Summary 
SUMMARY 

Summary 

Introduction 

The Payette National Forest (PNF) completed this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze 

the environmental effects of revision of the Travel Management Plan. The plan would designate a 

system of roads, trails, and areas open to motorized and non-motorized use on the portion of the Payette 

National Forest outside of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONRW) (Figure 1­

1). 

This EIS has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The EIS analyzes and discloses the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from approving the proposed plan or one of 

the alternatives to the plan. 

Purpose and Need 

Purpose 

The Payette National Forest Supervisor identified the following as the purpose for a revised Travel 

Management Plan: 

• Meet Forest Plan and national direction. 

• Limit indiscriminate motorized cross-country travel. 

• Designate a system of roads, trails, and over-snow use areas. 

• Balance management considerations (such as maintenance costs and public safety) with 

recreation opportunities. 

• Reduce impacts to Forest resources. 

• Reduce conflicts between recreational uses. 

Need 

The need for revision of the Travel Management Plan was identified in the 2003 Payette National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (ROD) (Forest Plan 2003). The 

responsible official for the Forest Plan made the decision to address travel management under a 

separate, more localized planning process. The Forest Plan provided a framework for travel 

management planning. This framework requires that travel management (as with all management of the 

PNF) emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed conditions, species viability, terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats, and functioning ecosystems. 

The existing Travel Management Plan is required to comply with this framework as well as specific 

Forest Plan direction. To not identify and adopt a comprehensive revised Travel Management Plan 

does not mean that the existing Travel Management Plan would be maintained into the future. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan framework could be achieved incrementally through many small 

analyses and decisions, or it could be achieved comprehensively through analysis of the Travel 

Management Plan across the Forest for winter and summer travel. The responsible official chose the 

latter course. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 1 
SUMMARY 

Figure S-1. Project Area for the Payette National Forest Travel Plan 

S - 2 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

The following Forest Plan goals provide the focus for revision of the Travel Management Plan 

(additional direction is included in section 1.7.1, and Chapters 2 and 3): 

• Provide and maintain a safe, efficient Forest transportation system that meets resource 

management and access needs, while mitigating degrading resource effects. (Forest Plan 2003: p. 

III-58: FRGO01) 

• Manage motorized and non-motorized travel and travel related facilities to: a) provide for public 

safety, b) meet resource objectives and access needs, c) mitigate road and trail damage, and d) 

minimize maintenance costs and user conflicts. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-62: REGO05) 

• Provide an array of winter recreation experiences, while mitigating conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized use and wintering wildlife. (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-62: REGO06) 

The following Forest Plan standard was a key requirement for the revised Travel Management Plan: 

• On all lands outside of designated travel ways, motorized use shall be prohibited unless otherwise 

authorized (Forest Plan 2003: p. III-64: REST04). 

During the Forest Plan revision process, Payette National Forest specialists identified a variety of 

resource concerns related to travel management including conflicts between recreational uses 

(particularly in winter), and impacts to wildlife, fish, and water quality from cross-country motorized 

travel, and use of unauthorized roads. Inconsistent travel management direction across the Forest was 

also causing problems with the enforcement of travel regulations. Much of the eastern portion of the 

PNF was closed to cross-country motorized travel, while large areas on the western portion of the PNF 

were open to cross-country motorized travel. 

The need for revision of the PNF Travel Management Plan is also supported by a nationwide 

awareness within the Forest Service of the harmful effects of indiscriminate off-road travel. This led to 

the Forest Service final rule in the Federal Register: 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, 295 “Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” (Federal Register 2005: 

70FR68264). This rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. The 

rule prohibits use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on 

routes and in areas inconsistent with the designation. The final rule does not require that over-snow 

vehicles (such as snowmobiles) are limited to a designated system by exempting them under CFR 

212.51 (p.111), but states in CFR 212.81 (p. 116) that “use by over-snow vehicles...on National Forest 

System lands may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited.” The PNF choose to include over-snow 

vehicles in this analysis based on direction in the Forest Plan, and the previously identified need to 

address both conflicts between uses and resource impacts in winter. Designation of over-snow motor 

vehicle use will be made under 36 CFR 212.81 in this decision. 

Decisions to be Made 

The Payette National Forest Supervisor, the responsible official for this project, has determined that 

preparation of an EIS is required for a decision on the proposed plan under Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 

1500-1508). 

Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor will review the Proposed Action and alternatives, 

and consider the environmental consequences of all alternatives in order to make the following 

decisions for summer and winter travel on the PNF: 

• Which roads, trails, and areas to add or subtract from the existing Travel Management Plan. 

• What type of uses to allow on these roads, trails, and areas. 

• What design features are necessary to minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with 

changes in travel management designations. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 3 
SUMMARY 

• How management parameters (such as safety and cost) should be balanced with recreation 

opportunities. 

• What monitoring is to be included to evaluate project implementation. 

• What changes are to be made to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 

• Whether to approve amendments to the Forest Plan. 

Public Involvement 

Nine newspaper articles and press releases regarding the travel planning effort were published in the 

local and regional papers since spring of 2004, including The Star News (McCall), The Long Valley 

Advocate (Cascade), The Adams County Record (Council), The Weiser Signal American (Weiser), 

and the Idaho Statesman (Boise). Legal notices were published in The Star News and The Idaho 

Statesman. 

Proposed Action 

Public involvement for this project officially began in October 2004 when the proposed action was 

issued to the public. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 

2004. Public comment was taken for 96 days through January 7, 2005. Many comments were received, 

including 130 comment forms, 165 emails, 34 faxes, 254 letters, and 964 postcards. All comments 

received were reviewed and categorized by issue. Major issues were incorporated into the design of 

two new alternatives. Documents detailing the review of public comments and how the agency 

incorporated the substantive comments into new alternative design are available in the Project Record. 

The McCall Winter Recreation Forum is a group of people representing various groups interested in 

winter recreational use of the PNF. The group has worked with the Payette National Forest for many 

years and identified a variety of proposals to address winter recreation use. Although the group did not 

come to agreement on a unified proposal, aspects of various members’ proposals were incorporated 

into one or more of the alternatives for the Travel Management Plan. 

Five public meetings were held in September and October of 2004, in McCall, Riggins, Council, New 

Meadows, and Weiser, Idaho. Informational meetings were held at the request of many stakeholders 

during the scoping phase of the project. 

The project (including the Proposed Action, press releases, and additional information) was featured on 

the PNF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette. The Proposed Action maps, narratives, and 

summaries were available for review at the Weiser Ranger District, the Council Ranger District, the 

New Meadows Ranger District, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in Riggins, and the Payette 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office in McCall. 

Scoping letters were sent to three Tribal Nations: the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes of Duck Valley, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Formal government–to-government consultation on 

this project has occurred with the Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone Bannock Tribe, and Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribe including staff correspondence, and tribal council briefings. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

The DEIS was published in early February of 2006. The comment period on the DEIS officially began 

on February 17, 2006 when the Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register. The 

Forest initially established a 46-day comment period. The comment period was extended an additional 

46 days at the request of members of the public. 

Five public meetings were held in February and March of 2006, in Boise, Weiser, Council, New 

Meadows, and McCall. The DEIS and accompanying maps were featured on the PNF website. Copies 

of the DEIS and the maps were available at all Forest offices. 

S - 4 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Copies of the DEIS were sent to three Tribal Nations: the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the ShoshonePaiute Tribes of Duck Valley, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Formal government-to-government 

consultation on the project continued with the Nez Perce Tribe and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe. 

During the 92-day comment period on the DEIS, the Forest received approximately 450 comments 

including letters, emails, and faxes. All comments received were reviewed and categorized by issue. 

The Forest then developed a new action alternative, Alternative E, to respond to these comments and to 

address Ranger District specific needs and preferences. 

Cooperating Agencies 

At the request of a local Board of County Commissioners, the PNF offered cooperating agency status 

to the four counties where PNF lands occur. Adams, Idaho, Valley, and Washington counties were 

offered and accepted cooperating agency status in the environmental analysis process. Cooperating 

agency representatives from Adams, Valley, and Washington counties participated in meetings, review 

of public comments, identification of issues and alternatives, briefings, and document reviews with the 

project NEPA Coordinator, Forest Supervisor, and project Interdisciplinary Team. Representatives of 

Idaho Parks and Recreation also participated. Due to time limitations, the Idaho County Board of 

Commissioners decided to withdraw as a cooperating agency. 

The cooperating agencies also held public meetings on the Proposed Action and potential alternatives 

and provided information on these meetings to the Forest Service. 

Issues 

Forest Service staff reviewed public, agency, and Tribal comments on the Proposed Action to identify 

issues and concerns. Potential issues generated from letters and public meetings were catalogued by 

subject and a determination made as to how the issues would be addressed. Documents detailing the 

review of public comments and how the agency incorporated the substantive comments into new 

alternative design are in the Project Record. 

Issues were separated into two groups: significant issues used to formulate an alternative or for 

disclosure, and non-significant issues. The CEQ regulations specify that analysis focus only on 

significant issues. Issues determined not to be significant or covered by prior environmental review are 

discussed only briefly and eliminated from detailed study [40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(b), 1500.4(c), 

1501.7(3), 1502.2(b), 1506.3]. 

Section 102(2) (e) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that all federal agencies 

shall “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 

Unresolved conflicts focused on: 

1) Allocation of motorized and non-motorized routes and areas in summer and winter, and 

2) Maintenance of landscape connectivity in winter for large carnivores, specifically wolverine 

and lynx. 

Appropriate alternatives must meet the purpose and need for the project, as well as address the 

unresolved conflicts determined to be significant issues. Three alternatives to the Proposed Action 

(Alternative B) were identified (see Chapter 2). Alternative C provides more motorized roads and trails 

in summer, and larger areas open to over-snow motorized use in winter. Alternative D provides more 

non-motorized trails in summer and closes additional areas in winter for non-motorized use and 

maintenance of landscape connectivity. Alternative E responds to comments received in response to the 

draft EIS. These alternatives are fully described in Chapter 2. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 5 
SUMMARY 

Significant Issues 

Significant issues are issues used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed Action, prescribe mitigation 

measures, or analyze and disclose environmental effects. Indicators are measures used to track the 

effects of the actions on the issues. The significant issues and the indicators for each are provided 

below. For a background statement for each significant issue, see Chapter 3 for the corresponding issue. 

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping: 

Recreation Issue 1: Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized 

recreation activities in summer. 

Indicators: 

• Miles of open road and seasonally open NFS road. 

• Miles of two-wheel motorized trail and non-motorized trail. 

• Miles of ATV trail. 

• Miles of OHV trail (full four-wheel drive vehicle) trail. 

• Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use. 

Recreation Issue 2: Travel management may affect opportunities for motorized and non-motorized 

recreation activities in winter. 

Indicators: 

• Acres open and closed to over-snow vehicles. 

• Use areas with clear boundary designations. 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile trail. 

• Proximity of non-motorized areas to parking and access points for winter based activities. 

• Approximate acres of skiable terrain (defined by slope, PNF strata, and elevation) in nonmotorized areas. 

Recreation Issue 3: Travel management may affect road and trail program costs. 

Indicators: 

• Costs to program management. 

Recreation Issue 4: Travel management may affect the safety of recreationists due to the amount and 

location of motorized and non-motorized areas and trails. 

Indicators: 

• Degree of public safety provided based on separation of uses. 

Recreation Issue 5: Changes in motorized use may affect Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

settings for both summer and winter use. 

Indicators: 

• Change to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 

Roadless Character and Wilderness Issue 1: Increases in motorized use may affect wilderness 

potential, and wilderness attributes in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 

Indicators: 

• Effects to wilderness potential. 

• Effects to wilderness attributes of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs): natural appearance, natural 

integrity, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive recreation, and special features. 

S - 6 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Soil & Water Issue 1: The type, extent, and location of roads, trails, and motorized areas in the Travel 

Management Plan may degrade soil productivity, accelerate erosion, and deliver sediment to streams. 

Indicators: 

• Percent of the Management Area (MA) designated open to cross-country motor vehicle use 

and/or limited motorized access. 

• Percent of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) in designated areas open to cross-country motor 

vehicle use and/or limited motorized access. 

• Miles of designated roads. 

• Miles of designated two-wheel motorized trails. 

• Miles of designated ATV and OHV trails. 

• Miles of designated roads and motorized trails in subwatersheds with a high watershed 

vulnerability rating. 

• Miles of designated roads and motorized trails within RCAs. 

• Number of inventoried stream crossings on designated roads and motorized trails. 

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

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

Indicators: 

• Change in the watershed condition indicator (WCI) for substrate embeddedness. 

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

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

during hunting season. 

Indicators – Summer: 

• Acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use. 

• Density of open NFS roads and motorized trails by watershed in summer. 

Indicators – Hunting Season: 

• Percent of elk security habitat available during hunting season. 

• Density of open NFS roads and motorized trails by watershed in fall. 

Indicators – Winter: 

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within elk winter range. 

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

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

Indicators – Summer: 

• Density of roads and motorized trails within lynx habitat. 

Indicators – Winter: 

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

• Miles of groomed snowmobile routes within lynx habitat. 

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

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

Indicators: 

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

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 7 
SUMMARY 

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

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

woodpecker (PNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) for large tree and snag dependent species), the 

white-headed woodpecker (MIS and sensitive species), and the three-toed woodpecker (sensitive 

species). 

Indicators 

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

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

and Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Indicators 

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

Wildlife Issue 6: Travel management may affect migratory bird species. 

Indicators: 

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

Alternatives 

Introduction 

This section describes the Proposed Action and a range of alternatives 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. 

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 

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. 

S - 8 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

• 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 Opening portions of the Secesh and Needles Recommended 

Wilderness Areas to Over-snow Vehicle Use. 

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. 

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). 

• 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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 9 
SUMMARY 

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”. 

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. 

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. 

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 

S - 10 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

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, a new Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) reflecting the revisions to travel 

management would replace the 1995 Travel Management Map. 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 

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. 

• 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. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 11 
SUMMARY 

• 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. 

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. Newly designated 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. 

S - 12 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

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. 

 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). 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 13 
SUMMARY 

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. 

• 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. 

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. 

S - 14 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 15 
SUMMARY 

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. 

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 

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 

S - 16 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

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 

NFS open road: 1,118.1 miles 

NFS seasonally open road: 494.6 miles 

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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 17 
SUMMARY 

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 

would 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 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. Since there are no activities proposed in MA 1 to offset the effects and move toward 

Desired Conditions for soil and water resources, proposal 1-1, would require a one-time, site-specific, 

non-significant amendment in Management Area 1 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: 

“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 

S - 18 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

 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 

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. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 19 
SUMMARY 

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 

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 overlapping motorized and non-motorized use areas. 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. 

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 

S - 20 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

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 

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 

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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS S - 21 
SUMMARY 

NFS seasonally open road: 508.7 miles 

Table S-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 

S - 22 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
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. 

Recreation 

Table S-2. 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 
SUMMARY 

Table S-3. 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 

S - 24 Payette National 
Table S-3. 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 
SUMMARY 

Table S-3. 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. 

S - 26 Payette National 
Table S-4. 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 
SUMMARY 

Table S-5. 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. 

S - 28 Payette National 
Table S-6. 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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Roadless Character and Wilderness 

Table S-7. 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 

S - 30 Payette National 
Soil and Water 

Table S-8. 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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Table S-8. 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 

S - 32 Payette National 
Table S-8. 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 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Fisheries 

Table S-9. 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. 

S - 34 Payette National 
Table S-9. 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. 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Wildlife 

Table S-10. 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 S - 36 Payette National 
Table S-11. 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 S-12. 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 Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS 
SUMMARY 

Table S-12. 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 S-13. 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 S-14. 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. 

S - 38 Payette National