serve as indicators of the presence and condition of specific habitats or habitat conditions. On the 

PNF, the pileated woodpecker is the MIS for moderately dense mature forest habitats and the 

white-headed woodpecker is the MIS for mature ponderosa pine stands with low crown densities. 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Background: 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to review any project authorized, 

funded, or carried out to determine that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any proposed, threatened, or endangered species. This review and determination is 

provided in the EIS and in a Biological Assessment (BA) (see Project Record). 

During consultation with USFWS on the Biological Assessment for the FEIS, concerns were 

raised about the impact of roads and motorized trails on the northern Idaho ground squirrel. In 

response to those concerns, additional analysis was added to this FEIS and documented in the 

BA. 

Forest Service direction on sensitive species is to follow conservation assessments and plans 

developed at the Regional or Forest level and to use a Biological Evaluation (BE) to assess 

activities for possible effects on sensitive species. The BE is summarized in this EIS. 

Wildlife Issue 6: Travel management may affect migratory bird species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations 

Background: 

In January 2001, Executive Order 13186 was signed outlining responsibilities of federal agencies 

to protect migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As a complimentary 

measure to the Executive Order, the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered 

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to strengthen migratory bird conservation through 

enhanced collaboration between the agencies, in coordination with state, tribal, and local 

governments. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds, 

including nests and eggs, is unlawful. 

3.6.2 Changes between Draft and Final EIS 

Additional concerns were expressed in response to the release of the DEIS. Reponses to those 

concerns are included in Appendix F. Comments on the DEIS led to a new alternative (E). 

Comments on the range of alternatives lead to an increase in the amount of area open to 

motorized use in Alternative C to address concerns expressed by ISSA and a decrease in the 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 175 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

amount of area open in Alternative D to address IDF&G comments on protection of wolverine 

denning habitat. 

Changes between draft and final relevant to the wildlife analysis include: 

• Revised discussion and recent information were included on the effects of roads, trails, and 

various forms of travel on wildlife species. 

• Additional discussion was provided on the effects of motorized recreation activities and 

hunting on elk. 

• Idaho Fish and Game (IDF&G) expressed concern that the areas of wolverine denning 

habitat being protected in Alternative D are not the highest priority. Following a meeting 

with IDF&G, an additional closure area (Bruin Mountain) was included in Alternative D. 

The wildlife analysis discusses the benefits of this additional closure. 

• IDF&G noted that some roads identified as open in the No Action Alternative (Alternative 

A) had in fact been closed to protect elk security during previous environmental analyses. 

Those roads were corrected. 

• The analysis of the effects of the Travel Plan on lynx, including groomed snowmobile trails, 

used the most recent information available and described where this information may differ 

from current Forest Plan direction. 

• During consultation with USFWS on the Biological Assessment for the FEIS, concerns were 

raised about the impact of roads and motorized trails on the northern Idaho ground squirrel. 

In response to those concerns, additional analysis was added to this FEIS and documented in 

the BA. 

• The effects of the actions on the southern Idaho ground squirrel were evaluated and 

disclosed in the BA and project record. This candidate species was recently added to the list 

of species that may occur on the Weiser Ranger District, but no observations of SIDGS have 

occurred on the PNF. 

Some areas open to over-snow motorized travel were revised in Alternative E. One focus of the 

revision was to follow discernable boundaries to improve public compliance with closures. 

Closures proposed in Alternative D were reassessed and modified to better follow topographic 

features. A summary of the changes between alternatives D and E follows: 

o Lava Butte area: divided into two areas and renamed the Patrick Butte area on the west 

side and the Bear Pete area on the east side of the original closure. The Patrick Butte area 

was expanded to the south to encompass an additional site of modeled wolverine denning 

habitat, while the middle portion of the proposed Lava Butte closure area was deleted 

because it contained no modeled wolverine denning habitat. The boundaries were delineated 

based on modeled wolverine denning habitat (primarily in the Patrick Butte area), major 

ridgelines (such as the N-S line that extends along the west edge of Lava Butte), cirque basin 

landtypes and larger drainages. 

o The Bear Pete area includes a substantial amount of modeled wolverine denning habitat in 

the E-W corridor between the FC-RONR Wilderness and Hell’s Canyon. It also provides 

habitat along a western branch of the Needles to Marshall Mountain N-S corridor. The 

western boundary follows Trail 142. While the trail would not be discernable in winter, it 

appears to follow a natural break on the landscape. 

o The War Eagle/Marshal Mountain area has been more accurately renamed the Marshall 

Meadow area. The western boundary follows the ridge above and to the southwest of Sand 

Creek across Willow Creek to the ridge NW of Willow Creek and then NE to the Forest 

3 - 176 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

boundary (on the North) and then south down California Creek to end slightly north of 

Chimney Rock. 

o Big Creek area: The southern boundary is the ridgeline divide between the McCall and 

Krassel ranger districts. The eastern boundary starts at Profile Peak, runs northwest down 

Big Creek past the town of Edwardsburg and the junction of Smith Creek and then up the 

hillside to end at a NE corner on McFadden Point. From here, the northern boundary is the 

FC-RONR Wilderness boundary (past Wolf Fang Peak) west to the SFSR. The western 

boundary is the SFSR back to the McCall-Krassel line. 

3.6.3 Forest Plan Direction 

The Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2003) contains goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines for management of the wildlife. Forest Plan objectives form 

the basis for project-level actions to help achieve Forest goals. The time frame for achievement is 

generally the planning period (10 to 15 years) for the Forest Plan. Since this is also the planning 

period for the Travel Management Plan travel-related objectives in the Forest Plan are integral 

parts of the Travel Management Plan. Direction listed as a standard must be followed or a Forest 

Plan amendment may be necessary. Some management direction applies Forest-wide, while other 

direction is specific to individual management areas. Table W-1 includes Forest Plan management 

direction that has direct influence on travel management. 

Table W-1: Forest Plan Direction for Wildlife Pertinent to the Travel Management 

Analysis. 

Number Direction Page 

TEOB12 During project planning, field review lynx analysis units (LAUs) that overlay 

project areas to determine the suitability for denning, foraging, security and 

connectivity of habitat within the project area. 

III-9 

TEOB14 During mid or project scale analysis, identify and prioritize opportunities for 

restoration of habitat linkage zones to promote genetic integrity and species 

distribution (see Figure E-1 in Appendix E of the Forest Plan). 

III-9 

TEOB28 During travel planning, identify areas of concentrated snow compaction 

activities (designated trails, snow play areas) in lynx habitat within LAUs, and 

minimize snow compaction in those areas to reduce potential conflicts. 

III-10 

TEOB30 Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. III-10 

TEOB31 Concentrate activities within existing developed areas rather than developing 

new areas in lynx habitat. 

III-11 

TEST01 The Forest shall consult with the NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service as 

needed, and appropriate, to comply with consultation requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

p. III-11 

TEST02 For Forest-wide, watershed, or project-level Biological Opinions (BOs) and 

Biological Assessments (BAs) with letters of concurrence, requirements shall 

continue to apply until their expiration date unless these documents are 

specifically updated during further review with related regulatory agencies. 

Exception to this standard: The 1995 and 1998 Chinook and Steelhead 

Biological Opinions and 1998 Bull Trout Biological Opinion are replaced by the 

Biological Opinion for this Forest Plan revision... 

p. III-11 

TEST03 Design and implement projects to meet the terms of Forest Service approved 

portions of recovery plans. If a recovery plan does not yet exist, use the best 

information available (for example, BAs, BOs, letters of concurrence, Forest 

Service-approved portions of Conservation Strategies) until a recovery plan is 

written and approved. 

p. III-11 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 177 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-1: Forest Plan Direction for Wildlife Pertinent to the Travel Management 

Analysis. 

Number Direction Page 

TEST04 Management actions that have adverse effects on Proposed or Candidate 

species or their habitats shall not be allowed if the effects of those actions 

would contribute to listing of the species as Threatened or Endangered under 

the ESA. 

III-11 

TEST06 Management actions shall be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects 

to listed species and their habitats. For listed fish species, use Appendix B for 

determining compliance with this standard 

p. III-14 

TEST12 Mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, management actions within 

known nest or denning sites of TEPC species if those actions would disrupt 

reproductive success during the nesting or denning period. During project 

planning, determine sites, periods, and appropriate mitigation measures to 

avoid or minimize effects. 

III-11 

TEST34 Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play 

areas, outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in 

combination with immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological 

Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to consolidate 

use and improve lynx habitat.... Also, permits, authorizations or agreements 

could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow 

compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow 

compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the 

past and still comply with this standard. 

III-14 

TEGU01 Discretionary actions should avoid take of listed species, and actions where 

the Forest’s discretion is limited should minimize adverse effects that could 

lead to a take 

p. III-14 

TEGU02 For proposed actions that may affect potential habitat of TEPC species, 

identify potential habitat and determine species presence within or near the 

project area. Document the rationale for not identifying potential habitat and 

determining species presence for TEPC species in the project record 

p. III-14 

TEGU03 Management actions in occupied Proposed or Candidate species habitat 

should be modified or relocated if the effects of the actions would contribute to 

a trend toward ESA listing for these species 

p. III-14 

WIGO06 Provide well-distributed habitat and connective corridors important to 

sustaining MIS and other wildlife species. 

III-25 

WIOB01 During fine-scale analyses, identify and prioritize opportunities for restoration 

of habitat linkage to promote genetic integrity and wildlife species distribution. 

III-25 

WIST02 Design and implement projects within occupied habitats of Sensitive species 

to help prevent them from becoming listed..... 

III-27 

WIST03 Mitigate management actions within known nesting or denning sites of MIS or 

Sensitive species if those actions would disrupt the reproductive success of 

those sites during the nesting or denning period. Sites, periods, and mitigation 

measures shall be determined during project planning. 

III-27 

WIST06 Mitigate human-caused disturbances within winter/spring ranges if 

disturbances cause displacement of wildlife while they are occupying those 

ranges. 

III-27 

WIGU06 Management actions in occupied Sensitive species habitat should be modified 

or relocated if the effects of the actions would contribute to a trend toward 

ESA listing for these species. 

III-27 

WIGU08 Big game vulnerability to road related mortality should be evaluated during 

project-level travel management planning to assess effects of potential travel 

management decisions on state population objectives. 

III-28 

WIGU13 To address big game vulnerability to mortality, components of habitat security 

should be identified and managed during project planning..... 

III-28 

3 - 178 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-1: Forest Plan Direction for Wildlife Pertinent to the Travel Management 

Analysis. 

Number Direction Page 

MA2 Obj 0246, MA3 

Obj 0334 

Coordinate with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to reduce bull elk 

vulnerability through the use of security areas and reductions in open road 

density to move toward State herd composition objectives. 

III-115, III132 

MA2 St 0248, MA3 

St 0339, MA5 St 

0529 

The northern Idaho ground squirrel will receive priority consideration for all 

management activities that occur within their known occupied habitat. The 

intent of this standard is not to exclude all other activities within this habitat, but 

rather to reduce or minimize potential impacts to this species while 

emphasizing habitat improvement within and adjacent to known sites. 

III-116, III132, III161 

MA6 Obj 0638 Reduce open road densities in the Goose Creek Watershed to reduce biggame vulnerability. III-176 

Management Area Direction 

In addition to Forest-wide direction goals, objectives, standards and guidelines each Management 

Area (MA) on the Forest has direction designed to tier to Forest-wide direction, and to meet 

Forest-wide goals and desired conditions. However, MA direction is intended to be more specific 

and address particular concerns related to each program area. Specific MA direction pertinent to 

travel management planning and/or specific wildlife species is summarized in Appendix C. 

3.6.4 Existing Condition 

The Scope of the Analysis section above provides background information on the wildlife species 

and habitats selected for analysis. Table W-2 provides a summary of the wildlife species included 

in the analysis, the rationale for analysis, and a brief description of their habitats. Maps of known 

species locations are provided in the Project Record. 

Existing Condition - Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate 

Species 

On December 1, 2006, the Boise Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided 

the Payette National Forest an updated 90-day list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate species. The listed species include the experimental/non-essential population of gray 

wolf (Canis lupus); the threatened species: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), northern Idaho 

ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

Two candidate species also occur on the list: the southern Idaho ground squirrel (for the Weiser 

Ranger District only) and the yellow-billed cuckoo. Candidate species not known to occur on the 

Forest, are addressed in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record), but not included in the 

EIS. A Biological Assessment of the effects of the Travel Plan on listed, proposed, and candidate 

species has been prepared (see Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record) and consultation with 

Fish and Wildlife Service is ongoing. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 179 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-2. Wildlife Species Analyzed, the Rationale for Analysis, and a Brief 

Description of their Habitats. 

Common Name 

Latin Name 

Listed (T), Sensitive 

(S), MIS, or Special 

Interest 

Rationale for Analysis Preferred Habitat 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

T 

Habitat and individual birds 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Normally nest and forage near 

large bodies of water. Winter 

visitors and yearlong residents of 

northern Idaho. 

Gray Wolf 

Canis lupus Experimental/Nonessential 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Habitat generalist, usually prefer 

habitat away from human 

interactions 

Canada Lynx 

Felix lynx T 

Suitable habitat is present. 

No known populations or 

individual lynx on the PNF, 

but habitat may be 

impacted. 

Lodgepole pine habitat types, 

interspersed with subalpine fir, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann 

spruce, moist Douglas-fir and moist 

grand fir habitat types. 

Northern Idaho 

Ground Squirrel 

Spermophilus 

brunneus brunneus 

T 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Dry meadows & adjacent forest 

clearing with ponderosa pine & 

Douglas-fir forest typically between 

4,000 & 5,000 feet elevation. 

Columbia Spotted 

Frog 

Rana luteiventris 

S 

Habitat and population 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Marshy edges of ponds or lakes or 

slow moving streams. 

Boreal Owl 

Aegolius funereus 

S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts on snag habitat 

may occur. 

High elevation spruce-fir, mixed 

conifer, and aspen forests 

generally above 6,000 feet. 

Flammulated Owl 

Otus flammeolus S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts to snag habitat may 

occur. 

Mature, old growth ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir forest. 

Great Gray Owl 

Strix nebulos S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Open grassy meadows or open 

forests with grass dominated 

understory. 

Northern Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Mature forests with relatively 

closed canopies. Mixed forest 

types. 

Three-toed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides tridactylus 

S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts to snag habitat may 

occur. 

Higher elevation spruce-fir and 

lodgepole forest. 

White-headed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

albolarvatus 

S/MIS 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts to snag habitat may 

occur. 

Dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir 

forests with mature trees. 

Fisher 

Martes pennant S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts to snag habitat and 

down logs may occur. 

Mesic forested habitats. Strong 

affinity for forested riparian 

habitats. 

Wolverine 

Gulo gulo S 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Habitat, 

especially denning habitat 

and connectivity may be 

impacted. 

Far-ranging omnivorous habitat 

generalist. Isolation from human 

impacts and a diverse prey base 

important habitat components. 

Sparely timbered cirque basins 

provide denning habitat. 

3 - 180 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-2. Wildlife Species Analyzed, the Rationale for Analysis, and a Brief 

Description of their Habitats. 

Common Name 

Latin Name 

Listed (T), Sensitive 

(S), MIS, or Special 

Interest 

Rationale for Analysis Preferred Habitat 

Pileated 

Woodpecker 

Dryocopus pileatus 

MIS 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Indirect 

impacts to snag habitat may 

occur. 

Forests with tall, large-diameter 

dead or defective trees for nesting. 

Elk 

Cervis elaphus 

Special interest Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF. Winter 

and security habitat may be 

impacted. 

Mosaic of habitat types that 

provide open parks for foraging 

and forested areas for thermal and 

security cover. 

Migratory Birds Special interest 

Habitat and populations 

occur on the PNF and may 

be impacted. 

Mosaic of habitat types. 

Bald Eagle 

The PNF is within The Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Planning area, Central Idaho Zone 15 and 

Zone 14. Nesting, roosting, foraging, and winter use by eagles occurs on Forest, but there are 

only three known nest sites on the PNF. One nest located at Lost Valley Reservoir has been used 

for the last 10 years (Sallabanks 2006). Another nest site occurs along Hells Canyon Reservoir on 

the Snake River. Eagles have nested here successfully since 2003 (Carpenter and Holthuijzen 

2006). A third nest was recently discovered on Upper Payette Lake, but no records of successful 

nesting have occurred. Wintering habitat for bald eagles on Forest is primarily located on the 

Snake River below the Wildhorse River confluence and along the Salmon River with occasional 

observations of bald eagles on the lower South Fork of the Salmon River. 

Bald eagles make use of fish spawning runs where available. For example, bald eagles are 

annually observed perched in large cottonwood trees along the North Fork Payette River above 

Payette Lake. This occurs during the kokanee salmon runs upstream from Payette Lake in late 

summer and fall. 

Eagles are opportunistic foragers, especially during the winter, when they eat whatever is 

available, including live fish, waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion. During the breeding 

season, bald eagles eat mainly fish. Wintering bald eagles tend to congregate near bodies of 

unfrozen water and roost communally. Major rivers and large reservoirs constitute the majority of 

winter habitats used, although the temporary presence of high-quality foods may entice eagles to 

areas far removed from aquatic zones. Roost sites are usually located in stands/clumps of mature 

or old conifers or cottonwoods. 

Bald eagle populations have made substantial recoveries in recent years. The number of occupied 

bald eagle territories within Idaho continues to increase. USFWS Recovery Plan goals for 

management zones for this portion of the population have been exceeded during the last ten years. 

Formerly listed as endangered in 1978, the bald eagle was down-listed to threatened status in the 

lower-48 states in 1995. In March 1999, USFWS proposed to de-list the bald eagle throughout its 

entire range (Federal Register 1999: 64FR36453). On February 8, 2007, the USFWS announced it 

would make a final decision on whether to remove the bald eagle from the federal list of 

threatened and endangered species by June 29, 2007. Until a final ruling announcement is made 

the species remains protected under the ESA. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 181 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Gray Wolf 

The gray wolf, a threatened species, is native to Idaho, but was extirpated in central Idaho by the 

1930s. Wolves are habitat generalists, and were historically fairly common throughout the State in 

association with big game herds. The basic social unit in wolf populations is the pack. A pack can 

consist of 2 to 20 wolves (average of 10). Pack members have a strong social bond to each other, 

and establish and defend territories. Home ranges for reintroduced wolf packs in Central Idaho 

have ranged from 200 to 700 square miles over the last several years (C. Mack, pers. comm. 

2007). 

Historically, wolf population declines were due mainly to conflicts with humans. Increased roads 

and trails allowed for disturbance of den sites, shooting, trapping, and mortality associated with 

vehicle accidents (Theil 1985; Mech 1989; Mech et al. 1988; Boyd and Pletscher 1999). 

In 1995 and 1996, wolves were re-introduced to central Idaho under an experimental nonessential population classification. All populations south of Interstate 90 in the State of Idaho and 

Montana, including populations on the PNF, are considered experimental/non-essential. Recovery 

in Idaho is occurring at a faster rate than expected (C. Mack, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl 2005). 

On January 29, 2007, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior announced the FWS is proposing to 

remove the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the federal endangered 

species list. The delisting process will likely take close to a year. 

As of the summer of 2006, established wolf packs with young have been identified on all Ranger 

Districts except Weiser (C. Mack 2007, pers. comm.); however wolves are known to frequent 

areas on the Weiser Ranger District. In 2006, the Nez Perce Tribe wolf monitoring program 

documented 14 packs on the Payette National Forest. Seven of the packs contain radio-collared 

wolves. These 7, and 2 more packs, had a minimum of 6 wolves in each pack. The status of the 

five other packs is unknown, but each is likely composed of only a few wolves. 

Currently, the main threats to wolves include mortality from shooting and vehicle collisions 

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997c, Wisdom et al. 2000) and human disturbance near den sites leading 

to abandonment of the site (C. Mack, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl 2005). Primary management 

concerns for the Forest Service are (1) disturbance to denning wolves when pack numbers are low 

within individual recovery areas, and (2) providing adequate habitat for populations of prey 

species such as elk. 

Rendezvous sites are specific resting and gathering areas used by wolves during the summer and 

early fall. Several rendezvous sites are used with the first one generally located between 1 – 6 

miles from the natal den. Wolves appear to be most sensitive to human disturbance at the first 

rendezvous site and become less sensitive at later sites (USDI 1987). 

Wolves primarily prey on ungulates (USDI 1987). During May and June, wolves selectively prey 

upon newborn and young bison, moose, elk, and deer in calving/fawning areas. During the 

summer and fall, ungulates constitute the highest percentage of biomass; in winter, wolves prey 

almost exclusively on deer, elk, and moose. Because they are an important prey item, factors 

affecting ungulate distribution and abundance can also affect wolves. Wolves are opportunistic 

hunters and habitat generalists. However, they tend to avoid areas with a lot of human activity. 

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel 

The Idaho ground squirrel consists of two subspecies: the northern Idaho ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus brunneus brunneus), and the southern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus 

3 - 182 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

brunneus endemicus). The species is endemic to Idaho and is the only mammal to occur solely 

within the boundaries of the State. The northern Idaho ground squirrel was listed as threatened in 

April 2000. The southern subspecies occurs at lower elevations north of Payette River in Gem, 

Payette, and Washington Counties and is listed as a candidate species. Although this subspecies is 

not known to occur on the PNF, the FWS recently added it to the 90-day species list for the 

Weiser Ranger District. Northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS) currently are distributed on 

state, federal, and private lands from northwest of Council to northeast of Lost Valley, Price 

Valley, and New Meadows, with one complex in Round Valley (Evans Mack 2006). Until 2005, 

all known NIDGS sites were within an elevational range of 1,050-1,675 m (3,440-5,500 ft). A 

new population was discovered in July of 2005 on the Payette National Forest at an elevation of 

around 7,500 feet, more than 2,000 feet higher than known existing populations. This changed the 

model of what constitutes suitable habitat and resulted in the discovery of two other highelevation sites in 2006. 

Habitat for this species is open grass/ shrub/ forest and meadows found predominantly on basalt 

created soils (Groves et al. 1997). Squirrel populations were found at 43 sites in 2006. Of these, 5 

sites supported more than 100 individuals, whereas 22 sites supported less than 20 individuals. As 

of December 2006, the overall NIDGS adult/yearling population was conservatively estimated at 

1,395. This is nearly a 50 percent increase from 2005’s estimate of 940 NIDGS. New sites and 

more thorough surveys of known areas contributed to the increase, but actual gains in numbers of 

squirrels at some sites also contributed (Evans-Mack 2007). 

Because of the current low population numbers, losses from any cause are of great concern. With 

such low population levels, major threats include vulnerability to shooting, poisoning, trapping, 

road kill, and predation. Disturbance from recreation activities, such as OHV use, is also a 

concern. 

At this time, all known occupied NIDGS sites on the Forest are closed to cross-country travel; 

however, much of the Forest around these site closures is currently open to cross-country travel 

making enforcement of area closures difficult. Cross-country motor vehicle use can detrimentally 

impact northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat through soil compaction, removal of vegetation and 

physically harm to NIDGS individuals. Dispersed camping, especially during hunting season, is 

known to occur in occupied northern Idaho ground squirrel sites in areas closed to motorized 

cross-country travel. 

Currently, sixteen occupied and one unoccupied northern Idaho ground squirrel site are adjoined 

or bisected by open roads or motorized trails under the jurisdiction of the Payette National Forest. 

Three of these occupied sites are also bisected by county roads. An additional six occupied sites 

are bisected by roads under county or private jurisdiction (Wildlife BA, Project Record). 

Canada Lynx 

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened under the ESA by the USFWS in March of 2000. No 

confirmed observations of lynx or lynx sign have occurred on Forest (CDC 2005). In April 1957, 

a lynx was trapped and confirmed by IDF&G along the Little Salmon River near Pollock, north 

of the Forest boundary. There have been unconfirmed sightings from near Brundage Mountain 

(1966) and Paddy Flat (1976). 

In addition, there have been confirmed reports immediately north of the Salmon River, and near 

Warm Lake on the South Fork of the Salmon River on the Boise National Forest (F. Gordon 2005 

pers. notes). It would appear, however, that the species was never common in this area. Surveys 

for lynx based on “capture” of lynx hair were conducted on the PNF in the Warren area and in the 

Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and on adjoining Forests in 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 183 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Lynx hair samples were detected on the Boise National Forest during 1999. No hair was detected 

on the PNF (Forest Plan 2003). 

The PNF Forest Plan (Forest Plan 2003: III-265) incorporated direction from the Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruedigar et. al. 2000) for the conservation of 

Canada lynx habitat and populations (i.e., TEST34). This direction includes the evaluation of 

areas called Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs). There are 39 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) on the 

Forest, including the FC-RONR Wilderness. 

As described in the LCAS (Ruedigar et. al. 2000: 7-2): “Several of the conservation measures 

require analysis units within which rather specific parameters can be measured (e.g., no net 

increase in groomed over-the-snow routes). LAUs provide this analysis unit....LAUs will likely 

encompass both lynx habitat...and other areas....Conservation measures (objectives, standards, 

and guidelines) generally apply only to lynx habitat within LAUs.” The LCAS (p. 46) describes 

lynx habitat in central Idaho as lodgepole pine communities, interspersed with subalpine fir, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, moist Douglas-fir and moist grand fir habitat types. 

Approximately 20 years following fire, lodgepole pine can provide optimum snowshoe hare 

winter habitat, which constitutes quality lynx foraging habitat. Through habitat modeling and on 

ground verification, extensive potential lynx habitat has been identified on the PNF with the 

majority occurring east and north of McCall (C. Hescock, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl 2005). 

Lynx are usually more active at night than during the day. Preferred winter food consists 

primarily of snowshoe hares, along with rodents such as red squirrels, and birds. Suitable habitat 

for hares generally consists of young conifer stands with relatively dense and interconnected 

canopies that provide both cover and food. Snowshoe hare habitat is limited on the PNF, in part 

due to fire suppression which has reduced conifer disturbance and subsequent regeneration. 

Recent large fires in 1994, 2000, 2004, and 2006 likely have increased potential snowshoe hare 

habitat. Denning habitat for lynx occurs in mature and late structural boreal forests with locally 

abundant large woody debris. 

Risk factors for lynx include direct human threat (shooting, trapping, vehicle collisions), as well 

as changes in forage and denning habitat. Fire suppression and logging have altered the mosaic of 

habitats needed for prey species and denning sites (Wisdom et al. 2000). Roads and trails have 

resulted in increased human access and activity in lynx habitat, particularly during critical winter 

months. 

Lynx have evolved a competitive advantage in deep snow environments due to their large paws 

allowing them to hunt prey where other predators cannot because of snow conditions. There is a 

concern that compacted snow routes allow other predators (such as coyotes) access into areas that 

are normally the exclusive winter range of the lynx. Advances in snowmobile capabilities have 

raised concerns about intrusion into previously isolated areas (Wisdom et al. 2000; USDI FWS 

2000). Snowmobiles can traverse vast forest areas in short periods of time. This increased access 

can increase lynx disturbance and vulnerability to harvest, collision, or harassment. 

Existing Condition - Sensitive Species 

Columbia Spotted Frog – Northern Population 

The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) has a wide distribution in central Idaho. They are 

found in or near a perennial water body such as a spring, pond, lake, or sluggish stream. Spotted 

frogs are most often associated with non-woody wetland plant communities like sedges, rushes, 

and grasses. In winter they seek out springs and other areas of water where water is largely 

unfrozen during the winter months. Recent research has shown spotted frogs are capable of 

3 - 184 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

changing location during winter months (Pearl pers. comm. 2005; E. Bull pers. comm. 2005). 

Spotted frogs have been documented across the Forest. 

Cross-country motorized travel can impact spotted frogs and frog habitat by driving through 

wetland sites and shallow ponds. This type of activity can injure or kill individual frogs, destroy 

egg masses, and reduce habitat suitability. 

Boreal Owl 

Boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) inhabit high elevation spruce-fir, mixed conifer, and aspen 

forests generally above 6000 feet in central Idaho (Hayward 1989). These owls have been studied 

on the eastern portions of the Payette National Forest (Hayward 1988) where they have been 

found from Fisher Creek to Secesh Summit across to Chamberlain Basin (in the Wilderness) 

(Groves et al. 1997; Stephens and Sturts 1991). No observations of boreal owls have been 

recorded on the western side of the PNF. 

Boreal owls are secondary cavity nesters that use spruce fir stands for nesting, roosting and 

foraging. Boreal owls nest in old woodpecker cavities in live and dead trees. They forage on redback voles, flying squirrels, and small rodents. 

Boreal owls do not migrate. Winter home ranges encompass about 3,600 acres and summer home 

ranges are slightly smaller (USDA Forest Service 1991). Forest management can change the 

composition and structure of vegetation used by this species. Management activities that affect 

large snags and down logs are important habitat considerations for this species. Scientists have 

estimated an increase of one percent in source habitat from historical to current times for this 

species within the Central Idaho Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU), which includes 

nearly 90 percent of the Payette National Forest (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Flammulated Owl 

Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) have been documented primarily on the western portion of 

the Forest. They are present on the Forest only during the breeding and nesting season and 

migrate off the Forest in winter. Important habitat components include mature and old forests of 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifers; a moderate density of large trees; and snags 

with nesting habitat created by larger woodpeckers and sapsuckers (Spahr et al. 1991, Groves et 

al. 1997). Appropriate habitat is found on the western portion of the Forest and along the Salmon 

River and its tributaries (Groves et al. 1997, Stephens and Sturts 1991). Territory size is about 5.2 

square kilometers; males show strong territory fidelity, but females may disperse to adjacent 

territories (Reynolds and Linkhart 1987). Territorial boundaries often occur along ridge tops 

(Reynolds and Linkhart 1987). They feed almost entirely on flying insects. 

Occupied flammulated owl habitat has changed during the last hundred years due to human 

activities (Morgan and Parsons 2001, Sloan 1998). Major changes in habitat have occurred within 

the Forest from: selective harvesting of large-diameter ponderosa pine, snag removal, and a 

change in composition and density of remaining stands because of long-term fire exclusion 

(Geier-Hayes 1995; ICBEMP 1997c; Morgan and Parsons 2001; Sloan 1998; Wisdom et al. 

2000). These and other changes have reduced habitat quality, quantity, and distribution. Important 

management considerations for this species include retaining or restoring older mid- to lowerelevation forests dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, and retaining or restoring snags 

and down logs (Wisdom et al. 2000). Scientists estimate a reduction of 52 percent in source 

habitat from historical to current times for this species within the Central Idaho Mountains 

Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 185 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Great Gray Owl 

Great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) are a naturally uncommon species that occurs in localized areas 

on the Forest. Breeding populations have been documented near McCall and in the Frank Church 

River of No Return Wilderness (Atkinson 1989; Stephens and Sturts 1991). Great gray owls 

inhabit forested areas with intermixed open grassy meadows or open forest stands with a grassdominated understory that allow foraging for small rodents (Groves et al. 1997). The owls use 

existing nest structures (broken topped dead trees, old raptor nests, mistletoe brooms, or manmade platforms) generally near (within 150 yards) openings. The habitat components considered 

most important for this species are mature or older forest for nesting and open areas for foraging 

(such as meadows or seedling forests). Timber harvest and removal of snags and trees with 

broken tops in forested areas with meadows may impact habitat for this species. 

The great gray owl is a year-round resident on the Forest. Wisdom et al. (2000) estimated an 

increase of 32 percent in source habitat from historical to current times for this species within the 

Central Idaho Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU), which contains 90 percent of the 

Payette National Forest. 

Northern Goshawk 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) breeds and is a resident in all western states including 

Idaho. This species breeds on the PNF (Stephens and Sturts 1991), and observations of goshawks 

have been recorded Forest-wide. 

Goshawks require mature to over mature dense canopy forests for nesting and forested areas and 

open inclusions for foraging on birds and small mammals. Goshawks have a high fidelity to nest 

areas, often using them for more than one year, and sometimes intermittently for decades 

(Reynolds et al. 1992; Wisdom et al. 2000). Many pairs of goshawks have two to four alternate 

nest areas within their home range. All previously occupied nest areas may be important for 

maintaining nesting populations because they contain the habitat elements that originally attracted 

the goshawks. Replacement nest areas are advantageous because goshawk nest stands are subject 

to loss from natural disturbance events and tree mortality. 

Goshawk nest areas typically have high tree canopy cover and a higher proportion of larger trees 

then surrounding areas. Studies suggest that dense vegetation provides relatively mild and stable 

microenvironments, as well as protection from predators. Nest areas are usually classified as 

mature and late structural forest stands (Reynolds et al. 1992; Graham and Jain 1998). Human 

activity during the nesting period may cause the nest to be abandoned and subsequent nest failure 

(Reynolds et al. 1992; Braun et al. 1996). 

Fisher 

The fisher (Martes pennanti) was considered extinct or extremely rare in Idaho by the 1950s. A 

fisher re-introduction program was initiated in north-central Idaho in the early 1960s. Fishers 

were released near Chamberlain Basin and north of the Salmon River. There is a low probability 

of fisher presence because of the lack of confirmed observations and their rareness. 

Fishers are found in mature to old forests with high canopy closure and large tree (both live and 

dead) structure. They avoid large openings. They are associated with mesic forest conditions and 

forested riparian areas. Natal dens have been located in pileated woodpecker cavities and other 

forest structures. They eat small mammals (particularly red-backed voles), birds, fish, 

amphibians, insects, carrion, fruit, and nuts. Fishers hunt for prey on the forest floor and in trees 

and snags (Natureserve 2005). Vegetation management and fire suppression have influenced 

3 - 186 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

habitat of this species and its prey by altering composition and structure. Wisdom et al. (2000) 

estimate an increase of 35 percent in source habitat from historical to current times for this 

species within the Central Idaho Mountains ERU. 

Wolverine 

The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is a wide-ranging carnivore that is suited to extensive, remote, often 

high-elevation areas. Adult wolverines are mostly solitary animals that range widely over a 

variety of habitats from forested drainage bottoms to high-elevation, sparsely timbered cirque 

basins. Wolverines are considered forest carnivores because they typically occupy habitats within 

or near forest cover (Hornocker and Hash 1981:1291). Their substantial use of non-forest alpine 

habitat distinguishes them from the fisher and marten. They also depend less on large woody 

structures than fisher or marten (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

Wolverines have large, overlapping home ranges. In central Idaho, home ranges have been 

documented as large as 802 square miles for males, although female ranges tend to be smaller. 

The wolverine is typically associated with vast, remote, undisturbed areas of limited human 

intrusion. However, they are known to cross through human developments and high human use 

areas (Hash 1987). Physical barriers such as mountain ranges, valley bottoms, large rivers, 

reservoirs, and major highways do not appear to affect movement patterns of wolverines 

(Hornocker and Hash 1981:1299). 

Wolverines are considered habitat generalists in the summer, using a foraging strategy typical of 

opportunistic omnivores (Banci 1994:113). Food is more available in spring and summer with a 

wider variety of potential food sources including carrion, small mammals, insects and insect 

larvae, eggs, and berries. Both male and female wolverines occupy higher elevations where 

temperatures are cooler during the summer months (Hornocker and Hash 1981:1298). Wolverine 

breeding seasons vary from late spring to early fall, but generally occur during early summer 

(Hash 1987). Delayed implantation of embryos results in winter birthing of kits, generally 

between January and April (Banci and Harestad 1988). 

In winter, wolverines adapt their foraging strategy to scavenging. Physical adaptations such as 

massive skull structure, powerful jaws, strong teeth, and overall body strength make the 

wolverine highly suited for feeding on carrion, including the ability to crush large bones and 

chew through frozen meat. An acute sense of smell allows wolverines to locate carrion in deep 

snow. Wolverines are capable of direct predation on animals many times their size, particularly 

when prey animals are weakened. However, wolverines are not as efficient at killing as other 

carnivores such as mountain lion and gray wolf (Hash 1987). 

Winter forest carnivore surveys in Montana (Inman et al. 2003) have recorded most winter 

wolverine locations at elevations above 6,800 feet. Winter presents a very challenging time for 

wolverines, as it is the denning season for reproductive females and they are in constant search of 

limited food supplies. 

Across the wolverine's range, the majority of known natal den sites involve areas of deep snow 

accumulation, with snow tunnels often forming part of the den infrastructure (Magoun 1985; 

Copeland 1996). Magoun and Copeland (1998) describe wolverine reproductive dens found in 

Alaska and Idaho. A series of den sites are often used during the reproductive season. Natal dens 

are those where kits are born, whereas maternal den sites are used after parturition, but before 

weaning of kits. Dens used by wolverine families after kits are weaned are referred to as 

rendezvous sites. Nearly all verified reproductive den sites reported by these authors were found 

at higher elevations, in areas where snow regularly accumulates to depths of 3-16 feet. Den sites 

involve extensive snow tunnel systems, often associated with large rocks or fallen trees, and 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 187 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

sometimes lead to adjacent tunnel systems in boulder talus piles. In Idaho, two natal dens were 

located in subalpine cirque areas on north-facing slopes, suggesting that this type of habitat is 

important in central Idaho (Copeland and Harris 1994). 

Due to their large home range size and habitat needs, this species is and most likely always has 

been rare and uncommon. Areas wolverines are known to inhabit are typically unmodified by 

human activities, due to their remote, steep, and harsh environments (Sallabanks 1996). 

Wilderness and roadless lands account for much of the areas wolverines are known to use 

(Copeland and Harris 1994). 

Though rare, wolverines occur across the PNF. CDC historical data shows sightings of wolverine 

within each MA on the Forest. A 1940s article in the Idaho Statesman contained an article 

reporting wolverine damage to overnight cabins along the mail route from Indian Valley to 

Warren during the winter of 1875. 

More recently, wolverines have been detected in the Payette Lakes MA (#7) and the Goose 

Creek/Hazard Creek MA (#6). A radio-collared two year old male wolverine from a Sawtooth 

National Forest study was detected near Box Lake in the Payette Lakes MA directly following the 

1994 fires. The collared wolverine moved directly west crossing the Warren Wagon Road and 

continued toward Brundage Mountain. The male was last located near Bruin Mountain (north of 

the Brundage Mountain ski area) in February 1995. The most recent and verified evidence of 

wolverine has occurred in the last three years (2004-2006). Four of these seven locations were 

from winter track surveys conducted by IDF&G (D. Evans-Mack, pers. comm. 2006) in MAs 6 

and 7. On two separate occasions, wolverine were live trapped by Wildlife Services – one, a male, 

near Lava Ridge Saddle in August 2005 and the other near Fisher Creek saddle in July 2005. 

Wolverine tracks were also located near the headwaters of Nethker Creek in October 2005. Maps 

of wolverine locations are in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record). 

Northern Three-toed Woodpecker 

Northern three-toed woodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus) are present throughout the higher 

elevations of west-central Idaho in spruce-fir and lodgepole forests (Groves et al. 1997). They 

have been found on the Forest in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests (Groves et al. 1997). Wood 

boring insect larvae, such as mountain pine beetles, is their primary food source. Three-toed 

woodpeckers reside in low numbers between large fire events. These woodpeckers increase the 

first year following fire, and then decrease as insect populations decline. At other times, the 

species appear to rely on small patches of dead trees resulting from localized insect outbreaks. 

Management for abundant snag densities typical in higher elevation forests is an important habitat 

consideration. The processes (fire, insects, and disease) that generate these high densities of snags 

are essential to the woodpecker’s habitat. 

The large fires that burned in the year 2000 on the PNF improved the habitat for this species. 

Wisdom et al. (2000) estimates an increase of 77 percent in source habitat from historical to 

current times for this species within the Central Idaho Mountains ERU. 

White-headed Woodpecker 

The white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) range in Idaho is limited to the western 

edge of the state. Its primary range is in California, Oregon, and Washington. This species selects 

for open, dry ponderosa/ Douglas-fir forests with mature to old ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir trees 

for foraging and nesting. Appropriate open dry Forest habitat is found on the western portion of 

the Forest (Groves et al. 1997). White-headed woodpeckers have been documented in these 

3 - 188 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

habitats on the Council, Weiser, and New Meadows Ranger Districts. Based on studies completed 

in Idaho they are considered year-round residents with little to no migration. 

White-headed woodpeckers feed on conifer seeds during the fall and winter. Cone crops are 

different from year to year, and large trees usually produce more cones than small trees. During 

other times of the year, flying insects are an important food source. 

Nests are usually excavated in large-diameter snags (greater than 20 inches in diameter) with a 

moderate degree of decay (Bull et al. 1986; Bull et al. 1997; Wisdom et al. 2000). Nesting stands 

of ponderosa pine used by white-headed woodpeckers have a low canopy cover (generally less 

than 30 percent) (Frederick and Moore 1991). 

White-headed woodpecker habitat has changed during the last hundred years due to human 

activities such as selective harvesting of large-diameter ponderosa pine trees, snag removal, and a 

change in composition and density of remaining stands because of long-term fire exclusion 

(Morgan and Parsons 2001; Sloan 1998; Wisdom et al. 2000). These and other changes have 

reduced the quality, quantity, and distribution of white-headed woodpecker habitat. Habitat 

conservation is focused on restoration of mature to old, low-density ponderosa pine forests with 

snags (Wisdom et al. 2000). Wisdom et al. (2000) estimate a reduction of 62 percent in source 

habitat from historical to current times for this species within the Central Idaho Mountains ERU. 

Existing Condition - Management Indicator Species 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are biological indicators representing a whole group of 

other species using similar habitats. These are species whose population changes are believed to 

indicate effects of management on other species of a major biological community. The Forest 

provides for the maintenance and improvement of habitats for these indicator species. 

The white-headed woodpecker is both a sensitive species and a MIS on the PNF (see description 

above). The analysis of effects to woodpeckers of concern (white-headed, three-toed, and pileated 

woodpeckers) is consolidated into one part in the environmental consequences section. 

Pileated Woodpecker 

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is the PNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

for species utilizing mature forests. Preferred habitat consists primarily of mature and older forest 

stands having a high density of standing dead and down trees with heart rot. Pileated 

woodpeckers create cavities that are subsequently used by species incapable of excavating their 

own nesting or roosting cavities, such as the flammulated owl (USDA Forest Service 2003a). 

These woodpeckers are fairly common on the PNF and have been documented to occur on all 

ranger districts (Groves et al. 1997). Monitoring transects and plots were established on the Forest 

during the spring of 2003. Data have been collected for too short a time period to identify 

population trends. The overall trend across North America and for the Central Idaho Mountains is 

believed to be increasing primarily as the result of long term fire exclusion (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Existing Condition - Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are defined as those birds that regularly winter south of the Tropic of 

Cancer and summer in North America. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements 

various treaties and conventions for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, 

killing, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, is unlawful. 

An executive order was signed in 2001 outlining responsibilities of federal agencies to protect 

migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As a complimentary measure to 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 189 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

the Executive Order, the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), for the purpose of strengthening migratory bird 

conservation through enhanced collaboration between the agencies, in coordination with state, 

tribal, and local governments. This MOU serves as guidance for the two federal agencies until 

more detailed direction is developed pursuant to the Executive Order. Additional information on 

the Act, Order, and migratory birds of concern on the PNF is provided in the Wildlife Specialist 

Report. 

Neotropical migratory birds live in a wide variety of habitats on the Forest. Idaho Partners in 

Flight is a multi-agency group dedicated to the conservation of migratory birds. This group has 

identified and prioritized four habitats that support migratory species of moderate to high 

vulnerability, and species with declining or uncertain population trends. These habitats are 

riparian areas, non-riverine wetlands, sagebrush shrub, and dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/grand 

fir forests (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). These four habitats were selected because they are the 

most altered by past and present human activity in Idaho (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). The 

habitats support 35 at risk bird species that breed in Idaho (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). 

Existing Condition - Elk 

Rocky Mountain elk are a species of special interest. Elk are a desirable big game animal pursed 

annually by recreational hunters in the local area and across the State. Elk are adaptable and occur 

in a variety of habitats ranging from high mountainous areas to managed forests to cold deserts 

(Skovlin et al. 2002). Elk were widespread prior to the settlement of North America, but due to 

habitat alterations and extirpation, are now found primarily in coniferous forests (Skovlin et al. 

2002). On the Forest, elk use the higher elevations in the summer months and descend to lower 

elevations on the Forest and adjacent state and private lands in winter. 

Elk are managed to achieve particular population goals. They are one of the more manageable 

species because their habitat requirements are well studied and they respond to habitat and 

population management (Cooperrider 2002). Across the Forest, elk habitat has been modified by 

management activities; such as timber harvest, road construction, livestock grazing, and fire 

suppression, as well as natural events, such as wildfire and insect and disease infestations. 

Management for elk and elk habitat becomes increasingly more complex as human activities 

affect habitat quality and access. Managing for elk requires maintaining quality habitat, meeting 

public demands, and understanding the socioeconomic value of elk. Primary considerations in elk 

management (Lonner 1991) include: 

• Maintaining habitat security to protect elk during the hunting season. 

• Preserving/recovering desired elk population characteristics as determined by elk managers 

and distributions relative to land management. 

• Satisfying the growing demand for quality hunting and non-hunting experiences. 

Methodologies have been developed that measure elk vulnerability, which include the 

relationship between elk and land management practices and the demand for elk hunting and nonhunting experiences. These methodologies generally reflect seasonal habitat needs. These 

different seasonal habitat needs are described below and include summer range, security habitat 

during the hunting season, and winter range. Effects of the Travel Plan, particularly roads and 

motorized recreation on seasonal habitats are discussed in the environmental consequences 

section. 

Summer Range 

3 - 190 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

The energetic demands of elk - growth, development, lactation - are high during the summer 

months as elk are simultaneously recovering from weight lost during the previous winter, 

supporting young of the year through lactation, and building fat reserves for the coming winter. 

During late spring and summer, there is a need for secluded calving areas and summer range rich 

in nutritional forage. Elk calving generally follows the snow-line as it melts in the spring. 

Therefore, calving occurs along an elevational gradient. Long-term productivity of elk is in part 

based on the quality of summer and transitional ranges. 

Research indicates the quality of summer range as one of the more important variables in 

determining annual variation of herd growth. Management of summer range includes 

consideration of disturbances that might discourage elk use of an area (Van Dyke et al. 1994). 

Roads and motorized recreation are disturbances that can discourage use of an area, lower 

reproductive success, and cause loss and fragmentation of habitat (Grover and Thompson 1986, 

Hamilton 1997, Rowland et al. 2000, Ward and Cupal 1979). 

Currently, slightly more than 500,000 acres on the Forest are open to cross-country motor vehicle 

use in summer, although many of these acres cannot be traveled due to limits imposed by 

vegetation and topography. In summer, the density of authorized roads and motorized trails 

(miles/square mile of NFS land in the 5th HU watershed) is less than 2 miles per square mile in 

all watersheds except Pine Creek (2.1 mi/mi.2), Goodrich-Bacon (2.2 mi/mi.2), West Fork Weiser 

(3.0 mi/mi.2), and Upper Weiser River (2.2 mi/mi.2). (Note three watersheds with less than 1,000 

acres of NFS land were not analyzed due to the small size). 

Security Habitat During Hunting Season 

National Forest System lands provide substantial habitat and hunting opportunities, for elk. 

During the hunting season, elk management balances the protection of certain sex and age classes 

with the need to provide hunting opportunities. While IDF&G has the primary role in this 

management, the Payette National Forest strives to compliment these objectives through 

management of open road densities and other activities that may impact elk populations. 

The Forest lies within four Elk Zones established by IDF&G: Brownlee, Weiser River, McCall, 

and Middle Fork. The Elk Zones include 11 Big Game Management Units (19A, 20A, 22, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 27, 31A, 32, 32A). IDF&G has identified herd management objectives for each of the Elk 

Zones and for most management units (Table W-3). 

Current populations of elk on the Forest are estimated by IDF&G at regular intervals, though 

numbers of elk can change during the year (Table W-3). Elk populations on the Forest are highest 

during the spring and summer, as elk migrate back from winter range areas and calves are born 

(Unsworth et al. 1993; Christensen et al. 1995; IDFG 1999). Forest Service management actions 

such as travel management, road construction or obliteration, and vegetation management can 

influence mortality rates during the hunting season. 

Population and harvest goals within Big Game Management Units are established by the State 

with public participation. Five of the eleven Big Game Management Units (Unit 31, 32A, 20A, 

26, and 27) are currently below state objectives for estimated bull and adult bull populations, 

while three are above and two meet the objectives (Table W-3). No data are available for Unit 24. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 191 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-3: Recent (2004-2006) Bull Elk and Adult Bull Elk Population Estimates 

and Objectives for the Payette National Forest Big Game Hunting Units 

Elk Management Zones 

Hunting Units 

Brownlee 

(2004) 

Weiser River (2004) McCall Zone (2005) Middle Fork (2006) 

31 22 32 32A 19A 23 24 25 20A 26 27 

Bull Population Estimates 

64 327 142 34 275 389 ND 216 219 152 463 

Bull Population Objectives 

125-175 250- 50- 150- 150- 225- ND 150- 250-400 200- 500-800 

350 100 200 250 325 225 350 

Meeting (M), Not Meeting (N), Exceeding (E) Objectives 

N M E N E E ND M N N N 

Adult Bull Population Estimates 

20 137 57 10 190 216 ND 183 119 91 240 

Adult Bull Population Objectives 

50-100 125- 40-60 75- 100- 125- ND 75- 150-250 150- 300-450 

200 125 150 175 125 200 

Meeting (M), Not Meeting (N), Exceeding (E) Objectives 

N M M N E E ND E N N N 

Percent of FS Administered Land within Hunting Units 

18 55 1 58 94 62 42 98 99 98 99 

 ND = No Data 

Although not all units meet state objectives, overall elk populations are good. Present habitat 

conditions do not appear to be limiting the populations within the Forest, but elk vulnerability is a 

concern for several units on the Forest (J. Rohlman, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl, 2005). Elk 

vulnerability is defined as a measure of elk susceptibility to being killed during the hunting 

season (Christensen et al. 1995). This susceptibility is a function of access to elk and the quality 

of cover for elk. Roads provide access for hunters and poachers, leading to increased elk 

mortality. 

Of the units not meeting state objectives, three in the Middle Fork Zone (units 20A, 26, 27) occur 

in the FC-RONR Wilderness and are lightly roaded. Unit 32A and 31 occur in areas with higher 

densities of roads. The condition of vegetation cover plays an important role in elk security 

during the hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991, Lyon 1983, Lyon and Canfield 1991). This coupled 

with road density and pattern and off-road travel, all play an important role in determining the 

security level an area provides to elk during the hunting season. An area with sparse cover and 

low road densities may provide as much security as the same sized area with heavy cover and 

high road densities (Lyon et al. 1985). 

An important aspect of elk management is limiting elk vulnerability during the hunting season. 

On the PNF, seasonal and year-round travel restrictions have been implemented in locations 

where elk lack secure habitat due to road densities and/or lack of cover. 

Elk vulnerability is determined and managed in various ways. Common strategies on the PNF 

include management of motorized road and trail densities (miles/square mile) and cross-country 

motorized access. Another strategy evaluates the amount of elk security provided in a specific 

area. This approach recommends retaining 30 percent or more of the analysis area in nonlinear 

blocks of secure habitat equal or greater than 250 acres in size and more than 1⁄2 mile from 

motorized access (Hillis et al. 1991, Lyon and Canfield 1991, Forest Plan Appendix E). 

Currently, slightly more than 500,000 acres on the Forest are open to cross-country motor vehicle 

use in fall, although not all these acres can be traveled due to limits imposed by vegetation and 

topography. In fall, the density of open authorized (or NFS) roads and motorized trails 

3 - 192 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

(miles/square mile of NFS land in the 5th HU watershed) is less than 2 miles per square mile in 

every watershed (three watersheds with less than 1,000 acres of NFS land were not analyzed due 

to the small size). 

Methods for evaluating elk habitat security are described in the Wildlife Specialist Report and 

summarized here. Elk analysis areas (EAA) generally followed the boundaries of 5th level HU 

watersheds and ranged in size from 30,000 to 80,000 acres. Eleven EAAs were originally 

designed on the west side of the PNF in coordination with IDF&G. Sixteen additional EAAs on 

the east side of the PNF were identified for the Travel Plan analysis. In each EAA, security 

habitat is defined as areas 250 acres and larger in size located at least1⁄2 mile from an open road or 

motorized trail. Security areas should comprise 30 percent or more of the EAA on NFS lands. 

Security areas are identified by buffering open roads and motorized trails administered by the 

Forest for 1⁄2 mile on either side and characterizing remaining available habitat by vegetative type 

to identify suitable hiding cover (security habitat) in blocks more than 250 acres in size. 

Currently, eighteen of 27 EAAs (mostly on the east side of the Forest) have more than 30 percent 

of the area more than 1⁄2 mile from an open road or motorized trail. Of these, only three EAA are 

comprised of hiding cover blocks ≥ 250 acres in size that total at least 30 percent of the area. 

Winter Range 

The majority of elk winter range occurs outside the Forest boundary on lower elevation 

grasslands. An estimated 186,000 acres of winter range occur on the Payette National Forest 

outside of the FC-RONR Wilderness. Another 178,000 acres occurs in the Wilderness. 

Elk populations are lowest during the winter after they migrate to lower-elevation winter range 

following the hunting season in the fall. Additional mortality usually occurs on winter ranges, 

depending on forage quantity and quality, predators, and the severity of the winter. Recent mild 

winters have likely contributed to current high elk numbers. 

Winter range is an important element of elk habitat. Areas with minimal human activities and 

adequate forage will reduce the energetic costs associated with over winter survival. Snowmobile 

traffic is one form of disturbance potentially impacting on wintering elk. Winter range travel 

restrictions are intended to prevent disturbance and harassment of elk during a period when 

physical stress is already relatively high. Because of the importance of winter ranges to elk, the 

Forest has closed much of the elk winter ranges to over-snow vehicle use. Currently 105,000 

acres are closed and 81,000 acres are open, but the open acres largely fall below the average 

snowline (estimated at 4,000 feet) and so are not impacted by snowmobile use. 

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences 

The wildlife effects section is organized as follows: First a general summary of the effects of 

motorized recreation is provided. This summary is not specifically linked to a species, issue, or 

indicator. Effects are then discussed by groupings of wildlife species. The groupings are: 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species; Sensitive Species; Management 

Indicator Species; Migratory Birds; and Elk. Within these groupings, effects are discussed by 

species. Where applicable, effects are tracked based on a specific issue and indicator (see Scope 

of the Analysis above). For each species (or species group in the case of migratory birds) the 

effects common to all alternatives are discussed first, followed by the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 193 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Summary of General Effects of Roads, Trails, and OHV Use 

The Chief of the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially impacts from offroad vehicles, as one of the key concerns facing the Nation’s forests and grasslands. The Forest 

Service’s “Background Paper with Key Messages and Talking Points: Unmanaged Recreation - 

Impacts from OHVs” (USDA Forest Service 2004) identifies threats associated with unmanaged 

off-route use. Those especially applicable to wildlife include: 

• Severely eroded soils 

• Damaged wetlands and harm to wetland species 

• Habitat destruction 

• Spread of invasive species 

Roads and trails, regardless of their use, affect ecosystem characteristics and habitat conditions 

for many species (Forman et al. 2003; Gaines et al. 2003). Roads interrupt landscape patterns, 

fragment habitat, and create edge habitats, which can inhibit the occurrence and movement of 

important interior species (Forman and Alexander 1998; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The 

actual road or trail prism can compact soils and removes cover, while the use of the road, trail, or 

area (to OHVs) decreases wildlife habitat effectiveness through disturbance and displacement and 

additional habitat loss (Busak and Bury 1974 as cited in USDA and USDI 2001: 70). Habitat can 

also be lost through the spread of noxious weeds by off-road vehicle use (USDA and USDI 2001: 

71 – 72) and through firewood cutting that removes down logs and snags (Bate and Wisdom 

2002a; Bate and Wisdom 2002b; McShane et al. 2003). 

Some wildlife species exhibit increased stress levels in response to motorized vehicles. These 

physiological responses can potentially lead to changes in reproductive success, rates of growth, 

incidences of disease, and survivorship (Bowles 1995). Some wildlife species change their 

behavior in response to roads and motorized uses. These changes may be short or long-term 

(Knight and Cole 1995a). Short-term behavioral changes may include temporary movement away 

from the disturbance, changes in parental attention, nest abandonment, changes in food habits, 

increased flushing, increased vocalizations, flush/flight responses, freezing/limiting movement, 

changes in social interactions, and short-term avoidance (Bury and others 1977; Knight and Cole 

1995a; Weinstein 1978). Longer-term changes may include abandonment of preferred foraging or 

nesting areas (Knight and Cole 1995a). Long-term or repeated short-term behavioral changes can 

lead to long-term effects on individuals and populations (Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and 

Cole 1991). 

Roads and trails can serve as movement corridors for species, particularly larger bodied species, 

and may increase the access of some predators to prey populations (Forman and others 2003). 

Vehicle use can affect wildlife directly through collisions, hunting, harassment, and interference, 

including noise (Knight and Cole 1995a: Fig. 4). Interference and harassment can result in a 

variety of physiological and behavioral responses that, in turn, can affect occupancy, abundance, 

and productivity. Additional information on the general effects of roads and trails and the effects 

of motorized use is provided in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record). 

Summary of General Effects of Over-Snow Vehicle Use 

Researchers have summarized studies on the environmental impacts of over-snow motorized use 

(e.g., Boyle and Sampson 1985; Bury 1978; Gutzwiller 1991; Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). 

Studies have focused primarily on effects resulting from snow compaction. Snow compaction can 

potentially impact wildlife species and habitat conditions through alterations in the temperature 

profile and thermal conductivity of snow; increases in water-holding capacity; increases in 

3 - 194 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

melting times; and the formation of a partial gas seal over the substrate (Neumann and Merriam 

1972; Keddy et al. 1979). Studies on habitat have also shown (Foresman et al. 1976; Ryerson et 

al. 1977; Walejko et al. 1973) substantial impacts on subnivean vegetation, including damage, 

reductions in standing crop, and retarded spring recovery and growth. 

Studies on the effects of snow compaction on wildlife are few, but mortality of subnivean fauna 

(Schmid 1972) and mechanical barriers to movement by subnivean mammals (Pruitt 1984) are 

possible consequences. Snow compaction effects may vary considerably according to snow depth 

and moisture content (Bury 1978). Other studies have reported that some groups of wildlife, such 

as canids, preferentially use compacted trails, presumably because of greater ease of travel. 

Others, such as snowshoe hare, avoid these trails, possibly in order to avoid predators (Neumann 

and Merriam 1972). 

Effects on forest carnivores have thus far been inferred from reviews of the literature rather than 

being directly studied or monitored. For example, Robitaille and Aubry (2000) found densities of 

marten tracks significantly higher away from roads. Several authors (i.e., Bury 1978; Neumann 

and Merriam 1972) have reasoned that compaction and the resultant mortality of small mammals 

could lead to declines in predator populations because some predators forage in the subnivean 

zone and compaction may limit or prevent their access. 

For most species on the PNF, the effects of motorized over-snow use, including the effects of 

snow compaction, are likely to be limited (Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record). For 

species that are rare (such as lynx) or at risk (such as wolverine), or of high public interest (such 

as elk), the effects may be more than limited or negligible. The effects of motorized over-snow 

use for these “species of concern” are described below. 

Summary of General Effects on Habitat Connectivity 

Connectivity is the ability of the landscape to provide dispersal, migration, and travel 

opportunities between suitable habitat patches for wildlife species. Connectivity is important 

because it allows animals to move between different habitats to meet their daily and lifetime 

needs (Forman et al. 2003: 129-133). It also allows for population persistence through 

maintenance of population size and interchange and repopulation of unoccupied areas. Reduced 

movement results in empty habitats or habitats with smaller populations than they can actually 

support. This increases the risk of local extinction and subsequently results in a lower regional 

population and lower long-term population persistence (Forman et al. 2003: 129-133). In short, 

habitat or landscape connectivity can contribute to long-term species survival (Noss et al. 1996). 

Habitat that is not connected is “fragmented.” Hence, fragmentation also may lead to isolation of 

populations, reduced population size, and an increased risk of extinction. 

Connectivity may be hindered by unsuitable habitat including roads and trails. Some wildlife 

species prefer road areas (Knight and Kawashima 1993; Knight et al 1995) because food (such as 

road kill) may be more available or because roads provide an open travel way. Some species (e.g., 

forest interior species) avoid roads because they functionally separate their habitat. Motorized 

access on roads and in areas, including over-snow access in winter, may impact habitat 

connectivity by disturbing animals and causing them to avoid an area. 

The extent to which a road acts as a barrier depends on an animal’s behavior, dispersal ability, and 

population density along with the juxtaposition of the habitat adjacent to the road (Lovallo and 

Anderson 1996). Roads can present barriers and otherwise impede movement especially for 

smaller animals or animals with limited mobility (Mader 1984; Swihart and Slade 1984; 

Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Other species that do not avoid roads may still be impacted (e.g., 

road-killed). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 195 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

The PNF contain high densities of roads in some areas (especially on the west-side); however, 

numerous areas without roads exist throughout the Forest as well. The PNF likely provides 

important habitat corridors for several species of wildlife such as wolf, wolverine, and migratory 

birds. These corridors help ensure connectivity to other important habitats on adjacent lands. 

Summary of General Effects on Snags and Down Logs 

Snags and coarse wood are important habitat components for many species. Sixteen species of 

birds and nine species of mammals are dependent on snags and/or down logs to meet some part of 

their life stage such as nesting, denning, or foraging (Wisdom et al. 2000). On the PNF, snag 

associated species include lynx, pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, northern threetoed woodpecker, boreal owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, and northern goshawk. 

Natural disturbances such as fire, wind, insects, disease, and landslides, along with plant 

succession, help create coarse woody debris. The PNF Forest Plan (2003) states that in general, 

the current condition of snags and downed logs appear to meet the historical/desired conditions 

for snag numbers. Generally, subalpine fir type stands contain higher numbers of snags. The drier 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir types contain lesser amounts. 

Direct effects to snag and down log habitat occur when habitat is lost through road or trail 

construction (Hann et al. 1997; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). None or minimal new road or trail 

construction is proposed with any of the alternatives so the direct effect on snag and down log 

habitat would not be a measurable impact for any of the species of concern. 

Indirectly, roads negatively impact the availability of snags and down logs for wildlife by 

providing access for firewood retrieval (Hann et al. 1997; Joslin and Youmans 1999; Bate and 

Wisdom 2002a, 2002b). Firewood retrieval is enhanced through increased access through offroad driving (Bate and Wisdom 2002a). Recent studies conducted in Montana and Oregon have 

quantified the effects of roads on snags and downed logs (Bate and Wisdom 2002a, 2002b). Only 

a third as many snags occurred near roads when comparing snags in roaded and un-roaded 

landscapes. Snag attrition was highest within 150 feet of roads and generally became insignificant 

beyond 600 feet, if there were no other roads in the vicinity. Effects were greater in ponderosa 

pine communities than in other mixed coniferous forests (Bate and Wisdom 2002a, 2002b). 

Snag removal results in a reduction in the numbers of down logs in an area. Studies have found 

that log densities along open roads were significantly lower than densities along closed roads 

(Bate and Wisdom 2002b). 

The loss of snags and down logs decreases the amount of habitat for denning, nesting, roosting, 

foraging, hiding, and thermal cover. Subsequent effects to snag-associated species would depend 

on a variety of factors such as the availability of habitat in the surrounding area and the degree of 

species mobility (Forman 1995; Forman et al. 2003). 

Other indirect effects to wildlife from removal of snags and down logs include changes in 

ecosystem processes such as soil development and productivity, nutrient immobilization and 

mineralization, and nitrogen fixation. Decaying wood/down logs also set the stage for ecosystem 

disturbances that affect wildlife, i.e. fire, insects, and disease. 

Summary of General Effects on Riparian Areas 

Riparian zones occupy relatively small areas. For example, riparian areas comprise less than 0.5 

percent of all land area in the Northern Region of the Forest Service (Hutto and Young 1999). 

These areas also incur a disproportionate amount of human activity. As such, they are vulnerable 

to alteration (Thomas 1979). Roads in riparian zones reduce habitat effectiveness for many 

wildlife species mainly through vegetation alteration and disturbance associated with human 

3 - 196 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

activity (USDA 1996). Roads parallel many riparian zones and many host dispersed camping 

sites. While this may enhance the opportunity for the human-wildlife experience it also decreases 

the habitat effectiveness of the riparian area for wildlife. 

Recreational use (such as camping) and firewood retrieval are the main activities facilitated by 

roads in and adjacent to riparian areas (see discussion above). For example, camping may result 

in a reduction in density and diversity of herbaceous ground cover, decline in tree vigor (usually 

related to soil compaction and root dieback), elimination of seedlings and young age classes of 

trees, and invasion of exotic species. 

Background for the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The effects of past activities are summarized in the Existing Condition section for each species of 

concern. Additional past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/actions that may affect 

species of concern are described in Appendix D. This list and the current condition were 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis for each species described below. In addition to the 

areas of analysis for direct and indirect effects (the Payette National Forest outside of the FCRONR Wilderness), the cumulative effects analysis area for most species included adjacent State 

of Idaho lands and private lands, and the FC-RONR Wilderness. More information is provided in 

the Wildlife Specialist Report in the Project Record. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and 

Candidate Species 

Bald Eagle 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

All Alternatives – A, B, C, D and E 

The Travel Plan has limited potential to affect individual bald eagles and/or their nest sites. No 

roads are near to the nest site on Upper Payette Lake. In addition, the site has never been 

documented as occupied, probably due to the lack of open water during nesting season (C. 

Hescock, pers. comm.). The nest site at Lost Valley Reservoir has an established motorized 

closure area around it. Each of the alternatives would maintain this closure area and restrict OHV 

use to established motorized roads and trails. Under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) the 

closure of all areas to cross-country travel would reduce motorized disturbance and human 

harassment near potential nest sites and in wintering areas. The nest site in Hells Canyon occurs 

immediately above a paved road belonging to Idaho Power. The nest site was established after the 

road was in place and eagles have nested successfully for the past 3 years. The winter roost sites 

near Oxbow are across the river from the road. The road is not in close proximity and so does not 

disturb eagles at the winter roost sites. There are no trails in close proximity to the winter roosts. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions have been taken into account in the analysis of the existing condition of bald eagles 

on the PNF. Ongoing activities are not expected to affect bald eagles due to the localized nature 

of eagle use on the Forest and the ability to impose restrictions that minimize disturbance as 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 197 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

needed. At this time, none of the reasonably foreseeable actions are expected to affect bald eagles 

because all actions must be analyzed under the NEPA and suitably designed to conserve the 

species per the requirements of the Forest Plan (TEST12) and the ESA. 

Continued and foreseeable future private land development adjacent to the PNF may cause bald 

eagles to shift activities onto the Forest, where possible. Such shifts are possible for nesting sites, 

but less likely for foraging sites since the best areas for foraging occur on waterbodies off 

National Forest System lands (i.e., Cascade Reservoir and Hells Canyon Reservoir). In summary, 

implementation of any of the action alternatives would not be cumulative to any ongoing and 

future actions on NFS lands and adjacent state and private lands since all Forest Service 

administered actions would continue to require protective measures for eagles where necessary. 

Effects Determination 

For the reasons stated above, any one of the alternatives for the PNF Travel Plan alternatives may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles or their habitat. 

Gray Wolf 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Introduction 

Roads and trails facilitate human travel into wolf habitat, thereby increasing the potential for 

conflicts between wolves and humans such as disturbance of den sites, mortality associated with 

vehicle accidents, and increased potential for illegal shooting (Theil 1985; Mech 1989; Mech et 

al. 1988; Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Travel management may indirectly affect wolves through 

impacts to wolf prey, such as deer and elk. Because they are an important prey item, factors that 

affect ungulate distribution and abundance can also affect wolves. 

Wolf response to human disturbance depends on a variety of factors including the setting (e.g., 

den site), individuality of wolves, and whether the population is exploited or protected (Mech et 

al. 1988). Wolf packs appear sensitive to human disturbance near den sites and may abandon the 

site (C. Mack, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl 2005). On the Payette National Forest, most den sites 

are located away from trails and backcountry campsites, so disturbance is less likely to occur. 

Wolves may also be sensitive to human disturbance near rendezvous sites. Wolves appear to be 

most sensitive to human disturbance at the first rendezvous site and become less sensitive at later 

sites (USDI 1987). 

In general, travel management may influence wolf security and prey availability. All action 

alternatives for the PNF Travel Plan are unlikely to have a measurable impact on wolf 

populations or habitat. Wolf populations have been increasing substantially under the current 

Travel Plan, and action alternatives would result in greater restrictions on motorized travel. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, approximately 511,000 acres of the Forest would remain open to crosscountry motor vehicle use in summer leading to harassment, disturbance, illegally shooting and 

trapping. Alternative A would provide the least secure environment for wolves and their prey due 

3 - 198 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

to the permitted cross-country travel. Where cross-country travel is permitted wolves are not able 

to become habituated to regular, predictable traffic. 

While cross-country travel and roads may have localized impacts on wolves, wolf populations are 

expanding under the current Travel Plan. The Forest currently supports fourteen wolf packs and 

wolf populations have increased beyond initial projections. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Effects to wolves and wolf habitat are expected to be similar for all action alternatives. The 

potential for wolf mortality and harassment in all action alternatives would be lower than under 

Alternative A, because no cross-country travel would be allowed. Alternative C has the most 

roads and trails open to motorized use, which could result in potentially higher wolf and human 

conflicts compared to the other action alternatives. However, the open roads and motorized trails 

in all action alternatives would have limited effects to wolves since wolves occur on all Districts, 

and their numbers continue to increase. 

Wolves are unlikely to be affected by potential fluctuations in prey base associated with the action 

alternatives. Elk behavior and vulnerability may vary slightly by action alternative (see analysis 

in Elk section), but overall elk security would increase because cross-country travel is prohibited. 

Roads and motorized trails facilitate hunting opportunities, but overall population numbers are 

also a result of habitat quality and quantity, hunter success, established hunting seasons and a 

number of uncontrollable variables such as weather. All action alternatives would continue to 

support elk populations (big game), thereby assuring a prey base for wolves. 

Cumulative Effects 

In the past, wolves were extirpated from the Payette National Forest. Wolves have reestablished 

territories throughout the Forest. Past actions have been taken into account in the analysis of the 

existing condition of wolves on the PNF -- in short the effects of past actions have been overcome 

by reintroduction and protection of wolf populations in Idaho. Most ongoing activities (Appendix 

D) managed by the PNF are not expected to have measurable impacts on wolves since wolves are 

wide ranging species whose populations are expanding under these current activities. Livestock 

grazing is one activity managed by the Forest where certain practices may reduce wolf predation 

on domestic livestock. Forest rangeland managers work with permittees to implement such 

practices. 

Future Forest Service actions would be analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and required to provide suitable conservation of wolves, since populations in Idaho are 

currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Even if wolf populations in Idaho 

are delisted from ESA, long-term conservation measures are likely to be required as part of the 

delisting. 

Activities outside the control of the Forest Service are impacting wolf populations and would be 

cumulative to any slight effects associated with the selected alternative for the Travel 

Management Plan. Alternatives B and D would result in slightly lower motorized route densities, 

and would therefore be less likely to contribute to cumulative effects with ongoing and future 

actions by other entities, such as mortality associated with livestock depredation, illegal killing, 

and vehicle collisions. These outside activities are likely to continue to occur at levels sufficient 

to limit the distribution and population size of wolves. The Forest would continue to support wolf 

packs under all alternatives. 

Continued private land development may affect wolves by increasing the likelihood wolves 

would be harassed, disturbed, illegally shot, or trapped. The chance of vehicle collisions would 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 199 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

also increase as adjacent private lands are developed and roaded. Livestock predation and other 

wolf/human conflicts are likely to increase as the wolf populations begin to reach carrying 

capacity on the Forest. Wolves are still in the process of re-establishing across the landscape; as 

such, past and ongoing adjacent private and other actions are not expected to strongly affect 

wolves at this time. Wolf predation on livestock and the subsequent removal or killing of the 

wolves as allowed by State and Federal law would have the greatest effects on wolf populations 

on the PNF. 

Effects Determination 

Based on the discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects presented above, all proposed 

Travel Plan alternatives may affect gray wolves. Action alternatives B, C, D, and E would 

improve wolf habitat by eliminating motorized cross-country travel. Alternative C would increase 

the area open to over-snow travel which may slightly increase disturbance to wolves and their 

prey. None of the action alternatives would jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. 

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Introduction 

During consultation with USFWS on the Biological Assessment for the FEIS, additional concerns 

were raised about the impact of roads and motorized trails on the northern Idaho ground squirrel 

(NIDGS). In response to those concerns, additional analysis was added to this FEIS and 

documented in the BA. Changes in NIDGS habitat and potential effects on individuals and 

populations were analyzed by looking at cross-country travel, roads and motorized trails in 

NIDGS sites by alternative. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Cross-country motor vehicle use can detrimentally impact northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat 

through soil compaction and removal of vegetation and can physically harm or take northern 

Idaho ground squirrel individuals through collisions and illegal shooting. 

There would be no impacts to occupied NIDGS sites from motorized cross-country travel, 

because all known sites are closed to this travel. Unoccupied suitable habitat may continue to be 

impacted by cross-country travel motor vehicle travel that destroys vegetation and compacts soil. 

If portions of the west side of the Forest remain open to motorized cross-country travel, 

enforcement of closures of known sites would remain difficult because people often claim they 

were unaware of the closure area or were unsure of the boundaries. In addition, unknown 

populated sites would not be protected and may be impacted by continued motorized crosscountry travel. 

Alternative A would continue to allow travel on approximately 6 miles of open NFS roads and 

motorized trails adjacent to occupied NIDGS habitat. Currently, sixteen occupied sites and one 

unoccupied NIDGS site are adjoined or bisected by open roads or motorized trails under the 

jurisdiction of the Payette National Forest. Three of these occupied sites are also bisected by 

county roads. An additional six occupied sites are bisected by roads under county or private 

3 - 200 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

jurisdiction (Wildlife BA, Project Record). Roads in the vicinity of NIDGS colonies can result in 

harm or take primarily due to vehicle collisions. Access into NIDGS colonies also allows more 

opportunities for illegal shooting. 

Alternative A is the least effective alternative for protecting northern Idaho ground squirrel 

populations and habitat, because, in allows cross-country travel within the range of the NIDGS 

and continues to allow travel on 6 miles of roads and motorized trails within NIDGS occupied 

sites. 

Action Alternatives – B, C, D, and E 

Each of the action alternatives prohibits cross-country motor vehicle use over the entire Forest. 

Occupied NIDGS sites are currently closed to off-road travel, but the action alternatives provide 

additional protection to sites that are occupied, but have not yet been discovered. These 

alternatives would make travel management and enforcement easier because there would be less 

confusion as to where cross-country motor vehicle use is allowed. These alternatives also protect 

currently unoccupied suitable habitat from motorized cross-country travel. 

Cross-country motor vehicle use can detrimentally impact northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat 

through soil compaction and removal of vegetation and can physically harm or take northern 

Idaho ground squirrel individuals through collisions and illegal shooting. The action alternatives 

close all occupied habitat to this off-road activity, thereby reducing potential effects to NIDGS to 

negligible levels. 

Off-road travel would only be allowed to park vehicles one vehicle length from the road or to 

access dispersed campsites within 300 feet of either side of an open road and 100 feet on either 

side of a trail, but no off-road travel would be allowed for any reason in occupied NIDGS habitat. 

Yearly monitoring of occupied NIDGS sites would occur to ensure compliance with the off-road 

travel restrictions. If illegal off-road travel occurs in occupied habitat, measures would be taken to 

physically barricade the area to such travel. Monitoring would also be used to identify newly 

occupied NIDGS habitat. These areas would be added to the Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map and 

closed to all off road travel for parking or access to dispersed camping. 

Roads and motorized trails in the vicinity of NIDGS colonies can result in harm or take primarily 

due to vehicle collisions. Access into NIDGS colonies also allows more opportunities for illegal 

shooting. Under all alternatives, the 6 miles of road within occupied NIDGS sites would not 

change. The miles of motorized trails would remain the same (0.2 miles) in alternatives B, D, and 

E, but would increase to 0.23 miles in Alternative C. 

All alternatives include mitigation measures to reduce the effects from existing roads and 

motorized trails. These measures include signing along roads near NIDGS colonies to educate the 

public on the presence of squirrels and the requirement to drive slowly to avoid collisions. Effects 

would be minimized, but would not be reduced to negligible. 

Over time, the PNF would work with the USFWS to identify additional measures to reduce the 

harm to NIDGS from existing roads and motorized trails. These measures could include speed 

limits, road realignments, and road closures. Closure of some roads would be difficult because 

they are major access routes across the Payette National Forest. Realignment of these roads 

would provide only temporary benefits if the area where the road could be moved is potential 

NIDGS habitat. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 201 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Cumulative Effects 

The effects of past actions (see Appendix D) have been taken into account in the analysis of the 

existing condition for this species on the PNF. Ongoing activities administered by the Forest 

Service are not expected to further affect northern Idaho ground squirrels due to the Forest 

Service’s ability to impose restrictions that minimize disturbance as needed. No reasonably 

foreseeable actions conducted by the PNF are expected to negatively affect NIDGS because all 

actions must be analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and suitably 

designed to conserve the species per the requirements of the Forest Plan (TEST12) and ESA. 

Ongoing actions are listed in Appendix D and have incorporated protective measures for NIDGS. 

Existing restrictions do not allow firewood gathering in occupied NIDGS sites. Additional access 

for firewood gathering would be subject to similar restrictions. The Forest Service is in the 

process of assessing the merits of the conveyance of several FRTA easements for roads to local 

counties. Such conveyances should be considered and analyzed carefully (under NEPA) if the 

roads occur within occupied NIDGS, because the ESA provides stronger protection measures to 

listed species from federal actions compared with state or private actions. The ongoing Bear 

Tornado Recovery Project was designed to avoid impacts to NIDGS. 

The Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project, Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project, 

Muddy Squirrel Project, East Fork Lost Creek NIDGS Habitat Improvement Project, and Warm 

Springs Fuels Reduction are all ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions designed to restore 

northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat. 

Past actions on private land impacted northern Idaho ground squirrels through direct killing of 

squirrels and removal of habitat. Based on consultation with the USFWS, ongoing and 

foreseeable future private land development could affect the species through development of 

suitable, but unoccupied habitat. In occupied habitat, ESA requirements generally result in 

development of protective measures (such as Safe Harbor Agreements and Habitat Conservation 

Plans) in consultation with the landowner. Lands administered by the Idaho Department of State 

Lands adjoin the Payette National Forest and provide unoccupied and occupied habitat for 

NIDGS. ESA requirements should result in agreements with the State of Idaho to protect 

occupied NIDGS sites, but no such agreements have been made to date. Without these protective 

agreements, activities by state, county, and private entities may have cumulative negative impacts 

across the range of the NIDGS, despite the measures the PNF undertakes to protect NIDGS on 

NFS lands. In relation to the Travel Plan action, about 4.5 miles of road that are under jurisdiction 

by the county or private entities adjoin or bisect NIDGS sites. 

In summary, any one of the action alternatives for the Travel Plan would minimize effects to 

NIDGS, but would not reduce these effects to negligible. In combination with past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions on NFS neutral or positive effects are likely in the long term due 

to closure of the PNF to cross-country motor vehicle use in combination with ongoing protection 

required by the Forest Plan, and foreseeable actions in vegetation management projects that are 

designed to improve NIDGS habitat. When combined with cumulative effects on private and state 

lands, effects may be negative unless protective agreements are put into place for the northern 

Idaho ground squirrel. 

Effects Determination 

For the reasons stated above, any one of the alternatives is likely to adversely affect northern 

Idaho ground squirrel and their habitat. 

3 - 202 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Canada Lynx 

Wildlife Issue 2: Motorized travel may affect Canada lynx habitat during summer and winter. 

Indicators – Summer: 

• Density of roads and motorized trails within lynx habitat. 

Indicators – Winter: 

• Acres open and closed to over-snow vehicle use in lynx habitat. 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within lynx habitat. 

• Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity. 

Roads, Trails, and Motorized Access in Summer 

There is little information on the effects of roads and trails on lynx or their prey (Apps 2000; 

McKelvey et al. 2000). Construction of roads may remove lynx habitat; conversely, lynx may use 

less-traveled roads for travel and foraging if vegetation conditions provide good snowshoe hare 

habitat. Preliminary information indicates that lynx do not avoid roads except those with high 

traffic volume (Aubry et al. 2000; Ruggerio et al. 2000a) or when road use coincides with 

sensitive habitat such as denning habitat (Ruggerio et al. 2000b). 

The likelihood of lynx encountering people has dramatically increased over the last few decades 

because of elevated levels of human access into lynx habitat. Roads and trails, snowmobiles, offroad vehicles, and ski area developments enable human access into historically remote forests, 

thereby increasing the likelihood of lynx being displaced from otherwise suitable habitats and 

increasing the vulnerability of lynx to human-induced mortality (Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler and 

Brittell 1990). Roads may also increase the vulnerability of lynx to hunters and trappers (Koehler 

and Aubry 1994). 

Lynx avoid open areas and use mature forest or forest with dense cover, tall shrubs, and wellvegetated riparian areas as travel corridors. Lynx will use some types of roads for hunting and 

travel down old roads less than 50 feet wide with good cover along both edges (Koehler and 

Brittell 1990) and cross openings less than approximately 300 feet in width (Koehler and Aubry 

1994). However, roads may disrupt lynx travel and hunting patterns. Koehler and Aubry (1994) 

concluded road construction and maintenance are important components of lynx habitat 

management because they both destroy and create prey habitat, but also make lynx more 

vulnerable to human-caused mortality. 

The PNF Forest Plan (Forest Plan 2003) does not include direction for road densities in relation to 

lynx habitat. The Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy (LCAS) recommends prioritizing 

roads for closure or seasonal restrictions in lynx habitat where road densities exceed two miles 

per square mile, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that roads, even with high traffic 

volume, constitute a low threat to lynx populations (USDI 2003). 

In all alternatives, in all LAUs, the densities of open motorized routes are less than 2.0 

miles/square mile (Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record). The most additional roads and 

motorized trails (33 miles) are proposed in Alternative C including about 6 miles along the West 

Mountain ridgeline above Lake Cascade. Alternative E would reduce open roads and motorized 

trails compared with the existing condition, but would include the ATV trail along the West 

Mountain ridgeline. This additional trail would be least desirable, since ridgelines are important 

travel corridors for not only lynx, but many species of wildlife. In all action alternatives, the areas 

open to cross-country travel would decrease substantially. These closures to off-road travel are 

expected to benefit lynx habitat. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 203 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Refugia 

Research suggests that local refugia are critical for successful lynx reproduction and fitness 

(Ruediger et al. 2000). “Refugia” are large areas of high quality habitat relatively secure from 

human exploitation, habitat degradation, and disturbance. The minimum size of refugia for lynx is 

unknown, but a study in north-central Washington found that a 448,000-acre area is sustaining 

lynx populations (Koehler 1990), but this area is also connected to lynx habitat and populations in 

Canada. 

The PNF has large blocks of relatively undisturbed areas or potential “refugia” in the Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs). All 22 IRAs on the PNF contain potential lynx habitat. About 69 percent 

(638,900 of 926,600 acres) of potential lynx habitat in the project area occurs in IRAs. However, 

586,000 acres of the IRAs are currently open to over-snow travel and approximately 31 miles of 

groomed snowmobiles routes occur in two IRAs (French Creek 16.3 miles and Patrick Butte 14.7 

miles). This reduces the effectiveness of IRAs as refugia for lynx in winter. 

Lynx are not known to inhabit the PNF, so the ability of IRAs to provide undisturbed lynx habitat 

to maintain lynx populations cannot be measured. However, IRAs are considered important 

refugia for any lynx that may be present on the Forest. 

Cumulatively, additional refugia are provided outside the Travel Plan project area in the FCRONR Wilderness. The wilderness contains 770,700 acres of LAUs with 488,700 acres of 

potential lynx habitat. No snowmobile use is allowed in the wilderness. 

Habitat Connectivity 

Habitat connectivity is also an important component of habitat conservation for lynx, as well as 

many other wildlife species (see general discussion above). Providing for habitat connectivity in 

order to promote wildlife movement and genetic interaction would also benefit lynx populations 

by maintaining secure habitat in dispersal routes used by juvenile animals and for breeding 

activities. Areas with high road densities and/or human use patterns can interrupt habitat 

connectivity and fragment lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). The LCAS discourages the 

building of motorized routes on ridge tops as this might interfere with lynx habitat connectivity. 

Forest Plan direction on this topic is broader (TEOB30) and states: “Manage recreational 

activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity.” 

Five habitat corridors potentially important for habitat connectivity were identified in the project 

area (see Figure W-1). These corridors largely follow ridge tops. Three corridors run parallel to 

one another from north to south: the Big Creek corridor, Needles to Marshall Mountain corridor, 

and Slab Butte to Patrick Butte corridor. Two corridors, called the FC-RONR Wilderness to Hell’s 

Canyon North and South corridors, run east to west across the PNF. 

In summer, impacts to these corridors are relatively low because these areas generally have low 

road densities. No new roads or trails on ridge tops are proposed in alternatives B or D. 

Alternatives C and E would add a six mile long ATV trail along a ridgeline on the Council Ranger 

District in MA 3 that bisects lynx habitat (but not one of the four main corridors). This new trail 

would increase access into lynx habitat, but does not substantially change the density of roads and 

motorized trails. Alternative C would cause a slight increase in human disturbance in lynx habitat 

in summer. Negative impacts to habitat relative to open routes would be higher than any of the 

other alternatives considered. 

In winter, alternatives A, B, C, D, and E provide varying levels of protection of habitat 

connectivity from over-snow vehicle use. Alternative D provides the greatest protection by 

decreasing the number of acres open to motorized use in lynx habitat winter from 687,500 to 

533,100 acres. Alternative E also provides a substantial amount of protection by decreasing open 

3 - 204 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

areas in lynx habitat from 687,500 acres to 607,700 acres. Alternative D and E specifically 

respond to Forest Plan direction which states: During mid or project scale analysis, identify and 

prioritize opportunities for restoration of habitat linkage zones to promote genetic integrity and 

species distribution (TEOB09), and Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and 

connectivity (TEOB30). 

Maps that display this additional protection are provided in Figures W-1 and W-2. Additional 

analysis and discussion of the effects of habitat connectivity in winter is provided below and in 

the wolverine analysis. 

Snow Compaction 

Increases in winter access into lynx habitat have increased the vulnerability of lynx to harvest in 

areas historically isolated from humans (Todd 1985). Lynx are particularly easy to capture by 

trapping (Bailey et al. 1986; Mowat et al. 1999), and trapping can be a major cause of lynx 

mortality. 

Some researchers maintain winter activities, (e.g. cross-county skiing, snowmobiling) can 

compact snow allowing other predators that compete with lynx to access lynx habitat (Claar et al. 

1999; Bunnell et al. 2006). Lynx appear to have evolved a competitive advantage in deep snow 

that tends to exclude other predators during winter, a time when prey is most limiting (Buskirk et 

al. 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000). Other researchers note there is no solid data on the role of snow 

compaction and changes in competitive advantage between lynx and other species (Kolbe in 

prep). 

In a review of potential threats to lynx (USDI 2003), the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded: 

“There is no evidence that any competition that may exist between lynx and other species exerts a 

population-level impact on lynx.” and “No evidence has been provided that packed snow trails 

facilitate competition to a level that negatively affects lynx.” Research in western Montana 

appears to support this contention, finding that: “The overall influence of snowmobile trails on 

coyote movements and foraging success during winter appeared to be minimal on our study area 

(Kolbe et al. in prep.). Other research in Utah arrived at differing conclusions (using different 

methodology) stating: “Our results suggest that restrictions placed on snowmobiles in lynx 

conservation areas by land management agencies because of potential impacts of coyotes may be 

appropriate.” (Bunnell et al. 2006). The Forest Plan (2003a) adopted the LCAS standard for snow 

compaction (TEST34) that states: 

Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, 

outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with 

immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming 

or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat.... Also, permits, 

authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of 

existing snow compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow 

compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still 

comply with this standard. (USDA Forest Service 2003a) 

Due to the recent conflicting evidence on the need for this standard, the analysis for the PNF 

Travel Plan considered whether the standard should be modified or dropped. After consultation 

with USFWS, it was determined that the Forest lacks the data to support any substantial changes 

to lynx management, including Forest Plan direction for lynx, at this time. The analysis for the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment also considered this issue and retained this standard as a 

guideline in the preferred alternative (T. Bertram pers. comm. 2007). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 205 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Figure W-1. Projected Wildlife Travel Corridors in Winter for Alternative D 

3 - 206 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Figure W-2. Projected Wildlife Travel Corridors in Winter for Alternative E 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 207 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

The PNF plans to use the expertise of the Lynx Biology Team and the USFWS to revaluate lynx 

habitat and LAUs on the Forest. The PNF also plans to implement surveys for lynx (see 

monitoring section in Chapter 2). Following these efforts, the PNF standard (TEST34) may be 

reevaluated. 

The PNF has no designated over-snow routes other than groomed snowmobile trails. The PNF 

has no designated “play areas.” Although not designated and hard to identify, the Forest does 

have many miles of over-snow routes and acres of areas open to over-snow travel in lynx habitat. 

The other indicator tracked is: change in miles of groomed snowmobile trails in lynx habitat 

by LAU. The analysis of this indicator takes into account not only the change by LAU, but also 

changes by combinations of adjacent LAUs. In addition, this analysis considers changes due to 

grooming of routes and areas of “existing snow compaction.” 

As directed by the Forest Plan (TEST34), alternatives B, D, and E would not result in a net 

increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, outside of baseline areas of 

consistent snow compaction. However, Alternative C proposes to open approximately 59,000 

acres that are currently closed to over-snow vehicle use in lynx habitat for a total of about 

746,500 open acres or about 81 percent of the lynx habitat on the PNF outside of designated 

Wilderness. Hence, Alternative C would expand open areas and snow compaction in lynx habitat. 

Newly opened areas under Alternative C would not meet Forest Plan direction except for the 

proposed opening of 765 acres in the Sturgill Peak area that are outside of an LAU. In order for 

this aspect of Alternative C to be consistent with the Forest Plan, other areas must be closed to 

over-snow use (as proposed in alternatives B, D, or E). Without other area closures, an 

amendment to the Forest Plan would be necessary 

Table W-4 displays the potential routes (miles) and acres open to motorized over-snow use for 

each alternative for lynx habitat in all LAUs (outside of wilderness) combined. Alternatives B, D, 

and E reduce the open acres by approximately 12,500 acres, 154,500 acres, and 79,900 acres, 

respectively. Both Alternative D and Alternative E specifically address the need for corridors for 

habitat connectivity in winter (see discussion above and in wolverine section). Alternative D best 

addresses the need, but Alternative E also provides reasonable protection of the corridors. 

Alternative C would not meet standard TEST34 of no net increase in play areas (areas open to 

over-snow vehicle use) because about 58,900 additional acres in lynx habitat would be opened. 

Table W-4. Change in Miles of Groomed Routes and Areas Open and Closed to 

Over-snow Vehicle Use in Lynx Habitat on the PNF (outside of the FC-RONR 

Wilderness) for each Travel Plan Alternative

Alternative Miles of Groomed 

Snowmobile 

Routes 

Acres Open to Oversnow Vehicle Use 

(percent of area) 

Acres Closed to 

Over-snow 

Vehicle Use 

Total Acres 

Lynx Habitat 

A 137 687,500 

(74%) 

239,000 

(26%) 

926,500 

B 129 675,100 

(73%) 

251,500 

(27%) 

926,500 

C 137 746,500 

(81%) 

180,000 

(19%) 

926,500 

D 129 533,100 

(58%) 

393,500 

(32%) 

926,500 

E 137 607,700 

(66%) 

318,800 

(34%) 

926,500 

3 - 208 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Change in areas open to over-snow vehicle use in lynx habitat by LAU by alternative is shown in 

Table W-5. Alternative C is non-compliant with TEST34 because of increases in motorized over 

snow areas in five LAUs. In addition, the increases in open areas (play areas) in five LAUs in 

Alternative C cannot be offset by consideration of combinations of immediately adjacent LAUs. 

Non-compliance would also occur in one LAU in Alternative E , but overall Alternative E would 

close an additional 79,900 acres in lynx habitat compared with baseline (the No Action 

Alternative). This increase, when viewed in context of adjacent LAUs, is considered consistent 

with the Forest Plan because TEST34 allows for the evaluation of combinations of LAUs: 

Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, 

outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with 

immediately adjacent LAUs. 

An increase of 16,754 acres open in the Warren LAU should be considered in context with 

closures in the immediately adjacent LAUs: Upper Sesech – 5,885 acres closed, California-Bull – 

2,692 acres closed, Lower Secesh – 1,563 acres closed, Middle South Fork Salmon – 23,045 

acres closed. Closures in lynx habitat in these adjacent LAUs total more than 33,000 acres 

meeting Forest Plan direction, including TEST34. 

Although the total miles of groomed routes on the PNF would not increase above the baseline, 

routes in the Hazard Creek and Middle Forest Weiser LAUs would increase above baseline in 

alternatives C and E. Table W-6 displays the potential groomed routes in lynx habitat by LAU 

(rounded to the nearest mile). The Hazard Creek LAU is directly adjacent to Goose Creek LAU. 

When the two LAUs are evaluated together, the miles of groomed route would not surpass the 

baseline (Table W-7). This is also the case when the Middle Fork Weiser and Northwest Council 

LAUs are evaluated together (Table W-7). Forest Plan standard TEST34 allows for the evaluation 

of a combination of adjacent LAUs (see above). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 209 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES Table W-5. Change in Acres Open to Over-snow Vehicle Use in Lynx Habitat by LAU (Outside of Wildern

LAU_ID LAU_NAME 1 Granite 2 Rapid River 3 Lower Little Salmon 4 Boulder 5 Partridge-Kelly 6 Hazard Creek 7 Goose Creek 8 Northwest Council 9 Middle Fork Weiser 10 Little Weiser 11 Fall-Johnson 12 French Creek 13 Upper North Fork Payette 14 Lake Fork 15 Kennally Creek 16 No Name 17 California-Bull 18 Upper Secesh 19 Lower Secesh 20 Buckhorn-Fitsum 21 Blackmare-Fourmile 22 Warren 

Lower South Fork Salmon 

23 River 

Middle South Fork Salmon 

24 River 25 Lower EFSF Salmon River 28 Beaver-Gold 29 Upper Big Creek 

ALT_A 

Open Closed 

6,434 7,456 

23,449 15,300 

12,920 1 

27,532 70 

20,339 0 

34,351 0 

21,479 3,049 

18,372 117 

20,422 510 

14,132 1,631 

17,141 0 

34,519 0 

56,771 3,730 

7,445 17,952 

25,324 1,769 

2 0 

24,326 2,086 

70,647 10,602 

11,808 38,877 

9 33,329 

40 41,225 

31,620 16,754 

16,307 6,216 48,626 2,460 

6,561 7,335 

0 0 

20,913 5,475 

ALT_B 

Open Closed 

6,434 7,456 

23,449 15,300 

12,920 1 

27,532 70 

20,339 0 

32,277 2,075 

18,101 6,427 

18,372 117 

20,422 510 

14,132 1,631 

17,141 0 

34,519 0 

56,743 3,758 2,044 23,352 

25,324 1,769 

2 0 

24,326 2,086 

70,647 10,602 

10,245 40,440 

9 33,329 

40 41,225 

31,620 16,754 

16,307 6,216 48,626 2,460 

6,561 7,335 

0 0 

20,913 5,475 

ALT_C 

Open Closed 

6,434 7,456 

23,449 15,300 

12,920 1 

27,532 70 

20,339 0 

32,277 2,075 

18,995 5,534 

18,372 117 

20,422 510 

14,132 1,631 

17,141 0 34,519 0 

57,081 3,421 

9,552 15,845 

25,328 1,765 

2 0 

26,412 0 

78,884 2,365 

15,072 35,612 7,591 25,746 

15,424 25,841 

48,374 0 

16,339 6,184 48,626 2,460 

13,832 64 

0 0 

20,913 5,475 

ALT_D 

Open Closed 

6,434 7,456 

23,449 15,300 

1,737 11,184 

27,532 70 

10 20,330 

29,859 4,493 

12,562 11,966 

18,372 117 

20,422 510 

14,132 1,631 

11,282 5,859 18,646 15,872 

41,607 18,894 

1,883 23,513 

20,923 6,170 

2 0 

19,548 6,864 

57,173 24,076 

10,244 40,440 

8 33,329 

40 41,225 

31,620 16,754 

16,307 6,216 24,928 26,158 

6,561 7,335 

0 0 

1,777 24,611 

ALT_

Open C

6,434 7

23,449 1

355 1

27,532 7

9,522 1

23,882 1

17,676 6

18,372 1

20,422 5

14,132 1

16,938 2

34,020 4

55,364 5

2,044 2

25,324 1

2 0 

21,634 4

64,762 1

10,245 4

9 3

40 4

48,374 

16,339 6

25,581 2

6,561 7

0 0 

2,308 2

3 - 210 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL 

LAU_ID LAU_NAME ALT_A 

Open Closed 

40,962 7,729 

3,234 0 

745 0 

ALT_B 

Open Closed 

40,962 7,729 

3,234 0 

745 0 

ALT_C 

Open Closed 

40,962 7,729 

3,234 0 

745 0 

ALT_D 

Open Closed 

40,953 7,737 

3,234 0 

745 0 

ALT_

Open C

40,953 7

3,234 0 

745 0 

30 Stibnite 37 Monumental 

Upper Middle Fork Salmon 

39 River 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

The additional two miles of trail (above baseline) proposed in the Warren LAU occur in an area 

of existing snow compaction. This is also allowed in Forest Plan standard TEST34, which states: 

Also, permits, authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline 

areas of existing snow compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow 

compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still 

comply with this standard. 

Table W-6. Change in Miles of Groomed Routes in Lynx Habitat by LAU on the 

PNF for each Travel Plan Alternative 

Miles of Groomed Routes 

LAU 

ID # LAU NAME ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D ALT E 

7 Goose Creek 28 27 27 27 27 

6 Hazard Creek 14 14 15 14 15 

10 Little Weiser 16 16 16 16 16 

9 Middle Fork Weiser 21 18 23 18 23 

8 Northwest Council 12 9 9 9 9 

13 Upper North Fork Payette 30 28 26 28 26 

18 Upper Secesh 14 14 14 14 14 

22 Warren 4 4 6 4 6 

Total Miles 137 129 137 129 137 

Table W-7. Change in Miles of Groomed Routes in Lynx Habitat in combination by 

adjacent LAUs for each Travel Plan Alternative 

Miles of Groomed Routes 

LAU 

ID # LAU Combinations ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D ALT E 

6 & 7 Hazard Creek & Goose Creek 42 41 42 41 42 

10 Little Weiser 16 16 16 16 16 

8 & 9 NW Council & Middle Fork Weiser 33 27 32 27 32 

13 Upper North Fork Payette 30 28 26 28 26 

18 Upper Secesh 14 14 14 14 14 

22 Warren 4 4 6 4 6 

Total Miles 137 129 137 129 137 

Summary of Effects 

Based upon the current and historic status of lynx in Idaho, there is a low probability of lynx 

occurrence on the Forest. The alternatives considered for the PNF Travel Plan would have a 

limited effect on potential lynx or lynx habitat during snow-free months. Alternative A allows 

cross-country OHV travel unless otherwise designated. Alternatives B, C, D, and E provide 

substantially greater protection of lynx habitat than the No Action Alternative since they do not 

allow cross-country motorized travel. 

Alternative C allows for increases in over-snow vehicle use (by 58,900 acres) that may impact 

lynx habitat and would not meet Forest Plan direction for lynx conservation (TEST34). In 

Alternative E, an increase of 16,754 acres open in the Warren LAU is acceptable when considered 

in context with 33,000 acres of additional closures in the immediately adjacent LAUs. 

Although some research may not fully support the need for Forest Plan standard TEST34 (USDI 

2003), there is also conflicting research (Bunnell 2005) and no substantial evidence to support 

3 - 212 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

changing the standard. In the preferred alternative for the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, 

this standard is retained as a guideline (T. Bertram pers. commun. 2007). 

The PNF standard (TEST34) will be evaluated over time, in combination with additional surveys 

to determine if lynx actually occur on the Forest. The PNF plans to use the expertise of the Lynx 

Biology Team and the USFWS to revaluate lynx habitat and LAUs on the Forest. Until these 

efforts are accomplished, the Forest lacks the data to support any substantial changes to lynx 

management, including Forest Plan direction for lynx. In addition, the need for greater protection 

of some wildlife habitats to over-snow motorized use is supported by the analysis of habitat 

connectivity for wolverine (see discussion below). 

Alternatives B, D, and E improve conditions for lynx habitat in winter. Alternative D would 

provide the largest protection of habitat connectivity through closures of about 155,000 more 

acres in lynx habitat than Alternative A to over-snow vehicle use. While Alternative E closes 

fewer acres to over-snow use than Alternative D, the alternative was designed to both protect 

habitat connectivity and open some desirable areas for over-snow motorized use, while still 

meeting Forest Plan direction for lynx habitat (TEST34). 

Alternative A – No Action 

Roads and Trails: 

• No change in the miles of roads and motorized trails in lynx habitat. 

• No change in road densities. Current road densities in lynx habitat by LAU are low (generally 

less than 1 mile per square mile). No density exceeds 2 miles per square mile for any LAU. 

• Any current effects from open roads and/or open areas would continue such as potential 

displacement of lynx and disruption of lynx travel and hunting patterns. 

Refugia and Connectivity: 

• Cross-country motor vehicle use would continue in areas currently open. Most of the areas 

open to cross-country travel are in lower elevations not normally used by lynx. 

• All IRAs on the Forest contain lynx habitat. About 69 percent (638,900 of 926,600 acres) of 

the lynx habitat occurs in IRAs. While 14 of the IRAs have roads or motorized trails, road 

densities are low and thereby provide a relatively low disturbance environment. 

• Projected corridors for habitat connectivity largely overlap with the IRAs. In summer, habitat 

connectivity should be sufficient to allow for potential lynx movements especially within the 

eastern portion of the Forest. 

• Projected corridors for habitat connectivity may not be sufficient in winter months. 

• No change to lynx travel corridors in riparian areas. 

Snow Compaction: 

• Currently, grooming occurs on 137 miles of snowmobile trails in lynx habitat in all LAUs. The 

total miles approved for grooming (based on consultation on the effects to lynx completed in 

2000) is 144 miles. This is the baseline against which the “no net increase” is measured. 

• No changes in areas open to snow compaction. Current increasing trends in winter use and 

snow compacting activities in open areas in lynx habitat would continue. 

Alternative B 

Roads and Trails: 

• Slight decrease in roads and motorized trails in lynx habitat resulting in a slight decrease in 

human disturbance in lynx habitat. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 213 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

• No change in road densities. Current road densities in lynx habitat by LAU are low (generally 

less than 1 mile per square miles). No density exceeds 2 miles per square mile for any LAU. 

Refugia and Connectivity: 

• Cross-country motor vehicle use would be prohibited. This would improve security and reduce 

the potential for disturbance within lynx habitat for lynx and lynx prey. 

• Refugia would continue to be provided within the IRAs on the Forest. Few changes in the 

miles of roads or trails within IRAs results in effects similar to Alternative A. 

• In summer, projected travel corridors for habitat connectivity would benefit relative to 

Alternative A due to proposed closure of areas to off-road or trail use. 

• In winter, lynx habitat and habitat connectivity benefit due to an additional 12,500 acres in 

lynx habitat closed to over-snow motorized use. Alternative B would not adequately ensure 

protection of the five main projected corridors on the Forest. 

• Riparian area corridors that may be used for travel by lynx would be improved because of the 

limits on motorized cross-country travel. 

Snow Compaction: 

• A slight reduction in groomed snowmobile routes in lynx habitat from 137 miles to 129 miles 

with minor potential benefits. 

• Closes an additional 12,500 acres to over-snow motorized use in lynx habitat. This would 

decrease areas subject to snow compaction and potentially decrease interference from other 

carnivores in lynx habitat. This would meet Forest Plan direction for no increase in play areas 

to minimize snow compaction. 

Alternative C 

Roads and Trails: 

• Slight increase of roads and motorized trails in lynx habitat resulting in a potential slight 

increase in human disturbance in lynx habitat. 

• About six new miles of motorized trail designation is proposed along a ridge between 

Tamarack Resort and Council. The LCAS discourages the building of new roads on ridge tops 

as this might interfere with lynx habitat connectivity although there is no specific standard. 

Ridgelines and riparian areas are used extensively as travel corridors not only for lynx but 

many other species of wildlife such as wolverine. 

• Road densities in lynx habitat by LAU are low (generally less than 1 mile per square miles). 

No LAU exceeds 2 miles per square mile. Open road densities slightly higher than in 

alternatives B, D, and E. 

Refugia and Connectivity: 

• Cross-country motor vehicle use would be prohibited. This would improve security and reduce 

the potential for disturbance within lynx habitat and travel corridors during the summer. 

• Refugia would continue to be provided within the IRAs on the Forest. Greatest amount of 

motorized routes within IRAs compared to alternatives B, D, or E. 

• Lynx habitat and habitat corridors in winter would be more fragmented relative to Alternative 

A due to an additional 58,900 acres in lynx habitat open to over-snow motorized use. 

Alternative C would not adequately ensure protection of the five main habitat corridors on the 

Forest. 

• Riparian area travel corridors would be slightly improved because of limits on motorized 

cross-country travel. 

3 - 214 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Snow Compaction: 

• No change in the total (137) miles of groomed snowmobile trails in lynx habitat in LAUs 

resulting in no change in potential effects. 

• For some individual LAUs, slight increases in groomed routes in lynx habitat would meet 

TEST34 when these LAUs are looked at in combination with adjacent LAUs (LAUs 6 + 7 and 

LAUs 8 + 9) (Tables W-5, W-6) and when existing areas of snow compaction are considered 

(LAU 22). 

• Opens 58,900 additional acres to over-snow vehicle use (and use as play areas) in lynx habitat. 

These acres occur in five LAUs (Table W-5) and would not meet Forest Plan direction 

(TEST34) for protection of lynx habitat from increases in snow compaction. This would 

potentially increase disturbance and interference from other carnivores in lynx habitat. 

Alternative D 

Roads and Trails: 

• Decrease of approximately 100 miles of roads and motorized trails in lynx habitat resulting in 

a potential decrease in human disturbance in lynx habitat. 

• Road densities in lynx habitat by LAU are low (generally less than 1 mile per square miles). 

No LAU exceeds 2 miles per square mile. Open road densities slightly lower than other 

alternatives. 

Refugia and Connectivity: 

• Cross-country motor vehicle use would be prohibited. This would improve security and reduce 

the potential for disturbance within lynx habitat for lynx and lynx prey. 

• Refugia would continue to be provided within the IRAs on the Forest. Fewest new motorized 

routes within IRAs compared to alternatives A, B, C, or E. 

• Summer habitat corridors would be improved relative to Alternative A due to proposed closure 

of areas to off-road or trail use. 

• Lynx habitat and habitat corridors in winter would benefit due to closure of an additional 

154,500 acres in lynx habitat to over-snow motorized use. Alternative D provides the most 

protection of the five main habitat corridors on the Forest. 

• Riparian area travel corridors would be slightly improved because of the limits on motorized 

cross-country travel. 

Snow Compaction: 

• A slight reduction in groomed snowmobile routes in lynx habitat from 137 miles to 129 miles 

resulting in slight benefits. 

• Close an additional 149,900 acres to over-snow motorized use in lynx habitat. This would 

reduce over-the-snow compaction and any subsequent potential competition from other forest 

carnivores. Compared with the other alternatives, Alternative D would have the most 

beneficial effects on lynx habitat. 

Alternative E 

Roads and Trails: 

• Slight decrease in roads and motorized trails in lynx habitat resulting in a potential slight 

decrease in human disturbance in lynx habitat. 

• About six new miles of motorized trail designation is proposed along a ridge between 

Tamarack Resort and Council. The LCAS discourages the building of new roads on ridge tops 

as this might interfere with lynx habitat connectivity although there is no specific standard. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 215 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Ridgelines and riparian areas are used extensively as travel corridors not only for lynx but 

many other species of wildlife such as wolverine. 

• Road densities in lynx habitat by LAU are low (generally less than 1 mile per square mile). No 

LAU exceeds 2 miles per square mile. Open road densities slightly lower than in Alternative 

A, but slightly higher than Alternative D. 

Refugia and Connectivity: 

• Cross-country motor vehicle use would be prohibited. This would improve security and reduce 

the potential for disturbance within lynx habitat. 

• Refugia would continue to be provided within the IRAs on the Forest. Slightly more 

motorized routes within IRAs compared to Alternative D. 

• In summer, projected corridors for habitat connectivity would benefit due to proposed closure 

of areas to off-road or trail use. 

• Lynx habitat and habitat corridors in winter would be less fragmented relative to Alternative A 

due to overall decrease in acres in lynx habitat open to over-snow motorized use. Alternative E 

would largely protect the five main habitat corridors on the Forest, with the possible exception 

of the southernmost portion of the Patrick Butte to Slab Butte corridor (see discussion under 

wolverine). 

• Riparian area travel corridors would be slightly improved because of limits on motorized 

cross-country travel. 

Snow Compaction: 

• No change in the total (137) miles of groomed snowmobile trails in lynx habitat in LAUs 

resulting in no change in potential effects. For some individual LAUs, slight increases in 

groomed routes in lynx habitat would meet TEST34 when these LAUs are looked at in 

combination with adjacent LAUs (LAUs 6 + 7 and LAUs 8 + 9) (Table W-5, W-6) and when 

existing areas of snow compaction are considered (LAU 22). 

• Close 79,900 acres open to over-snow vehicle use (and use as play areas) in lynx habitat. 

Although one LAU would open 16,000 acres to over-snow motorized use, this is offset by 

33,000 acres of closures in adjacent LAUs. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

Several past and ongoing activities have resulted in positive effects on lynx habitat. Decisions 

closing areas of the Forest to off-road travel or snowmobile use have positive effects for lynx and 

lynx habitat. The presence of roadless areas contributes to lynx refugia. 

Past vegetation management projects and natural wildfires may have benefited lynx through 

creation of early seral habitat for snowshoe hares. Projects that promote mature forests contribute 

towards denning habitat. The past development of Brundage Mountain Resort has reduced the 

habitat suitability of the area for lynx and their prey. 

The Forest Service ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix D) that may 

cumulatively affect lynx include this Travel Plan, recreation management, and proposed 

vegetation management projects (such as the Upper Elevation Groomed Route Improvement 

project). In general, these actions would cumulatively benefit lynx and lynx habitat because they 

include requirements to protect lynx and conserve their habitat as required by Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and the Forest Plan. 

Activities on adjacent private and other lands are unlikely to contribute to cumulative effects on 

lynx habitat, since most private land occurs at low elevations that currently are not considered 

habitat for lynx. The exception is the continued expansion of Tamarack Resort, portions of which 

are likely to occur in lynx habitat. Expansion efforts involving NFS lands are likely to result in 

3 - 216 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

continued protective measures for lynx habitat, but expansion on state or private lands are 

expected to contribute to negative cumulative effects to lynx habitat. 

In general, Alternative A neither contributes nor removes cumulative effects to lynx and lynx 

habitat when considered with the other past, present, and future activities that may affect lynx and 

lynx habitat in and around the PNF. 

In winter, Alternative B is likely to contribute to slight cumulative improvements to lynx habitat. 

Alternative D contributes to greater cumulative improvements. In winter, the potential loss of 

habitat due to Tamarack Resort’s potential ski area expansion might be somewhat offset by the 

additional protection of areas to motorized over-snow travel in alternatives B, D, and E. Winter is 

an important time for lynx since over-winter starvation can be a limiting factor for lynx 

populations. Activities limiting disturbance and snow compaction such as the snowmobile closure 

areas have positive effects for lynx. Alternative C, when considered with other actions, is likely to 

contribute to slight negative cumulative effects in winter. 

All action alternatives reduce off-road vehicle travel in summer with potential benefits to lynx 

habitats. While Alternative D proposes the greatest reduction in motorized routes, Alternative B 

and E also reduce the miles of motorized trails and roads compared with Alternative A resulting in 

slight cumulative benefits. Alternative C proposes increases in motorized routes leading to slight 

negative cumulative effects on lynx. In summary, while some proposed activities might have 

negative effects on lynx or its habitat these effects are expected to be offset by the overall 

improved quality of lynx habitat provided by the reductions in cross-country and over snow travel 

in Alternatives B, D, and E. 

Effects Determination 

Canada lynx are not known to be present on the PNF, however there is potential for lynx to occur 

on the Forest since they occur on adjacent Forests and could potentially disperse to the PNF. 

Hence, maintenance and protection of habitat connectivity within and between the PNF’s five 

main corridors was identified as the most important aspect of lynx habitat on the PNF. Both 

Alternative D (see Figure W-1) and Alternative E (see Figure W-2) address this concern as well as 

Forest Plan direction (TEOB12 and TEOB14) for lynx, to maintain habitat connectivity and 

linkages (see Forest Plan Consistency discussion below). 

Alternative C expands the acres available to over-snow vehicle use in lynx habitat from about 74 

percent to 81 percent of the Forest, outside of Wilderness. These additional acres open to 

motorized over-snow use do not meet Forest Plan direction (TEST34) and specifically impacts 

five LAUs. This direction is directly tied to effective conservation of lynx as outlined in the 

LCAS. Although no verified sightings of lynx have occurred on the PNF in more than 30 years, 

the Forest has not conducted surveys in all likely areas. Lacking more definitive studies on lynx 

occurrence on the PNF and more research on the influence of over-snow motorized use on 

competition by other predators with lynx, the Forest has no rationale for modifications of Forest 

Plan direction. Hence, Alternative C may affect and is likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. 

Alternatives B, D, and E improve conditions for lynx and their prey by closing some roads and 

trails as well as closing additional acres to motorized over-snow use. Of all the alternatives, 

Alternative D most effectively protects habitat for Canada lynx particularly corridors for habitat 

connectivity. Each alternative may affect Canada lynx, but is not likely to adversely affect 

Canada lynx or their habitat 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 217 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Forest Plan Consistency Specific to Lynx 

TEOB12 directs that: during project planning, field review lynx analysis units (LAUs) that 

overlay project areas to determine the suitability for denning, foraging, security, and connectivity 

of habitat within the project area. 

Areas and corridors that could provide habitat connectivity for lynx were identified (see Figures 

W-1, W-2). 

TEOB14 states: During mid or project scale analysis, identify and prioritize opportunities for 

restoration of habitat linkage zones to promote genetic integrity and species distribution (see 

Figure E-1 in Appendix E of the Forest Plan). 

Figure E-1 was updated to provide information more pertinent to lynx (see figures W-1, W-2). In 

the Travel Plan analysis, Alternative D would provide the greatest opportunities for restoration of 

habitat linkage zones, followed by Alternative E, which provides somewhat more restricted 

opportunities. 

TEOB28 states that during travel planning, areas of concentrated snow compaction activities in 

lynx habitat within LAUs should be identified and snow compaction in those areas should be 

minimized to reduce potential conflicts. 

Although a detailed map was not developed for this planning process, areas of concentrated use 

were identified. So much of the Forest contains lynx habitat that in order to provide reasonable 

access for recreationists, not all lynx habitat can be protected from disturbance. Most of the 

currently suitable lynx habitat is protected against snow compaction because it is heavily treed 

and therefore not accessible to snow machines. Snowmobiles tend to ‘play’ in open areas and 

trails tend to be on existing roads and trails. Although lynx (and other predators) may utilize these 

compacted trails, the main prey for lynx, snowshoe hare avoid these open areas. 

TEOB30 direction is to manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. 

Lynx habitat is maintained to different degrees with all the alternatives considered for the PNF 

Travel Plan. Alternative D would manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and 

wildlife habitat connectivity by closing large areas to over-snow vehicle use. Alterative E would 

also maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. Forest Plan direction that recreational activities 

should be managed to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity appears to be met for non-snow 

months by all alternatives. Under all alternatives, the motorized roads and trail density in lynx 

habitat is low (Wildlife Specialist Report). In addition, cross-country motor vehicle use is 

prohibited in all action alternatives. 

TEST34 direction allows no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play 

areas, outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with 

immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming or 

designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. 

Compliance with this standard is described above. The total miles of groomed snowmobile routes 

would not increase above the existing condition in any of the action alternatives, although the 

locations vary slightly. Snowmobile use into new areas on the Forest is expected to expand from 

the current situation in areas open to motorized over-snow use. The number of snowmobile users 

is also expected to increase. 

Compared with the No Action Alternative, alternatives B, D, and E would reduce the acres open 

and subject to snow compaction, which is consistent with Forest Plan direction. 

Alternative C would increase the number of acres open to motorized over-snow travel, and hence 

increase the areas designated open that could be used as snow play areas without accompanying 

3 - 218 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

reductions elsewhere. Therefore, Alternative C would not be consistent with the Forest Plan, and 

would require a project-specific amendment for Forest Plan standard and guideline TEST34: 

Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, 

outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with 

immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming 

or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat... (USDA Forest Service 

2003a) 

The amendment would be limited to this one project and to several Management Areas. It would 

encompass five LAUs and increase the amount of lynx habitat open to over-snow motor vehicle 

use on the Forest (outside of Wilderness) from 74 to 81 percent. It would not likely affect outputs 

of Forest Plan goods and services and would not change Forest management prescriptions (FSH 

1909.12 section 5.32). 

TEST12 direction is to minimize or avoid management actions within known nest or denning 

sites of TEPC species if those actions would disrupt reproductive success during the nesting or 

denning period. During project planning, determine sites, periods, and appropriate mitigation 

measures to avoid or minimize effects. 

Although lynx denning habitat exists throughout the Forest, no actual lynx dens are known to be 

present on the Forest. Denning habitat occurs in dense timber stands with an abundance of fallen 

logs. All action alternatives for the Travel Plan would minimize or avoid management actions in 

lynx denning habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Sensitive Species 

Columbia Spotted Frog – Northern Population 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Alternative A – No Action 

The No Action Alternative continues to allow cross-country motor vehicle use on approximately 

511,000 acres. Many of those acres occur in areas adjacent to RCAs. OHV play in wetlands, 

ponds, permanent standing water, and RCAs may impact spotted frogs and their habitat by 

crushing individuals, removing vegetation, destroying egg masses and reducing site suitability for 

frogs. Established and/or proposed roads and trails generally do not impact spotted frogs or their 

habitat due to standards for road and trail development. Indirectly however, a trail that goes by a 

pond used by spotted frogs could possibly attract recreationists who could disturb the frogs. Other 

than OHV use and curious recreationists this alternative would not impact spotted frogs or their 

habitat. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

All the action alternatives restrict OHV use to designated roads or trails and their buffers so OHV 

use should not impact spotted frog habitat. Roads or trails in RCAs should not affect existing 

spotted frog habitat. Over-snow motorized use should not impact spotted frogs or their habitat 

(unless gas/oil leaks from the machines) as they would be beneath the water surface during the 

winter. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 219 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Cumulative Effects 

None of the action alternatives are expected to result in cumulative impacts spotted frogs or their 

habitat when added to ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix D) on the Forest and 

adjacent lands. 

Effects Determination 

For the reasons stated above, the action alternatives in the PNF Travel Plan may impact 

individual spotted frogs, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing, or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Boreal Owl 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

All Alternatives 

The proposed alternatives for the PNF Travel Plan would not have measurable impacts on boreal 

owl individuals or their habitat as these owls typically roost and nest in areas away from human 

disturbance in higher elevations. In addition, the species of trees they use for nesting, although 

occasionally taken, are not sought after by firewood cutters. Alternative A allows motorized 

cross-country use (summer) on approximately 511,000 acres mainly on the western portion of the 

Forest. The areas open to motorized cross-country use are not in boreal owl habitat. The action 

alternatives restrict OHV use to designated roads and trails. The only habitat modification that 

could occur with any of the alternatives considered would be trees/snags removed for road/trail 

maintenance and safety, and the occasional snag removed for firewood. Firewood removal could 

decrease the amount of spruce and subalpine fir trees and decrease the number of large snags 

available. However, only a small percent of the subalpine fir would be harvested, and most of the 

potential habitat is away from open roads. 

Cumulative Effects 

None of the action alternatives are expected to result in cumulative impacts to this species when 

added to past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix D) on the Forest or adjacent 

lands. 

Effects Determination 

All action alternatives may impact individual boreal owls but would not likely contribute to a 

trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Flammulated Owl 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

3 - 220 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Alternative A – No Action 

The No Action alternative likely does not have any measurable direct impacts on flammulated 

owl individuals or their habitat. However, Alternative A allows motorized cross-country use in 

summer on approximately 511,000 acres, mainly on the western portion of the Forest. The 

motorized cross-country use could disturb and possibly disrupt flammulated owl nesting. Also, 

species of snags preferred by flammulated owls for nesting are sought after by firewood cutters. 

The more acres accessible to off-road use, the higher the potential important snag habitat for the 

owls would be removed. Flammulated owl habitat is already limited on the Forest. Noise and 

disturbance from recreationists could temporarily alter flammulated owl behavior. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives restrict OHV use to designated roads and trails, so any habitat 

modification would likely be confined to removal of trees and snags for safety, and firewood 

needs in an area within 300 feet of open roads. In general, restricting these impacts to a smaller 

area would benefit the flammulated owl. The PNF Travel Plan action alternatives would have 

limited effects on flammulated owls and/or their habitat. Human activity in areas of flammulated 

owl use can also cause temporary disruption or disturbance but generally would not cause the 

birds to leave an area permanently. 

Cumulative Effects 

As discussed earlier, each of the Travel Plan alternatives allow varying amounts of access for 

activities that may impacts wildlife species. Of these activities, firewood gathering has the 

potential to negatively impact flammulated owl habitat, in particular potential nest trees. 

Conversely, several ongoing and future vegetation management projects (Appendix D) have the 

potential to improve habitat for flammulated owl through promoting growth of large diameter 

seral trees. Projects such as the Meadows Slope Wildland Fire Protection Project would help to 

enhance and restore flammulated owl habitat. The additional reasonable foreseeable actions are 

not expected to cumulatively impact the flammulated owl or its habitat. 

Fuel reduction projects on private land have the potential to improve habitat for flammulated owl 

in lower-elevation forests dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. However, residential 

development in this type of forest would remove potential habitat for flammulated owls. 

In summary, most of the past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions both on and off Forest 

would not have cumulative effects on flammulated owls and its habitat, except for the projects 

and activities discussed above. Action alternatives are expected to have an incremental positive 

effect on flammulated owls through restricting cross-country travel and associated probability of 

increased disturbance and loss of large snag habitat by firewood gathering. 

Effects Determination 

All PNF Travel Plan action alternatives may impact individual flammulated owls but would not 

likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 221 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Great Gray Owl 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Alternative A – No Action 

The No Action alternative may be causing localized impacts to great gray owl individuals or their 

habitat because it allows motorized cross-country use in summer on approximately 511,000 acres. 

The motorized cross-country use could directly disrupt owl nesting and allow for firewood 

cutting that may remove potential nest sites. OHV use in open meadows has the potential to 

degrade habitat conditions for great gray owl prey. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives restrict travel to designated roads and trails, so any habitat modification 

would likely be confined to removal of trees and snags for safety and firewood needs in an area 

within 300 feet of open roads. In general, restricting these impacts to a smaller area would benefit 

great gray owls. Prohibiting off-road travel would protect open meadow habitats, thereby 

benefiting great gray owls and their prey. Travel off-road for 300 feet for the purpose of dispersed 

camping could still cause minor localized impacts on great gray owl habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

As discussed earlier, an indirect effect of the Travel Plan alternatives is the reduced access 

allowed for firewood gathering by limiting off road travel and the amount of designated open 

roads. Firewood gathering has the potential to remove structure in great gray owl habitat, in 

particular potential nest trees. Past vegetation management projects have affected great gray owl 

habitat but current ongoing vegetation management projects (Appendix D) are not expected to 

affect great gray owl habitat. 

The Forest Service reasonable foreseeable actions (Appendix D) are not expected to impact great 

gray owls or its habitat. There are several developments and activities occurring in the foreseeable 

future adjacent to the Forest. Residential development would remove potential habitat for great 

gray owls. This would not be cumulatively negative, because action alternatives are expected to 

have an incremental positive effect on great gray owls through restricting cross-country travel and 

reducing associate the loss of large snag habitat by firewood gathering. 

Effects Determination 

All PNF Travel Plan action alternatives may impact individual great gray owls but would not 

likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

3 - 222 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Northern Goshawk 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Alternative A 

The existing Travel Management Plan has limited potential to impact goshawk individuals or 

their habitat. No known nest sites are currently impacted by the plan; although there is a slight 

possibility that potential habitat near open roads could be altered by firewood gathering. Off-road 

travel would not be expected to influence goshawk prey availability; however, human activity 

especially in close proximity to a nest site could temporarily disturb individuals. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives restrict travel to designated roads and trails. This would benefit goshawks, 

compared to the No Action alternative, because there would be less opportunity to disturb nesting 

birds. Travel off-road for 300 feet for the purpose of dispersed camping would still be allowed 

and could cause minor localized impacts on habitat. Human activity in close proximity to birds or 

their nest could temporarily disturb individuals. 

Cumulative Effects 

In general, all action alternatives would slightly reduce potential effects to goshawks and 

goshawk habitat by limiting off road travel and the amount of designated open roads. With these 

limits, the potential for disturbing goshawks, their habitat and prey would be incrementally 

reduced from the current condition. Past vegetation management projects have affected goshawk 

habitat, but current and future vegetation management projects (Appendix D) are not expected to 

detrimentally affect goshawk habitat per direction of the Forest Plan, hence there would be no 

negative cumulative effects on NFS lands. 

Ongoing and proposed housing and ski area development on adjacent private and state lands 

would likely occur in goshawk habitat resulting in potential negative effects on goshawks and 

goshawk habitat. The effects of any of the Travel Plan alternatives are not expected to 

cumulatively contribute to these other activities. 

Effects Determination 

All PNF Travel Plan alternatives may impact individual goshawks but would not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

Fisher 

Wildlife Issue 5: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, 

endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 223 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

All Alternatives 

Fishers are not known to exist on the Forest and they are rare. The PNF Travel Management Plan 

is not expected to directly impact fisher. The Travel Plan itself would not impact vegetation to 

any measurable extent. Under the action alternatives woodcutters would be allowed to remove 

snags and down logs within 300 feet on open roads unless designated otherwise. However, 

woodcutters are not permitted to cut trees in riparian zones, which would limit potential impacts 

to primary fisher habitat. Fisher prefer old to mature forest habitat and areas in close proximity to 

riparian areas with large trees and down logs so snowmobiles would not impact their habitat to 

any large extent. Cross-country travel permitted in Alternative A is not expected to impact fisher 

or their habitat since they prefer more densely forested habitat, which is mostly inaccessible to 

OHV travel. 

Cumulative Effects 

As discussed earlier, an indirect effect of the Travel Plan alternatives is the access allowed for 

firewood gathering. Firewood gathering has the potential to remove structure in fisher habitat, in 

particular habitat for fisher prey species. Past vegetation management projects have affected 

fisher habitat but the current ongoing vegetation management projects (Appendix D) are not 

expected to detrimentally affect potential fisher habitat. 

The FS reasonable foreseeable actions (Appendix D) are not expected to detrimentally impact 

fisher or its habitat. There are several developments and activities occurring in the foreseeable 

future adjacent to the Forest. At this time it is not known whether these developments and 

activities would impact potential fisher habitat. In summary, the past, ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions both on and off Forest in combination with travel planning actions would 

likely have inconsequential cumulative effects on fisher or its habitat. 

Effects Determination 

All PNF Travel Plan alternatives may impact individual fishers but would not likely contribute 

to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Wolverine 

Wildlife Issue 3: Over-snow vehicle use may affect wolverine denning habitat. 

Indicators: 

• Percent of wolverine denning habitat closed to over-snow vehicle use. 

• Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity. 

Common Effects of Travel Management 

Travel management may slightly affect wolverines on the PNF through habitat modification, 

exploitation, or pollution. Disturbance, particularly in winter months is the primary travel 

management impact on wolverines. 

Exploitation is an indirect effect of travel management in that roads and trails are used to access 

the National Forest for harvesting animals. While wolverine harvest is not legal in Idaho, 

wolverines are vulnerable to incidental trapping with baits, due to their behavior as scavengers. 

Incidental harvest coupled with illegal harvest could impact populations. Over most of its 

distribution worldwide, trapping and hunting account for the largest proportion of known 

wolverine mortalities (Banci 1994:108). The IDFG had no reports of any wolverine being trapped 

and recorded during the period of 1990 through September 2005 (G. Patton pers. comm. with A. 

3 - 224 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Kuehl 2005), but a wolverine was trapped incidentally in December 2006 on the Boise National 

Forest about 6 miles from the boundary with the Payette National Forest (D. Evans Mack pers. 

comm. 2006). Potential effects of habitat modification or pollution are likely negligible. More 

information is provided in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record). The effects of 

disturbance are discussed in greater depth below. 

Disturbance 

Wolverines are habitat generalists in remote areas away from human development (Banci 

1994:100). This implies wolverines are sensitive to human disturbance. Disturbance may cause 

reactions that pose an energetic cost to animals at times of critical energy deficiencies, such as 

during winter or food shortages, and could have serious health consequences for individual 

wolverines. Behavioral reactions to disturbance from humans could result in displacement from 

familiar territories, security cover, and foraging opportunities. Displacement effects due to human 

disturbance would likely have the greatest impacts on juvenile and sub-adult animals without 

established secure home range territories and on mothers with young. Separation of young from 

their mothers could influence wolverine survival rates. Human winter intrusion (i.e. noise, 

disturbance) into high elevation terrain also poses a concern about effects on dispersal corridors. 

High elevation ridgelines on the PNF likely provide a corridor for wolverine dispersing between 

northern and southern Idaho and northeastern Oregon. 

Human intrusion within denning habitat during the winter is probably the primary threat to this 

species (Wisdom et al. 2000). Disturbance effects are most likely to have adverse impacts on 

wolverines during winter; a critical time period since weather conditions are more extreme, food 

sources may be limited, thermoregulatory demands are high and reproductive females have the 

added energetic demands of developing fetuses, giving birth and nursing kits (Inman et al. 

2003:1). Human disturbance during this challenging time could result in increased energy 

expenditures and negative impacts on wolverine survival and reproductive rates. 

Although healthy adult female wolverines are capable of annual reproduction, most studies report 

that not all reproductive age females produce young each year (Hornocker and Hash 1981, 

Magoun 1985, Banci and Harestad 1988, Persson 2003, Inman et al. 2003). This may be due to 

high energetic demands of reproduction that limits the ability of females to give birth every year 

(Banci 1994:105, Inman et al. 2003:1). Maternal den abandonment could result in relocation of 

kits to less suitable sites, where they may be more vulnerable to exposure, predation or other 

threats (Pulliainen 1968), and could therefore influence survival rates. 

Wilderness or remote country appears essential to wolverine viability (Hornocker and Hash 

1981). Human encroachment into existing refugia may threaten the wolverine’s ability to 

maintain basic life history requirements (Copeland and Hudak 1995) and may cause habitat 

fragmentation that could preclude subpopulation interspersion and lead to population isolation 

(Copeland 1996). Rowland et al. (2003) found that wolverine were more prevalent in areas with 

greater amounts of habitat, lower road densities, and low human population densities. The 

persistence of wolverines in Montana, despite unlimited historic trapping and hunting, may be 

attributed to the presence of designated wilderness and remote, inaccessible habitat (Hornocker 

and Hash, 1981, Ruggerio et al. 1994). 

Recent technological advances in snowmobile capabilities have raised concerns about intrusion in 

previously isolated areas (Wisdom et al. 2000) where natal dens may occur. Increases in 

motorized over-snow recreation have likely displaced wolverines from potential denning habitat 

(Copeland 1996) or caused females to abandoned occupied dens or attempt to move young 

(Copeland and Hudak 1995). Females with young tend to be very sensitive to disturbance 

especially before the kits are weaned. Magoun and Copeland (1998) found that females studied in 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 225 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Idaho moved their young to new maternal den sites following disturbance by researchers. Risk of 

litter loss is potentially high if den relocation occurs. Because wolverines have low reproductive 

rates, any losses could be substantial. However, wolverine’s sensitivity to human disturbance may 

be variable. For example Squires et al. (2002) trapped wolverines in areas of high snowmobile 

activity indicating that wolverine may not necessarily avoid these areas, but reproductive success 

was not determined. In general, refugia may be the most important habitat component for 

availability and protection of natal denning habitat (Copeland 1996). 

Non-motorized human access can also disturb wolverines at den sites (Magoun and Copeland 

1998:1316). Since wolverine den sites are generally in remote, high elevation areas on the PNF, 

non-motorized dispersed winter use such as backcountry skiing and snowboarding would likely 

only reach these habitats if facilitated by motorized access. Although cross-country and alpine 

skiing is popular on the Forest, the PNF has no designated cross-country ski trails on the Forest in 

wolverine denning habitat. Backcountry skiers may occasionally enter potential wolverine 

denning habitat but since these areas tend to be remote, use would likely be minimal and 

negligible when compared to use associated with motorized over-snow travel. 

Non-Denning Refugia 

Non-denning refugia are best described in terms of availability of secure, undisturbed blocks of 

habitat. The Frank Church River of No Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness provides approximately 

2.4 million acres of habitat relatively undisturbed by human activity. The PNF portion of the 

Wilderness is addressed in this analysis because the habitat within the wilderness is a significant 

component for wolverine viability on the Forest. Outside of the Wilderness, the PNF contains 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that provide approximately 926,600 acres of largely remote 

areas during non-snow months (see also discussion on refugia in the lynx analysis section.) 

Each of the action alternatives would close the Forest to cross-country motorized travel during 

non-snow months. This decision would enhance protection from most disturbances during the 

snow-free months not only for wolverine but also their prey. 

Connectivity can also be used as a measure of refugia as well as an indicator of how well 

wolverine might move across the landscape. A summary of the effects of travel management on 

habitat connectivity is provided at the beginning of the Environmental Consequences section. The 

effects on habitat connectivity in relation to wolverine are discussed below for each alternative. 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

Effects to wolverines caused by human travel on National Forest lands differ among the 

alternatives proposed in the Travel Plan. The primary mechanism for travel management to affect 

wolverines was determined to be through the disturbance caused by over-snow motorized access 

into wolverine habitat, particularly denning areas. Effects of this access on habitat connectivity 

are also discussed. 

Denning Habitat 

Wolverine natal denning habitat appears to be tied to high elevation and glaciated landscapes. 

Potential denning habitat on the Payette National Forest was determined based on landtype 

(primarily cirque basins). For more information on identification of denning habitat, refer to the 

Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record). 

Maps of potential denning habitat were overlain with maps of areas closed to over-snow 

motorized use to determine the number of acres protected from disturbance. The analysis area for 

direct and indirect effects to denning habitat was the PNF outside of the FC-RONR Wilderness 

3 - 226 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
Alternative 

A 

Potential 

Denning 

Habitat 

83,240 

Total Closed 

Acres % 

Total Open 

Acres % 

25,765 31% 57,475 69% 

B 83,240 27,470 33% 55,770 67% 

C 83,240 22,960 28% 60,280 72% 

D 83,240 54,450 65% 28,790 35% 

E 83,240 46,290 56% 36,950 44% 

Alternative 

A 

Potential 

Denning 

Habitat 

125,050 

Total Closed 

Acres % 

Total Open 

Acres % 

67,570 54% 57,480 46% 

B 125,050 69,280 55% 55,770 45% 

C 125,050 64,765 52% 60,285 48% 

D 125,050 96,260 77% 28,790 23% 

E 125,050 88,096 70% 36,954 30% 

Management Area 

(Total Acres Potential Denning Habitat) 

Alt. A 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt.B 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt. C 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt.D 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt. E 

Acres 

(%) 

MA 1 - Hells Canyon (305) 

84 

(28) 

84 

(28) 

84 

(28) 

84 

(28) 

84 ( 

28) 

MA2 - Snake River (834) 

258 

(31) 

258 

(31) 

258 

(31) 

2589 

(31) 

258 

(31) 

MA 3 – Weiser River (0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

MA 4 - Rapid River (2,686) 

495 

(18) 

495 

(18) 

495 

(18) 

736 

(27) 

741 

(28) 

MA 5 – Middle Little Salmon River (145) 

0 

(0) 

145 

(100) 

145 

(100) 

145 

(100) 

145 

(100) 

MA 6 – Goose Creek/Hazard Creek (6,456) 

0 

(0) 

151 

(2) 

105 

(2) 

3,122 

(48) 

1025 

(16) 

MA 7 – Payette Lakes (14,224) 

4,455 

(31) 

5,591 

(39) 

4,125 

(29) 

9,089 

(64) 

5591 

(39) 

WILDLIFE CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

(Table W-8). The analysis area for cumulative effects to wolverine denning habitat was the entire 

PNF including the FC-RONR Wilderness (Table W-9). Table W-11 provides a summary of acres 

open and closed within potential wolverine denning habitat with the project area and for the entire 

Forest. 

Table W-8. Acres of Wolverine Denning Habitat Open and Closed to Over-snow 

Vehicle Use in the Project Area (Wilderness not included) by Alternative. 

Table W-9. Acres of Wolverine Denning Habitat Open and Closed to Over-snow 

Vehicle Use on the entire Payette National Forest (FC-RONR Wilderness included) 

by Alternative. 

Table W-10. Acres of Wolverine Denning Habitat Closed to Motorized Oversnow Use by Management Area. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 227 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Table W-10. Acres of Wolverine Denning Habitat Closed to Motorized Oversnow Use by Management Area. 

Management Area 

(Total Acres Potential Denning Habitat) 

Alt. A 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt.B 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt. C 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt.D 

Acres 

(%) 

Alt. E 

Acres 

(%) 

MA8 – Kennally Creek (3,601) 

54 

(1) 

54 

(1) 

54 

(1) 

6,30 

(18) 

54 

(2) 

MA 9 – Lake Creek/French Creek (5,390) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

4,586 

(85) 

2,966 

(55) 

MA 10 – Fall Creek/Warren Creek (3,371) 

87 

(2) 

87 

(2) 

0 

(0) 

1,602 

(48) 

1,515 

(45) 

MA 11 – Upper Secesh River (5,768) 

737 

(13) 

737 

(13)) 

543 

(9) 

3,655 

(63) 

3,655 

(63) 

MA12 – South Fork Salmon River (28,223) 

17,444 

(62) 

17,716 

(63) 

14,996 

(53) 

23,742 

(84) 

23,512 

(83) 

MA 13 – Big Creek/Stibnite (11,889) 

2,150 

(18) 

2,150 

(18) 

2,150 

(18) 

6,799 

(57) 

6,741 

(57) 

MA 14 - Wilderness (41,808) 

41,808 

(100) 

41,808 

(100) 

41,808 

(100) 

41,808 

(100)) 

41,808 

(100) 

Table W-11. Summary by Alternative of the Amount of Potential Denning Habitat 

Closed to Over-snow Motorized Use in the Project Area (Wilderness not included) 

and in the Cumulative Effects Area (Wilderness included). 

Potential Denning Habitat Closed to Over-snow Motorized Use – Wilderness Not Included 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Acres in Closure 25,765 27,470 22,960 54,450 28,790 

Percent Total Denning Habitat 31% 33% 28% 62% 35% 

Potential Denning Habitat Closed to Over-snow Motorized Use – Wilderness Included 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Acres in Closure 67,570 69,280 64,765 96,260 88,096 

Percent Total Denning Habitat 54% 55% 52% 77% 70% 

Percent in Wilderness 62% 60% 64% 44% 67% 

*total acres of denning habitat not including wilderness = 83,240 

**total acres of denning habitat including wilderness = 125,050 

For each management area, maps of potential denning habitat were also overlain with maps of 

areas closed to over-snow motorized use to determine the number of acres protected from 

disturbance by management area. Changes by management area are shown in Table W-10. Maps 

are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Project Record). 

In the Wilderness MA (MA 14), the entire potential wolverine denning habitat is protected from 

motorized over-snow disturbance. Cumulatively, this MA provides an estimated y 33 percent of 

the denning habitat available on the Forest. 

Slightly less than 44 percent of the denning habitat outside of Wilderness is located in three of the 

thirteen non-Wilderness MAs. The Payette Lakes MA contains 11 percent, the South Fork Salmon 

River (SFSR) MA contains 22 percent, and Big Creek/Stibnite MA has about 10 percent of the 

wolverine denning habitat on the PNF. Currently, Payette Lakes has 31 percent of the wolverine 

denning habitat closed to over-snow motorized use, South Fork Salmon River has 62 percent, and 

3 - 228 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Big Creek/Stibnite has 18 percent closed to over-snow motorized use. The remaining ten MAs 

provide 23 percent of the total wolverine denning habitat on the Forest, but the location of this 

habitat may be very important to maintain denning habitat across the Forest. 

Locations of wolverine on the Forest in the past 3 years and during a research study 12 years ago, 

were concentrated in the Goose Creek/Hazard Creek MA (#6), the Payette Lakes MA (#7), and 

the SFSR MA (#11). While recent locations are partly a result of track survey efforts in MAs 6 

and 7 by IDF&G, locations in the mid-1990s were via radio telemetry. 

Although the FC-RONR Wilderness protects a large area of potential wolverine denning habitat, 

the direct effects to wolverine denning habitat must be considered for the project area (the thirteen 

MAs outside of Wilderness). Outside Wilderness, the amount of potential wolverine denning 

habitat protected in the Payette Lakes MA would be 31 percent (4,455 acres) in Alternative A, 39 

percent (5,591 acres) in Alternative B, 29 percent (4,125 acres) in Alternative C, 64 percent 

(9,098 acres) in Alternative D, and 39 percent (5,591 acres) in Alternative E. The amount of 

potential wolverine denning habitat protected in the Goose Creek/Hazard Creek MA would be 

zero in Alternative A, 2 percent (151 acres) in Alternative B, 2 percent (105 acres) in Alternative 

C, 48 percent (3,122 acres) in Alternative D, and 16 percent (1,025 acres) in Alternative E. 

Alternative D takes the most conservative approach to the protection of wolverine denning 

habitat. The actual percent of potential denning habitat protected from winter disturbance is 

unknown since the number of acres of denning habitat inaccessible to over-snow motorized 

vehicles due to dense forest, steep rocky cliffs, or remoteness of the area is unknown. In addition, 

the amount of denning habitat needed in an area for successful reproduction is also unknown. 

The total miles amount of groomed snowmobile routes does not increase above the baseline of 

144 miles for any of the action alternatives. A small amount of groomed snowmobile routes occur 

on the edge of wolverine denning habitat in MAs 6 and MA 7. These small amounts of designated 

routes are not likely to add measurable effects to wolverine denning habitat in areas already 

impacted by dispersed snowmobile use. These effects are the same for all alternatives. 

Alternative B would close approximately 468,600 acres of which 27,470 acres are in potential 

wolverine denning habitat. Alternative D would close about 656,000 acres of which 54,450 acres 

occur in denning habitat. Alternative E would close about 565,200 acres of which about 46,290 

occur in potential wolverine denning habitat. Alternative D would close the largest amount of 

area and reduces the potential for human disturbance of wintering wolverines more than any other 

alternative. Outside of the FC-RONR Wilderness, Alternative D increases the amount of protected 

wolverine denning habitat from 31 percent in Alternative A to 62 percent. Alternative E increases 

the amount nearly as much to 56 percent Alternative B increases the amount to 33 percent. 

Alternative C decreases the amount of protected denning habitat to 28 percent. 

Alternative B would increase protection in the Middle Fork Salmon River, Goose Creek/Hazard 

Creek, and Payette Lakes MAs and provide slightly more protection in the South Fork Salmon 

River MA compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative C would eliminate the closure area in Fall Creek/ Warren Creek MA and would 

decrease the amount of closure in the South Fork of the Salmon River and Upper Secesh MAs 

relative to Alternative A. However, Alternative C would increase the closed acres in Middle Little 

Salmon River and Goose Creek/Hazard Creek MAs as compared to Alternative A. Relative to 

Alternative A (current condition), Alternative C would reduce closures in denning habitat by 

approximately 2,800 acres. 

Alternative D would protect denning habitat in the Payette Lakes, Upper Secesh River, Fall 

Creek/Warren Creek, Big Creek/Stibnite, Lake Creek/French Creek, and South Fork of the 

Salmon River MAs. Although some of these closures are near to recent locations of wolverine, 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 229 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

additional closures were provided in a revised Alternative D in the FEIS at the request of Idaho 

Fish and Game. About 2,220 acres of additional closure were located around Bruin Mountain 

where a wolverine was radio-located in February of 1995 to better protect denning habitat near to 

this and other recent wolverine locations. 

Alternative E would increase protection in the Payette Lakes MA similar to Alternative B, but the 

Upper Secesh River MA, Fall Creek/Warren Creek MA, Big Creek/Stibnite MA, and South Fork 

of the Salmon River MAs would receive substantial protection similar to Alternative D. The Lake 

Creek/French Creek MA would also have substantially increased protection (2,966 acres), 

although not as much as in Alternative D (4,586 acres). Most notably, Alternative E does not 

protect the Bruin Mountain area. Although Alternative E does not provide the same level of 

protection as Alternative D, it is unknown whether this would result in measurable effects to 

wolverine on the PNF. This is because wolverine easily travel long distances and have large home 

ranges. Under Alternative E, potential denning habitat is no more than six miles from every recent 

known wolverine locations. By including the closure on Bruin Mountain in Alternative D, 

potential denning habitat is no more than three miles from each of the known locations. 

Habitat Connectivity 

The wildlife analysis determined that the topography and vegetation of the Payette National 

Forest likely provides for five distinct habitat connection corridors for wolverine. Three of these 

corridors extend north and south and two of the corridors run east-west (Figure W-1). A 

description of the corridors is provided in the Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record. Each 

corridor is likely important to dispersal, genetic interaction and species recruitment. High 

ridgelines west of the South Fork Salmon River (i.e. Needles to Patrick Butte), and mountain 

ridges to the east of the South Fork likely serve as dispersal routes north to south and east to west. 

These in turn provide movement routes between isolated denning habitats (cirques). The high 

mountainous ridgelines west of the South Fork Salmon River provide a dispersal corridor to the 

Seven Devil Mountains and Wallowa Mountains of northeast Oregon and the Gospel Hump 

Wilderness north of Salmon River. 

This portion of the analysis investigates the effects to habitat connectivity in winter months 

during the critical wolverine denning period. It is not only important to maintain the potential for 

wolverine to den, it is also essential to provide secure habitat (i.e., connecting secure ridges and 

valleys) for dispersing wolverines. 

Big Creek Corridor 

The major portion of the eastern-most north/south corridor runs along the western edge of the 

River of No Return Wilderness. Although the denning habitat portion of these MAs and IRAs is 

not closed to motorized over-snow use, access into this area is restricted by the remoteness and 

steep terrain. Alternatives D and E ensure maintenance of this area for denning and habitat 

connectivity by closing a large portion of this area to over-snow vehicle use. 

Needles IRA to Marshall Mountain Corridor 

This corridor extends the entire north to south length through the middle of the Forest. About 62 

percent of the denning habitat within the South Fork Salmon River MA 12 portion of the corridor 

is currently closed to snowmobiles. However, much of the north-central part of the corridor is 

open to snowmobiles. Most of the north end of this corridor lies within MA 11. Only about 12 

percent of the denning habitat in this portion of the corridor is closed to snowmobiles. 

Maintenance of connectivity (and denning habitat security) in the north end of this corridor is 

important because this area provides a link between the PNF and the Gospel Hump Wilderness on 

3 - 230 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

the Nez Perce NF. Alternatives D and E would protect important habitat in the northern portion of 

the corridor. 

Most of the middle and southern portion of this corridor is closed to snowmobile use so it is 

already protected. The southern portion of this corridor extends into the Boise NF. By protecting 

the northern portion of the corridor, habitat connectivity would be maintained across the PNF and 

to neighboring National Forests to the north and south. 

Slab Butte to Patrick Butte Corridor 

The third corridor that runs north to south is shorter in length than the other two corridors. 

Brundage Mountain Resort lies near the southern end of this corridor. This corridor receives 

much more winter recreation use than the two other corridors. MAs 6 and 9 contain the bulk of 

the denning habitat in this ridgeline passageway, about 6,500 and 5,400 acres respectively. 

Alternative D provides the greatest protection of potential denning habitat and habitat 

connectivity corridors in MA 9 (4,586 acres), but Alternative E also protects a substantial amount 

(2,966 acres). Alternatives B and C would protect minimal amounts of MA 6 (about 2 percent 

each), while Alternative D would protect about 48 percent (3,122 acres) and Alternative E would 

protect about 16 percent (1,025 acres) out of 6,500 acres of denning habitat in MA 6 from oversnow vehicle use. This importance of this corridor lies in the linkage it provides to lands to the 

north of the PNF and to the areas in the FC-RONR Wilderness westward across the PNF to the 

Hell’s Canyon area and mountains of Oregon. 

FC-RONR Wilderness to Hell’s Canyon Corridor 

Although the wildlife analysis identified two potential east to west ridgeline corridors on the PNF, 

the analysis determined that the northern corridor would be the easiest to protect from over-snow 

vehicle use since this area was further removed from popular over-snow recreation areas in the 

central portion (see Figures W-1 and W-2.) This corridor extends from the east in the FC-RONR 

Wilderness and continues west to the Hells Canyon Wilderness on the Wallowa-Whitman NF. 

Alternatives D and E would provide important protection to this east to west corridor. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Human intrusion into wolverine denning habitat during the denning period and travel corridor 

security are the two factors of greatest concern in relation to wolverine habitat on the PNF based 

on numerous studies that have identified over-snow motorized access as a primary threat to this 

species (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Alternative A protects approximately 25,765 acres (31 percent) of the 83,240 acres of potential 

wolverine denning habitat outside of the FC-RONR Wilderness from over-snow vehicle use. 

About 69 percent of wolverine denning habitat outside Wilderness could be subject to human 

disturbance leading to potential for increased energy expenditure by wolverines and/or relocation 

during denning, which may reduce reproductive success. These negative impacts on wolverine 

survival and reproductive rates could affect population viability in the long term. It is important to 

note that not all unprotected denning habitat is accessible or being impacted by human intrusions. 

Under the current situation, three out of twelve MAs (outside of Wilderness) have no areas of 

protected denning habitat and two MAs protect 2 percent or less of the denning habitat from 

motorized over-snow use. MA 12 protects the largest percentage of habitat – about 62 percent. 

MA 2 and MA 7 protect 31 percent of the denning habitat in the MAs. 

Not all potential wolverine denning habitat needs protection, however a variety of wolverine 

denning opportunities should be protected across the Forest. The location of the protected 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 231 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

wolverine habitat is important to habitat connectivity to sustain viable populations of wolverine 

and other wildlife species. The analysis shows that habitat corridors important to landscape 

connectivity are open to motorized over-snow use and may not provide adequate protection to 

wolverine from the effects of disturbance. Additional information is needed to assess if corridors 

are intact and/or where changes need to made to provide secure corridors. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B provides slightly greater protection to wolverine than Alternative A. About 1,700 

additional acres are protected within the main corridors identified as important for habitat 

connectivity on the Forest. While this provides added protection, the additional acres likely do not 

protect enough of the corridors from winter human intrusion. Additional information is needed to 

assess where changes are needed to provide secure corridors for habitat connectivity. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C reduces the number of acres closed to motorized over-snow travel by approximately 

2,800 acres for a total of about 22,960 acres (28 percent) of protected wolverine denning habitat. 

The areas removed include portions of denning habitat within the five main corridors identified as 

important for habitat connectivity. Alternative C would negatively impact wolverine denning 

habitat and corridors more than the other action alternatives. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides the most protection to wolverine denning habitat and habitat connectivity 

of the alternatives considered. Four of the five potential habitat corridors on the PNF would have 

greater protection with this alternative. Alternative D would protect approximately 54,540 acres 

(65 percent) of the wolverine denning habitat on the PNF (outside of Wilderness) or 

approximately 28,865 acres more than Alternative A. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E provides greater protection to wolverine denning habitat and habitat connectivity 

then all alternatives except Alternative D. Four of the five potential habitat corridors on the PNF 

would have greater protection than under the No Action alternative. Alternative E would protect 

approximately 46,290 acres (56 percent) of the wolverine denning habitat on the PNF (outside of 

Wilderness) or approximately 16,525 acres more than Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Effects to wolverines on and around the PNF occur primarily in the form of habitat alterations 

and human disturbance, on both public and private lands. Habitat alterations include timber 

harvest, fire, insect or disease outbreaks, weed infestations and major developments that alter the 

wolverine's natural habitat and/or pose barriers to movement. In general, alterations have been 

limited at higher elevations; i.e. near potential wolverine reproductive denning habitat, due to 

difficult access and the lack of commercially desirable timber products at higher elevations. 

Natural processes such as fire, wind throw, and insects and disease can affect forest cover at or 

near timberline, but these processes leave behind structure (coarse woody debris) important for 

denning habitat. 

Several past and ongoing activities have positive effects on wolverine and wolverine habitat. Past 

decisions (shown by existing closures in Alternative A) closing areas of the Forest to off-road 

travel or snowmobile use have positive effects. The presence of roadless areas contributes to 

refugia for wolverines. The general trend in travel management decisions across the forest in 

3 - 232 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

recent years has been to reduce the impacts of roads on wildlife through closures or 

decommissioning. Other past and ongoing activities, such as the development of Brundage 

Mountain Resort, have reduced the habitat suitability of the area for wolverine and their prey. 

The Forest Service ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions that may cumulatively affect 

wolverine, in addition to the Travel Plan, include recreation management, and future vegetation 

management projects (see Appendix D). In general, these actions would cumulatively benefit 

wolverine and wolverine habitat because Forest Service actions are required to provide suitable 

conservation of wolverine as a sensitive species. The Forest Plan also provides direction to 

conserve wolverine habitat. The Upper Elevation Groomed Route Improvement project has the 

potential to increase winter recreation in the area. Measures identified in this analysis to protect 

the corridors for habitat connectivity would guard against potential negative cumulative effects 

from future projects proposing expanded winter recreational activities. 

Activities on adjacent private and state lands, such as housing and ski area developments, may 

factor into cumulative effects on wolverine habitat when they occur in more remote areas or alter 

winter habitats preferred by wolverines. The continued expansion of Tamarack Resort and the 

Brundage Mountain Land Exchange are likely to decrease wolverine habitat adjacent to the PNF. 

Alternatives B, D and E are not expected to contribute to negative cumulative effects to wolverine 

or their habitat. Increased protection of habitat and primary travel corridors associated with added 

over snow closure areas are expected to incrementally benefit wolverine by reducing disturbance. 

Alternative C would have potential negative cumulative effects by allowing increased levels of 

use and disturbance in wolverine habitat and primary travel corridors especially in winter months. 

In summer, restrictions in cross-country travel associated with action alternative reduce the 

probability of disturbing wolverines, their habitat or prey resulting in an incremental 

improvement in protection of wolverine. 

Effects Determination 

The analysis reveals some habitat corridors important for connectivity are open to over-snow 

vehicle use. Due to remoteness, dense forest, or steep rocky cliffs that impede access, a majority 

of this habitat is mostly unavailable to a large volume of motorized over-snow traffic. Alternative 

D provides the greatest protection to wolverine from the effects of disturbance on denning 

habitat, as well as protection of four potential main corridors for habitat connectivity. Alternative 

E provides substantially more protection than the existing condition (Alternative A). These areas 

of greater protection best respond to Forest Plan direction and wolverine conservation needs. 

Alternative B does not respond directly to Forest Plan direction for wildlife nor would it improve 

habitat for wolverine because the proposed closures still are targeted for recreation use. 

Alternative C would not meet Forest Plan direction (see below) and would decrease the Forest’s 

ability to provide habitat linkages in winter and conserve wolverine. Still, the data are lacking on 

whether this may result in declines in wolverine populations on the Forest. Even Alternative C 

would provide 22,960 acres of wolverine denning habitat. For this reason, any one of the 

alternatives may impact individual wolverine, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Forest Plan monitoring will help determine if additional provisions are needed to provide 

adequate secure wolverine denning habitat and protection from human disturbance in the main 

habitat corridors (Forest Plan monitoring element for sensitive species IV-11). Such monitoring 

will be particularly important if Alternative C is selected, because confidence in the accuracy of 

the above determination is low for Alternative C 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 233 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Forest Plan Consistency Specific to Wolverine 

WIST02 – Requires that projects are designed and implemented within occupied habitats of 

sensitive species to help prevent them from becoming listed... 

The wolverine is a wide-ranging carnivore that is suited to extensive, remote, often high-elevation 

areas. Isolation from human disturbance and access to a diverse prey base seems to be important 

habitat components. Human disturbance during the winter can affect reproductive wolverines in 

different ways depending on the timing of the disturbance. Alternatives B, C, D, and E improve 

habitat conditions for wolverine in summer by restricting wheeled motorized travel to designated 

routes, which would reduce the potential for motorized disturbance in wolverine habitat. The 

action alternatives reduce the miles of open roads, and seasonally open roads. Alternatives B, D, 

and E also increase the acres closed to motorized over-snow travel. Alternative D provides the 

greatest protection of wolverine denning habitat and corridors from human disturbance in winter, 

particularly near to areas where wolverine have been detected in recent years. Alternative E also 

increases protected areas compared with No Action, but these areas are further from recent 

wolverine detection sites. In particular, Alternative E does not include the Bruin Mountain area, 

an area used by a wolverine in February 1995 (Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record). 

WIST03 - Mitigate management actions within known nesting or denning sites of MIS or 

Sensitive species if those actions would disrupt the reproductive success of those sites during the 

nesting or denning period. Sites, periods, and mitigation measures shall be determined during 

project planning. 

Disturbance of wolverine denning habitat from over-snow vehicle use is the management action 

likely to have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on the reproductive success of 

wolverines. Closures in Alternative D would make such disturbance less likely. Closures 

proposed in Alternative E would also minimize opportunities for disturbance, but to a lesser 

degree. The Payette does not know of any actual wolverine denning sites, but if any were found 

they would be specifically protected. 

WIST06 - Mitigate human-caused disturbances within winter/spring ranges if disturbances cause 

displacement of wildlife while they are occupying those ranges. 

The discussion for WIST03 also applies to WIST06. Winter access also affects wolverines in nondenning habitat. Major impacts are associated with disturbance that could displace wolverine 

from foraging or resting areas, as well as access for fur trapping. Winter disturbance that results in 

forced movement of wolverines exerts an energetic cost at a time when energetic efficiency is 

critical. Alternatives D and E are both expected to substantially reduce the opportunity for 

disturbance to wolverine, but Alternative D provides better protection to wolverine and its prey 

from disturbance within their winter/spring range. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - MIS and Sensitive Species 

Northern Three-toed Woodpecker, White-headed Woodpecker, Pileated 

Woodpecker 

Wildlife Issue 4: Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of the pileated 

woodpecker (PNF MIS for large tree and snag dependent species), the white-headed woodpecker 

(MIS and Sensitive Species), and the three-toed woodpecker (Sensitive Species). 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations. 

3 - 234 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

All Alternatives 

The Travel Plan alternatives would have no direct effect on woodpecker species of concern – the 

northern three-toed woodpecker (a sensitive species), the white-headed woodpecker (a sensitive 

and MIS species) and the pileated woodpecker (a MIS species). Fire and disturbance events help 

create and maintain habitat for these species and the Travel Plan would have no effect on these 

disturbance processes. 

Indirectly, the alternatives could result in minor changes to snags and down wood through the 

amount of access allowed to woodpecker habitat. Alternative A allows cross-country motorized 

travel on approximately 512,000 acres of the PNF. This access is likely contributing to firewood 

harvest leading to declines in snags and downed wood. In many areas, these declines are likely 

insignificant, but in some areas localized reductions in snags and down wood may be occurring. 

The action alternatives would not permit cross-country motorized travel (except in an area 300 

feet on either side of designated open roads and 100 feet on either side of designated trails), 

benefiting woodpecker habitat through reduced loss of snag/down log habitat and providing more 

security for individuals and populations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past vegetation management projects have affected woodpecker habitat through removal of large 

trees and snags, and subsequent reduction of down logs. Current and future projects are guided by 

the Forest Plan to retain these important habitat components and benefit woodpecker species. For 

example, Forest Plan guidelines for snag and coarse woody debris retention would provide habitat 

for woodpeckers and other cavity-dependant wildlife species. Hence, reasonably foreseeable 

projects are not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts to woodpecker habitat. 

Fuel reduction type projects would reduce the likelihood of stand replacement wildfire. While 

stand-replacing fires are important for three-toed woodpeckers, many fuel reduction projects are 

designed to occur in forests that historically did not experience stand replacement fires (such as 

ponderosa pine forests) so they historically did not provide much habitat for three-toed 

woodpeckers. These projects would improve habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Other fuel 

reduction projects would be limited to areas around communities where public safety needs 

outweigh localized loss of woodpecker habitat. 

Firewood gathering would continue across the forest and result in localized areas of reduced snag 

and future down log habitat. Action alternatives are likely to result in a cumulative decrease in 

the potential loss of snags/down logs because of the reduced area accessible to firewood gatherers 

associated with cross-country travel restrictions and reduced miles of road designated as open 

(i.e. unauthorized/unclassified roads no longer open to vehicles). 

There are several residential developments and activities occurring in the foreseeable future 

adjacent to the Forest. It is likely the number of planned developments (such as houses, roads, 

and ski-area expansion) would reduce woodpecker habitat on private lands adjacent to the forest. 

Under all action alternatives, the past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions on the PNF 

(Appendix D) would likely maintain or benefit woodpecker habitat. Ongoing and future actions 

on adjacent private lands would likely result in localized reductions in woodpecker habitat. 

Cumulatively, woodpecker habitat would be maintained across the cumulative effects analysis 

area. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 235 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Effects Determination (for Sensitive Species) 

All PNF Travel Plan alternatives may impact individual three-toed woodpeckers but would not 

likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

All PNF Travel Plan alternatives may impact individual white-headed woodpeckers but would 

not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Migratory Birds 

Wildlife Issue 6: Travel management may affect migratory bird species. 

Indicators: 

• Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations 

Background 

Travel management can affect habitat fragmentation by dissecting contiguous vegetation types 

with road and trail corridors. Fragmentation effects have been reported to impact bird species in 

riparian habitat and grass/shrub lands (Joslin and Youmans 1999:3.22, 3.24), but most of the 

attention to this issue has been focused on fragmentation of forest habitat. Relatively few studies 

have considered the potential for narrow corridors (e.g., roads and trails) to produce 

fragmentation effects (Hickman 1990; Askins 1994; Rich et al. 1994; Miller et al. 1998; Hutto 

and Young 1999). Although it is recognized that road and trail corridors through continuous forest 

habitat can lead to increased nest predation rates since roads and trails provide travel corridors for 

predators to access forest interior from nearby open habitat (Joslin and Youmans 1999:3.23; 

Askins 1994:339). It appears that corridor width can influence nest predation. ; Studies (Rich et 

al. 1994; Askins 1994 and Hutto et al. 1995) have reported that narrow 26-33 feet road corridors 

had few notable impacts on nesting bird species, whereas wider corridors, particularly where 

shoulders were maintained with mowing, had more notable effects associated with nest predation 

and brood parasitism. 

All Alternatives 

None of the alternatives considered propose substantial changes in roads or trails. The major 

change in relation to habitat for migratory birds is the closure to motorized cross-country travel. 

In Idaho, habitats of concern for migratory birds include riparian habitat, non-riverine wetlands, 

sagebrush shrub, and dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/grand fir forests. None of these habitats 

would be measurably impacted by any alternative. These habitats are protected by Forest Plan 

management direction, and in some cases legislation, hence no significant effects are anticipated 

from any management alternative (Additional information is provided in the Wildlife Specialist 

report, Project Record). 

The greatest impact from loss of bird habitat due to travel facilities occurs in rare habitats such as 

riparian areas. These habitats also tend to support a high diversity of bird species, including many 

habitat specialists, relative to other habitat types available on the Payette National Forest. 

Riparian cover types on the Forest have been disproportionately affected by travel management 

and by other human uses such as recreation and livestock grazing. 

Under alternatives C and E up to 6 miles of trail may require some construction. All alternatives 

allow relocation of existing trails to reduce soil and water impacts. Action alternatives B and D 

would reduce the miles of road corridor from the existing condition. 

3 - 236 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Additional impacts (such as the effects of disturbance) are addressed in the beginning of the 

Environmental Effects section under “General Effects...” Under all action alternatives, motorized 

travel would be restricted to designated routes. Limiting motorized use to designated routes 

would likely result in an overall reduction of non-motorized use, on and off-routes, simply due to 

a net decrease in access. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts to migratory birds occur from activities that modify habitat and/or contribute 

to disturbance factors. Such activities include timber harvest, fuel reduction projects, prescribed 

and natural fires, fire suppression, livestock grazing, dispersed and developed recreation, mineral 

extraction, noxious weed spread, housing and agricultural development on public and private 

land. 

Changing habitat structure through fuel reduction projects could ultimately influence bird species 

composition in treated areas. Mitigation and effects to migratory birds would be analyzed on a 

site specific basis. 

Spring burns occur during the nesting season when birds are vulnerable, and could result in 

reproductive failure for some individuals. 

Forested landscapes in the inland western states have historically been shaped by dynamic 

disturbance processes such as widespread fire and insects and disease, resulting in a naturallyfragmented landscape compared to the more homogenous forest habitats of the eastern United 

States and Pacific Northwest. Human-induced habitat modification in the inland west has been a 

function of timber harvest and fire suppression. In general, western populations of migratory bird 

species have faired better than eastern North American populations (Dobkin 1992). 

None of the action alternatives considered proposes substantial changes in roads or trails. In all 

action alternatives, project design features (Chapter 2) maintain or protect riparian areas (primary 

habitat for many migratory bird species) and restrict cross country motorized travel. For these 

reasons, negative cumulative effects on migratory birds are unlikely. 

Effects Determination 

Minimal habitat modification would take place under the alternatives proposed for the PNF 

Travel Plan. All PNF Travel Plan alternatives may impact individuals and habitat, but would not 

indicate a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status of migratory birds. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Elk 

The potential effects of the Travel Plan alternatives on elk are analyzed according to elk seasonal 

habitat needs: summer range, security habitat during the hunting season, and winter range. 

Wildlife Issue 1: Motorized travel may affect summer and winter elk habitat and elk 

vulnerability during hunting season. 

Summer Range 

Indicators 

• Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use in summer. 

• Density (miles of road and motorized trail/square mile of area) of open NFS roads and 

motorized trails by watershed (5th hydrologic unit) in summer. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 237 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

Introduction 

The quality of summer range is one of the more important variables in determining annual 

variation of herd growth. Management of summer range includes consideration of disturbances 

that might discourage elk use of an area (Van Dyke et al. 1994). 

Roads cause direct loss and fragmentation of habitat. A typical 30-foot wide forest road including 

cut and fill is estimated to reduce habitat by 3.5 acres per mile. However, considerably more area 

adjacent to roads is only partially used by elk due to road avoidance behavior. Researchers have 

reported decreased use of areas adjacent to roads for distances ranging from 0.25 to 0.5 miles 

(Perry and Overly 1997, Ward 1976). This avoidance response may restrict individuals to 

marginal habitats, which can reduce nutrition and productivity. 

Habitat fragmentation resulting from forest roads and related management activities affects the 

juxtaposition of cover and foraging areas. Probably the most significant impact from forest roads 

is access and increased human disturbance, harassment and human-caused mortality. Impacts of 

roads on potential effectiveness of summer elk range (Perry and Overly 1997) show up to a 50 

percent loss in habitat effectiveness when road densities exceed 2 miles per square mile of elk 

habitat. Forest Plan objectives 0246, 0334, and 0638 in MA 2, MA 3, and MA 6 call for reduced 

open road density for elk (Forest Plan 2003). 

The energetic demands of elk for growth, development, and lactation are high during the summer 

months as elk are simultaneously recovering from weight lost during the previous winter, 

supporting young of the year through lactation, and building fat reserves for the coming winter. 

Motorized activities impact elk through direct disturbance, displacement from or reduction of 

high quality selected habitats resulting in lowered reproductive performance, and indirect impacts 

from noxious weed establishment (Grover and Thompson 1986, Hamilton 1997, Rowland et al. 

2000, Ward and Cupal 1979). 

Wisdom et al. (2000) indicate that off-road recreation (motorized and non-motorized), increases 

movement rates and flight responses for elk. Effects are more pronounced in response to OHV 

and mountain bike riding verses horseback and hiking activities. Elk energy reserves may be 

reduced as a cost of fleeing from an off-road activity due to increased movement and 

displacement from foraging habitat. It is during the summer that elk body condition improves due 

to the quality and quantity of summer forage that provides stores of fat; the energy that keeps 

them alive when food is scarce in winter. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, more than 500,000 acres would remain open to motor vehicle use. Much of 

this use occurs on non-system or “ghost” roads that are not officially recognized and receive no 

maintenance or management. The total amount of these roads on the PNF is unknown, but 

surveys in some watersheds have found these roads may double the total miles of roads in the 

watershed. Allowing travel off open system roads results in another problem because the PNF 

also manages many miles of closed system roads. While these roads are tracked and receive 

some maintenance, they are officially closed to travel (often due to previous analyses that 

identified high road densities as a problem to elk and other wildlife species). Many of these roads 

are not gated or signed as closed, so when they occur in an area open to cross-country travel, they 

are often used by unknowing recreationists. This use of closed system roads, in addition to use of 

unauthorized roads, can greatly increase the actual effects of roads and road densities on elk. 

Under Alternative A, elk would also continue to experience adverse effects from indiscriminate 

cross-country motor vehicle use. Such travel is restricted somewhat by vegetation and 

topography, but more vulnerable areas, such as meadows and wetlands, are accessible and often 

3 - 238 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

receive the greatest use. The acres of each management area that would remain open and closed 

to cross-country vehicle use are displayed in Table W-12. 

Table W-12: Acres Open to Cross-country Motor Vehicle Use under Alternative A 

Management Area Acres Open Acres Closed 

1 0 35,049

2 70,016 81,565

3 225,167 74,480

4 11,135 50,993

5 30,148 5,424

6 36,506 41,002

7 31,131 69,424

8 12,466 21,826

9 3,236 80,502

10 41,471 64,344

11 23,309 60,260

12 24,604 334,284

13 0 100,247

Total 509,189 Acres* 1,019,400 Acres 

*Total slightly differs from acres reported elsewhere due to inherent small variations in GIS analysis capabilities 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives would not permit cross-country motor vehicle use except in an area 300 

feet on either side of designated open roads and 100 feet on either side of designated trails. This 

would greatly decrease impacts on elk behavior and improve habitat security. 

Closing the Forest to cross-country travel is the single most effective action for protection of elk 

habitat and security. In addition, each action alternative would reduce the density of roads and 

motorized trails to some degree. 

Road and Motorized Trail Densities 

The initial analysis in the DEIS noted that many watersheds contain large roadless areas (IRAs) 

and choose to exclude IRA acres from the area calculation. This method elucidated some aspects 

of roads and trails, for example, that in some instances roads are concentrated in a very small area 

compared to the entire watershed, but the method was not comparable with other analyses of road 

density performed for ESA biological assessments and the analysis of the Forest Plan. 

In the FEIS, the analysis was revised to follow standard methods evaluating road density for the 

entire portion of the watershed (including IRAs) on NFS land. Summer road and motorized trail 

density (miles/square mile) was calculated by watershed at the 5th hydrologic unit (HU) scale and 

is displayed in Table W-13. Watersheds that contained less than 1,000 acres of NFS land were not 

analyzed due to the tendency for bias in such a small area calculation. 

Alternative A – No Action 

In summer, the density of authorized roads and motorized trails is less than 2 miles per square 

mile in all watersheds except Pine Creek (2.1 mi/mi.2), Goodrich-Bacon (2.2 mi/mi.2), West Fork 

Weiser (3.0 mi/mi.2), and Upper Weiser River (2.2 mi/mi.2) (Table W-13). 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The four watersheds where road and motorized trail densities exceed 2 miles per square mile in 

Alternative A do not improve appreciably in any of the action alternatives (see Table W-13). 

Alternative C results in the greatest increase in densities. Alternatives B and D would provide the 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 239 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

most improvement, but all four watersheds would still exceed 2 mi/mi.2, with the exception of 

Pine Creek, which drops to 1.9 mi/mi.2 in Alternative D. Alternative E falls in between the other 

alternatives. 

Table W-13. Watersheds Where Summer Road and Motorized Trail Densities 

Exceed Two Miles per Square Mile by Alternative. 

Watershed Alt. A Alt.B Alt. C Alt.D Alt. E 

Density (mi/mi.2) 

Pine Creek 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 

Goodrich-Bacon 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 

West Fork Weiser 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.0 

Upper Weiser River 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 

Elk Vulnerability During Hunting Season 

Indicators 

• Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use in fall. 

• Density (miles of road and motorized trail/square mile of area) of open NFS roads and 

motorized trails by watershed (5th hydrologic unit) in fall. 

• Percent of elk security habitat available during hunting season by Elk Analysis Area (EAA) on 

NFS land. 

Introduction 

National Forest System lands provide substantial habitat for elk populations, as well as 

opportunities for hunting. During the hunting season, elk management balances the protection of 

certain sex and age classes with the need to provide hunting opportunities. While IDF&G has the 

primary role in this management, the Payette National Forest strives to compliment these 

objectives through management of open road densities and other activities that may impact elk 

populations. 

The Forest lies within four Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDF&G) Elk Zones. The Elk 

Zones include Brownlee, Weiser River, McCall, and Middle Fork. On the PNF, portions of 11 Big 

Game Management Units occur within these four Elk Zones. The IDF&G has identified herd 

management objectives for each of the Elk Zones and for some units (Table W-3). Elk 

vulnerability is a concern for several units on the Forest (J. Rohlman, pers. comm. with A. Kuehl, 

2005). 

Current populations of elk on the Forest are estimated by IDF&G at regular intervals, though 

numbers of elk can change during the year. Elk populations on the Forest are highest during the 

spring and summer, as elk migrate back from winter range areas and calves are born (Unsworth et 

al. 1993, Christensen et al. 1995, IDFG 1999). Forest Service management actions such as travel 

management, road construction or obliteration, and vegetation management can influence 

mortality rates during the hunting season. 

Forested vegetation is an important consideration for management of elk populations during the 

hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991, Lyon 1983, Lyon and Canfield 1991). Road density and pattern, 

3 - 240 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

including off-road travel, play an important role in determining the security level an area provides 

to elk during the hunting season. An area with sparse cover and low road densities may provide as 

much security as the same sized area with heavy cover and high road densities (Lyon et al. 1985). 

Several studies document the effect of roads on elk vulnerability, security, population structure, 

and hunter success (Edge and Marcum 1991, Leptich and Zager 1991, Unsworth and Kuck 1991, 

Gratson and Whitman 2000). While most studies indicate that roads impact elk, and road closures 

can extend and affect hunter success, at least one study indicates that road closures do not alter 

hunter success (Burbridge and Neff 1976 as cited in Gratson and Whitman 2000). Few 

considerations in forest management appear to provide a better opportunity for immediate 

mitigation in the management of elk habitat than road closures (Lyon et al. 1985). 

Elk vulnerability is an important component of the IDF&G’s management goals and objectives. 

Restricted motorized travel in locations where elk lack secure habitat due to road densities and/or 

lack of cover during the hunting season has been established on the PNF to reduce antlered elk 

vulnerability during the general rifle season. Motorized road and trail densities (miles/square 

mile) as well as cross-country motorized access are parameters that can be used to determine elk 

vulnerability. 

Elk vulnerability may be reduced, and hunter opportunity may be increased, by providing security 

areas for elk during the hunting season. Elk habitat security areas are defined as a nonlinear block 

of hiding cover ≥ 250 acres in size and ≥ 1⁄2 mile from open roads and motorized trails. 

Collectively, these blocks must equal at least 30 percent of the analysis area (Hillis et al., 1991). 

In the DEIS, the analysis area was defined as the Big Game Unit. Nine of the eleven Big Game 

Units on the PNF were analyzed for elk vulnerability during hunting season (since only one 

percent of unit 32 and 18 percent of unit 31 occur on the Forest they were not included in the 

analysis). At the request of IDF&G, the analysis areas were changed to the 5th level HU 

watershed scale (either individual watersheds or combinations to equal about 30,000 to 80,000 

acres in size). This area, called the Elk Analysis Area (EAA) reflected agreements made in 2005 

between IDF&G and district biologist (Wildlife Specialist report: Project Record). Twenty-seven 

EAAs were identified in the project area. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Currently, slightly more than 500,000 acres on the Forest are open to cross-country motor vehicle 

use in fall, although not all these acres can be traveled due to limits imposed by vegetation and 

topography. In fall, the density of authorized roads and motorized trails (miles/square mile of 

NFS land in the 5th HU watershed) is less than 2 miles per square mile in every watershed due to 

application of seasonal road closures. 

Eighteen of the 27 EAAs (mostly on the east side of the Forest) contain more than 30 percent of 

their area more than 1⁄2 mile from open roads and motorized trails. Of these, only three EAAs are 

comprised of hiding cover blocks ≥ 250 acres in size that total at least 30 percent of the area. 

Under Alternative A, there are many unauthorized roads used by off-road vehicles in currently 

open areas. Seasonal road closures during hunting season have also been difficult to enforce. 

These open areas further decrease elk habitat security. 

Action Alternative B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives would not permit cross-country motor vehicle use except in an area 300 

feet on either side of designated open roads and 100 feet on either side of designated trails. This 

would greatly decrease impacts on elk behavior and habitat security. Closing the Forest to crosscountry travel is the single most effective action for protection of elk habitat and security. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 241 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

In fall, the density of authorized roads and motorized trails (miles/square mile of NFS land in the 

5th HU watershed) remains less than 2 miles per square mile in every watershed and would not 

improve appreciably in any of the action alternatives. Alternatives B and D would provide the 

most improvements although benefits are slight. 

The action alternatives do not result in substantial changes to elk habitat security. Alternatives B 

and D result in slightly more improvement in elk security compared with the other alternatives. 

The percentage of elk security is lowest on the west side of the Forest, where road density 

numbers are the highest. The amount of cover these security areas afford varies throughout the 

PNF (see Wildlife Specialist Report: Project Record). 

Although not measured in the indicator for elk security, all the action alternatives would provide 

far greater benefits than Alternative A, because all currently open areas would be closed to crosscountry motor vehicle use. 

Winter range 

Indicators 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within elk winter range. 

• Acres and percent of elk winter range open to over-snow vehicle use. 

• Direct and Indirect Effects 

Elk populations are lowest during the winter after they migrate to lower-elevation winter range 

following the hunting season in the fall. Additional mortality usually occurs on winter ranges, 

depending on forage quantity and quality, predators, and the severity of the winter. Mild winters 

contribute to higher elk numbers. 

Winter range is an important element of elk habitat. Areas with minimal human activities and 

adequate forage will reduce the energetic costs associated with over winter survival. Snowmobile 

traffic is one form of disturbance that has potential impacts on wintering elk. Elk respond to 

human disturbance through overt expressions such as an increase in general alertness to a slow 

retreating movement to outright flight, depending on the type of disturbance (Canfield et. al. 

1999). This can result in reduction in over-winter survival and subsequent reproductive success. 

Winter range travel restrictions are intended to prevent disturbance and harassment of elk during 

a period when physical stress is already relatively high. Because of the importance of winter 

ranges to elk, the Forest has closed elk winter range to over-snow vehicle use. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Currently there are 4.55 miles of groomed snowmobile route within elk winter range. About 

105,000 acres of elk winter range are closed and 81,000 acres are open to over-snow motorized 

use, but the open acres largely fall below the average snowline (estimated at 4,000 feet) and so 

are generally not impacted by snowmobile use. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

None of the action alternatives would increase the miles of groomed snowmobile routes within 

elk winter range from the existing condition of 4.55 miles. The potential for disturbance from 

groomed snowmobile trails on elk winter range would essentially remain the same under all 

alternatives. 

The Forest has an estimated 186,300 acres of elk winter range (Wildlife Specialist Report: Project 

Record). In alternatives A and B, 43 percent of this elk winter range would be open to over-snow 

3 - 242 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
W I LDLI FE CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

vehicle use compared with 48 percent in Alternative C, 39 percent in Alternative D, and 41 

percent in Alternative E (Table W-14). It should be noted that many open acres fall below the 

average snowline (estimated at 4,000 feet) and so are generally not impacted by snowmobile use. 

Table W-14: Acres and Percent of Elk Winter Range Open to Over-snow Motor 

Vehicle Use by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

81,000 (43%) 81,000 (43%) 90,200 (48%) 72,700 (39%) 76,000 (41%) 

Alternative C would open the most acres and Alternative D would close the acres of elk winter 

range to over-snow vehicle use. Winter range is an important element of elk habitat. Areas with 

minimal human activities and adequate forage will reduce the energetic costs associated with 

over-winter survival. Alternative D would have the least amount of impact to wintering elk. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several past and ongoing activities have positive effects on elk habitat. Past decisions that closed 

roads, whether year-round or seasonally, have positive effects for elk and elk habitat. The 

existence of roadless areas in some watersheds also contributes to elk security. 

The Forest Service ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions that may cumulatively affect elk 

include this Travel Plan, recreation management, and future vegetation management (Appendix 

D). A number of projects, including the Brownlee/Seid Creek Improvement Thin, Burgdorf Road 

Management and Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project, 

Upper Weiser Fire Regime/Condition Class Project, Crooked River Fuels Management Project, 

Meadows Slope Wildland Fire Protection Project, Paddy Flat Vegetation Management Project, 

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project, and Yellow Pine Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

propose to close and decommission roads. Any reduction in road density would benefit elk. 

Cross-country motor vehicle use and motorized travel on unauthorized roads in open areas would 

continue in Alternative A. This would continue to negatively affect elk habitat effectiveness and 

elk vulnerability. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would eliminate motorized travel on more than 500,000 acres, 

cumulatively benefiting elk and elk habitat. 

Alternative C would open additional acres in elk winter range to over-snow vehicle use. This may 

have slight cumulatively negative effects on elk over-winter survival when combined with actions 

on adjacent private lands. Planned Tamarack Resort activities for winter use would have no 

cumulative impacts on elk winter range. 

Forest Plan Consistency Specific to Elk 

All action alternatives considered in this analysis would reduce elk vulnerability and improve 

habitat security by closing the Forest to cross-country travel on more than 500,000 acres. Given 

this, all action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction related to elk. Opportunities 

to improve elk security through additional road closures should continue to be investigated. 

In response to concerns about elk security expressed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game a 

monitoring was added to this project (Chapter 2). The monitoring would determine the 

effectiveness of closures in areas where elk habitat security is a concern (as identified in 

coordination with IDF&G). Field evaluation and/or photo-monitoring would be used to determine 

occurrence of off-road travel and use of unauthorized roads and motorized trails during hunting 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 3 - 243 
CHAPTER 3. AFFE CTED ENVI RONMENT W I LDLI FE 

AND ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENC ES 

season in these areas. Potential solutions to continued illegal access could include increased law 

enforcement patrols, physical road closures, and road decommissioning. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments for all Wildlife Species 

Analyzed 

Permanent facilities or associated wildlife habitat are not changed in any watershed containing 

TES or MIS species to an extent that loss of wildlife production occurs for an implemented 

action. Irreversible loss of wildlife production would only occur in a case where an action was 

implemented that caused permanent loss of some wildlife production. Irretrievable commitments 

of habitat components for wildlife would be limited to vegetation removal associate with road or 

trail maintenance or construction activities. These commitments would occur in isolated areas 

scattered across the forest, and as such, are not expected to impact wildlife production. Avoidance 

of this would be insured through maintenance of habitat for wolverine and lynx and through 

adherence to Forest Plan direction. 

Project Record 

The Wildlife Specialist Report in the Project Record is incorporated into this EIS (40 CFR 

1502.21). The wildlife specialist relied on the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, 

conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation in the Wildlife Specialist Report to 

make the conclusions presented in this EIS. 

3 - 244 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS