Chapter 2. Alternatives 
CHAPTER 2 : ALTERNATI V E S 

Chapter 2: Table of Contents 

Chapter 2: Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 1 

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 

2.1.1 Changes between the Draft and Final EIS ......................................................... 1 

2.2 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study................................... 2 

2.2.1 Opening portions of the Secesh and Needles Recommended Wilderness Areas 

to Over-snow Vehicle Use.......................................................................................... 2 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................. 3 

2.3.1 Features Common to All Action Alternatives ................................................... 3 

2.3.2 Project Design Features ..................................................................................... 6 

2.3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................ 8 

2.4 Description of the Alternatives ................................................................................. 8 

2.4.1 Alternative A – No Action................................................................................. 9 

2.4.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ..................................................................... 10 

2.4.3 Alternative C – Additional Motorized Opportunities ...................................... 11 

2.4.4 Alternative D – Additional Non-Motorized Opportunities.............................. 13 

2.4.5 Alternative E – Response to Internal and External Comment on the Draft EIS

................................................................................................................................... 14 

2.5. Alternative Descriptions by Management Area..................................................... 16 

2.5.1 Management Area 1, Hells Canyon – 35,060 acres......................................... 17 

2.5.2 Management Area 2, Snake River – 151,590 acres......................................... 18 

2.5.3 Management Area 3, Weiser River – 299,990 acres ....................................... 21 

2.5.4 Management Area 4, Rapid River – 62,140 acres ........................................... 26 

2.5.5 Management Area 5, Middle Little Salmon River – 35,580 acres .................. 28 

2.5.6 Management Area 6, Goose Creek/Hazard Creek – 77,120 acres................... 30 

2.5.7 Management Area 7, Payette Lakes – 100,730 acres ...................................... 33 

2.5.8 Management Area 8, Kennally Creek – 34,300 acres ..................................... 35 

2.5.9 Management Area 9, Lake Creek/French Creek – 83,740 acres ..................... 37 

2.5.10 Management Area 10, Fall Creek/Warren Creek – 105,830 acres ................ 40 

2.5.11 Management Area 11, Upper Secesh River – 83,570 acres........................... 42 

2.5.12 Management Area 12, South Fork Salmon River – 359,560 acres................ 44 

2.5.13 Management Area 13, Big Creek/Stibnite – 100,270 acres........................... 48 

2.6 Management Requirements .................................................................................... 50 

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 57 

2.7.1 Recreation ........................................................................................................ 57 

2.7.2 Soil and Water.................................................................................................. 64 

2.7.3 Fisheries ........................................................................................................... 67 

2.7.4 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 69 

2.8 Winter Area Management....................................................................................... 72 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS i 
CHAPTER 2 : ALTERNATI V E S 

Chapter 2. List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Forest Summary – Travel Opportunities by Alternative ................................. 15 

Table 2-2. MA 1 - Travel Management Proposals by Alternative ................................... 17 

Table 2-3. MA 1 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ........................................... 17 

Table 2-4. MA 2 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................... 18 

Table 2-5. MA 2 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ........................................... 19 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................... 21 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ........................................... 22 

Table 2-8. MA 4 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................... 26 

Table 2-9. MA 4 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ........................................... 27 

Table 2-10. MA 5 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................. 28 

Table 2-12. MA 6 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................. 30 

Table 2-13. MA 6 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ......................................... 31 

Table 2-14. MA 7 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................. 33 

Table 2-15. MA 7 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ......................................... 34 

Table 2-16. MA 8 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................. 35 

Table 2-17. MA 8 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ......................................... 36 

Table 2-18. MA 9 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative................................. 37 

Table 2-19. MA 9 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ......................................... 38 

Table 2-20. MA 10 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative............................... 40 

Table 2-21. MA 10 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ....................................... 41 

Table 2-22. MA 11 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative............................... 42 

Table 2-23. MA 11 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ....................................... 43 

Table 2-24. MA 12 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative............................... 44 

Table 2-24. MA 12 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ....................................... 45 

Table 2-26. MA 13 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative............................... 48 

Table 2-21. MA 13 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative ....................................... 48 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements........................................................................... 51 

Table 2-28. Recreation Issue 1.......................................................................................... 57 

Table 2-29. Recreation Issue 2.......................................................................................... 58 

Table 2-30. Recreation Issue 3.......................................................................................... 61 

Table 2-31. Recreation Issue 4.......................................................................................... 62 

Table 2-32. Recreation Issue 5.......................................................................................... 63 

Table 2-33. Roadless Character and Wilderness Issue 1 .................................................. 63 

Table 2-34. Soil & Water Issue 1...................................................................................... 64 

Table 2-35. Fisheries Issue 1 ............................................................................................ 67 

Table 2-36. Wildlife Issue 1.............................................................................................. 69 

Table 2-37. Wildlife Issue 2.............................................................................................. 70 

Table 2-38. Wildlife Issue 3.............................................................................................. 70 

Table 2-39. Wildlife Issue 4.............................................................................................. 71 

Table 2-40. Wildlife Issue 5.............................................................................................. 71 

Table 2-41. Wildlife Issue 6.............................................................................................. 71 

Table 2-42. Winter Motorized Closures by Main Purpose, Acres, and Alternative......... 72 

ii Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Chapter 2. List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Winter Motorized Closure Areas 73 

Figure 2-2. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative A 74 

Figure 2-3. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative B 75 

Figure 2-4. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative C 76 

Figure 2-5. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative D 77 

Figure 2-6. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative E 78 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS iii 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

iv Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the Proposed Action and a range of alternatives. The alternatives were 

developed based on public involvement during the scoping period for the Proposed Action, the 

comment period on the Draft EIS, the Purpose and Need and issues described in Chapter 1. The 

alternatives present a range of analysis options, as required under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). Five alternatives were considered in this Final EIS 

including the Proposed Action described in Section 1.4. A No Action alternative, and four additional 

action alternatives are described in Section 2.2. 

The No Action Alternative would continue travel management under the current Travel Plan of 1995. 

The Travel Management Plan has been updated annually by the Backroads Map reflecting Payette 

National Forest NEPA decisions on road and trail management since the publication of the 1995 Travel 

Plan as well as any existing Special Orders pertaining to roads, trails or area management. The 

Backroads Map also identifies areas open and closed to motorized over-snow vehicle use. 

NEPA requires an EIS include analysis of the No Action Alternative [40 CFR 1502.14(d)]. No Action 

means one of two things: either (1) that the Proposed Action does not occur, or (2) that there would be 

no change in current management [FSH 1909.15(14.1)]. Because the PNF has an existing Travel 

Management Plan, the No Action Alternative in travel planning would mean “no change”, or no 

adoption of a revised Travel Management Plan. Travel management would continue under the present 

course of action. 

Under the present course of action the Forest Service would likely make periodic changes in travel 

management to correct identified resource problems or public safety issues on a case-by-case basis. The 

Travel Plan would evolve, as it has since 1995, as the Forest Service continues to meet Forest Plan 

direction and respond to problems through site-specific analyses, decisions, and actions. In addition, the 

recent Forest Service rule for motor vehicle management (Federal Register 2005:70FR68264) requires 

all Forests to complete a comprehensive evaluation of travel management, such as this EIS, that 

proposes limits to cross-country motorized travel. Due to the combined requirements of the final motor 

vehicle management rule and Forest Plan direction to address resource and public safety issues, the No 

Action Alternative cannot be defined as “no change” over the long term. 

Adopting the No Action Alternative would not preclude establishing specific area and route restrictions 

or possible future proposals for road and trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance and 

decommissioning. Under the No Action Alternative, changes to travel management would be 

incremental and piece-meal, in response to site-specific problems. Under the action alternatives, 

response would be comprehensive in the form of a revised forest-wide Travel Management Plan that 

prohibits cross-country motor vehicle use in summer designates a system of open roads and trails along 

with areas for winter use. 

The Proposed Action and each action alternative contain management requirements and project design 

features (PDF) designed to protect other resource uses and values. The alternatives also contain 

monitoring requirements to ensure the design features are effective and the Purpose and Need is being 

met. 

2.1.1 Changes between the Draft and Final EIS 

Several changes have been made between the DEIS and the FEIS. These changes include items that 

affect each alternative. Changes for individual resources are described in Chapter 3 Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences. Specific changes within an individual alternative are 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 1 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

discussed in the individual Management Area sections below. General changes between the DEIS and 

FEIS are as follows: 

• Alternative E was added to the analysis. This alternative responds to internal and external comment 

on the DEIS. 

• Regional Forester direction narrowed the allowed use in designated motorized corridors along 

designated motorized routes to dispersed camping only. Game retrieval and other Forest uses will 

have to be achieved on foot from a designated motorized route. 

• Miles and acres for all alternatives have been updated to reflect the most current state of 

management. 

• In response to public comments, the recreation section now incorporates a discussion of loop trail 

opportunities. 

• The analysis for all resources has been updated and expanded. See Chapter 3 for a detailed 

discussion of the analysis changes. 

• Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDF&G) expressed concern that the areas of wolverine 

denning habitat protected in Alternative D did not include the highest priority. Based on input from 

IDF&G an additional closure area (Bruin Mountain) is included in Alternative D. The wildlife 

analysis in Chapter 3 discusses the potential benefits of this additional closure. 

• The Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA) expressed concern that all of the areas they 

proposed to be open to over-snow motorized use in their comments on the proposed action were not 

included as part of Alternative C. Some of these areas, outside of Recommended Wilderness, have 

been added to Alternative C. 

• ISSA also recommended entering the Recommended Wilderness in their comments on the 

Proposed Action. An alternative analyzing allowing winter motorized use in portions of the Secesh 

and Needles IRA is discussed below in 2.2.1 Opening portions of the Secesh and Needles 

Recommended Wilderness Areas to Over-snow Vehicle Use. 

2.2 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives not developed in detail 

(40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action and the alternatives 

presented in the Draft EIS provided suggestions for alternatives methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may be outside the scope of travel plan revision or determined to be 

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, one alternative was 

considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for the reasons summarized below. 

2.2.1 Opening portions of the Secesh and Needles Recommended 

Wilderness Areas to Over-snow Vehicle Use 

In public comment on the project proposal, the Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA) 

recommended consideration of opening portions of the Secesh/Needles Recommended Wilderness to 

motorized over-snow use. The Forest analyzed this proposal and concluded the following: 

• At this time, and in the foreseeable future it is unlikely there is a need for additional motorized oversnow areas above and beyond those already proposed in the five alternatives. While trailheads and 

parking lots are sometimes overcrowded on weekends and holidays, use quickly disperses away from 

the trailhead, and most users do not experience crowding (Gary Elliot pers.comm; USDA Forest 

Service 2003b). 

2 - 2 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• The area in the recommended Wilderness was analyzed for available terrain for potential 

snowmobile use. Approximately 25 percent of the area could be suitable for use by current technology 

machines. The remaining terrain is too steep, rugged, and/or rocky for safe access. In addition, access 

points into these recommended Wilderness areas all require travel over this type of hazardous terrain. 

• Forest Plan direction (Standard for MPC 1.2, Recommended Wilderness, USDA Forest Service 

2003: III-82) states that “No new motorized or mechanical uses will be allowed, except where these 

uses must be allowed in response to outstanding rights, statute, or treaty.” Part of the purpose and need 

for this project was to meet Forest Plan direction. The Forest Plan is relatively new (2003), and during 

the public involvement process for Plan revision, both motorized and non-motorized public 

respondents supported the designation of both of the recommended wilderness areas. 

• The recent (September 20, 2006) Petition of Governor James Risch for State Specific Rulemaking 

for Roadless Areas in Idaho, lead to the recommend designation for these areas as Wildland Recreation. 

The emphasis of this designation is essentially the same as the direction and objectives set for these 

areas in the current Forest Plan. The Governors petition process included additional public involvement 

and further indicates the publics desire to retain these areas “as-is”. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The ID Team developed and analyzed in detail five alternatives, including the Proposed Action and a 

No Action Alternative. The alternatives are detailed below by a description of proposed designations 

for each management area, followed by a summary for the Forest. In the following text and tables 

describing the alternatives, all numbers are estimates based on the best available information. 

Corrections and adjustments will occur during further environmental analysis and in project 

implementation. 

2.3.1 Features Common to All Action Alternatives 

Travel management is the administrative process of designating the types of use allowed on routes and 

areas. Ground-disturbing activities associated with this process are limited to the application of stated 

project design features necessary to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects or provide for 

public safety. These required Project Design Features (PDFs) are found in Section 2.3.2. While this EIS 

makes decisions on travel route designations, the actual authorization of routes from a non-motorized to 

motorized use, or unauthorized routes being added to the designated motorized route system would 

require application of the PDF’s before they are formally authorized and displayed on the motor vehicle 

use map for public use. 

Types of Routes 

Cross-country Motor Vehicle Use: Motorized travel is considered cross-country when a motorized 

vehicle (except motorized over-snow vehicles on snow) leaves a designated road or a designated 

motorized trail. 

Designated Route: Roads and trails identified by the agency where the appropriate type and time 

period of use is specified. Any routes or areas not designated for motorized use are restricted to nonmotorized use. 

Roads are defined as a motor vehicle travelway for vehicles over 50 inches wide. Off-Highway 

Vehicles (OHVs such as ATVs and dirt bikes) operated by licensed drivers are also legal, as prescribed 

in Idaho law. Unlicensed drivers may not operate motor vehicles on NFS roads. Hikers, bicyclers, and 

horseback riders are encouraged to travel safely along road edges. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 3 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Roads fall into one of two categories: 

1) Unauthorized roads are roads that are not National Forest System roads and not included in a forest 

transportation atlas. These include roads also known as unclassified, unplanned, non-system, and 

undetermined roads. These roads are restricted to non-motorized use in all action alternatives, unless 

they are proposed for designation to motorized use. 

2) Classified roads include roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands 

needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, privately owned roads, 

National Forest System roads (see below), and other roads authorized by the Forest Service. 

National Forest System (NFS) Road: A forest road other than a road authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. These roads may 

be classified as open, closed, or seasonal. 

Motorized trails, OHV trails, or ATV trails are routes available for Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) 

as well as non-motorized users. They include trails available to all OHVs, and those available 

specifically to All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), and motorcycles. Trails may be closed seasonally for 

resource protection or public safety reasons. 

Two-wheel motorized (Motorcycle) trails are single-track trails available for motorcycles and dirt 

bikes, as well as non-motorized users. 

Non-motorized trails are routes available for hikers, bicyclers (except in Wilderness) and horseback 

riders. Use by motorized wheelchair is allowed when feasible within the defined trail-bed. Routes 

restricted to non-motorized use are closed to motorized use administratively. 

Groomed Snowmobile trails are roads, trails, or other authorized overland routes groomed to allow 

over-snow motor vehicle use. Groomed snowmobile routes are closed to all standard wheeled vehicles 

designed for snow-free travel-ways. 

Over-snow vehicle use or motorized over-snow use areas are designated areas available for 

over-snow vehicle use. Areas designated as open to over-snow vehicle use would be available as long 

as there is sufficient snow pack to allow travel. 

Summer and Winter Use Regulations 

For all alternatives, the 1995 Travel Management Map would be replaced by a new Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) reflecting the revisions to travel management. The MVUM will be displayed by Ranger 

District. There would be a set of maps for both summer and winter. Maps will be available free of 

charge at all District offices and on the Forest web page. 

User education and enforcement of the new regulations would occur in all alternatives. The Forest 

would work to partner with local volunteer groups and the State to increase the “reach” of user 

education and enforcement. In all alternatives, implementation of Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, 

and Objectives would continue. 

All of the alternatives would have summer and winter use regulations. Summer use is defined as use 

that occurs during the snow-free season when tracked vehicles or equipment such as a snowmobile or 

skis are not required for travel. Winter use is defined as use requiring tracked vehicles or equipment 

such as snowmobiles, snow cats, or skis for transportation across the snow. 

Summer travel management would include the following: 

• Motorized and non-motorized travel routes, designated by the Forest Service as open to public 

travel. Designated motorized routes would be identified on the PNF Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) using nationally directed uniform standards. Road number signs identifying those routes 

open to public travel would be posted on the ground to the extent practicable. Designation of travel 

2 - 4 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

routes and areas would follow requirements in 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 (Federal 

Register 70FR68264). 

• Limited motorized access for dispersed camping within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of 

designated motorized trails on most areas of the Forest as long as it does not result in resource 

damage such as rutting, fording of streams, crossing wet meadows, creating new unauthorized 

routes, spreading noxious weeds, or similar resource degradation. 

• Parking within one vehicle length off all motorized routes. 

• Some areas identified in the analysis and shown on the maps, would be closed to any motorized 

travel off designated routes including dispersed camping due to sensitive resource protection needs. 

Areas with sensitive resources proposed for closure to motorized off-route travel include: known 

areas with northern Idaho ground squirrel colonies, the Lake Creek area on the McCall Ranger 

District, and the entire Krassel Ranger District. In these areas, all dispersed camping would be 

restricted to designated sites. 

• A designation for a road or trail includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts 

associated with the designated road or trail. The designation also includes parking a motor vehicle 

within one vehicle length from the edge of the road surface when it is safe to do so and without 

causing damage to NFS resources. (Proposed Washington Office Directive FSM 7716.1). 

• Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) operation for general travel would not be allowed off of any 

designated motorized route. 

• Unauthorized routes would be restricted to non-motorized use unless designated for motorized use 

in the selected alternative. 

• All areas and routes in the project area are open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain bike, or 

horse), unless prohibited for administrative reasons such as safety. 

• Mountain bikes would be permitted on all roads and trails outside of the Frank Church--River of No 

Return Wilderness, unless otherwise posted. 

• Hiking and horseback riding would be permitted anywhere on the Forest, unless otherwise posted. 

Winter travel management would include the following: 

• Designated areas open to over-snow vehicle use and groomed over-snow vehicle trails. Designated 

areas and trails would be identified on the PNF MVUM using nationally directed uniform 

standards. Designation of winter use areas would be under 36 CFR 212.81 (Federal Register 

70FR68264). 

• The location of the open area boundaries would, where practical, be located along features that are 

readily distinguished on maps and on the ground during winter. Area closure signs would continue 

to be posted where heavily used routes or play areas approach a closed area. 

Other common features: 

• Grants and Agreements – the Forest Service will pursue partnerships and grants with Idaho 

Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain motorized and non-motorized trails. 

• Mixed Use Traffic - State of Idaho law allows for motorized mixed use of licensed drivers in 

registered OHVs and highway legal vehicles on unpaved NFS roads designated as open to 

motorized public travel. The Forest Service may choose to regulate this use based on a Mixed Use 

Traffic Study which determines the safety of such use. Routes deemed to be unsafe as a result of the 

traffic study may be closed to mixed use by the Forest Service, thus eliminating use by OHVs. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 5 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Standards, Maintenance, and Construction 

Road and trail standards vary depending on intended use. Standards allow for a range of route 

conditions from primitive to high standard. Improvements that may be required to bring individual 

roads or trails up to standard largely consist of light reconstruction or routine maintenance. Road and 

trail maintenance, required by Forest Service Manual direction, would continue as available funding is 

allocated by Congress. In all action alternatives, portions of some roads and trails would require 

reconstruction or relocation in order to meet standards. Most of the new construction would consist of 

short “connector” segments, which would tie existing roads or trails together. The Project Design 

Features (PDFs) found in the section below cover some of the standards that would be used in 

construction and relocation. New trails or roads would be designed to meet the trail or road standards as 

defined by the USDA Forest Service Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM-7720-102; 

or the FSH 7700 Roads USDA Forest Service Handbook for roads. 

2.3.2 Project Design Features 

Project design features (PDFs) include Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix C) 

standards operating procedures (SOPs), identified design features (below), and Forest Plan 

Management Requirements (Table 2-27). These items are included to protect public safety and Forest 

resources, and are integral parts of all action alternatives. 

• User education and enforcement of the new travel management regulations would occur. User 

education would include public meetings, and brochures describing the new travel management 

policy and use of the MVUM. The Forest has requested additional funding to help with extra 

enforcement and education, and to bring signs up to the standards required by Agency policy. 

• The Payette National Forest would follow National direction for signing and maps. The Forest 

Service plans to develop a standard national format for motor vehicle use maps (MVUM). These 

maps will be available at local Forest Service offices and, as soon as practicable, on Forest Service 

web sites. The Forest Service plans to issue additional travel management guidance in its sign 

standards handbook to ensure consistent messages and use of standard interagency symbols. 

• Newly Designated Roads and Trails. Newly designated roads and trails would be subject to the 

following project design features (a) through (m). A Newly designated road or trail is defined as a 

route designated on a previously unauthorized or closed system road that would now be open to 

public travel; or a non-motorized trail designated as motorized. All newly designated roads or trails 

will not be authorized or placed onto the MVUM until on the ground assessments are made and all 

applicable PDFs are implemented. 

a) Cultural Resources. The Forest Archaeologist will conduct a cultural resources survey and 

evaluation, and receive concurrence from the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. 

Concurrence requires that no impacts would occur to cultural resource sites, or impacts would 

be mitigated to acceptable levels. Although most routes have been inventoried and cleared for 

use, a Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement may be used to ensure all 

cultural resource requirements have been met. 

 b) Plants. Complete a rare plants survey and evaluation, and enact necessary protection 

measures so that no unacceptable impacts would occur to rare plants, or impacts would be 

mitigated to acceptable levels. 

c) ATV Trail Condition Assessments. Qualified personnel complete an ATV Trail Condition 

Assessment on all new ATV routes to identify problems, recommend corrective measures and 

to establish a baseline for future monitoring. 

2 - 6 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

 d) Route Standards. Design roads and trails to meet minimum road or trail standards as 

defined by the Forest Service Handbook FSH section 7700 for roads, or the Forest Service 

Standard Specifications for Constructions of Trails (EM-7720-102). Road to ATV trail 

conversion will include reclamation of excessive road width, and installation of water 

management/erosion control features to meet the new ATV trail designation. 

e) Trail Rerouting. Reroute trails where water management structures cannot function or be 

properly maintained, where trails cross soils or sites poorly suited for motorized use, or to 

avoid impacting other sensitive resources (such as cultural sites). 

f) Trail Reclamation. Reclaim abandoned trail segments by physical closure, installation of 

water management structures, and pulling available slash over the abandoned trail. 

g) Water Management Structures. On all new ATV trails, construct and maintain water 

management features (such as waterbars, grade dips, culverts, sheet drains, check dams, 

ditches, or bridges). 

h) Reclaim unauthorized spur roads accessed by newly designated ATV trails. Reclaim 

all unauthorized spur roads which originate off the newly designated ATV trails by physical 

closure, installation of water management structures, de-compacting the abandoned travel way, 

and pulling available slash over the roadway. 

i) Trail Improvement. When rerouting a poorly located trail segment is not feasible, improve 

the trail surfaces so it will support use without unacceptable resource impacts. Improvement 

techniques include replacing or capping unsuitable soils including fills with geotextiles, gravel, 

corduroy, wood matrix, puncheon, porous pavement panels, or matting. 

j) Fish Bearing Streams. All stream crossings on fish bearing streams will meet the Regional 

Aquatic Organism Passage Guidelines. Qualified personnel will review and concur on all 

stream crossings to verify if the stream is fish bearing, provides passage, and protects and 

maintains habitat. 

k) Weeds. Include measures to prevent the spread of noxious weeds such as: use of weed-free 

gravel or soil, use of weed-free hay or straw, and prompt re-vegetation of areas of disturbed 

soil. Treat identified noxious weed sites as appropriate. 

l) Public Safety. Qualified personnel will complete assessments to determine measures needed 

to provide for safe use. 

m) Implementation Monitoring. Prepare implementation monitoring plans and evaluate 

results to ensure all PDFs are implemented before authorization of any new road or trail. This 

is considered a critical component of these PDFs. Monitoring plans are included in Appendix 

E. 

• If a wolverine den is discovered, implement measures on a case-by-case basis to help ensure den 

sites and natal areas receive minimal disturbance. A no-activity snowmobile buffer of 1⁄2 mile would 

be placed around each known active den site. 

• Recreation specialists and wildlife biologists would coordinate efforts to map over-snow use areas, 

to assess location and intensity of snow compacting activities within lynx habitat, to facilitate future 

analysis of effects on lynx as information becomes available. The map would include: plowed 

roads, groomed snowmobile routes, regular and moderate use non-groomed routes, snowmobile 

play areas, and cross-country ski use areas. 

• Forest wildlife biologists would further monitor and analyze main wildlife travel corridors and 

propose actions, if necessary, to promote their viability for use for lynx, wolverine, and other forest 

carnivores. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 7 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• The wildlife biologist will evaluate road or trail activity prior to implementation of designated routes 

in potential habitat of the northern Idaho ground squirrel or other listed species. 

2.3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation 

The goal of travel plan monitoring is to determine how the travel plan is or is not working, and to help 

identify changes needed in travel management or monitoring methods. Monitoring and evaluation tell 

how travel management decisions have been implemented (called “implementation monitoring”) and 

how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing the desired outcomes (called 

“effectiveness monitoring.”). 

Not all distinctive variables can be monitored. Monitoring has administrative costs to the agency and is 

contingent on future funding, so a selection of a monitoring item in the Record of Decision for the 

Travel Plan represents a statement of management intent to fund the implementation of that monitoring 

item in the future. 

The following monitoring items are associated with this Travel Plan: 

Wildlife: 

• Effectiveness of closures at Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel sites 

• Effectiveness of closures in areas where elk habitat security is a concern 

• Verification and protection of potential wolverine denning habitat, lynx habitat, and wildlife 

habitat connectivity 

Recreation: 

• Effectiveness of Over-snow motorized closures 

• Levels of use on motorized trails 

Soil and Water: 

• Implementation and effectiveness of travel plan ATV Project Design Features (PDFs) 

• Effectiveness monitoring of the travel plan’s designation of areas open to “limited 

motorized access” on the protection of the soil, water, riparian, and aquatic (SWRA) 

resources within riparian conservation areas (RCAs) 

• Implementation and effectiveness of closure of unauthorized routes 

Fish: 

• Monitoring related to Terms and Conditions from National Marine Fisheries Service 

Monitoring plans associated with these items are located in Appendix E. 

2.4 Description of the Alternatives 

These following measures were used to display how winter and summer travel opportunities varied by 

alternative and by management area. Descriptions of the travel opportunities under each alternative are 

provided in the following pages and summarized for the Forest in Table 2-1. This is followed by 

alternative descriptions and summaries by management area. Winter and summer travel maps are 

located in the Map Packet. More detailed maps can be viewed on the PNF website at 

http://www.fe.fed.us/r4/payette/main.html. 

2 - 8 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Summer Travel Measures 

Cross-country motor vehicle use (acres): The acreage open to motorized cross-country travel 

during the snow-free months. 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles): The miles of trail designated open to motorized use by twowheel vehicles as well as non-motorized users. 

ATV trail (miles): The miles of trail open to motorized use by ATVs. They are also open to twowheel motorized and non-motorized users. 

OHV trail (miles): The miles of trail open to motorized use by all OHVs. 

Non-motorized trail: The miles of trail open to non-motorized use only. Use by motorized wheelchair 

is allowed when feasible within the defined trail-bed. 

NFS open road: The miles of road designated open to travel by full-sized vehicles, and licensed and 

unlicensed OHVs operated by licensed drivers. Hikers, bicyclers, and horseback riders may also use the 

road. 

NFS seasonally open road: The miles of road designated open as described above, except for a 

period of time each year (most often during big game hunting season) to manage or protect various 

resources. 

Winter Travel Measures 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles): The miles of trail to be approved for annual grooming 

(generally under a Cost Share Agreement with the appropriate County) for snowmobile use. 

Motorized over-snow use (acres): The acreage open to access by motorized over-snow equipment. 

Over-snow use by non-motorized users is also allowed. 

Closed to motorized use (acres): The acreage open only to non-motorized use. Motorized use by 

all motorized vehicles, including over-snow vehicles, is prohibited. 

2.4.1 Alternative A – No Action 

This alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and serves as a baseline 

for analyzing effects. The No Action Alternative represents “no immediate change” from current 

management (see further discussion on p. 2-1). Implementation of Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, 

and Objectives would continue on a site-specific basis when resource concerns are identified. 

Winter Travel 

The current level of motorized over-snow access would remain unchanged. This alternative would 

continue unrestricted snowmobiling in areas that are not part of an area closure as identified on the 

Payette National Forest Backroads Map. The transportation system for over-snow travel would include: 

Groomed snowmobile trail: 245.9 miles 

Motorized over-snow use: 1,078,540 acres 

Closed to motorized use: 451,200 acres 

Summer Travel 

Alternative A would retain 1125.3 miles of open and 512.2 miles of seasonally open roads. Some areas 

contain many miles of unauthorized road where travel impacts may be concentrated, but the extent is 

unknown. Cross-country motor vehicle use is allowed on 510,930 acres of the 1,529,740 acre project 

area. As with all alternatives, vegetation and terrain limits cross-country motor vehicle use. In areas 

where cross-country motor vehicle use is not allowed, the current policy allowing dispersed camping 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 9 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

for 300 feet on either side of designated NFS roads and 100 feet of designated NFS trails would 

continue. 

Motorized cross-country travel: 510,930 acres 

Two-wheel motorized trail: 581.9 miles 

ATV trail: 75.3 miles 

OHV trail: 2.8 miles 

Non-motorized trail: 504.3 miles 

NFS open road: 1,125.3 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 512.2 

2.4.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action 

This alternative was proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need for a revised Travel 

Management Plan as described in Chapter 1. The Travel Plan should provide a system of designated 

NFS roads, motorized and non-motorized trails, groomed over-snow routes, and over-snow vehicle use 

areas and respond to direction provided in the Forest Plan, as well as meet current law, regulation, and 

policy. Current direction is to limit indiscriminant cross-country motor vehicle use, minimize 

maintenance costs, protect Forest resources, provide a diversity of recreation opportunities, and reduce 

user conflicts (more accurately called conflicts between uses). Implementation of Forest Plan 

Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives would continue and Alternative B is consistent with Forest Plan 

Standards. 

Winter Travel 

The current level of motorized over-snow opportunity would decrease by 17,410 acres leaving over a 

million acres open to motorized over-snow use. The amount of currently groomed snowmobile trail is 

reflected in this alternative, rather than in Alternative A. (Alternative A reflects the miles of trail 

available for grooming under the Memorandum of Understanding authorization between the Forest 

Service and the counties.) This alternative designates nearly 226 miles of groomed snowmobile trails. 

Groomed snowmobile trails: 225.5 miles 

Motorized over-snow use: 1,061,130 acres 

Closed to motorized use: 468,610 acres 

Summer Travel 

Nearly 89.0 miles of trail would be open for ATV use (motorized off-highway vehicles 50” or less in 

width), and 3.1 miles for OHV use (all motorized off-highway vehicles). Two–wheel motorized traffic 

could use these trails, in addition to the 434.5 miles of trail specifically designed for two-wheel 

vehicles. 

Designated roads (open and seasonally) available for full size vehicles would decrease by 24.8 miles. 

All unauthorized roads would be restricted to non-motorized travel. No areas would be open to crosscountry motor vehicle use, but limited motorized access for dispersed camping would be permissible 

within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of designated motorized trails as long as it does not 

result in resource damage such as rutting, fording of streams, crossing wet meadows, creating new 

unauthorized routes, spreading noxious weeds, or similar resource impacts (hereafter referred to as 

resource damage). 

Motorized cross-country travel: 0 acres 

Two-wheel motorized trail: 434.5 miles 

ATV trail: 89.0 miles 

OHV trail: 3.1 miles 

Non-motorized trail: 596.1 miles 

2 - 10 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

NFS open road: 1,118.1 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 494.6 miles 

2.4.3 Alternative C – Additional Motorized Opportunities 

Alternative C responds to issues raised by both summer and winter motorized user groups. This 

alternative would create increased opportunities for motorized users in summer and winter by retaining 

most of the current motorized trails, adding more miles of ATV trail, and opening more area to oversnow vehicle use. Between the Draft and Final EIS some additional open over-snow vehicle areas were 

added to this alternative. The closures respond to concerns expressed by the Idaho State Snowmobile 

Association that not all the areas they identified in their comments on the proposed action were 

incorporated into Alternative C. This alternative would meet Forest Plan direction to limit cross-country 

motor vehicle travel, but does less to minimize maintenance costs and protect Forest resources than 

Alternative B, D or E. Alternative C would not be consistent with several Forest Plan standards and 

require amending the Forest Plan (see below). 

Forest Plan Amendments 

Further analysis between the Draft and Final EIS revealed Alternative C would require approval of 

forest plan amendments to several Forest Plan standards in specific Management Areas (MAs) and 

lynx analysis units (LAUs). The amendments would be limited to this one project and specific 

Management Areas or LAUs; they would not affect outputs of Forest Plan goods and services, and 

would not change Forest management prescriptions (FSH 1909.12 section 5.32). Therefore, they would 

be a non-significant amendments. 

Increased motorized use in both summer and winter would result in long term negative impacts to soil, 

fisheries, and wildlife resources over the current condition. The Forest Plan requires all actions with 

greater then temporary (< 3 years) impacts to have accompanying long-term (15+ years) demonstrable 

improvements in watershed conditions (Forest Plan Standard SWST04). This requirement is intended 

to ensure actions result in movement towards desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan. Alternative 

C does not meet this requirement. 

The Forest Plan also incorporates guidance from the lynx conservation assessment strategy (LCAS) on 

snow compaction effects on lynx (Forest Plan Standard TEST34), and sets a standard for no net 

increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas outside of baseline areas. The 

intent of this standard is to minimize snow compaction and potential disturbance to lynx and their 

habitat. Discussion related to these standards follows: 

WATER 

Alternative C, Proposal 1-1, would not be consistent with the Forest Plan for protection of the soil and 

water resources. This proposal opens a closed system road in a closed area and designates that road 

open to ATV use. The problem is that there are no activities proposed in MA 1 to move toward Desired 

Conditions for soil and water resources. Proposal 1-1, would require a one-time, site-specific, nonsignificant amendment for Forest Plan Standard SWST04 which requires: 

“Management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soil, 

water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except: a) where outweighed by demonstrable 

short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions” (Forest Plan, p. III-22) 

FISH 

Alternative C would not be consistent with the Forest Plan standards SWST01 and SWST04 (Forest 

Plan 2003, p. III-21 and III-22). SWST01 states: 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 11 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

“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.” 

SWRA Standard #4 (also known as SWST04) provides additional direction stating: 

“Management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soil, 

water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except: 

 Where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource 

conditions; or

 Where the Forest Service has limited authority (e.g., access roads, hydropower, etc.). In 

these cases, the Forest Service shall work with permittee(s) to minimize the degradation of 

watershed resource conditions. 

Use the MATRIX located in Appendix B to assist in determining compliance with this 

standard.” 

Appendix B in the Forest Plan outlines a set of watershed condition indicators (WCI’s) and desired 

conditions for the WCIs to determine potential impacts associated with an action. The fisheries analysis 

revealed that in Alternative C, 2 WCIs would be degraded without demonstrable short to long-term 

benefits to watershed conditions. 

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

embeddedness WCI. Accelerated erosion associated with additional motorized use in currently nonmotorized areas is expected to increase substrate embeddedness in fish habitat resulting in degradation 

of the substrate embeddedness WCI in the South Fork Salmon River – Goat Creek, and the East Fork 

South Fork Salmon River watersheds located in MA 12. 

In addition, Alternative C is not consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid degradation of the 

streambank condition WCI. The stream bank condition WCI 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 

and associated stream crossings would occur in areas currently closed to cross-country motor vehicle 

use. 

The above descriptions of negative impacts to WCIs would result in reductions to habitat quality for 

fisheries without demonstrable short to long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions. Thus, 

selection of Alternative C would require a non-significant amendment to waive these standards for this 

project in MA 12. 

WILDLIFE 

Alternative C proposes to open approximately 59,000 acres in lynx habitat that are currently closed to 

over-snow vehicle 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 potentially increasing interference from other carnivores in lynx habitat. 

The PNF Forest Plan has adopted the LCAS standard for snow compaction. Forest Plan standard 

(TEST34) 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 lynx analysis unit (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 

2 - 12 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still comply with this standard. 

(USDA Forest Service 2003a)” 

Expansion of over the snow motorized use areas without accompanying reductions elsewhere would 

not meet Forest Plan direction in five LAUs in Alternative C. In addition, lynx habitat and habitat 

corridors in winter would be more fragmented 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. Thus, selection of Alternative C would require a non-significant 

amendment to waive standard TEST34 for 5 LAUs. 

Winter Travel: 

This alternative increases the area open to over-snow motorized use by 78,160 acres and mileage of 

groomed snowmobile trail by 11.3 miles above the No Action alternative. 

Groomed snowmobile trails: 236.8 miles 

Motorized over-snow use: 1,156,700 acres 

Closed to motorized use: 373,040 acres 

Summer Travel: 

Nearly 127.9 miles of trail would be open for ATV use, and another 3.1 miles would be open to all 

OHVs. Two wheel motorized traffic could use these trails, in addition to the 572.8 miles of trail 

specifically designed for two-wheel vehicles. 

Designated roads (open and seasonally) available for full size vehicles would decrease by 2.7 miles. All 

unauthorized roads would be restricted to non-motorized travel. No areas would be open to crosscountry motor vehicle use, but limited motorized access for dispersed camping would be permissible 

within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of designated motorized trails as long as it does not 

result in resource damage.. 

Motorized cross-country travel: 0 acres 

Two-wheel motorized trail: 572.8 miles 

ATV trail: 127.9 miles 

OHV trail: 3.1 miles 

Non-motorized trail: 495.2 miles 

NFS open road: 1,118.7 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 516.1 miles 

2.4.4 Alternative D – Additional Non-Motorized Opportunities 

Alternative D responds to issues raised by non-motorized users relating to a need for more nonmotorized opportunities, particularly in winter. It also addresses associated concerns with noise and 

safety related to motorized and non-motorized uses in the same area. This alternative would create 

more opportunities for both summer and winter non-motorized users. It also responds to Forest Plan 

direction to limit cross-country motor vehicle use, protect Forest resources, minimize maintenance 

costs, and reduce user conflicts (conflicts between uses). Protection of wildlife habitat connectivity 

corridors, particularly wolverine denning habitat, is emphasized in Alternative D. Implementation of 

Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives would continue. Alternative D is consistent with 

Forest Plan Standards. 

Between the Draft and Final EIS an additional over-snow vehicle area closure was added to this 

alternative. The closure responds to concerns expressed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

that the priority areas for wolverine denning habitat were not being protected in the areas identified in 

the DEIS. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 13 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Winter Travel: 

This alternative decreases the area open to over-snow motorized use by 204,800 acres below the No 

Action alternative. The amount of currently groomed snowmobile trail is reflected in this alternative, 

rather than in Alternative A. (Alternative A reflects the miles of trail available for grooming under the 

Memorandum of Understanding authorization between the Forest Service and the counties.) 

Groomed snowmobile trails: 225.5 miles 

Motorized over-snow use: 873,740 acres 

Closed to motorized use: 656,000 acres 

Summer Travel: 

Alternative D incorporates all the non-motorized trails in the Proposed Action and provides additional 

non-motorized trails. The alternative includes the fewest motorized trails of any alternative. 

Designated roads (open and seasonally open) available for full size vehicles would decrease by 

approximately 31.8 miles. All unauthorized roads would be restricted to non-motorized travel. No areas 

would be open to cross-country motor vehicle use, but limited motorized access for dispersed camping 

would be permissible within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of designated motorized trails as 

long as it does not result in resource damage. 

Motorized cross-country travel: 0 acres 

Two-wheel motorized trail: 408.4 miles 

ATV trail: 69.0 miles 

OHV trail: 2.8 miles 

Non-motorized trail: 614.2 miles 

NFS open road: 1,111.7 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 494.1 miles 

2.4.5 Alternative E – Response to Internal and External Comment on 

the Draft EIS 

Alternative E responds to issues raised during the comment period on the Draft EIS. Alternative E was 

developed by the Forest Supervisor, the interdisciplinary team, local county commissioners, and 

representatives from Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. These parties worked to balance 

resource protection, input from the public, and non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities. 

Implementation of Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives would continue. Alternative E is 

consistent with Forest Plan Standards. 

Winter Travel: 

Alternative E would reduce the amount of area open to motorized use by 114,010 acres. These nonmotorized acres would protect wildlife habitat connectivity in winter and provide semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Groomed snowmobile trail would increase by 11.3 miles above 

current levels. 

Groomed snowmobile trails: 236.8 miles 

Motorized over-snow use: 964,530 acres 

Closed to motorized use: 565,210 acres 

Summer Travel: 

Designated roads (open and seasonally open) available for full size vehicles would decrease by 

approximately 14.5 miles. All unauthorized roads would be restricted to non-motorized travel. No areas 

2 - 14 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

would be open to cross-country motor vehicle use, but limited motorized access for dispersed camping 

would be permissible within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of designated motorized trails as 

long as it does not result in resource damage. 

Motorized cross-country travel: 0 acres 

Two-wheel motorized trail: 506.7 miles 

ATV trail: 108.0 miles 

OHV trail: 7.4 miles 

Non-motorized trail: 537.9 miles 

NFS open road: 1,114.3 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 508.7 miles 

Table 2-1. Forest Summary – Travel Opportunities by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 245.9 225.5 236.8 225.5 236.8 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 1,078,540 1,061,130 1,156,700 873,740 962,790 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 451,200 468,610 373,040 656,000 566,950 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 510,930 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 581.9 434.5 572.8 408.4 506.7 

ATV trail (miles) 75.3 89.0 127.9 69.0 108.0 

OHV trail (miles) 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.8 7.4 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 504.3 596.1 495.2 614.2 537.9 

NFS open road (miles) 1,125.3 1,118.1 1,118.7 1,111.7 1,114.3 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 512.2 494.6 516.1 494.1 508.7 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 15 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5. Alternative Descriptions by Management Area 

The following narrative and tables portray the management proposed in each alternative by Forest Plan 

Management Area (MA). For each MA, proposed changes in management are identified in the 

following manner: 

• Table: Travel Management Proposals by Alternative: This table has the summary numbers by 

alternative for the management area. 

• Winter: This narrative broadly describes proposed changes in management of winter recreation 

for the MA. In the original Proposed Action description these areas were identified with a Proposal 

Identification number. Proposed winter area closures are shown by Alternative for the Forest in 

Section 2.8 Winter Area Management. 

• Summer: This narrative describes proposed changes in management for each Proposal 

Identification (Proposal ID) number by alternative. 

Table: Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative: This table lists each road or trail 

proposal by Proposal ID number. The location of the proposed change is labeled with the 

Proposal ID on the maps (see map packet). Management proposed for each alternative and 

the miles which would be affected are listed. 

• Changes between Draft EIS and Final EIS: This section lists proposals (if any) included in 

the Draft EIS, which have been changed or removed from the alternative(s) in the Final EIS. The 

rationale for their change or removal is summarized. 

Opportunities: While not authorized by this EIS, opportunities may be evaluated within the 

planning period covered by this EIS (about 10 years). They include proposals identified: 

1. During the development of alternatives, but found to be outside the scope of this travel 

management analysis, and 

2. Opportunities identified in the Forest Plan. 

2 - 16 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.1 Management Area 1, Hells Canyon – 35,060 acres 

Table 2-2. MA 1 - Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over snow use (acres) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 32,060 32,060 32,060 32,060 32,060 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 

ATV trail (miles) 0 0 2.0 0 0 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 

NFS open road (miles) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 

NFS seasonally open road 0 0 0 0 0 

Winter 

The area northwest of Road 50106 up to the Sheep Rock lookout is open to motorized over-snow use in 

all alternatives. The remainder of the area is closed. 

Summer 

This Management Area is adjacent to the Hells Canyon Natural Recreation Area (NRA). Recreation 

use is high in this MA, particularly along the Snake River corridor. Approximately one-half of the MA 

is currently managed with a non-motorized recreation emphasis. 

• In Alternative C, closed NFS Road 50111 (Proposal ID 1-1) is proposed for use as an ATV trail by 

Adams County to access an undeveloped scenic overlook of the Snake River. This proposal only 

applies to the portion of the road under Forest Service jurisdiction. 

Table 2-3. MA 1 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Trail 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

1-1 50111 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 2.0 

 Note: The proposal ID links to the location of the proposed change on the map associated with each Management Area. 

Opportunities 

• Construct parking areas and provide information signs at the Deep Creek, Eagle Bar, Kinney Creek, 

Allison Creek, and Eckels Creek trailheads along the Snake River to improve recreation 

experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-99: Objective 0123) 

• Upgrade the National Recreation Trail and facilities at the Sheep Rock National Natural Landmark. 

Widen trail to provide handicap access to the portion that accesses the Hells Canyon overlook. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-99: Objective 0125) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 17 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.2 Management Area 2, Snake River – 151,590 acres 

Table 2-4. MA 2 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 87,360 87,360 87,360 87,360 87,360 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 64,230 64,230 64,230 64,230 64,230 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 70,030 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 77.7 56.9 76.7 56.9 65.5 

ATV trail (miles) 0 0.3 4.9 0 0.7 

OHV trail (miles) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 43.5 52.4 42.2 52.4 48.7 

NFS open road (miles) 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 89.4 92.3 92.3 89.4 92.3 

Winter 

Approximately 60 percent of this MA is open to over-snow travel. The area receives a moderate 

amount of use in the winter, with localized areas of heavy snow play. Lower elevations adjacent to the 

Snake River are closed to protect winter range for wildlife. Winter closures remain the same in all 

alternatives. 

Summer 

Motorized recreation opportunities are emphasized in this MA. 

• Proposal 2-1 (Trail 230, Mickey Creek) is proposed for closure in all alternatives A, B, C, and D to 

protect an elk security area. In Alternative E the trail would remain 2-wheel motorized because this 

popular trail forms a good motorized loop opportunity with Trail 231. 

• Several motorized trails that receive little use or are in poor condition are proposed for closure 

(Proposals 2-2 – Trail 234 June Creek, 2-3 – Trail 516 Smith Mountain Bypass, 2-4 – Trail 286 

Ditch Creek, and 2-5 – Trail 225 Elk Creek) in alternatives B and D. In Alternative E Proposals 2-2 

and 2-3 are proposed for non-motorized use because they are receiving use and could be used as 

part of a loop trail system if they are maintained. Proposals 2-4 and 2-5 are recommended for 

closure in Alternative E. Proposal 2-4 parallels a seasonally open road, Road 51267 and an open 

road, Road 50044, duplicating access to the area. No change in management on road 51267 and 

50044 is proposed. 

• Trails 252 Grouse Creek/Grizzly Creek, 253 Crooked River, and 254 Dukes Creek Rim (Proposals 

2-7 through 2-9) are expert 2-wheel motorized trails traversing the Cuddy Mountain area and the 

Cuddy Mountain and Emery Creek Research Natural Areas (RNAs). These trails are proposed for 

restriction to non-motorized use in Alternatives B and D to protect resources in the RNAs, and for 

public safety. The management plan decision for these RNAs will supercede any decision made 

during this analysis for these trails. Trail 252 is also proposed for restriction to non-motorized use in 

2 - 18 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Alternative E. The Forest does not have jurisdiction over the portions of the trail that cross private 

ground. 

• The Adams County Commissioners would like to advertise a network of ATV trails, primarily on 

open NFS roads, in MAs 2 and 3. In Alternative C, proposals 2-11 through 2-13 would designate 

several closed NFS roads as ATV trails. These trails would make loops with open NFS roads for 

ATV use. Proposal 2-12 and 2-13 occur in an area closed to provide elk security and protect a 

NIDGS colony. These segments of road pass through an occupied NIDGS site and area proposed 

for treatment to expand NIIDGS as part of the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management project 

(decision is pending). The Summit Gulch project analyzed Proposal 2-12 road segments and made 

recommendations to keep the southern end closed and place the remainder in a long-term closure 

status to protect NIDGS. The Summit Gulch project analyzed Proposal 2-13 segment of road and 

made recommendations to decommission to reduce impacts to Summit Gulch stream channel and 

provide added protection for NIDGS and elk. In Alternative E an additional ATV route is proposed 

in the Bear Creek/Mickey Creek area. 

Table 2-5. MA 2 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

2-1 230 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Closed Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

1.5 

2-2 234 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Nonmotorized 2.1 

2-3 516 Trail Nonmotorized Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Nonmotorized 0.5 

2-5 225 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Nonmotorized Closed Closed 5.5 

2-7 252 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 11.1 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

2-8 253 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 5.2 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

2-9 254 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 1.9 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

2-10 50143 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 2.1 

2-11 50362 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed ATV 0.9 

2-12 51858 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 2.9 

2-13 500731400 Road Nondesignated Closed ATV* Closed Closed 1.0 

2-16 50986 Road Closed Seasonal Seasonal Closed Seasonal 2.9 

* PDFs would be applied before designation of this route on the MVUM. 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• In response to public comments for increased access for firewood gathering, berry picking, and 

other recreational activities in the Bear Creek area, Proposal ID 2-16 was added and would provide 

seasonal access on three miles of currently closed NFS road 50986 in Alternatives B, C, and E. 

Opportunities 

• Construct parking areas and provide information signs at key trailhead locations. Parking for a 

minimum of two or three vehicles is needed in most cases to improve recreation experiences. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-116: Objective 0252) 

• Seek to acquire trail easements through private lands to improve access to National Forest 

recreation opportunities. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-116: Objective 0254) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 19 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Develop a travel access plan for areas adjacent to the Cecil Andrus Wildlife Management Area to 

create more effective management and recreation opportunities, which will better serve the public 

and maintain wildlife resources. Coordinate planning efforts with Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-116: Objective 0255) 

• The Council Ranger District will work to identify a motorized trail opportunity in the vicinity of 

Trails 250, 251, and 252. The trail system needs to be rerouted so that it does not cross private 

ground. 

• Continue to work with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to identify road closures to improve 

elk security. 

• Coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the northern Idaho ground squirrel Technical 

Team to identify roads to close to protect ground squirrel colonies. 

2 - 20 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.3 Management Area 3, Weiser River – 299,990 acres 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 120.0 110.4 119.1 110.4 119.1 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 267,600 267,600 268,360 267,600 268,360 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 32,390 32,390 31,630 32,390 31,630 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 226,560 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 70.9 54.9 60.4 48.3 61.3 

ATV trail (miles) 20.4 27.5 51.0 20.4 38.2 

OHV trail (miles) 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 4.0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 62.5 61.7 56.2 71.1 51.1 

NFS open road (miles) 513.1 510.2 514.7 510.2 512.4 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 301.9 284.1 301.3 286.5 295.5 

Winter 

Protection of winter range for wildlife is the primary reason for area closures to winter motorized use. 

Both the north face of Sturgill Peak and Council Mountain are popular winter sport areas. Over-snow 

vehicle use is high in this MA, with over 100 miles of snowmobile trail and over a quarter million acres 

open to over snow use. In Alternatives C and E, the closure for the now-defunct Hitt Mountain Ski 

Area on the north face of Sturgill Peak, would be removed. With this one exception, the current 

closures are maintained in all alternatives. 

Summer 

Dispersed recreation such as hunting, sightseeing, and camping occurs throughout MA 3. There are 

many dispersed campsites and seven developed campgrounds. Most trails in the area are open to some 

form of motorized vehicle use. The recreation strategy for this MA is to emphasize dispersed 

recreation, maintain dispersed camping opportunities, and implementation of resource protection 

measures as needed. 

• Several trails have been fragmented by road construction, timber harvest, or livestock grazing, and 

are proposed for closure (Proposal 3-2 Trail 214 201-213 Connector, Proposal 3-3 Trail 249 

Ferguson Basin, Proposal 3-4 Trail 330 Big Flat Cutoff, Proposal 3-5 Trail 237 Pole Creek, 

Proposal 3-6 Trail 247 Orchid Canyon, and Proposal 3-8 Trail 244 Johnson Creek). Proposals 3-2 

and 3-4 are proposed for conversion to two-wheel motorized in Alternative C in response to public 

comment. 

• Some motorized trails have sections in riparian areas where resource damage is occurring (Proposal 

3-1 Trail 212 Anderson Creek, Proposal 3-9 Trail 203 Warm Springs Creek, and Proposal 3-10 

Trail 263 E. Fork Pine Creek). These trails are being proposed for closure or restriction to nonmotorized use in some of the alternatives. Proposals 3-9 and 3-10 are proposed for two-wheel 

motorized use in Alternative E based on input from the public and Forest Service personnel. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 21 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Proposal ID 3-7, Trail 248 is proposed for a variety of different designations, motorized and nonmotorized, in the Alternatives. With some relocation work this trail could be used for ATVs, as 

proposed in Alternative E. 

• Proposal ID 3-11 through 3-16 all propose management of unauthorized or system roads as ATV or 

OHV trails to increase motorized recreation opportunities. Proposals 3-14 and 3-15 are proposed for 

OHV use in Alternative E because this reflects current use on the ground, even though this use is 

not authorized under the existing travel plan. 

• Proposals 3-18 and 3-19 authorize use on two currently unauthorized roads. Road 507104000 

crosses private ground. The Forest Service does not currently have an easement across this private 

ground, so if an action alternative is selected, use would only be authorized on the Forest Service 

portion of this road until an easement is obtained. 

• Proposals 3-22 through 3-35, all proposed closures of NFS roads, were brought forward in 

Alternative B from the roads analysis done for the upper Weiser River drainage. However, since 

Alternative B was developed, the Forest has completed a site specific NEPA analysis for this area. 

This analysis did not implement all of the recommendations from the Weiser River roads analysis, 

including proposed road relocations tied to these road closures in Alternative B. The Alternative E 

proposals for these routes reflect the outcome of the site specific NEPA analysis. 

• In Alternative D, Proposal 3-36 would convert two-wheel motorized Trail 331 to non-motorized for 

the protection of resource values. This proposal was generated as the result of public comment 

during the scoping period. 

• Proposal 3-48 authorizes use in Alternative C on a short piece of unauthorized road accessing 

private ground. 

• Proposals 3-37 through 3-57 – The Adams County Commissioners are proposing to advertise an 

extensive series of ATV loops, primarily on open roads, throughout this MA. The rest of these 

proposals occur where the ATV trails overlapped with closed roads. On the Council Ranger District 

along the southern boundary between the Payette NF and Boise NF, 6.7 miles of ATV trail 

designation are proposed in Alternative C. These proposals entail segments of unauthorized roads 

and historic trails not designed for ATV use. Implementation would require segments of 

reconstruction and relocation connect existing roads/trails, protect resource values, and improve 

public safety. When other management considerations did not preclude their use as ATV trails, they 

are proposed in Alternative E as well. 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Trail 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

3-1 212 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Closed Closed Closed 2.6 

3-2 214 Trail Nonmotorized Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Closed 0.4 

3-3 249 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Closed Closed Closed 2.1 

3-4 330 Trail Nonmotorized Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Closed 0.9 

3-5 237 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Closed Closed Closed 4.0 

3-6 247 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Closed Closed Closed 1.0 

2 - 22 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

3-7 248 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Nonmotorized ATV 2.8 

3-8 244 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Closed Closed Closed 3.0 

3-9a 203 Trail 2-wheel Non- Non- Non­ 2-wheel 5.3 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

3-9b 203 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 1.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

3-10a 263 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.7 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

3-10b 263 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

ATV Nonmotorized 2-wheel 

motorized 

4.2 

3-11 502189080 Road Nondesignated ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 2.7 

3-12 503262030 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed Closed 0.2 

designated 

3-13 503262000 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed Closed 1.1 

designated 

3-14 500100500 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed OHV* 2.5 

designated 

3-15 501641515 Road Non- OHV* OHV* Closed OHV* 0.1 

designated 

3-16 50233 Road Closed ATV ATV Closed Closed 5.2 

3-17 50209 Road Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal Closed Seasonal 2.2 

3-18 507142000 Road Nondesignated Open* Open* Open* Open* 0.8 

3-19 507104000 Road Nondesignated Open* Open* Open* Open* 0.4 

3-22 51732 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 1.0 

3-23a 51126 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal 2.4 

3-23b 51125 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Seasonal Seasonal 1.1 

3-24 50793 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Closed 1.1 

3-25 50790 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Closed 1.7 

3-26 51087 Road Open Closed Open Closed Open 2.2 

3-27 51594 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 0.2 

3-28 50794 Road Open Closed Open Closed Closed 1.8 

3-29 50557 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 3.2 

3-30a 50556 Road Closed Closed Seasonal Seasonal Closed 1.3 

3-30b 50556 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Seasonal Closed 0.3 

3-33 51478 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 1.1 

3-34 51475 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 1.9 

3-35 51474 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 1.2 

3-36 331 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 2.4 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

3-37 50159 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 2.4 

3-39 50274 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 3.9 

3-40 50676 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 0.1 

3-40 P601 Trail Nondesignated Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.4 

3-41 50787 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Closed 0.1 

3-42 51121 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed Closed 2.3 

3-43 51889 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed ATV 1.4 

3-44 501592500 Road Nondesignated Closed ATV* Closed Closed 0.5 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 23 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-6. MA 3 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

3-45 501641500 Road Nondesignated OHV* OHV* Closed OHV* 0.3 

3-46 501690000 Road Non- Closed ATV* Closed Closed 1.8 

designated 

3-48 506441000 Road Nondesignated Closed Open* Closed Seasonal* 0.5 

3-49 506762500 Road Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 1.1 

designated 

3-50 508359000 Road Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 1.6 

designated 

3-51 P573 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 4.9 

designated 

3-52 P574 Trail Non- ATV* ATV* Closed OHV* 0.6 

designated 

3-53 P575 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.5 

designated 

3-54 P576 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.1 

designated 

3-55 P577 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.5 

designated 

3-56 P578 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.3 

designated 

3-57 P579 Trail Non- Closed ATV* Closed ATV* 0.4 

designated 

3-58 352 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel ATV 4.3 

motorized motorized motorized motorized 

* PDFs would be applied before designation of this route on the MVUM 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal ID 3-32 (0.4 miles, Road 51477) was mistakenly shown as open in the Draft EIS. The road 

is currently closed and this is consistent with Forest recommendations for this road. The proposal 

has been dropped. 

• Proposal ID 3-33 was mistakenly shown as open in the Draft EIS. The road is actually a seasonally 

open road this has been corrected for Alternative A. 

• Proposal 3-38 was mistakenly shown as closed in the Draft EIS. The road is actually open and will 

remain open. Proposal has been dropped. 

• Proposal ID 3-58 was added in response to public comments on allowing ATV use on the existing 

two-wheel motorized trail 352. 

Opportunities 

• Construct parking areas and provide information signs at key trailhead locations to provide parking 

and information for trail users. Parking for a minimum of two or three vehicles is needed in most 

cases. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-133: Objective 0353) 

• Seek to acquire trail easements through private lands to improve recreation access. (Forest Plan 

2003: p. III-134: Objective 0354) 

• Improve access to Rush Creek Falls by improving the Boundary Trail (#245) and the Rush Creek 

Trail (#262). (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-134: Objective 0356) 

2 - 24 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Improve trail signing especially in areas near Council Mountain, Cuddy Mountain and Sturgill Peak 

where past management activities have made trail location difficult. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-134: 

Objective 0357) 

• The Council Ranger District would like to develop a trail management plan for the popular 

recreation area around Johnson Creek. Many of the existing trails in this area have been impacted by 

past management and are not usable. The District would like to replace the old trail system with a 

new system designed to work around the existing road and vegetation conditions. 

• Evaluate the development of a route system around Roads 502189080, 503262030, and 503262000 

(Proposal IDs 3-11, 3-12, and 3-13) for dispersed camping and recreation access. 

• Continue to work with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to identify road closures to improve 

elk security. 

• Coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the northern Idaho ground squirrel Technical 

Team to identify roads to close to protect ground squirrel colonies. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 25 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.4 Management Area 4, Rapid River – 62,140 acres 

Table 2-8. MA 4 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 38,340 38,340 38,340 32,110 30,150 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 23,800 23,800 23,800 30,030 31,990 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 11,140 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 46.6 37.6 46.6 37.2 48.4 

ATV trail (miles) 3.5 0 3.5 0 0 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 59.2 71.6 59.2 72.0 60.8 

NFS open road (miles) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 

Winter 

Protection of winter range for wildlife is the primary reason for area closures to motorized use. There is 

no parking or road access to this management area in the winter, so there is little backcountry or Nordic 

ski use. In Alternative D the two-thirds of the eastern portion of the MA would be closed to protect 

wildlife habitat connectivity. In Alternative E the entire eastern portion of the MA would be closed to 

protect wildlife habitat connectivity. Boundary adjustments to the Alternative D closures were made 

during the development of Alternative E to accommodate remote snowmobile use further to the east in 

Management Areas 6 and 9. 

Summer 

Motorized use in this MA is high. Unauthorized motorized vehicle use is occurring, both cross-country 

in closed areas and on non-motorized trails. Several of the motorized trails in this MA were not 

designed for the level of use they are receiving. 

• The Rankin Mill Trail (Trail 191, Proposal 4-4) is heavily used during hunting season, and resource 

damage is occurring from the use on the trail and off-trail ATV use. Alternatives B and D propose 

to close this trail, while Alternative C proposes using a seasonal closure to prevent some of this 

damage. Alternative E proposes to restrict use on this trail to two-wheel motorized with a seasonal 

closure during rifle season to reduce resource problems caused by ATV use both on and off the trail. 

• Proposals 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5 (Trails 279 Frypan Creek, 162 Teepee Springs, 344 Hard Butte, and 

153 Patrick Butte) were proposed for restriction to non-motorized use in Alternatives B and D to 

protect resource values and discourage off-route motor vehicle use and the resultant resource 

damage. In response to public comment, all are proposed for continuation as two-wheel motorized 

trails in Alternative E except for a steep section of trail 279 descending to the Rapid River. 

• In Alternative D, Proposal 4-6 would convert two-wheel motorized Trail 371 to non-motorized for 

the protection of resource values. This proposal was generated as the result of public comment 

during the scoping period. 

2 - 26 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-9. MA 4 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

4-1a 279 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 1.6 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

4-1b 279 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 2.2 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

4-2 162 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 1.1 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

4-3 344 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.0 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

4-4 191 Trail ATV Nonmotorized ATV* Nonmotorized 2-wheel 

motorized 

3.5 

4-5 153 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 1.2 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

4-6 371 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.4 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

Note: Trail 191 would have a seasonal access restriction in Alternatives C and E. Closed to motorized access during hunting 

season. 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal ID 4-1 was refined into two proposals 4-1a and 4-1b. This change was made because the 

section of trail 279 associated with proposal 4-1a is steep with many switchbacks, prone to erosion 

and not conducive to safe two-wheel motorized use. The remainder of the trail 279 includes twowheel motorized designation in Alternatives C and E. 

Opportunities 

• Enforce motorized trail designations and restrictions with increased on-the-ground patrols to allow 

for improved big-game security during hunting season. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-149: Objective 

0445) 

• Manage motorized recreation to address erosion, flow channeling, soil compaction, and loss of 

vegetation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-149: Objective 0448) 

• Rehabilitate pioneered, non-system trails to mitigate erosion, flow channeling, soil compaction, and 

loss of vegetation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-150: Objective 0449) 

• Where a viable alternative exists, relocate trails that are currently within riparian areas to mitigate 

erosion and sedimentation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-150: Objective 0450) 

• Where motorized use is consistent with the recreation emphasis and will not cause unacceptable 

resource damage, reconstruct existing two-wheel motorized trails to accommodate four-wheel 

ATVs. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-150: Objective 0451) 

• Make travel management planning a priority in the Rapid River Watershed. (Forest Plan 2003: p. 

III-150: Objective 0452) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 27 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.5 Management Area 5, Middle Little Salmon River – 35,580 acres 

Table 2-10. MA 5 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 11.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 35,580 33,110 33,170 33,090 33,170 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 0 2,470 2,410 2,490 2,410 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 30,150 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

ATV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 

NFS open road (miles) 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

Winter 

The entire MA is open to motorized use and includes a portion of the Brundage Snow Cat skiing 

permitted area. In Alternatives B, C, D, and E a closure to over-snow vehicle use is proposed in the 

Granite Mountain area. This closure would provide a non-motorized recreation area within a reasonable 

distance from the Upper Elevation parking lot. The proposed closure would be slightly smaller in 

Alternative C and E, and larger in Alternative D to respond to comments received during the Draft EIS 

comment period. 

Summer 

Dispersed recreation such as hunting, hiking, sightseeing, and camping occurs throughout this area. 

Most of the recreation use is road-related, and there are few trails or recreation destinations. Dispersed 

camping and trail opportunities are the recreation emphasis in the MA. 

• There are no proposed changes to designated road or trail routes in any of the alternatives for this 

Management Area. 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal 5-1 found in the DEIS has been dropped from consideration because the existing condition 

for this road is open, rather than closed as listed in the DEIS. This route is therefore already open to 

ATV use. 

Opportunities 

• Provide for additional parking at the Ant Basin trailhead to accommodate increasing trail use. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-161: Objective 0531) 

• Provide informational signing at the Ant Basin Trailhead to inform Rapid River trail users of 

motorized and non-motorized trail designations in Rapid River and to resolve user conflict. (Forest 

Plan 2003: p. III-162: Objective 0532) 

2 - 28 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Evaluate the need for, and possible location of, a winter parking facility on the Smokey-Boulder 

Road. Construct the facility if the evaluation finds it to be warranted. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-162: 

Objective 0534) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 29 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.6 Management Area 6, Goose Creek/Hazard Creek – 77,120 acres 

Table 2-12. MA 6 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 51.8 47.5 49.3 47.5 49.3 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 73,560 68,720 69,980 57,900 52,140 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 3,560 8,400 7,140 19,220 24,980 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 36,330 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 29.3 20.4 29.3 17.6 24.1 

ATV trail (miles) 7.4 7.4 8.9 7.4 8.9 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 26.4 36.2 27.2 39.0 32.5 

NFS open road (miles) 86.4 85.4 85.4 85.4 85.4 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 

Winter 

Some of the highest winter recreation use on the Forest is found in this MA. Two ski areas – Brundage 

Mountain Resort and Little Ski Hill – draw winter recreationists to the MA. Nordic ski trails are 

currently being groomed in Bear Basin under Little Ski Hill’s existing special use permit. The West 

Face, Upper Elevation, and Francis Wallace parking lots provide access to the groomed snowmobile 

trail system, and are used primarily by snowmobile users. There are some differences in groomed trail 

location among the various alternatives. Proposals for this area include closures to motorized oversnow use in the Granite Mountain and Bear Basin areas in Alternative B. These two proposed closures 

are reduced in size in Alternative C and expanded in Alternatives D and E. Alternative boundary and 

size changes were made in response to internal and external comments. Both of these closures would 

create areas for non-motorized winter recreation within reasonable distance of parking. Access to Bear 

Basin would be from the West Face parking lot and access to Granite Mountain would be from the 

Upper Elevation parking lot and the Brundage Mountain Ski Area. 

Summer 

This area is extensively used for motorized and non-motorized dispersed recreation. Goose Lake, 

Brundage Reservoir, and Hazard Lake are popular fishing and camping areas. There are 3 heavily used 

developed campgrounds in this MA. 

• There are a few areas in this MA where motorized traffic is occurring in violation of current travel 

designations or is causing resource damage: 

1. Proposal 6-3 (Trail 160 Vance Creek) – the bridge accessing the southern end of this trail was 

removed so a portion of the trail is no longer accessible to motorized use. Alternatives B, D, 

and E propose converting this portion of the trail to non-motorized to discourage fording of the 

creek at the old bridge location. The northern portion of the trail remains motorized in all 

alternatives. 

2. Proposal 6-4 (Trail 344 Hard Butte) is a two-wheel motorized trail where the surrounding area 

is closed to cross-country motor vehicle use – unauthorized use is occurring off the trail around 

2 - 30 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Rainbow Lake. Alternatives B, D, and E propose managing this trail as non-motorized to 

discourage this off-trail use and the resultant resource damage. 

3. Proposal 6-5 (Trail 162 Teepee Springs) is not currently designated as an ATV trail; however, 

ATV use is occurring and causing resource damage. Alternatives B and D propose managing 

this trail as non-motorized to prevent future damage to the area. Alternative E proposes 

retention of the trail as two-wheel motorized based on input from the public and further 

evaluation by Forest personnel. 

4. Proposal 6-6 (Road 50268 Duck Lake) the area surrounding this open road is open to crosscountry motor vehicle use, and resource damage is occurring due to the heavy use. All action 

alternatives propose managing this road as a non-motorized trail. 

• In Alternative D, proposal 6-7 (Trail 511 Hidden Lake) would manage this two-wheel trail as nonmotorized in response to public comments during scoping requesting more protection of natural 

resource values in the vicinity of this trail. 

• Proposal 6-8 Road 50405 by Hazard Lake is proposed for addition as an ATV trail in Alternatives C 

and E. Currently only non-motorized use is authorized on this closed NFS road. 

Table 2-13. MA 6 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Trail 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

6-3 160 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 4.4 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

6-4 344 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 0.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

6-5 162 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.0 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

6-6 50268 Road Open Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Nonmotorized 1.0 

6-7 511 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 2.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

6-8 50405 Road Closed Closed ATV Closed ATV 1.3 

Note: Road 50268 would be managed as a non-motorized trail in all action alternatives. 

Opportunities 

• Relocate lower Goose Creek Trail from Last Chance Campground to Goose Creek Falls to reduce 

impacts to Goose Creek and improve public safety. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-176: Objective 0645) 

• Install a trail bridge crossing at Hazard Creek at the terminus of Forest Development Road 339 to 

improve recreation access and reduce impacts to water quality and fish habitat. (Forest Plan 2003: p. 

III-177: Objective 0646) 

• Rehabilitate pioneered, non-system trails to mitigate erosion, flow channeling, soil channeling, soil 

compaction, and loss of vegetation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-177: Objective 0650) 

• Where alternatives exist, relocate trails that are currently within riparian areas to mitigate erosion 

and sedimentation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-177: Objective 0651) 

• Where motorized use is consistent with the recreation emphasis and will not cause unacceptable 

resource damage, reconstruct existing 2-wheel motorized trails to accommodate 4-wheel ATVs. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-177: Objective 0652) 

• Mountain bike trail opportunity: Approximately 10 miles of mountain bike trail would be 

designated. The project would be a joint effort between the Forest Service and the Central Idaho 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 31 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Mountain Bike Association (CIMBA). Of the 10 miles, 5.8 miles would involve construction of 

single track trail and the remainder would utilize existing Forest roads. 

• The New Meadows Ranger District, in cooperation with the Idaho State Department of Parks and 

Recreation and local county representatives would like to develop a proposal to relocate the portion 

of the Vance Creek trail in Proposal 6-3 to make it suitable for motorized use again. 

• Work with the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to improve Trail 511, Hidden Lake. 

2 - 32 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.7 Management Area 7, Payette Lakes – 100,730 acres 

Table 2-14. MA 7 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 37.7 35.7 32.6 35.7 32.6 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 74,030 65,890 76,640 47,950 64,060 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 26,700 34,840 24,090 52,780 36,670 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 31,460 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 24.8 24.8 24.8 20.6 24.8 

ATV trail (miles) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 39.0 39.0 39.0 43.1 39.0 

NFS open road (miles) 35.2 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 

Winter 

This MA receives fairly heavy recreation use in winter due to its proximity to the town of McCall. 

Motorized recreation is popular. Locations of groomed snowmobile trails vary slightly by alternative. 

Lick Creek road would remain open to over-snow vehicle use in all alternatives, although in 

Alternatives B and D the surrounding area would be closed. Current winter closures to over-snow 

vehicle use occur in the Brundage Mountain, Needles IRA, and Squaw Point areas. Alternative B 

would add a closure on the west side of Lick Creek road and in the Bear Basin area. The Bear Basin 

closure would be accessed from the West Face parking lot. The Lick Creek closure would require an 

over-snow vehicle to access the non-motorized area. Alternative C would remove the closure at Squaw 

Point and reduce the size of the closure in Bear Basin and on the west side of Lick Creek road. 

Alternative D adds additional closures in the Boulder Creek area and south of Black Tip. Alternative E 

adjusts boundaries on the over-snow closures to reflect internal and external comment on the draft EIS. 

Summer 

This MA is heavily used for dispersed recreation in summer. There are two developed campgrounds 

and many dispersed campsites. The recreation emphasis is on providing summer developed and 

dispersed recreation opportunities. 

• Two proposals would authorize use on currently unauthorized roads: Proposal 7-3 would allow 

access to a dispersed campsite, and Proposal 7-4 would open up motorized access to the Lake Creek 

Trail (339). 

• In Alternative D Proposals 7-5 (Trail 110 Box Lake) and 7-6 (Trail 117 Victor Creek) would 

convert these two-wheel motorized trails to non-motorized to protect resource values in the area. 

These two proposals were generated as the result of public comment during the scoping period. 

Alternative E proposes retaining two-wheel motorized access on these two trails, except for the 

portion of Trail 110 adjacent to Box Lake because of resource damage along the trail by the lake. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 33 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-15. MA 7 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

7-3 FH211300 Road Nondesignated Open* Open* Open* Open* 0.1 

7-4 504123000 Road Nondesignated Open* Open* Open* Open* 0.1 

7-5 110 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

7-6 117 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.3 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

* PDFs would be applied before designation of this route on the MVUM 

Opportunities 

• Provide interpretive information and a parking area at the Slick Rock proposed National Natural 

Landmark to enhance visitor experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-190: Objective 0736) 

• Provide parking and dispersed camping areas near Sater Meadows to reduce recreation impacts to 

the meadow complex. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-190: Objective 0739) 

• Improve the last mile of the Pearl Creek Road to access the Pearl Lake/Brush Lake trailhead. 

Improve and maintain this trailhead. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-190: Objective 0741) 

2 - 34 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.8 Management Area 8, Kennally Creek – 34,300 acres 

Table 2-16. MA 8 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 31,970 31,970 31,980 26,130 31,970 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 2,330 2,330 2,320 8,170 2,330 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 12,470 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 22.5 18.0 22.5 18.0 22.5 

ATV trail (miles) 2.8 2.8 2.8 0 2.8 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 10.3 14.9 10.3 14.9 10.3 

NFS open road (miles) 19.4 17.7 17.7 17.7 19.4 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 6.7 4.0 8.3 4.0 6.7 

Winter 

Most of this MA is open to motorized over-snow use, with the exception of the Jughandle Mountain 

area. This area has been closed to allow for non-motorized use. Alternative B would enlarge the closure 

around Jughandle Mountain, making it contiguous with the Needles Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 

closure to the north. The current Jughandle Mountain closure covers a relatively small, isolated area 

making it difficult to enforce. Many respondents suggested that making the closure larger could make it 

more definable. Alternative E responds to comments that reinforce the value of both the existing 

closure and the ability to snowmobile around it as in the current condition. 

Summer 

This area is a heavily used for recreation in part because the area contains a good network of access 

roads and trails. It includes a portion of the Needles IRA. A portion of this IRA has been proposed for 

Wilderness designation. There are many dispersed campsites and one developed campground in this 

MA. Most trails are open to some form of motorized use. The recreation emphasis is to provide 

dispersed camping and quality motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities. 

• A portion of Trail 101 (Proposal 8-1), a two-wheel motorized trail, is proposed for restriction to 

non-motorized use in Alternatives B and D. The primary reason is because trail 101 ties in with trail 

99 (Proposal 8-2) which is also proposed for restriction to non-motorized use in these two 

alternatives. Alternative E proposes to keep both these trails two-wheel motorized providing a 

motorized route through to the South Fork Salmon River. 

• Trail 99 was proposed for restriction to non-motorized use in Alternatives B and D because the 

eastern portion of the trail is proposed as non-motorized in Management Area 12 under these 

alternatives. 

• Proposals 8-4 and 8-5 (Roads 50014 and 51892) in Alternative B and D were recommendations 

from the unimplemented Sloan-Kennally EIS. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 35 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-17. MA 8 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

8-1 101 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.9 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

8-2 99 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.6 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

8-3 50265 Road ATV ATV ATV Closed ATV 2.8 

8-4 50014 Road Seasonal Closed Seasonal Closed Seasonal 2.0 

8-5 51892 Road Open Closed Seasonal Closed Open 1.7 

8-12 517235000 Road Nondesignated Open Open Closed Open 0.2 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal IDs 8-6 through 8-11 are part of the 2005 signed Paddy Flat FEIS decision, which has 

been implemented, and therefore have been dropped from further consideration in travel 

management planning. 

• Proposal ID 8-3 was designated as an ATV route as part of the Paddy Flat decision, but mistakenly 

shown as closed under Alternative A in the DEIS. Some respondents requested that the route 

management be reconsidered during travel management. In Alternative D closing this route is 

proposed in response to this concern. 

Opportunities 

• Provide for camping and parking, and improve the trailhead facility at the end of Boulder Creek 

road in cooperation with Idaho Dept. of Lands to enhance the area’s recreation opportunities and 

experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-203: Objective 0831) 

2 - 36 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.9 Management Area 9, Lake Creek/French Creek – 83,740 acres 

Table 2-18. MA 9 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 83,740 83,740 83,740 21,640 57,760 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 0 0 0 62,100 25,980 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 3,240 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 85.1 61.0 82.3 55.2 78.7 

ATV trail (miles) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 29.7 52.8 32.5 50.8 35.0 

NFS open road (miles) 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 

Winter 

This entire MA is open to motorized over-snow use in Alternatives A, B, and C. In Alternative D a 

closure is proposed in the northern half of the MA to protect wildlife habitat connectivity. In 

Alternative E the closure proposed for Alternative D has been modified to accommodate existing 

remote backcountry snowmobile opportunities. These modifications were made based on internal and 

external comments received on the draft EIS. There are no current or proposed groomed over-snow 

routes. Use is light in this area due to limited access, but is expected to increase in the future. 

Summer 

This management area is relatively remote with most access from motorized and non-motorized trails. 

The Forest lacks authorized access along most of the Salmon River corridor to the north. The area has 

no developed campgrounds. The primary recreation emphasis is providing quality motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities, with the emphasis in the Patrick Butte area on non-motorized trails. 

• In Alternatives B and D, Proposal 9-1 (Trails 153 and 155 Patrick Butte/Lake Creek) would convert 

this trail from two-wheel motorized to non-motorized for user safety. This trail is very steep with 

numerous switchbacks and is better suited to non-motorized use. This trail is proposed for retention 

as 2-wheel motorized in Alternative E in response to public comment indicating a need for expert 

rider trails. 

• In Alternatives B and D, Proposals 9-2 (Trail 348 Little French/Scribner Ridge) and 9-3 (Trail 503 

Little French Creek Meadow) would restrict these two-wheel trails to non-motorized use to protect 

wet meadows from resource damage. Trail 348 is also proposed as non-motorized in Alternative C 

because the current and potential risk for resource damage is high. 

• Proposal 9-4 (a portion of Trail 116 French Creek) would convert the trail to non-motorized under 

Alternative B and close the trail under Alternative D. The Forest does not have a right-of-way 

across the private land making the trail inaccessible from the north. Alternative E proposes retaining 

the two-wheel motorized access with the addition of a sign indicating the trail dead ends. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 37 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• In Alternatives B, D, and E, Proposal 9-5 (portion of Trail 505 Clayburn) would close a portion of 

trail 505. This portion of the trail is a “cutoff” route between Trails 506 and 149, and is not 

necessary for access to the Lava Butte area. 

• In Alternative D, Proposals 9-6 (Trail 145 North Creek) and 9-7 (Trail 371 Link) would convert 

these trails to non-motorized. These proposals were generated in response to public comment during 

the scoping period. Proposal 9-8 (Trail 374 Lava Lake) would close this trail. This trail was 

destroyed during the Corral Fire of 1994. Alternative E proposes retaining two-wheel motorized 

access on all these trails in response to public comment requesting motorized access be retained. 

Table 2-19. MA 9 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Trail 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

9-1 153 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 11.4 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-1a 155 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-2 348 Trail 2-wheel Non- Non- Non- Non­ 2.8 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-3 503 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 2.6 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-4 116 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Nonmotorized 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

6.1 

9-5 505 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Closed 1.1 

9-6 145 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.9 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-7 371 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.1 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

9-8 374 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

1.7 

Note: Trail 503 was incorrectly identified as trail 506 in the original Proposed Action. 

Opportunities 

• Establish a permanent trailhead facility for the Jackson Creek/French Creek Trail to improve 

recreation experiences. Include a toilet facility. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0923) 

• Install a trail bridge at Forest Trail 503 and Little French Creek to reduce impacts to water quality 

and fish habitat, and to increase user safety. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0924) 

• Provide trailhead and toilet facilities at Lava Butte Trail 505 off of Forest Road 308 to improve 

recreation experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0925) 

• Improve public parking for new Forest Trail 155 trailhead in the Lake Creek area to accommodate 

increasing recreation use. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0926) 

• Explore opportunities to connect the existing French Creek Trail (116) to the Fall Fingers Road, and 

Elkhorn Creek Trail (115) to the Elk Creek Road to improve trail access. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III212: Objective 0927) 

• As funding becomes available, redesign and reconstruct existing trails to mitigate the effects of flow 

channeling. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0931) 

• Rehabilitate pioneered, non-system trails to mitigate erosion, flow channeling, soil compaction and 

loss of vegetation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0932) 

2 - 38 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Where alternatives exist, relocate trails that are currently within riparian areas to mitigate erosion 

and sedimentation. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0933) 

• Where motorized use is consistent with the recreation emphasis, and will not cause unacceptable 

resource damage, reconstruct existing 2-wheel motorized trails to accommodate 4-wheel ATVs. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-212: Objective 0934) 

• Work with Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to apply for RTP funds to clear out Trail 374 

(Proposal ID 9-8). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 39 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.10 Management Area 10, Fall Creek/Warren Creek – 105,830 acres 

Table 2-20. MA 10 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 6.1 6.1 10.0 6.1 10.0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 84,930 84,930 105,830 69,980 100,240 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 20,900 20,900 0 35,850 5,590 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 41,530 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 19.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 15.7 

ATV trail (miles) 10.5 10.5 16.9 10.5 16.9 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 13.3 19.3 19.3 16.4 17.2 

NFS open road (miles) 39.9 39.9 33.5 33.5 33.5 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 

Winter 

Location and amount of groomed snowmobile trails increase slightly in Alternatives C and E. The 

current closure west of Burgdorf Summit would be opened to over-snow vehicle use in Alternative C. 

This proposal was generated in response to public comment on the Proposed Action. In Alternative D 

an additional closure would be added between War Eagle Mountain and Marshall Mountain to protect 

wildlife habitat connectivity. In Alternative E the southern closure around Chimney Rock would be 

dropped to allow for snowmobile use from Warren, and the northern closure around Marshall 

Mountain would be retained for wildlife habitat protection. 

Summer 

• Proposal 10-2 (portion of Trail 128 Steamboat Ridge) would convert this trail from the junction 

with trail 129 north from two-wheel motorized to non-motorized in all action alternatives. The first 

section of this trail is motorized and the next is non-motorized. This has lead to inadvertent 

unauthorized motorized use on the non-motorized portion. 

• Proposal 10-3 (Trail 137 Cottontail Point) would convert this trail from two-wheel motorized to 

non-motorized in Alternatives B, C, and E, and close the trail in Alternative D. This trail traverses 

wet ground and numerous streams and is not suited to motorized use. 

• Proposal 10-4 (portion of Trail 132 James Creek) would convert this two-wheel motorized trail to 

non-motorized in Alternatives B, C, and D. This portion of this trail is on steep ground in erodible 

soils and is not suited to motorized use. The remainder of the trail not covered by this proposal has 

been converted to an ATV trail with the Burgdorf Road Management and Inactive/Abandoned 

Mine Site Reclamation EA decision. Alternative E proposes retaining this trail as two-wheel 

motorized due to its popularity. 

• In Alternatives C and E, Proposal 10-10 (Road 50318 Carey Creek Road) would manage a portion 

of this open NFS road as an ATV trail. During late summer of 2004, a number of very heavy 

rainstorms occurred in the Main Salmon River corridor. The prism of Road 50318 slumped and 

2 - 40 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

became impassable in several locations. Alternative D would close this portion of the road to all 

motorized traffic. This road is part of the Idaho Centennial Trail. 

Table 2-21. MA 10 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

10-2 128 Trail 2-wheel Non- Non- Non- Non­ 2.5 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

10-3 137 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Closed Nonmotorized 2.9 

10-4 132 Trail 2-wheel Non- Non- Non­ 2-wheel 2.1 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

10-10 50318 Road Open Open ATV Closed ATV 6.4 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal 10-2 should have started at the intersection of Trails 128 and 129 to preserve the motorized 

loop opportunity on Trail 129. This has been corrected. 

Opportunities 

• Maintain the Idaho Centennial Trail commensurate with its intended use to provide quality 

recreation opportunities and experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-225: Objective 1038) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 41 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.11 Management Area 11, Upper Secesh River – 83,570 acres 

Table 2-22. MA 11 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 72,340 72,340 80,820 58,230 65,830 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 11,230 11,230 2,750 25,340 17,740 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 23,410 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 29.9 29.1 29.1 22.8 29.1 

ATV trail (miles) 12.9 20.1 20.1 12.9 17.8 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 1.7 2.6 2.6 8.9 2.6 

NFS open road (miles) 33.7 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.6 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Winter 

Current closures exist in the Squaw Point area and the Chimney Rock IRA. The Squaw Point closure 

was put in place for backcountry skiing. A small portion of the Secesh IRA is also closed. Alternative C 

proposes removing the Squaw Point and Chimney Rock Closures. These proposals were generated in 

response to public comment on the Proposed Action. Alternative D adds additional closures in the area 

between War Eagle and Marshall Mountain, and to the east of Bear Pete Mountain to protect wildlife 

habitat connectivity. 

Summer 

This area is used for dispersed recreation. There are many dispersed campsites and three developed 

campgrounds. Portions of the Idaho Centennial Trail lie within this MA. The recreation emphasis in 

this area is to provide a variety of motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities. 

• Proposals 11-1 through 11-11 would manage closed NFS and unauthorized roads as ATV trails in 

Alternatives B and C. In Alternative E Proposals 11-10 and 11-11 would be closed (restricted to 

non-motorized access only) because of their proximity to wet meadows. All of these roads would 

remain closed under Alternative D. This MA receives heavy ATV use and providing a good 

network of trails would enhance motorized recreation opportunities and reduce unauthorized 

motorized use off of designated trails. 

• Proposals 11-18, 11-19, and 11-20 would authorize use on currently unauthorized roads. These 

roads access dispersed campsites. 

• Proposal 11-23 responds to public comment requesting consideration of non-motorized use on the 

trail. 

2 - 42 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-23. MA 11 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

11-1 503251000 Road Nondesignated ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 0.4 

11-2 51866 Road Closed ATV ATV Closed ATV 1.1 

11-3 518664000 Road Nondesignated ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 0.1 

11-4 51867 Road Closed ATV ATV Closed ATV 0.6 

11-5 51868 Road Closed ATV ATV Closed ATV 0.7 

11-6 50251 Road Closed ATV ATV Closed ATV 0.7 

11-7 503640100 

503640101 

Road Nondesignated ATV* ATV* Closed Open* 0.5 

11-8a 503640800 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 0.8 

designated 

11-8b 503640801 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 0.1 

designated 

11-9 503640900 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed ATV* 0.4 

designated 

11-10a 503641000 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed Closed 0.9 

designated 

11-10b 503641100 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed Closed 0.5 

designated 

11-11 503641102 Road Non- ATV* ATV* Closed Closed 0.3 

designated 

11-18 502466000 Road Nondesignated Open Open Open Open 0.1 

11-19 502466300 Road Nondesignated Open Open Open Open 0.3 

11-20 502466400 Road Nondesignated Open Open Open Open 0.1 

11-23 117 Trail 2-wheel 2-wheel 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 6.3 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

* PDFs would be applied before designation of this ATV route on the MVUM 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal ID 11-22 on Trail 128 –all mileage for this proposal is now reflected in Management Area 

10, so this Proposal ID (but not the proposal itself) has been dropped from the MA 11 table. 

• Proposals 11-17, and 11-21 were dropped between the draft and final EIS as decisions on these 

roads were made under the Burgdorf Road Project. Road 503250600 (proposal 11-17) and Road 

51871 (11-21) are both open. 

Opportunities 

• Reduce impacts to Lake Creek and tributary riparian areas from recreation sites or uses. Identify 

recreational camping sites or parking areas that are contributing unacceptable levels of accelerated 

sediment, compaction, or vegetation loss. Rehabilitate, relocate, or harden sites where needed to 

reduce impacts. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-237: Objective 1133) 

• Maintain the Idaho Centennial Trail commensurate with its intended use to provide quality 

recreation opportunities and experiences. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-237: Objective 1134) 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 43 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.12 Management Area 12, South Fork Salmon River – 359,560 acres 

Table 2-24. MA 12 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 142,600 140,640 193,990 110,200 110,200 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 216,960 218,920 165,570 249,360 249,360 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 24,610 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 163.6 106.3 175.6 106.3 130.7 

ATV trail (miles) 8.1 10.7 8.1 8.1 8.1 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 172.8 199.7 160.8 199.7 194.8 

NFS open road (miles) 78.6 76.1 78.6 76.1 76.1 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 

Winter 

Current closures to motorized use exist in the Needles, Secesh, Caton Lake, and Pilot Peak IRAs. 

Additional areas along the South Fork Salmon River road are closed to protect wildlife winter range. 

Alternative B proposes a couple of thousand additional acres of closure in the Duck Lake/Burnside 

Lake area. In Alternative C, over 51,000 acres located in the South Fork drainage are opened to oversnow motorized use. This proposal was developed in response to public comment on the Proposed 

Action. In Alternatives D and E an additional closure would be added north of Savage Point up to the 

existing Big Creek closure to protect wildlife habitat connectivity. In all alternatives, Road 50340 to 

Edwardsburg would remain open to snowmobile traffic although the area surrounding either side of the 

road would be closed to over-snow vehicle use in Alternative D. This road is under the jurisdiction of 

Valley County. 

Summer 

This MA is a popular recreation area, particularly in the summer months. The heaviest use is in the 

South Fork Salmon River drainage during the months of July and August when the river is open for 

sport fishing. There are numerous dispersed campsites and seven developed camp grounds. Portions of 

the Idaho Centennial Trail lie within the MA. High alpine lakes also draw users during the summer. 

The recreation emphasis is to provide motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities and experiences, 

with loop opportunities. 

• Proposal 12-2 (Trail 76, Davis Ranch Road/Trail) – While still designated as a two-wheel motorized 

trail, this trail now is closed to all but foot traffic by special order due to safety concerns. Prior to 

January 1997, full size vehicles could drive the road. However, on January 1, 1997, a rain-on-snow 

flooding event washed out all the culvert crossings, making the road passable only on foot. 

Alternatives B and D would close this trail because it is so costly to maintain. Alternative C and E 

responded to a number of public comments requesting that motorized access be restored on the trail. 

Under Alternatives C or E, the trail would remain closed under special order until the safety 

concerns and potential for considerable adverse effects from motor vehicle use could be mitigated 

2 - 44 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

or eliminated. The Forest has a preliminary location for an alternate trail alignment west of and 

downhill from the washed out road. 

• Proposal 12-3 (Trail 92 Log Mountain) - Alternatives B and D would close this trail because it 

receives little use and is poorly located. Alternative C responded to a number of public comments 

requesting that motorized access be restored on the trail. Alternative E proposes to restrict the use on 

the trail to non-motorized to retain the trail on the National Forest system and preserve future access 

options. 

• Proposals 12-4, 12-5, and 12-6 (Trail 303 White Rock, Trail 304 Blackmare Creek, and Trail 305 

S.Fk. Blackmare Creek) – Alternatives B, D, and E would close these trails because they receive 

little use and are poorly located. Alternative C would retain these trails as non-motorized. 

• Proposal 12-7 (Trail 290 Eagle Rock) – Alternatives B and D would close this trail because it is 

rarely used. Alternatives C and E would retain this trail as a two-wheel motorized trail. 

• Proposal 12-8 (Trail 98 Cougar Creek) is proposed for restriction to non-motorized use under 

Alternatives B and D and proposed for retention of two-wheel motorized use under Alternatives C 

and E. Some public comment supports keeping these trails open to motorized use as they form part 

of a loop. 

• Proposals 12-9 through 12-16, and Proposals 12-21 and 12-22 – Alternatives B and D would 

manage these trails as non-motorized rather than as two-wheel motorized because they not suited 

for motorized use. Alternative C would retain these trails as two-wheel motorized. In response to 

public comment to maintain a level of motorized use on these trails Alternative E proposes to retain 

2-wheel motorized access on Proposals 12-12, 12-13, 12-15, 12-16, and 12-22. 

• Proposal 12-17a and 12-17b (Road 50673 Hamilton Bar) – Alternative B would manage this open 

NFS road as an ATV trail from Hamilton Bar to the end of the road. Alternative C would maintain 

the current status of open NFS road, and Alternative D would manage this road as a non-motorized 

trail from Hamilton Bar to the end of the road. Alternative E proposes managing the first 0.7 miles 

to Hamilton Bar as an open road, and the remainder as a two-wheel motorized trail. Alternative E 

reflects the management agreed to under the Terms and Conditions for the South Fork Road 

Biological Opinion. 

Table 2-24. MA 12 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

12-2 76 Trail Nonmotorized Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

8.0 

12-3 92 Trail Nonmotorized Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Nonmotorized 4.6 

12-4 303 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Nonmotorized Closed Closed 10.0 

12-5 304 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Nonmotorized Closed Closed 2.1 

12-6 305 Trail Nonmotorized Closed Nonmotorized Closed Closed 2.8 

12-7 290 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

Closed Nonmotorized 4.3 

12-8 98 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 9.0 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-9 73 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 3.2 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-10 71 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 5.6 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 45 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-24. MA 12 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-11 75 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 4.4 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-12 301 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 10.7 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-13 100 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 7.2 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-15 76 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 3.5 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-16 77 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 2.9 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-17a 50673 Road Open Open Open Open Open 0.7 

12-17b 50673 Road Open ATV Open Closed 2-wheel 

motorized 

2.6 

12-21 70 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non- Non­ 5.7 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

12-22 99 Trail 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel Non­ 2-wheel 0.3 

motorized motorized motorized motorized motorized 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposal ID 12-14 on Trail 128 –all mileage for this proposal is now reflected in Management Area 

10, so this Proposal ID (but not the proposal itself) has been dropped from the MA 12 table 

• Proposal ID 12-17 was refined into proposals 12-17a and 12-17b to reflect decisions made as part of 

the terms and conditions for the South Fork Road project as described above. 

Opportunities 

• To improve recreation access and opportunities, resolve issues with easements where trails cross 

private lands that limit, or could limit, public use. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-253: Objective 1248) 

• Provide designated routes for motorized (ATV and motorcycle) use and emphasize loop 

opportunities. Provide for non-motorized uses as well, and consider separation of uses where user 

experience could be enhanced. Focus trail management and maintenance on improving the user’s 

experience and correcting resource damage. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-253: Objective 1250) 

• Establish a trailhead and install a kiosk for Forest Trails 121, 120, and 284; and provide information 

appropriate to the level of trail use to enhance trail access and visitor information opportunities. 

(Forest Plan 2003: p. III-253: Objective 1251) 

• Establish trailhead and install a kiosk for Forest Trail 129 to enhance trail access and visitor 

information opportunities. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-254: Objective 1253) 

• Establish a loop system of ATV trails in two areas: Road 50384 (around Miner’s Peak) and 50361 

(Zena Creek) to provide motorized recreation opportunities in these popular areas. 

• Coordinate with the Valley County Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation to relocate and rehabilitate Trail 76, Davis Ranch Road, so that it is passable by some 

form of motorized vehicle, with a width to be determined dependent upon trail location and 

feasibility. As stated above, an old abandoned trail alignment that may be suitable for trail relocation 

exists to the west of the washed out road and closer to the South Fork Salmon River. Detailed 

2 - 46 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

reconnaissance and feasibility work would be needed, a task that would require supplemental 

funding and time to complete. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 47 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.5.13 Management Area 13, Big Creek/Stibnite – 100,270 acres 

Table 2-26. MA 13 – Travel Management Proposals by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Winter Travel 

Groomed snowmobile trails (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized over-snow use (acres) 83,490 83,490 83,490 58,550 58,550 

Closed to motorized use (acres) 17,040 17,040 17,040 41,980 41,980 

Summer Travel 

Motorized cross-country travel 

(acres) 0 0 0 0 0 

Two-wheel motorized trail (miles) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0 

ATV trail (miles) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.8 

OHV trail (miles) 0 0 0 0 1.1 

Non-motorized trail (miles) 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 

NFS open road (miles) 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 33.6 

NFS seasonally open road (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 

Winter 

There are two existing closures to motorized use adjacent to the Frank Church--River of No Return 

(FC-RONR) Wilderness. Closures to over-snow vehicle use remain in Alternatives A, B, and C. In 

Alternatives D and E an additional area north from Profile Peak to the existing closure in the Cottontail 

Point/Pilot Peak IRA would be closed to protect wildlife habitat connectivity. In all alternatives, Road 

50340 to Edwardsburg would remain open to snowmobile traffic, although the area surrounding either 

side of the road would be closed to motorized over-snow use in Alternatives D and E. 

Summer 

This MA lies adjacent to the FC-RONR Wilderness. Many trails in the area lead into the Wilderness. 

There is one developed campground. The remainder of the MA receives low to moderate dispersed use. 

The recreation emphasis is on providing dispersed opportunities. 

Table 2-21. MA 13 – Road and Trail Proposals by Alternative 

Proposal 

ID 

Number Road 

or 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Miles 

Trail 

13-1 67 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

ATV 4.9 

13-1 67 Trail 2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

2-wheel 

motorized 

OHV 1.1 

13-2 50371 Road ATV ATV ATV ATV ATV 4.9 

13-8 50343 Road Open Open Open Open Closed 1.4 

Note: Proposal 13-2 would convert 50371 from a road used as an ATV trail to an ATV trail 

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

• Proposals 13-1 (Road 504128000 Quartz Creek) has been added to Alternative E. This proposal 

would allow full-sized OHVs to travel to the gate at mile post 1.1 (located near the Skipper Lode 

mine) and use the existing roadbed as an ATV trail past the gate. 

2 - 48 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

• Proposal ID 13-2 (Road 50371 Big Creek Smith Creek) is currently being managed as a road. 

However, it is not suitable for full-sized motor vehicles. Alternative E proposes to manage the route 

as an ATV trail rather than a road. 

• Proposal ID 13-8 (Road 50343 Logan Creek Road) has been added to Alternative E. This proposal 

would close the road to motorized use past the intersection with Road 503435000. This proposal is 

brought forward from the Big Creek RAP. 

Opportunities 

• Maintain or improve trailheads for Big Creek, Mosquito Ridge, Cougar Basin, Missouri Ridge, and 

Monumental Creek during the planning period to promote trail access opportunities. (Forest Plan 

2003: p. III-265: Objective 1325) 

• Work with the Valley County Board of Commissioners to secure access to Quartz Creek road. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 49 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.6 Management Requirements 

Management requirements arise from Forest Plan direction designed for the protection of Forest 

resources (Forest Plan 2003). In most cases these requirements are synonymous with Forest Plan 

Standards which are binding limitations placed on management actions. Exceptions are made in some 

cases to allow temporary or short-term degrading effects in order to achieve long-term goals. A project 

or action that varies from a relevant standard cannot be authorized unless the Forest Plan is amended to 

modify, remove, or waive its application. Guidelines represent a preferred or advisable course of action 

which is expected to be carried out. Deviation from compliance does not require a Forest Plan 

amendment (as with a standard), but rationale for deviation must be documented in the project decision 

document. In some cases, management requirements may also include objectives. Objectives form the 

basis for project-level actions or proposals to help achieve Forest goals. The timeframe for 

accomplishing objectives, unless otherwise stated, is generally considered to be the planning period, or 

the next 10 to 15 years. Since the planning period for the Travel Plan is similar to that of the Forest Plan 

(10 to 15 years), it may be appropriate to include certain objectives as management requirements. 

Forest Plan direction in the following table is not all inclusive; instead it focuses on resource protection 

needs specific to this project. 

Categories based on purpose have been developed for the management direction detailed in the 

following table and are referenced using the following codes: 

Purpose: 

A To reduce runoff , erosion, and sediment delivery 

B To limit adverse soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resource impacts with management 

actions 

C To conserve productive soil resources and long-term soil productivity 

D To protect or enhance a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities. 

E To minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds 

F To maintain or improve wildlife habitat 

G To protect fish or their habitat and water quality 

H To protect heritage resources and tribal interests 

I To limit infringement on the rights of public or private entities 

2 - 50 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

Invasive Plants 

NPOB06 

(p. III-36) 

Emphasize prevention of noxious weed establishment through education 

and cooperation with recreation user groups such as all-terrain vehicle 

(ATV), motorcycle, and stock user groups. 

C, E 

NPST10 

(p. III-37) 

Projects that may contribute to the spread or establishment of invasive 

weeds shall include measures to reduce the potential for spread and 

establishment of invasive weed infestations (see also NPST03, 06, 07, 08) 

C, E 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

TEOB27 

(p. III-10) 

During fine-scale analyses in areas where dispersed and developed 

recreation practices or facilities are identified as a potential concern or 

problem contributing to adverse effects to TEPC species or degradation of 

their habitats, evaluate and document where the problems are and prioritize 

opportunities to mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, adverse effects 

to TEPC species. 

F 

TEOB28 

(p. III-10) 

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. 

F 

TEOB30 

(p. III-10) 

Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. F 

TEST01 

(p. III-11) 

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. 

F, G 

TEST02 

(p. III-11) 

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... 

F, G 

TEST03 

(p. III-11) 

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. 

F, G 

TEST04 

(p. III-11) 

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. 

F, G 

TEST06 

(p. III-11) 

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. 

F, G 

TEST12 

(p. III-11) 

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. 

F, G 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 51 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

TEST34 

(p. III-14) 

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. This does not apply within 

permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, and access to private 

inholdings. 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. 

F 

TEGU01 

(p. III-14) 

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. 

F, G 

TEGU02 

(p. III.14) 

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. 

F, G 

TEGU03 

(p. III.14) 

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. 

F, G 

Wildlife 

WIST02 (p. 

III-27) 

Design and implement projects within occupied habitats of Sensitive species 

to help prevent them from becoming listed. Use Forest Service-approved 

portions of Conservation Strategies and Agreements, as appropriate, in the 

management of Sensitive species habitat to keep management actions from 

contributing to a trend toward listing for these species. 

F 

WIST03 (p. 

III-27) 

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. 

F 

WIST06 (p. 

III-27) 

Mitigate human-caused disturbances within winter/spring ranges if 

disturbances cause displacement of wildlife while they are occupying those 

ranges. 

F 

WIGU06 (p. 

III-27) 

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. 

F 

WIGU08 (p. 

III-28) 

Big game vulnerability to road related mortality should be evaluated during 

mid-, fine- or site/project-level travel management planning to help assess 

effects of potential travel management decisions on state population 

objectives. 

F 

Roads 

FRGO01 

(p. III-58) 

Provide and maintain a safe, efficient Forest transportation system that 

meets resource management and access needs, while mitigating degrading 

resource effects. 

B 

FROB05 

(p. III-59) 

Coordinate transportation systems, management, and decommissioning 

with other federal, state and county agencies, tribal governments, 

permittees, contractors, cost-share cooperators, and the public to develop a 

shared transportation system serving the needs of all parties to the extent 

possible. 

I 

FROB06 

(p. III-59) 

Identify roads and facilities that are not needed for land and resource 

management, and evaluate for disposal or decommissioning. 

B 

FROB12 

(p. III-59) 

During fine-scale analyses in areas where roads and facilities are identified 

as a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation of water 

quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or Watch plant habitat, 

evaluate and document where the contributing facilities are and prioritize 

opportunities to mitigate effects. 

B 

2 - 52 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

FRST02 (p. 

III-59) 

To accommodate floods, including associated bedload and debris, new 

culverts, replacement culverts, and other stream crossings shall be designed 

to accommodate a 100-year flood recurrence interval unless site-specific 

analysis using calculated risk tools or another method, determines a more 

appropriate recurrence interval. 

G 

FRST03 (p. 

III-59) 

In support of road management decisions, use an interdisciplinary sciencebased roads analysis process such as Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions 

About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA FS, 

1999 Report FS-643). 

B, C 

FRGU03 

(p. III-60) 

Prior to decommissioning roads, opportunities related to those roads for 

potential development or use as travel routes for ATVs, mountain bikes, or 

other alternative forms of transportation, should be considered. 

D 

FRGU04 

(p. III-60) 

Roads that are not desired for public access or tribal uses, and that are no 

longer needed to manage the Forest or to provide access to inholdings 

should be considered for decomissioning and returning the lands that they 

occupy to desired resource management. 

B 

FRGU05 (p. 

III-60) 

Where practical alternatives exist, roads in RCAs that are degrading 

riparian-dependent resources should be evaluated for obliteration or 

relocation. 

A 

FRGU06 (p. 

III-60) 

New roads and landings should be located out of RCAs wherever possible. 

When new roads or landings must be located in RCAs, they should be 

developed such that degrading effects to RCAs are mitigated 

A 

FRGU09 

(p. III-60) 

Travel management should be used, as needed, to accomplish the 

following: 

Provide for the safety and welfare of the users. 

Protect threatened and endangered species and their habitat. 

Protect Forest resources, such as wildlife, soil, vegetation, and water. 

Provide a diversity of recreational experiences and reduce user conflicts. 

Protect road and trail investments. 

Comply with Forest contracts or permits, cooperative agreements, road 

purchase agreements, easement deeds, or other formal documents of the 

Government requiring that road use be controlled. 

Coordinate hunting and fishing opportunities with State agencies. 

All 

FRGU10 

(p. III-60) 

When considering closure or decommissioning of roads for which an 

RS2477 assertion has been made by either a State or a County 

government, the merits of the assertion should be evaluated prior to taking 

any actions. 

I 

FRGU11 

(III-60) 

Where opportunities to mitigate facilities and road management practices 

causing degradation have been identified, consider mitigating through 

measures such as relocation, closure, and changes in management 

strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. 

B 

Recreation 

REGO03 

(p. III-62) 

Address current and emerging recreation conflicts, while maintaining 

recreation opportunities when possible. 

D 

REGO04 

(p. III-62) 

Manage recreation uses and facilities to mitigate degrading effects from 

recreation to other resources. All alternatives are consistent. 

B 

REGO05 

(p. III-62) 

Manage motorized and non-motorized travel and travel-related facilities to: 

Provide for public safety, 

Meet resource objectives and access needs, 

Mitigate road and trail damage, and 

Minimize maintenance costs and user conflicts. 

B, D, F, G, I 

REGO06 

(p. III-62) 

Provide an array of winter recreation experiences, while mitigating conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized use and wintering wildlife. 

D, F 

REOB06 (p. 

III-62) 

Identify and develop motorized use opportunities in locations appropriate for 

motorized uses through road to trail conversion, development of new trails, 

and other methods. 

D 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 53 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

REOB08 p. 

III-63) 

Inform the public in a timely manner about management actions affecting 

their recreation opportunities at appropriate locations, including roads, trails, 

and at developed sites. 

I 

REOB18 p. 

III-63) 

Initiate a process of phased, site-specific travel management planning as 

soon as practicable. Prioritize planning based on areas where the most 

significant user conflicts and resource concerns are occurring. Identify and 

address inconsistent access management of roads, trails, and areas across 

Forest, Ranger District, and interagency boundaries. 

D 

REOB19 (p. 

III-63) 

Manage cross-country travel to mitigate recreationist and big game conflicts 

on winter/spring ranges. 

F 

REOB21 

(p. III-63) 

During fine scale analyses in areas where recreational trails are identified as 

a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation to other 

resources, evaluate and document the location of the trail degradation and 

prioritize opportunities to mitigate effects. 

B 

REOB22 

(p. III-63) 

During project planning and implementation, develop measures to mitigate 

degrading effects from National Forest System and non-National Forest 

System trails. 

D 

REOB23 

(p. III-63) 

Provide networks of marked and designated snow machine, cross-country 

ski, and other winter travel routes and trailhead facilities, while meeting other 

resource goals and objectives. 

D 

REOB25 

(p. III-63) 

Provide opportunities for backcountry winter recreation in areas without 

wintering wildlife conflicts. 

D, F 

REOB26 

(p. III-63) 

Support winter trail management through cooperative agreements with other 

agencies and groups. 

D, I 

REST02 (p. 

III-64) 

When new recreation facilities and trails must be located in RCAs, they shall 

be developed such that degrading effects to RCAs are mitigated. Where 

reasonable and practical location alternatives exist, new recreation facilities 

and trails should be located outside of RCAs. 

A 

REST04 (p. 

III-64) 

On all lands outside of designated travel ways, motorized use shall be 

prohibited unless otherwise authorized. 

A, C 

REGU04 

(p. III-64) 

Local Forest Service resource managers should facilitate and encourage 

involved user groups to resolve use conflicts among themselves. When the 

involved user groups accomplish resolution, the Forest Service should 

strongly consider recommendations and implement within the laws, 

regulations, and policies that govern management of the National Forests. 

When the involved user groups do not accomplish resolution, the Forest 

Service should work to resolve the conflict based on the agency mission. 

I 

REGU07 

(p. III-65) 

Where recreation facilities or practices have been identified as potentially 

contributing to degradation of water quality, aquatic species, or occupied 

sensitive and watch plant habitat, facilities and practices causing 

degradation should be considered for relocation, closure, changes in 

management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. 

A, B, F, G 

REGU09 

(p. III-65) 

All projects and activities should maintain or enhance the adopted ROS 

classes as displayed on the Forest ROS strategy maps. 

D 

REGU11 

(p. III-65) 

New road construction should not occur within the summer Primitive and 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas. 

D 

REGU12 

(p. III-65) 

During the winter season, motorized use may be allowed to set crosscountry skiing tracks or skating lanes within the Semi-Primitive NonMotorized areas. D 

REGU21 

(p. III-66) 

Trailhead facilities should be provided and managed commensurate with the 

appropriate level of use, resource effect, and local priority. These facilities 

may be public or private, depending on their location. 

D 

REGU22 

(p. III-66) 

Funding priorities for trail maintenance should be based on: a) The five 

maintenance levels and traffic classes of trail use, b) Resource degradation, 

and/or c) Type and degree of use. 

B, D 

2 - 54 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

REGU24 

(p. III-66) 

The Trail Roads Analysis Process or other appropriate method should be 

used to identify opportunities for road to trail conversions and trail 

decommissioning. 

All 

REGU27 

(p. III-66) 

Winter recreation opportunities should be managed to provide for user 

safety and to minimize user conflicts. Winter recreation management should 

recognize that some activities are not compatible in the same locations and 

should be separated when needed to maintain user safety and quality 

recreation experiences. 

I 

REGU28 

(p. III-66) 

When resolving conflicts between winter recreation user groups, appropriate 

consideration and protection should be given to capital investments such as 

groomed and/or designated trails. 

I 

Research Natural Areas (RNA) 

RNGU02 (p. 

III-76) 

Potential degradation from motorized use should be considered when 

developing RNA Management Plans and Travel Management Planning. 

A, B, C, E, F, 

G 

Heritage Program 

HPST01 Review undertakings that may affect cultural resources to identify potential 

impacts. Compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA shall be 

completed before the responsible agency official signs the project decision 

document. 

H 

HPST02 Conduct cultural resource inventories in consultation with the appropriate 

Tribal and State Historic Preservation Offices and other individuals and 

organizations likely to have knowledge of historic properties in the area. 

H 

Tribal Rights and Interests 

TRST04 (p. 

III-72) 

During project planning, affected tribes shall be consulted regarding 

opportunities for restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of native plant 

communities that are of interest to tribes when proposed activities may affect 

those plant communities. 

H 

TRST06 (p. 

III-72) 

Management decisions affecting cultural resources important to tribes shall 

consider Indian values and perspectives, as mandated by Sections 106 and 

110 of the NHPA. 

H 

Soil, Water, Riparian and Aquatic Resources 

SWOB18 

(p. III-21) 

Reduce road-related effects on soil productivity, water quality, and 

aquatic/riparian species and their habitats. Refer to the Watershed and 

Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) for mid-scale prioritization indicators to 

assist in fine and site/project scale restoration prioritization planning. 

A, B, C 

SWST01 

(p. III-21) 

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 

G 

SWST07 

(p. III-22) 

Ensure that new proposed management activities within watersheds 

containing 303(d) listed water bodies improve or maintain overall progress 

toward beneficial use attainment for pollutants that led to the listing. 

B 

SWST08 

(p. III-22) 

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. 

G 

SWGU01 

(p. III-23) 

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

considered early in the process of subbasin review, fine- and site/projectscale analyses, and restoration priorities to help ensure priorities compliment 

each other where possible, or at least minimize conflicts. 

I 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 2 - 55 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-27. Management Requirements 

Source Management Requirement Objective 

SWGU02 When doing fine-scale assessments, the MATRIX in Appendix B should be A, B, C 

(p. III-23) 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. 

2 - 56 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a comparative summary of how the alternatives respond to the purpose and need for action and how they res

issues. It also displays the projected outputs and other environmental effects that may influence alternative selection. Based on this analysis provided in Chapter 3, the responsible official and the public should be able to see why some alternatives affect resources than others, and what the trade-offs are between alternatives; that is, to provide “a clear basis for choice among options by the decipublic” (40 CFR 1502.14). The tables and discussion on the following pages compare issue indicators and resource effects by alternative for each significant iChapter 3 provides detail of the effects of alternative implementation. 

2.7.1 Recreation 

Table 2-28. Recreation Issue 1 

Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in summer. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Miles of open road and seasonally open NFS road 

1,637.5 1,612.7 1,634.8 1,605

Miles of: 1) Two-wheel motorized, and 2) Miles of nonmotorized trail 

581.9 504.3 

434.5 596.1 

572.8 495.2 

408614

Miles of ATV trail 75.3 89.0 127.9 69Miles of OHV trail 2.8 3.1 3.1 2Acres open to crosscountry motor vehicle use 

510,930 

Motorized cross-country travel allowed 

0 

Motorized cross-country travel prohibited 

0 

Motorized cross-country travel prohibited 

Motorized cross-country travel prohibited 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-29. Recreation Issue 2 

Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in winter. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres open and closed to over-snow vehicles 

1,078,540 acres open 451, 200 acres closed 70% of the project area open to snowmobile use - all acres are usually within snow levels. 29% of the project area available for nonmotorized over-snow use - some acres are below snow levels. Existing closures used by skiers are located in Jughandle Mountain, Squaw Point, Sturgill Peak. 

1,061,130 acres open 468,610 acres closed 69% of the project area open to snowmobile use – all acres are usually within snow levels. 31% of the project area available for nonmotorized over-snow use - some acres are below snow levels. Proposed closures in Granite Basin, Bear Basin and Lick Creek area would provide nonmotorized areas with better access, safer conditions and untracked snow for longer periods of time. 

1,156,700 acres open 373,040 acres closed 73% of the project area open to snowmobile use - are acres are usually within snow levels. 27% of the project area available for nonmotorized over snow use - some acres are below snow levels. Least amount of proposed closures of all alternatives. Proposed closure in Granite, Bear Basin and Lick Creek area would provide nonmotorized areas with better access, safer conditions and untracked snow for longer periods of time. 

873,740 acres open 656,000 acres closed 57% of the project area open to snowmobile use all acres are usually withisnow levels. 42% of the project area available for nonmotorized over-snow use – some acres are below snow levels. Largest amount of proposed closures. Proposed closure of Granite, Bear Basin and Lick Creek arewith additional closures in Slab Butte, Upper PayettLake, and expansion of existing Jug Handle closure would provide non-motorized areas with better access, safer conditions and untracked snow for longer periods otime 

2 - 58 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Table 2-29. Recreation Issue 2 

Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in winter. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Use areas with clear boundary designations 

Poor-Moderate Numerous documented snowmobile intrusions to non-motorized areas. Areas somewhat laid out on visible terrain features making accidental entry into some areas unlikely. 

Moderate New areas proposed for non-motorized use have been laid out on visible terrain and man-made features making accidental entry into areas unlikely. 

Moderate-Good New areas proposed for both non-motorized use and motorized use have been laid out on visible terrain and man-made features making accidental entry into areas unlikely. 

Moderate–Good New areas proposed for non-motorized use have been primarily laid out on visible terrain and manmade features making accidental entry into areaunlikely. 

Miles of groomed snowmobile trail 

245.9 

= miles approved in the 2000 trail grooming Cost Share Agreement with the state and Valley County [note the distinction with other alternatives] 

225.5 

= miles actually being groomed on the ground (not all trails approved in 2000 are groomed) 

236.8 

= miles desired in the future to be incorporated into the new 2005 grooming Cost Share Agreement 

225

same as Alternative B 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-29. Recreation Issue 2 

Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in winter. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proximity of nonmotorized areas to parking and access points for winter based activities 

Poor Main backcountry ski areas are located more than 3 miles from developed trailheads and access points. 

Poor-Good Proposed closures provide non-motorized over-snow opportunities within 3 miles of trailheads and access points. 

Poor-Moderate Proposed closures provide minimal non-motorized over snow opportunities within 3 miles of trailheads and access points. 

Good-Excellent Proposed closures providmultiple access points to non-motorized over snow opportunities within 3 miles of trailheads and access points. 

Approximate acres of skiable terrain 

Moderate 

160,490 acres 

non-motorized skiable terrain acres (does not include the Brundage ski area) 

Good 

172,477 acres 

These acres incorporate the proposed Granite Mountain, Bear Basin and Lick Creek non-motorized areas 

Moderate 

159,188 acres 

Includes more limited areas compared to Alt B: in Granite Mountain, Bear Basin, Lick Creek areas. Two previously nonmotorized areas are proposed for conversion to motorized over-snow use. 

Excellent 

222,468 acre

Includes larger areas compared to Alt B in Granite Mountain, Bear Basin, Lick Creek areas & proposes additional areain Jughandle, Upper Payette Lake, Slab Butte Marshall Mountain area. 

2 - 60 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Table 2-30. Recreation Issue 3 

Travel management may affect road and trail program costs. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Costs to program management 

No savings Trails: Existing program costs do not keep up with needed trail maintenance. Grants and volunteer program support still do not meet trail program demands. Roads: For all alternatives, existing congressional funding is insufficient to fund scheduled road maintenance. 

Modest savings Trails: With a reduction of approximately 42 miles in trails, program costs come closer to balancing with program needs, but will not keep up with needed trail maintenance. Grants and volunteer support will continue to be relied on to meet trail program goals. Roads: For all alternatives, existing congressional funding is insufficient to fund scheduled road maintenance. 

No savings Trails: An increase of approximately 35 miles of trail is added to the trail system. Cost to maintain trail system would continue to exceed allocated and grant funding available for basic maintenance. Grant and volunteer support will continue to be relied on to help achieve trail program goals. Large investments would be needed to get proposed ATV trails to standard. Roads: For all alternatives, existing congressional funding is insufficient to fund scheduled road maintenance. 

Modest savings Trails: With a reduction of approximately 70 miles of trails, program cost comes closest to meeting trail program demands, but will not keep up with needed trail maintenance. Grants and volunteer support will continue to be relied on to meet trail program goals. Roads: For all alternatives, existing congressional funding is insufficient to fund scheduled road maintenance. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-31. Recreation Issue 4 

Separation of potentially conflicting uses – particularly motorized and non-motorized – in travel management may affect the recreationists. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Degree of public safety provided based on separation of uses 

Potentially unsafe in winter. Safety issues include potential and documented collisions between snowmobiles and backcountry skiers, and skiing hazards created by deep snowmobile tracks. In summer, potential for motorized and nonmotorized collisions on motorized ATV and twowheel single track trails. 

Potentially more safe in winter. Proposed nonmotorized use areas would reduce the potential for collisions between backcountry skiers and snowmobiles and the hazards formed by snowmobile tracks. Summertime trail safety may improve on trails proposed for conversion to non-motorized use by eliminating motorized vehicles. 

Potentially moderately more safe in winter. Proposed non-motorized use areas are smaller in Alt C than in Alts B and D. Separation of motorized and nonmotorized uses would reduce the potential for collisions between backcountry skiers and snowmobiles and the hazards formed by snowmobile tracks. Summertime trail safety issues could increase with more non-motorized trails being converted to motorized trails. 

Potentially most safe in winter. Proposed non-motorized use areas are greatest in Alt D, would provide greatest reduction in the potential for collisions between backcountry skiers and snowmobiles and the hazards formed by snowmobile tracks. Summertime trail safety could improve on trails proposed for conversion to non-motorized use by removing motorized vehicles. 

2 - 62 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Table 2-32. Recreation Issue 5 

Changes in motorized use may affect Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings for both summer and winter use. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Change to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

No change to current ROS in winter or summer 

Potential minimal changes in both winter and summer ROS from SPM to SPNM areas due to conversions of motorized trails to nonmotorized and winter motorized over-snow closures 

Potential minimal changes from SPNM to SPM in summer, large scale changes from SPNM to SPM in winter over-snow 

Potential minimal changein summer ROS from SPM to SPNM, large scale changes from SPM to SPNM in winter oversnow 

Table 2-33. Roadless Character and Wilderness Issue 1 

Increases in motorized use may affect wilderness potential and wilderness attributes in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Effects to wilderness potential 

No effects to wilderness potential of IRAs. 

No measurable effects. No measurable effects. No measurable effects. 

Effects to wilderness attributes of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs): solitude, primitive recreation, and natural integrity 

No change to existing wilderness attributes. 

Summer: Beneficial effects in MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12 Winter: Beneficial effects in MAs 7, 12 

Summer: Negative effects in MA 3 Winter: Beneficial effects in MA 7 Negative effects in MAs 10, 11 

Summer: Beneficial effects in MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 Winter: Beneficial effects in MAs 7, 8, 12 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.7.2 Soil and Water 

Table 2-34. Soil & Water Issue 1 

The type, extent, and location of a designated motorized system of roads, trails, and areas may degrade soil productivity, adeliver sediment to streams. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Percent of the Management Area designated open to cross-country motor vehicle use and/or limited motorized access. 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: No Change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: Degrade 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: No Change 

Percent of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) in designated areas open to crosscountry motor vehicle use and/or limited motorized access 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: No Change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: No Change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: Improvement MA 1: No Change 

Miles of designated roads 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 3, 6, 8, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13: No Change MAs 2, 7, 11: Degrade 

MAs 6, 10: Improvement MAs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,8, 9, 12, 13: No Change MAs 2, 3, 7, 11: Degrade 

MAs 3, 6, 8, 10,12: Improvement MAs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13: No Change MAs 7, 11: Degrade 

Miles of designated twowheel motorized trails. All Management Areas (MAs): 

No change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5, 7, 13: No Change 

MAs 2, 3, 9, 10, 11: Improvement MAs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13: No Change MA 12: Degrade 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: Improvement MAs 1,2, 5, 13: No Change 

2 - 64 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Table 2-34. Soil & Water Issue 1 

The type, extent, and location of a designated motorized system of roads, trails, and areas may degrade soil productivity, adeliver sediment to streams. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Miles of designated ATV and OHV trails. 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 4, 11, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13: No Change MAs 2, 3, 11, 12: Degrade 

MAs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13: No Change MAs 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11: Degrade 

MAs 4, 7, 9, 11: Improvement MAs 1,2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: No Change 

Miles of designated roads and motorized trails in subwatersheds with a high watershed vulnerability rating. 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13: No Change 

MAs 10: Improvement MAs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13: No Change MAs 1, 2, 12: Degrade 

MAs 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13: No Change 

Miles of designated roads and motorized trails within RCAs. 

All Management Areas 

(MAs): 

No change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5,, 13: No Change MA 7, 11: Degrade 

MAs 9, 10: Improvement MAs 1, 4, 5, 8, 13: No Change MAs 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12: Degrade 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5, 13: No Change 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-34. Soil & Water Issue 1 

The type, extent, and location of a designated motorized system of roads, trails, and areas may degrade soil productivity, adeliver sediment to streams. 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Number of inventoried stream crossings on designated roads and motorized trails. 

All Management Areas (MAs): No change 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5, 7, 11, 13: No Change MAs 11: Degrade 

MAs 3, 9, 10: Improvement MAs 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13: No Change MAs 2, 6, 11, 12: Degrade 

MAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: Improvement MAs 1, 5, 13: No Change 

2 - 66 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

2.7.3 Fisheries 

Table 2-35. Fisheries Issue 1 

Travel management may impact habitats for threatened, endangered, and sensitive fishes including the bull trout (a ManagSpecies). 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Change in WCI for substrate embeddedness 

All watersheds are temporarily maintained and would degrade in the short and long term. Direct effects not consistent with Forest Plan direction to avoid degradation of WCIs, because there is no long term benefit. Travel management revisions and compliance with Forest Plan direction would occur at an unknown rate. 

Temporarily, condition would be maintained in Deep Creek and tributaries to the Brownlee Reservoir, Weiser River basin, Little Salmon River basin, Salmon River most tributaries between the Little Salmon River and SFSR, and the SFSR tributaries. All these areas would degrade in short and long term at lower rates than by making no change, hence this would benefit listed fish. Big Creek, Partridge, and Lake Creeks are maintained. This Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan. 

Conditions in Deep Creek, tributaries to Brownlee Reservoir, Weiser River basin, Little Salmon River basin, most Salmon River tributaries between the Little Salmon and SFSR (except Partridge and Lake creeks), and lower SFSR tributaries and in the Secesh River would degrade in short and long term at lower rates than by making no change, hence this would benefit listed fish. Big Creek, Partridge Creek and Lake Creek are maintained. Tributaries to upper SFSR basin & East Fork SFSR would degrade, and are therefore, not consistent with Forest Plan. 

Conditions in Deep Creektributaries to the Brownlee Reservoir, Weiser River basin, most Little Salmon River basin, Salmon River between the Little Salmon River and the upper SFSRand the SFSR tributaries ithe Secesh would degrade in short and long term, at lower rates than by making no change, hence this would benefit listed fish. Big Creek, Little Salmon River – Elk, Partridge Creek, and Lake Creek armaintained. Tributaries to the lower SFSR basin and in the East Fork SFSR would improve. This Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-35. Fisheries Issue 1 

Travel management may impact habitats for threatened, endangered, and sensitive fishes including the bull trout (a ManagSpecies). 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Change in WCI for stream bank condition 

All watersheds would be maintained during all time periods. This Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan. 

Conditions would be maintained in Deep Creek, Indian Creek, and tributaries to Weiser River basin, some tributaries to Little Salmon River basin, some tributaries to Salmon River between Little Salmon River and SFSR, and SFSR tributaries in the Secesh River and downriver from there, and Big Creek. Tributaries to Brea Creek and Crooked River, Most Little Salmon River basin tributaries, Middle Salmon- Indian, Warren Creek, French Creek, Partridge Creek, Lake Creek, and SFSR basin except those in the Secesh River basin would improve. This Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan. 

Conditions would be maintained in Deep Creek, Wildhorse River tributaries, and tributaries to Weiser River basin, Little Salmon River basin, many Salmon River tributaries between the Little Salmon River & SFSR (except tributaries to Warren Creek) and SFSR in the East Fork SFSR and Secesh River. Tributaries to Middle Salmon - Indian and Warren Creek, and French Creek would improve. Tributaries to upper and lower SFSR would degrade. This alternative is not consistent with Forest Plan direction for the tributaries to the upper and lower SFSR. 

Conditions would be maintained in Deep CreekIndian Creek, most tributaries to the Weiser River basin, most tributaries to the Little Salmon River basin, and Big Creek. Bear Creek, Crooked River, and Little Weiser River, several Little Salmon River tributaries, and Salmon River tributaries between the Little Salmon River and SFSR and the entire SFSR basin would improve. This Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan. 

2 - 68 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

2.7.4 Wildlife 

Table 2-36. Wildlife Issue 1 

Motorized travel may affect summer and winter elk habitat and elk vulnerability during hunting season. Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Summer Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use. 

No change from 511,000 0* 0* 0* 

Density (mi/mi.2) of open NFS roads and motorized trails by watershed1 in summer 

No change: 4 of 43 watersheds ≥ 2 mi/mi.2 

See Table W-13 Slight decrease: 4 of 43 watersheds ≥ 2 mi/mi.2 

See Table W-13 Slight increase: 4 of 43 watersheds ≥ 2 mi/mi.2 

See Table W-13 Decrease: 3 of 43 watersheds ≥ 2 mi/mi.2 

Hunting Season Percent of elk security habitat available during hunting season 

3 of 27 Elk Analysis Areas (EAAs) >30% 

Slight benefits: 3 of 27 EAAs >30% 

Slight reduction: 3 of 27 EAAs >30% 

Slight benefits: 3 of 27 EAAs >30% 

Density (mi/mi.2) of open NFS roads and motorized trails by watershed1 in fall 

No change: all 43 watersheds < 2 mi/mi.2 

Slight decrease: all watersheds < 2 mi/mi.2 

Slight increase: all watersheds < 2 mi/mi.2 

Decrease: all watersheds < 2 mi/mi.2 

Winter Miles groomed snowmobile routes within elk winter range 

4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 

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

81,000 (43%) 81,000 (43%) 90,200 (48%) 72,700 (39%) 

* - except for travel 300 feet off open roads and 150 off motorized trails for purpose of dispersed camping 1 - Five watersheds comprised of very low amounts (less than 1,000 acres) of NFS lands were not included in analysis Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Table 2-37. Wildlife Issue 2 

Motorized travel may affect Canada lynx habitat during summer and winter (over-snow). Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Summer Density of roads and motorized trails within lynx habitat 

< 2 miles/sq. mile < 2 miles/sq. mile < 2 miles/sq. mile < 2 miles/sq. mile 

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

687,600 open (74%) 

239,000 closed (26%) 

675,100 open (73%) 

251,500 closed (27%) 

746,500 open (81%) 

180,000closed (19%) 

533,100 open (58%) 

393,500 closed (32%) 

Miles groomed snowmobile routes within lynx habitat 137 129 137 129 Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity Moderate Moderate High Low 

Table 2-38. Wildlife Issue 3 

Over-snow vehicle use may affect wolverine denning habitat. Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Wolverine denning habitat closed to over-snow vehicle use 

31% 33% 28% 65% 

Effects of over-snow vehicle use on habitat connectivity Moderate Moderate Moderate to high Very Low 2 - 70 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Table 2-39. Wildlife Issue 4 

Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of the pileated woodpecker (MIS), the white-headed woodpecker (MIS 

and the three-toed woodpecker (Sensitive species). 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations 

All alternatives may impact individuals but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cto populations or species of three-toed woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and pileated woodpec

Table 2-40. Wildlife Issue 5 

Travel management may affect habitat and/or populations of threatened, endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species. Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations 

Any alternative may affect bald eagles but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles or their habitat. None of the action alternatives would jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. Any alternative is likely to adversely affect northern Idaho ground squirrels or their habitat. For the spotted frog, boreal owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, goshawk and fisher all alternatives mawould not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the populatio

Table 2-41. Wildlife Issue 6 

Travel management may affect migratory bird species. Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Changes in habitat and potential effects on individuals and populations 

Minimal habitat modification would take place under the alternatives proposed for the PNF Travel Plan. All alteindividuals and habitat, but would not indicate a local or regional change in habitat quality or populatiobirds. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

2.8 Winter Area Management The following table and six maps summarize winter area management by alternative. 

Table 2-42. Winter Motorized Closures by Main Purpose, Acres, and Alternative 

Winter Motorized Closures by Main Purpose, Acres, and Alternative 

MA No. Management 

Area Name 

1 Hells Canyon 2 Snake River 3 Weiser River 4 Rapid River 5 Middle Little 

Salmon River 

6 Goose 

Creek/Hazard 

Creek 

7 Payette Lakes 8 Kennally Creek 9 Lake 

Creek/French 

Creek 

10 Fall 

Creek/Warren 

Creek 

11 Upper Secesh 

River 

12 South Fork 

Salmon River 

13 Big 

Creek/Stibnite 

Alternative A 

Closure Purpose: 

Existng 

Closure Rec* Wildlife 

Alternative B 

Closure Purpose: 

Existng 

Closure Rec Wildlife 

Alternative C 

Closure Purpose: 

Existng 

Closure Rec Wildlife 

Alternative D 

Closure Purpose: 

Existng 

Closure Rec Wildlife 

32,061 32,061 32,061 32,061 

64,233 64,233 64,231 64,233 

32,388 32,388 31,625 32,388 

23,802 

23,802 

23,802 23,802 6,223 

2,469 2,406 2,494 

3,479 82 

3,479 

4,921 3,479 3,656 

3,479 

13,869 1,871 

26,699 26,699 8,136 23,813 277 26,699 23,938 2,143 

2,325 

2,325 

2,322 2,325 5,849 

62,096 

20,896 20,896 20,896 14,954 

11,231 

11,231 

2,754 11,231 14,104 

216,955 

216,955 

1,967 165,574 216,955 1,971 30,437 

17,043 

17,043 

17,043 17,043 24,933 

“Existing Closures” originated in the prior Forest Plan (1988) and were frequently for big game habitat protection. *”Rec” = Recreation 2 - 72 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Figure 2-1. Winter Motorized Closure Areas 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Figure 2-2. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative A 

2 - 74 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Figure 2-3. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative B 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Figure 2-4. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative C 

2 - 76 Payette National 
CHAPTER 2

Figure 2-5. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative D 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATI V E S 

Figure 2-6. Winter Motorized Closure Areas Alternative E 

2 - 78 Payette National