United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

March 2005 

Draft 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Caribou Travel Plan Revision EIS 

Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Bannock, Bear River, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida and Power Counties, 

Idaho; Box Elder and Cache Counties, Utah; Lincoln County, Wyoming 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Caribou Travel Plan Revision EIS 

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Bannock, Bear River, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida and Power Counties, Idaho; Box 

Elder and Cache Counties, Utah; Lincoln County, Wyoming 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: Jerry R. Reese, Forest Supervisor 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 

Headquaters Office 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

For Information Contact: Debrah Tiller, Team Leader 

Caribou-Targhee NF 

1405 Hollipark Dr. 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

 208-524-7500

Abstract: The purpose of the travel planning analysis is to determine the motorized road and 

trail system, the non-motorized trail system, and snowmobile use for the Caribou portion of the

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. It will also determine the closure methods that would be 

applied to routes closed year long. The analysis considers the effects of five travel planning 

alternatives. Design features and mitigation have been incorporated into the alternatives to reduce 

impacts to forest’s resources. The alternatives were analyzed for effectiveness in resolving the 

agency, public and cooperators’ issues, for avoidance of unnecessary impacts to resources, and

for compliance with the Revised Forest Plan, statutes and regulations. Alternative Five is the 

preferred alternative to meet the access needs of the public and others while reducing impacts to 

resources. The deciding officer for this project is Jerry B. Reese, Forest Supervisor of the 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. For more information, please contact Deb Tiller at the Forest’s

Headquarters Office at 208-557-5779. 

i
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond 

to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy

Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and 

should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 

1503.3). 

Send Comments to: Jerry R. Reese, Forest Supervisor 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Headquaters Office 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

 

Date Comments Must Be Received: May 13, 2005 

ii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

SUMMARY 

The Caribou -Targhee National Forest proposes to revise the Caribou Travel Plan. The area affected by

the proposal includes portions of the Caribou and Cache National Forests administered by the Westside, 

Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts. This action will revise the Caribou Travel Plan to reflect 

the direction and guidance of the 2003 Caribou Revised Forest Plan (RFP). The RFP provides

programmatic direction for forest management and will guide forest activities for the next 10 to 15 years. 

The DEIS will consider both summer and winter travel, or snow and snow-free season travel. The current 

effort is expected to lead to a Final Environmental Impact Statement by early summer of 2005. 

 

The increased popularity and widespread use of Off Highway Vehicles, or OHV’s, on public lands in the 

early 1970’s prompted the development of a unified federal policy for such use. Executive Order (EO) 

11644 (1972) and EO 11989 (1977) provide direction for federal agencies to establish policies and 

procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on public lands as to (1) protect the resources of those 

lands; (2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and 

(3) minimize conflicts among various uses on those lands. In this document, OHVs are defined as any

vehicle that is designed to travel off of paved roadways. They include full sized 4-wheel drive vehicles, 

motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles or ATVs. 

Forest travel plans define which roads and trails are open for what types of travel and at what time of 

year. The revised travel plan will implement direction for snow and snow-free travel and access as 

defined by the 2003 Revised Forest Plan (RFP) for the Caribou NF. The current travel plan does not 

reflect the access direction of the RFP. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Northwest Band of the Shoshone have ancestral Treaty Rights to uses 

of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the Curlew National Grassland. The relationship of the 

United States government with American Indian tribes is based on legal agreements between sovereign 

nations. The Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868 granted hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to tribal 

members on “all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game is present thereon.” This right 

applies to all public domain lands reserved for National Forest purposes that are presently administered 

by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. These rights are still in effect, and management actions 

recognize these rights. Consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Council is required on land 

management activities and land allocations that could affect these rights. 

Public outreach and open houses held for the forest plan revision included discussions of the future travel 

plan revision and the route designation process. In January of 2004, the Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership held a two-day workshop to discuss travel issues on the eastside of the Caribou. 

Local trail users were invited to explore the issues related to the upcoming travel plan revision for the 

Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts at the weekend workshop. Although the Forest Service did 

not sponsor the workshop, forest staff was present to answer questions and to listen to the participants’

views on road and trail management. The NOI to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this 

project was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2004. 

 

Public notification included mailings, press releases and information posted on the forest’s internet 

website. In an effort to reach statewide trail users, the State of Idaho Parks and Recreation Department 

included a notice of Forest Service travel planning on their website which included a link our website. 

User groups, agencies and counties requested forest staff meet with them to discuss the proposed action. 

Evening meetings were held for the general public during March and April 2004 where forest personnel 

discussed the Proposed Action maps and related issues with trail users, land owners and others. 

Throughout the travel planning process, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) gathered comments on the 

Proposed Action, and possible alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

i
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Preliminary issues were identified through public comments and IDT concerns-from these issues, 

significant issues were defined. These are issues that are directly or indirectly caused by implementing 

the proposed action and they define alternatives to the proposed action. 

Issue #1 - The Proposed Action does not designate as many snow-free motorized routes as 

allowed by the RFP and restricts snowmobile travel. Some people feel the proposed action is not 

responsive to the demand for motorized travel opportunities. 

Issue #2 - The Proposed Action does not designate enough trails and areas that provide a nonmotorized experience. Some people feel this is not responsive to the demand for non-motorized 

settings. 

Issue #3 - The Proposed Action designates some motorcycle trails for ATV use. Some people 

want to retain single-track motorcycle trails. 

 

Issue #4 - The Proposed Action manages the Huckleberry Basin area on the Soda Springs 

District as open to cross-country motorized use during the snow-free season. Some people feel 

snow-free motorized travel should be restricted to designated routes on the entire forest to provide 

management consistency and to benefit resource conditions. 

Issue #5 - The RFP sets Open Motorized Route Densities, OMRDs, to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife and to maintain quality recreation settings. The Proposed Action exceeds prescription 

OMRDs in some areas. 

Issue #6 - The Proposed Action designates some motorized travel routes within areas that Idaho 

Fish and Game would like to see managed as non-motorized. The Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game wants to reduce wildlife disturbance from motorized travel and provide more nonmotorized areas for hunters. 

Issue #7 - The Proposed Action designates motorized travel routes and proposes route closures 

that have the potential to affect soils, especially on unstable soil types. 

Issue #8 - The Proposed Action designates motorized travel routes during the snow-free season 

within riparian areas, or Aquatic Influence Zones (AIZs). Some people are concerned with the 

effects of designated motorized routes on watershed conditions. 

Issue #9 - The Proposed Action designates snow-free motorized travel routes within riparian 

areas. Some people are concerned with the effects of designated motorized travel routes on fish

and fish habitat. 

These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: 

Alternative One, No Action 

Including a “no action” alternative in the analysis is required by the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations. This alternative consists of the management and restrictions for travel routes and areas as

depicted on the 2002 Caribou Travel Map, with the addition of the 2003 Special Order1. In 2003, a 

Special Order was added to the 2002 Caribou Travel Plan Map that prohibited cross-country motorized 

travel during the snow-free season on most areas of the forest. In areas that were formerly open to cross-

 

1 Travel Plans are legally enforced through the issue of a Special Order signed by the Forest Supervisor.

ii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

country motorized travel, any road or trail depicted on the 2002 Travel Map became a designated 

motorized route. 

This alternative has 1,010 miles of designated road, 680 miles of designated ATV trail, and 170 miles of 

designated motorcycle trail, and 600 miles of designated non-motorized trail. 

Summer or Snow-free Season Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions and the Winschell Dugway non-motorized trail remain the same as depicted on 

the 2002 Travel Map. The Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized travel. This 

alternative retains the closure dates of all routes and areas, as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. 

Winter or Snow Season Travel 

Designated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. Areas 

managed as non-motorized during the snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with 

these exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile use during the snow season, as

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

• Additional closures to motorized travel (snowmobiles) during snow season are the eastern slope 

of Bonneville Peak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the 

RFP prescriptions. 

Features Common to Alternatives Two, Three, Four and Five 

Trail Construction 

New trail construction of under 1⁄4 mile is considered with this decision and varies between alternatives. 

Proposed new construction consists of “connector” segments which would tie existing travel routes 

together. 

Non-system travel routes 

Designating non-system travel routes for motorized travel is considered with this decision and varies by

action alternative. A designated travel route is will become a part of the transportation system. 

Travel Route Closures 

Travel routes not needed for public access or other approved access will be closed. 

Travel route closures and methods are considered with this decision. The routes to be closed vary by

alternative. A few miles of travel route are proposed for decommissioning. This is proposed in areas that 

have parallel routes, and one route will be designated and the other closed. 

Alternative Two, Proposed Action 

The proposed action for the Caribou Travel Plan Revision was created by district staffs using an updated 

roads and trails inventory and direction identified in the Revised Forest Plan (RFP). 

This alternative has 970 miles of designated road, 690 miles of designated ATV trail, and 140 miles of 

designated motorcycle trail, and 700 miles of designated non-motorized trail. 

iii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Summer or Snow-free Season Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions remain the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. This alternative retains 

the closure dates of all routes and areas, as depicted on the 2002 Caribou travel plan map (site specific 

closures may be determined by Ranger). The Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized 

travel and a “core” area within the Stump Peak drainage is managed for a non-motorized setting. 

The Winschell Dugway is managed as a designated motorized trail open to vehicles under 50” in width, 

or ATVs; if further analysis and design prove that the ATV trail is feasible to build and maintain and that 

the ATV trail would meet Plan standards and guidelines. The final decision to construct/reconstruct the 

historic route as a motorized route would require further design and analysis. This alternative proposes to 

decommission 5 miles of motorized trail, in areas that have parallel routes. 

 

Winter or Snow Travel 

Designated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map, with 

additional routes through areas of new winter range prescription. Areas managed as non-motorized 

during the snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with these exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile travel during the snow season, as 

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

• Additional closures to motorized travel (snowmobiles) during snow season are the eastern slope 

of Bonneville Peak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the 

RFP prescriptions. 

 

Alternative Three

Alternative Three was developed from wildlife issues received by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

they would like the travel plan to emphasize managing large areas as non-motorized during the snow-free 

season, to reduce wildlife disturbance from motorized travel and to offer a non-motorized hunting 

experience. This alternative manages some designated roads and trails as closed to motorized travel 

during the snow-free season creating larger non-motorized areas in Upper West Portneuf Range, the East 

Portneuf Range, Elkhorn Mt and Oxford Peak of Westside District and in the Bear River Range of the 

Montpelier District in addition to the Stump Peak drainage non-motorized area. 

This alternative has 940 miles of designated road, 490 miles of designated ATV trail, and 100 miles of 

designated motorcycle trail, and 930 miles of designated non-motorized trail. 

Snow Free Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions and seasonal closures remain the same as the No Action and Proposed Action. 

Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized travel. The Winschell Dugway is managed as 

a designated non-motorized trail. This alternative manages Trail 331, on the eastern slopes of Elkhorn 

Mt., as a non-motorized trail. 

Snow Travel 

Snow-season travel remains the same as in Alternative Two, the Proposed Action. 

iv
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Four 

Alternative Four was developed from issues received by a local trail group, the Southeast Idaho 

Recreation Alliance. This group wanted an alternative to the Proposed Action that emphasized managing 

more areas for a “non-motorized” setting during the snow and snow-free seasons. This alternative 

manages some designated roads and trails as closed to motorized travel during the snow-free season 

creating more non-motorized areas forest-wide. These areas are similar to the non-motorized areas in 

Alternative Three. This alternative manages additional areas as non-motorized during the snow season. 

 

Summer or Snow Free Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions and seasonal closures remain the same as the No Action and Proposed Action. 

In the Huckleberry Basin area motorized travel is restricted to designated routes. The Winschell Dugway

is managed as a designated non-motorized trail. This alternative manages Trail 331, on the eastern slopes 

of Elkhorn Mt., as a non-motorized trail. 

This alternative has 900 miles of designated road, 4300 miles of designated ATV trail, and 100 miles of 

designated motorcycle trail, and 1,050 miles of designated non-motorized trail. 

Winter or Snow Travel 

Designated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. Areas 

of new winter range do not have designated snowmobile routes going through them. Areas managed as 

non-motorized during the snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with these 

exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile travel during the snow season, as 

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

• Additional closures to snowmobile travel during snow season are the eastern slope of Bonneville 

Peak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the RFP 

prescriptions, and additional areas in Mink Creek, Gibson Jack and Trail Creek on the Westside 

District as mapped in the Alternative Four Snow Season Travel Map. 

• The boundary for the eastern slope of Mt. Bonneville snowmobile closure has been changed from

RFP prescription. The boundary moves north to take in “Strawberry Fields” as depicted on the 

Alternative Four Snow Season Travel Map. 

Alternative Five 

This alterative was developed from the proposed action with specific changes in response to resource 

concerns, issues of non-motorized settings, the quality of motorized opportunities and the initial findings 

of the Travel Plan Roads Analysis. This alternative emphasizes improving motorized opportunities 

through loop routes and offering some additional non-motorized trails and areas close to Pocatello. 

Closure boundaries have been altered for some non-motorized snow season areas to improve compliance. 

This alternative has 950 miles of designated road, 700 miles of designated ATV trail, and 130 miles of 

designated motorcycle trail, and 700 miles of designated non-motorized trail. 

v
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Snow Free Travel 

Snow free travel for this alternative is the same as the Proposed Action with these exceptions: 

• Mountain bike are restricted to designated motorized routes on the Westside District with some 

exceptions. On the Soda Springs and Montpelier Districts, mountain bikes are restricted to 

existing routes. 

• Motorized travel is restricted to designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin area. 

• This alternative does not manage the Winschell Dugway as a designated trail, motorized or nonmotorized, due to maintenance concerns. Portions of the trail can be traveled by hikers, stock 

users, and people on mountain bikes, but the route will not be maintained to standard. 

• This alternative would provide direction to explore a preliminary design and analysis for new trail 

construction for a designated motorized trail paralleling Cub River Road, from Albert Moser 

Campground to Willow Flat Campground. This trail would allow trail users of all kinds to travel 

to other recreation destinations without mixing with the full-sized vehicle traffic on Cub River 

Road. 

• This alternative proposes to decommission five miles of motorized trail, in areas that have 

parallel routes. 

This alternative proposes three new motorized loop opportunities on the Montpelier District: 

 

Motorized Loop #1: A designated motorized trail exists between Squirrel Hollow and Main Canyon. 

ATVs use the trail from both sides of the watershed divide, but a 200 yard length of rocky ridge keeps the 

routes from connecting. There is an opportunity to relocate the trail to the north of the ridge. The route 

goes through forested vegetation near the top of the slope. The re-route improves an existing, very tight,

switchback. 

Motorized Loop #2: A designated road exists into the Hawks Roost area. A collection of non-system

logging roads and user-created trails exist south of Summit View Campground. Firewood gatherers and 

ATV riders have created a route south until it was within a quarter of a mile of the Hawks Roost Road. A 

properly located connector to these two routes would create a loop for motorized use in close to proximity

to popular camping areas. 

 

Motorized Loop #3: The Green Mountain Road runs along the top of the east face of Green Mountain. 

A different road of unknown origin (possibly mineral exploration) leaves the Diamond Creek Road at a 

dispersed camping area and proceeds southwest, eventually becoming a two-track route at the south end 

of a large open basin. A minor reroute of the user-created connector would put the trail in a more 

appropriate location, following a mountain brush and aspen ridge up to the Green Mountain Road. 

Snow Travel 

Snow Season travel is the same as Alternative Two, the proposed action, with these exceptions: 

• The boundary for the eastern slope of Mt. Bonneville snowmobile closure has been changed from

RFP prescription. The boundary moves north to take in “Strawberry Fields” and moves west up 

the slope as depicted on the Alternative Five Snow Season Travel map. 

• Portions of the Gibson Jack Natural Research Area, west of Pocatello, are managed as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

vi
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

• Three areas in the vicinity of Emigration Summit on the Montpelier District, are managed as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

 

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives 

The Forest Service also developed the following mitigation measures to be used as part of all of the action 

alternatives. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing soil, water, and noxious weeds will be applied to all 

reconstruction or maintenance of roads and trails. 

In regards to heritage resources, all areas proposed for ground disturbing activities will be surveyed by for 

heritage resources, with State Historical Preservation Office review. 

Major Conclusions include: 

Recreation 

Summer or Snow-free Season 

All alternatives provide a variety of recreation opportunities, motorized and non-motorized and would 

meet plan intent for ROS settings with some adjustments. 

Alternative One offers the most motorized routes, but trails dead-end and there are numerous redundant 

routes, which can affect the recreation setting. 

Alternative Two offers motorized routes to most areas of the forest with some redundant routes not 

designated. Alternative Two offers an additional non-motorized setting in the core of Stump Peak 

drainage. 

Alternative Three and Four offer additional non-motorized areas. However, increasing non-motorized 

areas decreases motorized access, and in these alternatives many forest areas can only be reached on foot 

or horse. 

Alternative Five maintains motorized access to many forest areas while providing improved site-specific 

opportunities, motorized and non-motorized. 

Winter or Snow Season 

All alternatives offer a variety of non-motorized and motorized opportunity. Alternatives Two and Three 

implement the new closure areas identified in the RFP and offer designated snowmobile routes through 

new areas of winter range. Alternative Four sets more areas aside for non-motorized use, which could 

displace some snowmobilers. Alternative Five implements the new closure areas identified in the RFP 

and offers additional non-motorized areas. These areas are popular with skiers and would not displace 

most snowmobile users. 

OMRDs 

All alternatives would require a plan amendment to change the standard for OMRD prescription ceilings

on specific areas. With the exception of Alternative One, the overages are not excessive, and would not 

fundamentally change the areas’ setting for recreational use and travel. 

vii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Wildlife 

All action alternatives meet Plan Open Motorized Route Densities (OMRDs) in most forest areas, which 

reduces the risk of wildlife disturbance along motorized travel routes. All alternatives offer large areas 

with non-motorized settings for wildlife. Alternative One offers the fewest large non-motorized areas. 

Alternatives Three and Four offer more large non-motorized areas. Alternatives Two through Five offer 

more large non-motorized areas than the existing condition and are expected to meet forest plan standards 

and guidelines for wildlife species and habitat. 

Soils 

Alternative One has the most designated roads and trails, within areas of sensitive soils. Alternative Three 

and Four have the least designated routes within sensitive soils. Alternatives Two and Five have less 

designated routes on sensitive soils than the existing condition, but more that Alternatives Three or Four. 

All alternatives are expected to meet forest plan standards and guidelines for soils. 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources 

Alternatives Two through Five reduce the risk to water resources from travel routes by managing less 

designated motorized travel routes, less motorized travel routes in AIZs, and less stream crossings than 

Alternative One, the existing condition. All alternatives are expected to meet forest plan standards and 

guidelines for riparian resources.. 

Fish and Fish Habitat 

It is expected that Alternatives One and Two would have the most impact upon aquatic biota and their 

habitat and Alternatives Three and Four would have the least. Alternative Five, when considered in the 

range of alternatives, has a median amount of impact upon aquatic biota and their habitat. All alternatives 

are expected to meet forest plan standards and guidelines for fish and fish habitat. 

Overview 

Alternatives One, Two, and Five maintain motorized access to many forest areas for the public and for 

other travel needs, such as forest program management and other needed access. Alternative One does 

not meet RFP direction for access. Alternatives Three and Four reduce the risk of impacts from

designated motorized travel routes to soil, water and wildlife, but they do not provide motorized access to 

some areas of the forest. Alternative Five meets the RFP direction for most forest areas, enhances some 

recreation opportunities, and maintains much of the existing motorized access to the forest. 

Decision to be Made 

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide which travel routes are 

appropriate for motorized, mechanized and non-motorized travel? 

Which travel routes would have seasonal restrictions to protect resource needs or provide a non-motorized 

setting? 

 

What types of closure and/or rehabilitation methods should be used on year long or seasonally restricted 

routes? 

The decision includes a minor plan amendment that would adjust the prescribed OMRD ceilings for some

prescription areas. 

viii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table of Contents

Summary............................................................................................................................ i 

Alternative One, No Action.................................................................................................... ii 

Features Common to Alternatives Two, Three, Four and Five ............................................. iii 

Alternative Two, Proposed Action ........................................................................................ iii 

Alternative Three ................................................................................................................... iv 

Alternative Four...................................................................................................................... v 

Alternative Five ...................................................................................................................... v 

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives............................................................................... vii 

Major Conclusions Include................................................................................................... vii 

Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................ viii 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................ 1 

Document Structure .................................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 

Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 2 

Closing Routes........................................................................................................................ 3 

Management Direction for Tribal Treaty Rights.................................................................... 3 

Revised Forest Plan Travel Management Direction ............................................................... 3 

Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 5 

Proposed Action.......................................................................................................................... 5 

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 6 

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 10 

Issues......................................................................................................................................... 10 

Significant Issues.................................................................................................................. 11 

Resources of Concern ........................................................................................................... 13 

Other Related Efforts................................................................................................................ 14 

Draft National OHV Policy .................................................................................................. 14 

Interim Directive for Roadless Area Conservation............................................................... 14 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action .................................................... 15 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 15 

Alternative Development...................................................................................................... 15 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 15 

Features Common to all alternatives, including Alternative One, No Action ...................... 16 

Alternative One, No Action................................................................................................ 17 

Features Common to Alternatives Two, Three, Four and Five ............................................ 19 

Alternative Two, Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 19 

Alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................... 21 

Alternative 4 ......................................................................................................................... 21 

Alternative 5 ......................................................................................................................... 23 

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives............................................................................... 26 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................................. 26 

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 27 

Recreation............................................................................................................................. 27

Wildlife................................................................................................................................. 28 

Soils...................................................................................................................................... 28 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources ................................................................................ 28 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.......................................................................................... 28 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment..................................................................................... 29 

Tribal Treaty Concerns ............................................................................................................. 29 

ix
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 30 

Roadless Area............................................................................................................................ 46 

Heritage..................................................................................................................................... 53 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 55 

Soils........................................................................................................................................... 56 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources..................................................................................... 63 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources............................................................................................... 77 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants.......................................................................... 86 

Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 87 

Economic Environment............................................................................................................. 92 

Roads......................................................................................................................................... 93 

Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................... 96 

Forested Vegetation and Access ............................................................................................. 100 

Non-Forested Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 100 

Livestock Access..................................................................................................................... 102 

Fire Management and Access ................................................................................................. 103 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 103 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................. 104 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................................... 104 

Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................. 104 

Other Required Disclosures .................................................................................................... 104 

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................... 105 

Tribal Treaty Concerns ........................................................................................................... 105 

Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 106 

Roadless Areas........................................................................................................................ 129 

Heritage................................................................................................................................... 133 

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 135 

Soils......................................................................................................................................... 135 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources................................................................................... 140 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources............................................................................................. 148 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants........................................................................ 154 

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 154 

Economic Environment........................................................................................................... 162 

Roads....................................................................................................................................... 163 

Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................... 168 

Forested Vegetation and Access ............................................................................................. 171 

Non-Forested Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 173 

Livestock Access..................................................................................................................... 173 

Fire Management and Access ................................................................................................. 174 

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination..................................................................... 175 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 175 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................. 175 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................................... 175 

Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................. 175 

Other Required Disclosures .................................................................................................... 178 

Findings and Disclosures.................................................................................................... 178 

Preparers and Contributors...................................................................................................... 180 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................. 180 

Glossary of Terms................................................................................................................... 182 

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 197 

Index........................................................................................................................................ 201 

x
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................205

Direction Relevant to Land and Resource Management......................................................... 205 

Forest Service Directives................................................................................................... 205 

Statutes .............................................................................................................................. 208 

Regulations........................................................................................................................ 210 

Executive Orders ............................................................................................................... 211 

Other.................................................................................................................................. 211 

Methods of Road and Trail Closures ...................................................................................... 212 

xi
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

List of Tables 

Table 3.1 Estimated Acres of Current ROS Classifications on the Caribou NF ............................ 34 

Table 3.2 Roadless Area................................................................................................................. 50 

Table 3.3 Values for Low, Moderate, and High Surface Erosion Potention and 

Mass Movement Potential.............................................................................................. 60 

Table 3.4 Overall Soil Risk Ratings for Key Roads....................................................................... 60 

Table 3.5 Miles of Open Motorized Road or Trail......................................................................... 61 

Table 3.6 Water Quality Limited 303d Streams............................................................................. 65 

Table 3.7 All Existing Designated Travel Routes by District ........................................................ 70 

Table 3.8 Malad District All Existing Desgnated Travel Routes by HUC-5 ................................. 70 

Table 3.9 Montpelier District-Eastside All Existing Desgnated Travel Routes 

 by HUC-5 ....................................................................................................................... 71 

Table 3.10 Montpelier District-Westside All Existing Desgnated Travel Routes by 

 HUC-5 ............................................................................................................................ 71 

Table 3.11 Pocatello District All Existing Desgnated Travel Routes by HUC-5............................. 71 

Table 3.12 Soda Springs District Existing Desgnated Travel Routes by HUC-5 ............................ 72 

Table 3.13 Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by District................................................... 72 

Table 3.14 Malad District Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by HUC-5 ......................... 72 

Table 3.15 Montpelier District-Eastside Existing Designated Travel Routes in 

AIZs by HUC-5.............................................................................................................. 73 

Table 3.16 Montpelier District-Westside Existing Designated Travel Routes in 

AIZs by HUC-5.............................................................................................................. 73 

Table 3.17 Pocatello District Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by HUC-5 .................... 73 

Table 3.18 Soda Springs District Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by HUC-5 .............. 74 

Table 3.19 Malad District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5 ......................... 75 

Table 3.20 Montpelier District-Eastside Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings 

 by HUC-5 ....................................................................................................................... 75 

Table 3.21 Montpelier District-Westside Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings 

 by HUC-5 ....................................................................................................................... 75 

Table 3.22 Pocatello District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5..................... 76 

Table 3.23 Soda Springs District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5 .............. 76 

Table 3.24 Watershed with High Road Densities............................................................................. 85 

Table 3.25 Approximate Acres of Noxious Weeds by Ranger District .......................................... 99 

Table 3.26 Approximate Acres of Upland Non-Forested/Woodland Vegetation Types.................. 101 

Table 4.1 Indicators Snow Free Season for Alternative One ......................................................... 108 

Table 4.2 Indicators Snow Season for Alternative One ................................................................. 108 

Table 4.3 Indicators Snow Free Season for Alternative Two......................................................... 110 

Table 4.4 Indicators Snow Season for Alternative Two................................................................. 110 

xii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 4.5 Indicators Snow Free Season for Alternative Three....................................................... 114 

Table 4.6 Indicators Snow Season for Alternative Three............................................................... 114 

Table 4.7 Indicators Snow Free Season for Alternative Four ........................................................ 118 

Table 4.8 Indicators Snow Season for Alternative Four ................................................................ 118 

Table 4.9 Indicators Snow Free Season for Alternative Five......................................................... 123 

Table 4.10 Indicators Snow Season for Alternative Five................................................................. 123 

Table 4.11 Miles of Roads and Trails Located on Low, Medium, and High Soil 

Risk Areas within each Analysis Block for Alternative One ......................................... 136 

Table 4.12 Miles of Roads and Trails Located on Low, Medium, and High Soil 

Risk Areas within each Analysis Block for Alternative Two ........................................ 137 

Table 4.13 Miles of Roads and Trails Located on Low, Medium, and High Soil 

Risk Areas within each Analysis Block for Alternative Three ...................................... 137 

Table 4.14 Miles of Roads and Trails Located on Low, Medium, and High Soil 

Risk Areas within each Analysis Block for Alternative Four........................................ 138 

Table 4.15 Miles of Roads and Trails Located on Low, Medium, and High Soil 

Risk Areas within each Analysis Block for Alternative Five......................................... 139 

Table 4.16 Ranking of Cumulative Soil Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 140 

Table 4.17 All Designated Travel Route Mileage by District.......................................................... 142 

Table 4.18 Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by District .................................................. 142 

Table 4.19 Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by District................................................. 142 

Table 4.20 Malad District All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5.................................. 142 

Table 4.21 Monpelier District-Eastside All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5............. 142 

Table 4.22 Monpelier District-Westside All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5............ 143 

Table 4.23 Pocatello District All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5 ............................. 143 

Table 4.24 Soda Springs District All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5 ....................... 143 

Table 4.25 Malad District Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5s......................... 144 

Table 4.26 Monpelier District-Eastside Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs 

 by HUC-5s...................................................................................................................... 144 

Table 4.27 Monpelier District-Westside Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs 

 by HUC-5s...................................................................................................................... 144 

Table 4.28 Pocatello District Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5s..................... 145 

Table 4.29 Soda Springs District Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5s .............. 145 

Table 4.30 Malad District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5 ......................... 145 

Table 4.31 Monpelier District-Pruess Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5....... 146 

Table 4.32 Monpelier District-Bear River Range Designated Travel Route Stream

 Crossings by HUC-5 ...................................................................................................... 146 

Table 4.33 Pocatello District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5 .................... 146 

Table 4.34 Soda Springs District Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5 .............. 146 

xiii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 4.35 Measure of Impacts........................................................................................................ 150 

Table 4.36 Miles of Motorized Road and Trail per Square Mile of Fish-Bearing Stream AIZ ....... 151 

Table 4.37 Miles of Motorized Road and Trail per Square Mile of Fish-Bearing Stream 

AIZ in Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Strongholds (6th Code HUC)................................. 151 

Table 4.38 Miles of Motorized Road and Trail per Square Mile of Fish-Bearing Stream 

AIZ in Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Strongholds (6th Code HUC) .............................. 151 

Table 4.39 Road and Trail Crossings at Perennial Streams ............................................................. 152 

Table 4.40 Road and Trail Corssings in Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Strongholds 

(6th Coad HUC) at Perennial Streams............................................................................ 152 

Table 4.41 Road and Trail Corssings in Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Strongholds 

(6th Coad HUC) at Perennial Streams............................................................................ 152 

Table 4.42 Wildlife Species ............................................................................................................. 159 

Table 4.43 Wildlife........................................................................................................................... 160 

Table 5.1 Foreseeable Projects Listed in Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions 

January – March 2005 .................................................................................................... 178 

List of Maps 

Caribou National Forest Travel Plan Revision EIS Vicinity Map ......................................................... 8 

Caribou National Forest Travel Plan Revision EIS Area Map............................................................... 9 

Caribou National Forest Travel Plan Revision EISWinter Travel Alternative Two and Three ........... 20 

Caribou National Forest Travel Plan Revision EISWinter Travel Alternative Four............................ 22 

Caribou National Forest Travel Plan Revision EISWinter Travel Alternative Five ............................ 25 

Alternative One Snow Free ROS Map ................................................................................................. 35 

Alternative One OMRD Map ............................................................................................................... 41 

Caribou Administrative Unit Inventoried Roadless Area as of 1996 Map........................................... 49 

Open Motorized Route Density Prescription Polygons Exceeding Allowable OMRD 

Under Alterative Two......................................................................................................................... 112 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Under Alternative Three.............................................................. 115 

Open Motorized Route Density Prescription Polygons Exceeding Allowable OMRD 

Under Alterative Three....................................................................................................................... 117 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Under Alternative Four................................................................ 119 

Open Motorized Route Density Prescription Polygons Exceeding Allowable OMRD 

Under Alterative Four......................................................................................................................... 122 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Under Alternative Five ................................................................ 124 

Open Motorized Route Density Prescription Polygons Exceeding Allowable OMRD 

Under Alterative Five ......................................................................................................................... 127 

xiv
Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Document Structure ______________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) documents the public involvement and the environmental analysis 

and impacts for the revised Caribou National Forest (NF) travel plan. The travel plan defines the public 

access on the forest and determines the types of travel and the season of travel on roads and trails. The DEIS 

will consider both summer and winter travel, or snow and snow-free season travel. The current effort is 

expected to lead to a Final Environmental Impact Statement by the summer of 2005. 

The DEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five chapters: 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes the purpose and need of the project and the 

proposed action. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action 

and how the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description 

of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. These 

alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and others. This section also 

includes a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment: This chapter describes the environments affected by the proposed action. 

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing 

the proposed action and other alternatives. 

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the DEIS. 

Appendix A. The appendix provides supplemental information to support the analyses presented in the 

DEIS. 

Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project 

planning record located at Forest Headquarters Office in Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

The data displayed on the maps are representational in nature, not exact geographical locations. Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) data and accuracy may vary for several reasons. Mileage totals and map 

locations are for information and comparison purposes only.

Forest travel plans define which roads and trails are open for what types of travel and at what time of year. 

The revised travel plan will implement direction for travel and access as defined by the 2003 Revised Forest 

Plan (RFP) for the Caribou NF. The RFP provides programmatic direction for forest management and will 

guide forest activities for the next 10 to 15 years. 

This analysis and decision will reference the forest-wide findings and analysis in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the RFP. 

 

 1 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

The Caribou-Targhee NF issued a Proposed Action (Alternative Two) to address the need for a revised 

travel plan. The public and Forest identified nine significant issues driving the formulation of alternatives to

the Proposed Action. This DEIS presents the analysis of five alternatives upon which the Forest Supervisor 

will base his decision for the revised travel plan. (Note to Reader: Acronyms and terms specific to the 

Forest Service are defined in the Glossary of this document.) 

Background _____________________________________

In the 1970’s, the increased use of Off Highway Vehicles, or OHV’s, on public lands in prompted the 

development of a unified federal policy for such use. In this document, OHVs are defined as any vehicle 

that is designed to travel off of paved roadways. They include full sized 4-wheel drive vehicles, 

motorcycles, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles or ATVs. (footnote needed- Idaho Traffic Law does not 

consider full-sized vehicles or snowmachines as OHVs. ) Executive Order (EO) 11644 (1972) and EO 

11989 (1977) provide direction for federal agencies to establish policies and procedures to control and direct

the use of OHVs on public lands as to (1) protect the resources of those lands; (2) promote the safety of all 

users of those lands; and (3) minimize conflicts among various uses on those lands. The Forest Service 

developed regulations in response to the EOs (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 216, 219 and 295). 

Under those regulations, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize (1) damage to soil, watershed,

vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; and (3) conflict 

between the use of OHV’s and other types of recreation. The EOs and federal regulations for OHV 

management on public lands can be found in Appendix A. 

Travel planning is an allocation process based on social and resource concerns. The Forest Service has 

restricted motorized travel to designated routes in some areas of the Caribou since the late-1970s. In 1980, 

snowmobile travel was restricted to designated routes in areas of big game winter range. In 1987, mountain 

bikes were restricted to designated routes forest wide (1987 Caribou travel plan map). A person can hike or

ride an animal on most forest travel routes and areas. During the winter, a person can ski or snowshoe in 

most areas of the forest. Some special use areas, such as ski resorts and mining areas restrict most public 

travel. In addition, the Caribou-Targhee NF issues a travel plan map that defines travel opportunities and 

restrictions on forest roads and trails. The Caribou travel map has evolved over the years with the most 

recent changes made in 2003. 

In January 2001, the Forest Service adopted a new road management policy, which directs the agency to 

maintain a safe, environmentally sound road network that is responsive to public needs and affordable to 

manage. The policy includes a science-based roads analysis process designed to help managers make better 

decisions regarding roads. A Caribou Forest Roads Analysis was completed in 2003. In 2004, Dale 

Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, identified “unmanaged recreation” as one of four threats to National 

Forest system lands. To address this issue, a National OHV policy is being developed that would require 

OHVs to stay on designated routes and specifically defined off-highway use areas on all National Forests 

and Grasslands. 

Terminology 

The Forest Service uses the term “system” to refer to any travel route, road or trail that is listed on the Forest 

Transportation System. Some system travel routes are “closed” to motorized travel. The Forest Service has

determined not to manage these routes for public motorized access, but they are needed for occasional 

administrative use, to maintain special use facilities, or for future timber management. Some system travel 

routes are designated on the travel plan for motorized, mechanized and non-motorized travel by the public. 

All designated routes are system routes.

2
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Closing Routes 

This analysis refers to closing and decommissioning travel routes. “Closing” a travel route could range from

installing a sign and managing a route as non-motorized, to installing earthen berms, rock barriers and/or 

debris to physically impede travel. The method of closure for specific routes is described in Appendix A. 

“Decommission” means to obliterate most or of the road template and return the road prism to production 

by ripping and seeding or through natural reclamation. The project file contains further discussion of route 

closures and decommissioning methods. 

Management Direction for Tribal Treaty Rights 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Northwest Band of the Shoshone have ancestral Treaty Rights to uses 

of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the Curlew National Grassland. The relationship of the United 

States government with American Indian tribes is based on legal agreements between sovereign nations. 

The Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868 granted hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to tribal members on 

“all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game is present thereon.” This right applies to all 

public domain lands reserved for National Forest purposes that are presently administered by the CaribouTarghee National Forest. These rights are still in effect, and management actions recognize these rights. 

Consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Council is required on land management activities and 

land allocations that could affect these rights. 

As part of government to government relations, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest are developing a protocol which guides coordination, cooperation and consultation between 

the two entities. Tribal concerns with site specific projects revolve around impacts to their tribal treaty

rights. According to the Fort Bridger Treaty and subsequent court cases clarifying these rights, the 

Shoshone Bannock Tribes have the right to hunt, fish, gather and practice traditional uses on all unoccupied 

lands in the United States. On ceded lands2, the Tribes have also retained the right to graze domestic

livestock. In addition, the Northwest Band of the Shoshoni has treaty rights on the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

Forest Service managers have a responsibility to protect those resources essential for the Tribes to exercise 

their treaty rights. Concerns that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes may have with this project are discussed in 

Chapter Three. 

Revised Forest Plan Travel Management Direction 

The desired condition for the transportation system identified in the RFP (pg. 3-36) is described below. 

The Forest Transportation system: 

• Provides access to the forest to meet planning and management goals 

• Is safe, environmentally sound, and is responsive to public needs 

• Is affordable to manage and maintain 

• Provides a variety of road and trail opportunities, including motorized and non-motorized 

experiences. 

 

2 These lands were formerly part of the Fort Hall Reservation but later ceded to the federal government to allow for 

white settlement. The ceded lands on the Caribou-Targhee NF are primarily on the Westside Ranger District. 

3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

The 2003 Forest Roads Analysis covered the primary road system of the forest. This analysis was used in 

the RFP decision. This environmental analysis will use the Travel Plan Revision Roads Analysis which 

discusses the remaining secondary roads on the forest. 

The RFP discusses management direction for the transportation system and recreation on pages 3-36 to 40. 

It states that system roads and trails will provide access for the management of recreation, special uses, 

timber, range, minerals and fire programs. It also describes a road and trail system that provides a variety of 

opportunities, both motorized and non-motorized. 

The RFP goals that pertain to travel planning include: 

• Forest roads and trails provide for user safety and are maintained to minimize impacts to forest 

resources 

• The transportation system is developed and maintained at the minimum level necessary to manage 

resources, provide access and protect facilities 

• Forest and local governments work cooperatively towards resolution of R.S. 2477 assertions. 

An objective identified in the RFP is to revise the Caribou travel plan to incorporate RFP direction for 

access management. RFP standards and guidelines that are applicable to travel planning include: 

• Open Motorized Route Densities (OMRDs) shall not exceed the limits identified in the Plan OMRD 

Map. OMRD is defined as the miles of designated motorized roads and trails per square mile within 

a specific prescription polygon. 

• The OMRD standard and restrictions depicted on the travel plan map do not restrict responses to 

emergency events to protect human life, property values, structures, and forest resources. 

• The travel planning process shall consider additional areas for non-motorized winter recreation. 

• Any motorized vehicle access on a restricted road or trail or in a restricted area shall be for official 

administrative business only and shall be officially approved. 

• Unless otherwise posted, motorized access is allowed for parking, wood gathering and dispersed 

camping within 300 feet of an open designated road. 

• The construction of new or maintenance of existing, motorized and non-motorized access routes 

should be consistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class in which they are 

located. 

ROS is a planning tool used to divide outdoor settings and activities into categories: Primitive, Semiprimitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. 

The Forest Service uses ROS to inventory and manage recreation areas and activities. 

The RFP does not specifically identify special access to people with disabilities for special access for game 

retrieval. The forest does provide equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in a variety of 

recreation activities. 

4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Summer or Snow-free travel 

The RFP restricts motorized vehicles to designated routes on 97 percent of forest acres. A portion of the 

Soda Springs District allows cross-country motorized travel during the snow-free season. 

Travel plans are legally enforced through the issue of a Special Order signed by the Forest Supervisor. In 

2003, a Special Order was added to the 2002 Caribou travel plan map prohibiting cross-country motorized 

access during the snow-free season on most areas of forest. In areas that were formerly open to crosscountry motorized use, all roads and trails depicted on the 2002 map became the designated routes, until 

the travel plan analysis and decision are complete. This was done to comply with RFP direction. 

 

Snow or Winter Travel 

Direction in the RFP allows cross-country snowmobile travel in most areas of the forest during the snow 

season. Developed ski areas, Valve House, the Pocatello Municipal Watershed, the eastern slope of 

Mt. Bonneville, Toponce, Bear Creek and Meade Peak are managed as non-motorized in winter. The RFP 

restricts snow season motorized travel to designated routes within winter range prescriptions (Prescription 

2.7.1 and 2.7.2). 

Mt. Naomi and Caribou Recommended Wilderness Areas allow snowmobile travel during the snow season. 

Roadless Areas 

In preparation for revising the Forest Plan, the Caribou National Forest completed an IRA re-inventory 

describing changes in the boundaries and character of the 34 IRAs in the Forest from 1985 to 1996. In 

2001 the Forest Service published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) describing how 

to evaluate IRAs for management decisions. During the revision process, the Forest then conducted an 

Inventoried Roadless Area Re-evaluation, using the five principles for evaluating IRAs that were published 

in the ANPR. The results from this re-evaluation were incorporated into Alternative 7R of the FEIS for the 

RFP which subsequently became the 2003 RFP for the Caribou. The proposed action includes designating 

travel routes within the forest’s Roadless Areas. 

Purpose and Need for Action_______________________

The 2002 Caribou Travel Plan with the temporary 2003 Special Order does not comply with programmatic 

direction for access identified in the 2003 Caribou Revised Forest Plan. The RFP prescribes a ceiling on 

open motorized route densities during the snow-free season for many areas of the forest. The current travel 

plan exceeds these limits in many prescription areas of the forest. The 2002 Travel Plan does not address 

snow season motorized access through new winter range prescriptions, the opening of Mt. Naomi 

Recommended Wilderness area to snowmobile use, and the new winter non-motorized areas identified in 

the RFP. A revised travel plan will reflect these forest plan changes in access management. 

 

Proposed Action _________________________________

• The Proposed Action for the Caribou Travel Plan Revision was created by district staffs using 

public comments, the route inventory, and travel direction identified in the RFP. 

The proposed action is described in more detail in Chapter Two. For individual travel route restrictions, 

see the Alternative Two maps (Map Packet, Map # 4-6). 

5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Travel management for the Proposed Action includes these features: 

• Public or special use access would be provided to private inholdings, as required by law. 

• The Travel Plan does not restrict emergency responses to loss of life or property. This includes 

county search and rescue efforts and fire suppression. 

• All travel routes and areas are open to hikers, horses and stock, snowshoe, snowboard and ski travel 

unless specifically closed to either or both travel modes. 

Snow-Free Travel 

The proposed action: 

• Retains the closure dates of all routes and areas, as depicted on the 2002 Caribou travel plan map. 

Some site specific closures are determined by the Ranger based on road conditions. 

• Retains the restrictions for mountain bike travel as depicted on the 2002 Caribou travel plan map. 

• Designates some user-created routes for motorized travel. 

• Closes some existing designated motorized routes. 

• Manages the Winschell Dugway as a designated motorized route for ATV use. 

• Manages a “core” area within the Stump Peak drainage for a non-motorized experience. 

• Includes maintaining and reconstructing designated travel routes to meet agency standards for user 

safety and resource concerns with some designated travel routes being relocated to reduce resource 

impacts. 

 

Snow Travel 

The proposed action retains the snowmobile restrictions depicted on the 2002 travel map with these 

exceptions: 

• The eastern slope of Mt. Bonneville, Toponce, Bear Creek and Mead Peak are managed as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to cross-country snowmachine use during the snow 

season. 

• Designates snowmobile routes within new winter range prescriptions along the Bear River Range. 

Decision Framework ______________________________

Given the purpose and need for this action, the Forest Supervisor will review the proposed action, other 

alternatives, anticipated effects, and public comment in order to make the following decisions:

Which travel routes are appropriate for motorized, mechanized and non-motorized travel?

6
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Which travel routes would have seasonal restrictions to protect resource needs or provide a non-motorized 

setting? 

 

What types of closure and/or rehabilitation methods should be used on year long or seasonally restricted 

routes? 

The assessment will consider the effects of forest travel management on adjacent lands. However, the 

decision does not include travel management direction for state lands, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands, or adjacent private lands or private “in-holdings.” 

This analysis and decision cannot validate nor deny RS2477 assertions made by the counties. As stated in 

the RFP, “The Forest and local governments work cooperatively towards resolution of RS2477 assertions.” 

The status of RS2477 roads will be determined by state and/or federal courts. (See glossary for definition of

RS2477 road and assertion.) 

The decision includes a minor plan amendment that would adjust the prescribed OMRD ceilings for some

prescription areas. 

7
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

8
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

9
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Public Involvement _______________________________

Public outreach and open houses held for the forest plan revision included discussions of the future travel

plan revision and route designation process. 

In January of 2004, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership held a two-day workshop to discuss 

avel issues on the eastside of the Caribou. The weekend workshop was held in Soda Springs. Local trail 

users an Soda

Springs st

staff wa agement. 

Worksh

The NO

Registe ed

for the a ormation. 

Public n ternet website.

In an effort to reach statewide trail users, the State of Idaho Parks and Recreation Department included a 

notice of Forest Service travel planning on their website which included a link to various forest websites. 

User gro

propose d,

Preston

Forest s ith trail users,

land owners and others. 

Throughout the travel planning process, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) gathered comments on the 

Propose

Issues __________________________________________

Section

“study,

which in

conflict public, are the environmental issues related to the 

Proposed Action. 

Preliminary issues were identified through public comments and IDT concerns. Issues were then grouped 

into categories. The IDT further refined and clarified the issues and presented a briefing to the Forest 

Supervi

The IDT nt issues

were de

define the alternatives to the proposed a n may not determine alternatives, but the

effects t alternatives 

n signi

tr

d others were invited to explore the issues related to the upcoming travel plan revision for the

and Montpelier Ranger Districts. Although the Forest Service did not sponsor the workshop, fore

s present to answer questions and to listen to the participants’ views on road and trail man

op proceedings are available in the project record. 

I to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this project was published in the Federal 

r on March 11, 2004. The NOI presented a summary of the proposed action, the purpose and ne

ction, environmental issues and other supplementary inf

otification included mailings, press releases and information posted on the forest’s in

ups, agencies, area counties and others requested forest staff meet with them to discuss the

d action. Evening meetings were held for the general public during March and April 2004 in Mala

, Pocatello, Soda Springs, Montpelier, Fort Hall, and Idaho Falls, Idaho and in Afton, Wyoming. 

taff and District Rangers discussed the Proposed Action maps and related issues w

d Action, and possible alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

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

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

volves unresolved conflicts, concerning alternative use of available resources.” These unresolved 

s, identified by the Forest Service and the

sor on July 26, 2004. 

separated the issues into two groups: significant issues and resources of concern. Significa

fined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Significant issues 

ction. Resources of concer

o these concerns are considered in the decision. The effects of the proposed action and

o ficant issues and resources of concern are disclosed in the analysis. 

10
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Signif

he Forest Service identified the following significant issues. These issues were used to formulate 

o the Proposed Action. Each of the issue statements is written in an attempt to be unbiased, 

and to b

irrevers

assigned

in some areas. Some people 

g the snow and snow-free seasons. 

dicator: miles of snow-free motorized routes per polygon, and motorized route miles compared 

the snow season 

otorized trails during the snow-free season 

Issue #3 - The Proposed Action designates some motorized single-track trails for ATV use. This 

ssue #4 - The Proposed Action manages the Huckleberry Basin area on the Soda Springs District 

l motorized 

avel should be restricted to designated routes on the entire forest to provide management 

Indicator: acres open to cross-country motorized travel during the snow-free season 

Issue #5 - The Proposed Action exceeds prescription OMRDs in some prescription areas. The RFP 

sets Open Motorized Route Densities to reduce disturbance to wildlife and to maintain quality 

recreation settings. The analysis will disclose the effects of these higher OMRDs to wildlife security 

and recreation setting. 

icant Issues

T

alternatives t

e as specific as possible. The DEIS analyzes direct, indirect, cumulative, irretrievable and 

ible effects for each alternative in relationship to these significant issues. Indicators have been 

to each issue to define the key differences between alternatives. 

Issue #1 - The Proposed Action does not designate as many snow-free motorized routes as 

allowed by the prescribed OMRDs and restricts snowmobile travel 

feel the proposed action is not responsive to the increasing demand for motorized travel 

opportunities durin

In

to prescribed OMRD miles. (Note- some polygons may have all established routes designated

motorized, but are still under the prescription density.) 

Indicator: acres open to cross-country snowmachine travel during

Issue #2 - The Proposed Action does not designate enough trails and areas that provide a nonmotorized experience during the snow and snow-free seasons. Some people feel this is not 

responsive to the increasing demand for non-motorized settings. The Proposed Action manages 

the historic wagon route, the Winschell Dugway on the southern slope of Caribou Mountain as

a motorized route. Some people want this route to remain a non-motorized trail. 

 

Indicator: miles of system non-m

Indicator: Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized acres during the snow-free season 

Indicator: acres managed for a non-motorized setting during the snow season 

may affect the quality of the experience for motorcycle riders and other users, as the trail setting

and level of challenge changes when it becomes a two-track trail. Some people are concerned with 

the loss of single-track motorized trails. 

Indicator: miles of designated motorcycle trail 

I

as open to cross-country motorized use during the snow-free season. Some people fee

tr

consistency and to benefit resource conditions. 

11
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Indicator: OMRD compared to the prescription OMRD by prescription area, and the relative effect 

Issue #6 - The Proposed Action designates some motorized travel routes through areas that Idaho 

to see managed as non-motorized. If these routes were managed as 

motorized travel routes during the snow-free season 

within riparian areas, or Aquatic Influence Zones (AIZs). Some people are concerned with the 

ignated motorized routes on watershed conditions. Potential impacts of motorized 

travel routes that cross perennial or 

termittent streams. Potential impacts include loss of vegetative cover and soil movement which 

ed condition.

he number of times snow-free designated motorized routes cross perennial or 

intermittent streams 

motorized travel routes on fish and fish habitat. 

Motorized travel routes have the potential to affect aquatic and riparian-dependent species, 

rian areas and water. Potential impacts to fish habitat 

its benefits to riparian areas and water (shading, large 

ted motorized route within AIZs of fish-bearing streams 

signated motorized routes cross fish-bearing streams. 

on wildlife disturbance and the prescribed recreation setting 

Fish and Game would like

designated non-motorized trails, larger non-motorized areas would be created. The Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game want a travel plan that reduces wildlife disturbance from motorized

travel and provides more non-motorized areas for hunters. 

Indicator: acres of areas over 1,000 acres managed for a non-motorized experience during the 

snow-free season 

Issue #7 - The Proposed Action designates motorized travel routes and proposes route closures that

have the potential to affect soils, especially on “high risk” sensitive soil types. 

Indicator: miles of designated motorized routes on sensitive soils 

Issue #8 The Proposed Action designates 

effects of des

travel routes include loss of vegetative cover and soil movement which may affect watershed 

condition. The Proposed Action designates motorized 

in

may affect watersh

Indicator: miles of snow-free designated motorized route within riparian areas 

Indicator: t

Issue #9 The Proposed Action designates snow-free motorized travel routes within AIZs. Some 

people are concerned with the effects of designated

particularly where they encroach upon ripa

include decreases in riparian vegetation and

wood delivery, bank stabilization, filtering and nutrients); increases in erosion, and increases in

sediment delivery to water. 

Indicator: miles of designa

Indicator: the number of times snow-free de

12
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Resources of Concern 

Resources of concern brought forward by the public, staff or other agencies are described below. The 

information gathered regarding these concerns will be considered by the decision maker. 

Recreation Opportunities

portunity to contribute to local 

otorized settings to 

ovide additional or special access to Persons with Disabilities or for big 

ame retrieval. Some people feel the forest should provide special access for those with mobility problems 

. 

e season. Travel 

d travel routes have potential to spread noxious weeds.

oadless Areas

The Proposed Action designates motorized routes within Inventoried Roadless Areas. Designated motorized 

nd Costs 

tation

d

internal scoping. The IDT did not

Some people are concerned with the safety and quality of the recreation experience. The Proposed Action 

designates some travel routes that “dead-end.” Dead-end roads and trails decrease the quality of the 

experience and could encourage non-compliance with route and area closures. 

Some people feel the Proposed Action does not provide enough motorized op

economies. Some people feel the Proposed Action does not provide enough non-m

contribute to local economies. 

The Proposed Action closes some routes with earthen berms, barrier rocks, and/or debris. Some people are 

concerned for the safety of using a snowmobile on these routes. 

The Proposed action does not pr

g

and for hunters to retrieve big game

 

Noxious Weeds 

The Proposed Action designates motorized and non-motorized routes during the snow-fre

an

Heritage Resources 

The Proposed Action designates motorized and non-motorized travel routes. The Proposed Action closes 

and/or decommissions some travel routes. Road and trail use and route closures have the potential to affect 

heritage resources. 

 

R

routes have the potential to effect roadless area character. 

Forest Management Access a

The Proposed Action closes some travel routes. This has potential to affect access for forested vege

management, livestock grazing and fire suppression/management. Designated motorized travel routes an

non-motorized system trails require management and maintenance. What are the relative costs of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives? 

Issues not carried through the Analysis 

The following issues and comments were received through public and

carry them forward in the analysis because they were either 1) outside the scope of the proposed action, 2) 

already decided by law, regulation, forest plan or other higher level decision, 3) irrelevant to the decision to

be made, or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

13
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Changing OMRDs from Plan Standards to Guidelines 

The RFP sets Open Motorized Route Densities (OMRDs) to reduce disturbance to wildlife, to

quality recreation settings, and other reaso

standards must be met when considering forest ac

maintain 

ns. The OMRDs are plan standards, rather than guidelines. Plan 

tions. Some people feel that the OMRDs should be 

on the

The dec scope

of this a ent,

but the

snowmobile travel on the potential wilderness attributes of these areas. The decision was made

Some people want ATV travel prohibited on the forest. OHV travel, including ATV travel is a recognized 

nd EO 11989 were created to establish policies and procedures to control 

mpliance of Travel Plan

me people feel that the Forest Service should not designate motorized routes if the agency cannot enforce 

compliance with designated routes. Education and enforcement will continue to be priorities for the Forest 

losure

ment 

raft National OHV Policy

uld require OHVs to stay on designated travel routes and 

policy does not 

ply with the draft 

e local level if the Forest has a revised

lan which “has considered the protection and management of inventoried roadless areas” (ID 1920-2004-1; 

osworth Letter, June 7, 2001). As stated, the 2003 Caribou RFP did carefully consider protection and 

management of all 34 IRAs on the Forest therefore the prescription direction in the RFP will be followed 

regarding access management in IRA’s. 

management guidelines, rather than standards, giving the forest flexibility in managing public travel

forest. 

ision to have OMRDs as a plan standard was made during the RFP FEIS and is not within the

nalysis. If this decision changes some of the prescribed OMRDs it would require a plan amendm

OMRD ceilings would remain plan standards. 

Changing Access management for Recommended Wilderness Areas 

Some people feel that Caribou Mountain and Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness prescription areas 

should be managed as non-motorized year-round to protect potential wilderness attributes. However, this 

does not comply with RFP direction for Recommended Wilderness areas. The FEIS for the RFP considered 

the effects of

in the RFP to manage these areas as non-motorized during the snow-free season, but allow snowmobile 

travel during the snow season. 

Prohibiting ATV use on forest

use of national forests. EO 11644 a

and direct the use of OHVs on public lands, not to prohibit OHV use in its many forms. 

Prohibiting OHV use due to Non-co

So

under all alternatives. It is assumed that over time, education and enforcement along with effective c

methods will successfully limit public motorized travel to designated routes. Education and enforce

efforts for all alternatives are described in Chapter Two. 

Other Related Efforts______________________________

D

The policy currently being developed wo

specifically defined off-highway use areas on all National Forests and Grasslands. The

define snowmachines as OHVs. The proposed action and alternatives of this analysis com

policy.

 

Interim Directive for Roadless Area Conservation 

In July of 2004, the Forest Service issued an Interim Directive regarding IRA management which reinstated 

the previous policy that IRA management should be decided at th

P

B

14
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

Introduction _____________________________________

• This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Caribou Travel Plan 

lternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. 

nd

ome of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each 

ation of effects.

lysis considers five alternatives in detail. Design features and mitigations have been incorporated 

lter ative One - no action;

Alt a

Alternative Three - developed from wildlife issues received by Idaho Fish and Game 

lternative Four - developed from non-motorized issues received by a local trail group, 

Alt a ce

concern e quality of motorized opportunities. 

Alt a tch 

ad and trail numbers on the 2002 Caribou Travel Map. Management differences between alternatives and 

com

Revision Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It includes a description of each alternative 

considered. Alternative maps for Snow-free travel are in the Map Packet. Alternative maps for 

snow season travel are included in the descriptions. 

This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each

a

Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative a

s

alternative. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require rigorous exploration 

and objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. According to NEPA, federal agencies are also required

to include and discuss appropriate measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts that could result

from implementing a proposed action. 

Alternative Development 

Alternatives were developed based on the purpose and need and in response to significant issues. 

Interdisciplinary team members and other resource specialists identified areas of concern as well as 

opportunities for mitig

Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________

NEPA does not require the agency to analyze an infinite array of alternatives (FSH 1909.15, 65.12 Exhibit 

1). Alternatives were developed by considering a full range of reasonable management options, while 

complying with RFP direction. In addition, user groups were invited to submit alternatives that they felt 

would meet the needs of the resources, the public, and the intent of the RFP. 

The ana

into the alternatives to reduce impacts on resources or forest uses: 

A n

ern tive Two - the proposed action;

A

ern tive Five - developed from the proposed action with specific changes in response to resour

s, issues of non-motorized settings and th

ern tive descriptions follow. Road and trail numbers depicted on the alternative maps may not ma

ro

parison of effects are summarized at the end of this chapter. 

15
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Features Common to all alternatives, including Alternative One, No Action 

s stated in the RFP, “...the Travel Plan does not restrict responses to emergency events to protect human 

structures and forest resources”. (3-38) 

,

signated for public use,

nd are depicted as closed on alternative maps. 

lic

st 

ble

d

onitoring indicates that 

is activity is causing unacceptable resource damage, the forest may post the area as closed to “off-route” 

Designated road open to motorized vehicles over 50” in width, such as sedans, SUVs or trucks and 

il (single track) open for motorcycle use and non-motorized travel 

• Designated non-motorized trails open for non-mechanized travel; these trails are routes that the 

for a non-motorized experience for hikers, equestrians, and in some 

Access would be provided to private inholders, as required by Section 1323 (a) of the Alaska Land 

Conservation Act of 1979.

Routes on private land within the Caribou forest boundary are open to public use only through rights of way

or easements obtained for the purposes of public access. 

A

life, property values and

All travel routes are open to foot and stock travel unless specifically closed to either or both classes. 

Most areas restrict snow-free motorized travel to designated routes. Exceptions vary by alternative. 

As stated in the RFP, “any motorized vehicle access on a restricted road or trail or in a restricted area shall 

be for official administrative business only and shall be officially approved” (3-38). Access for permitted 

activities (e.g., livestock operations, mineral exploration and development, outfitter and guide operations

recreation events, etc.) on National Forest System lands is independent of public access, but requires 

approval through the permit process and/or operating plan. These routes are not de

a

A variety of resource protection measures and policies are currently in place to mitigate potential adverse

effects of recreation access on the Forest. CFR 261.5 part A and B allows District Rangers to close, redesignate or impose restrictions on roads or trails at any time if further use poses an immediate risk to pub

safety or if adverse effects on forest resources are occurring. These closures or restrictions are intended to be 

short-term in nature. 

Summer or Snow-free Travel 

As stated in the RFP, “ Unless otherwise posted, motorized access is allowed for parking, wood gathering

and dispersed camping within 300’ of an open designated road”, Off-route travel to the parking spot mu

not create resource damage. (pg. 3-38, Access Standard #5). This standard provides the public reasona

access off of designated roads (motorized routes available to vehicles over 50”) to park their vehicle an

fish, picnic, camp, retrieve game, etc. during the snow-free season. However, if m

th

travel. 

The categories of system travel routes during the snow-free season are: 

•

non-motorized travel 

• Designated motorized trail open to motorized vehicles under 50” in width, such as ATVs 

motorcycles and non-motorized travel 

• Designated motorcycle tra

forest will maintain and manage

cases, mountain bikes. 

16
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Winter or Snow Travel 

Most areas are open to cross-country snowmobile use during the snow season. The travel plan identifies 

designated snowmobile trails for winter travel. These are motorized travel routes that cross through winter

range closures, and vary by alternative. 

Some forest areas are closed during the snow season to provide a non-motorized experience for people and

e forest objective is that all system travel routes (motorized and non-motorized) will be 

aintained to Forest Service standards to provide for user enjoyment, safety and resource protection. 

intended use. They allow for a range of route conditions from

standards are set by their maintenance level or 

ail class and are described in FSH 7709.56 and FSH 2309.18, Chapters 4 and 5. 

ignated open”. This means travel routes are open to motorized use as indicated on the 

urr t t

rou vel

plan education and enforcement program. 

Educa

Educati ent of the travel plan has been a forest emphasis for many years. Key features of 

ese efforts include: comprehensive outreach to all users through a variety of methods and media, an 

ce through partners and volunteers; and exploring nonand enforcement efforts. 

porting for infrastructure, which includes system roads 

d trails. Reports include condition surveys for system travel routes. A portion of system roads and trails 

are surveyed annually. These field surveys record trail conditions and the needed work to bring the route to

e desired trail or road standard.

Including a “no action” alternative in the analysis is required by the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations and provides a baseline for comparing the action alternatives. This alternative consists of the 

wildlife. These areas vary by alternative. 

Trail Maintenance 

Over time, th

m

These standards vary, depending on the

primitive to high standard. Much of the improvement associated with bringing individual travel routes up 

to standard falls within the category of routine maintenance and would proceed as funding is secured. 

However, portions of some travel routes may require relocation to meet standards. Authorization of some 

of the actual road or trail relocation work may require supplemental analysis, and in some cases a 

subsequent NEPA decision. Road and trail maintenance

tr

Signing protocol 

Travel routes are not “closed unless signed open” and not “open unless signed closed”. Travel routes are 

“closed, unless des

c en ravel map. The forest intends to provide signing for open travel routes and many closed travel 

tes, but signs are often subject to theft and vandalism. Signing priorities will be identified by the tra

tion and Enforcement

on and enforcem

th

emphasis on achieving education and complian

traditional funding to expand education, signing

Forest Plan Monitoring 

The Forest plan monitoring for fish habitat conditions, AIZ attributes and water quality are described in 

the RFP (pg. 5-13 thru15). These monitoring items help determine if system roads and trails are adversely

affecting riparian areas and aquatic species. 

The RFP includes motoring and control methods for noxious weeds. 

The Forest Service has implemented mandatory re

an

th

Alternative One, No Action 

17
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

management and restrictions for travel routes and areas as depicted on the 2002 Carib

3. In 2003, a Special Order was added to the 200

ou Travel Map, with

2 Caribou Travel 

cross-country motorized travel during the snow-free season on most areas of the 

n the

llows cross-country motorized travel as mapped in RFP prescription and shown on the alternative maps. 

effect until the travel plan analysis and decision are complete. Forest 

in

d areas. Winter access decisions made in the RFP are also carried forward in this 

lternative.

ountain bike restrictions and the Winschell Dugway non-motorized trail remain the same as depicted on 

esignated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. Areas 

managed as non-motorized during the snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with 

of

eak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the RFP 

prescriptions. 

ot change. The 2002

are not shown as designated 

otorized routes for the “no action” alternative. 

 

the addition of the 2003 Special Order

Plan Map that prohibited

forest. In areas that were formerly open to cross-country motorized travel, any road or trail depicted o

2002 Travel Map became a designated motorized route. Huckleberry Basin northeast of Soda Springs, 

a

The 2003 Special Order will be in

personnel emphasized educating people of the new regulations involving cross-country motorized travel

formerly unrestricte

a

Snow Free or Summer Travel 

M

the 2002 Travel Map. The Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized travel. This 

alternative retains the closure dates of all routes and areas, as depicted on the 2002 Caribou travel plan map 

(site-specific closures may be determined by Ranger). 

Snow Season or Winter Travel

D

these exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile use during the snow season, as

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

• Additional closures to motorized travel (snowmobiles) during snow season are the eastern slope

Bonneville P

Corrections and mapping protocols 

The map of this alternative includes corrections to the 2002 Travel Map. The 2002 Travel Map was a 

product of combining the 1998 Travel Map with the more general Forest Visitor Map. Forest Service intent 

was that restrictions and route designations depicted on the 1998 Travel Map would n

Travel Map contains site specific errors and omissions. Some travel routes depicted on the 2002 Travel Map 

could not be located on the ground or on satellite imagery. These routes were dropped from the travel route

inventory and the “no action” alternative as they were incorrectly mapped or no longer exist. 

This alternative does not depict some system travel routes that were built in areas that had no travel

restrictions. These system routes are shown on the Alternative One map, but

m

3

 Travel Plans are legally enforced through the issue of a Special Order signed by the Forest Supervisor.

18
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Fea

Trail Construction 

w trail construction of under 1⁄4 mile is considered with this decision and varies with alternatives. 

roposed new construction consists of “connector” segments which would tie existing travel routes together. 

on-system travel routes

esignating non-system travel routes for motorized travel is considered with this decision and varies by

tion alternative.

Travel Route Closures 

ravel routes not needed for public access or other approved access will be closed. 

ravel route closures and methods are considered with this decision. The routes to be closed vary by

ternative. If a travel route is to be closed, the closure method is the same for all alternatives. For example, 

Trail XYZ is proposed to be closed in Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, the method of closure is the same for all 

ternatives. The method of closure for routes is discussed in Appendix B. Chapter One defines “route 

osure” and “decommission” of routes. See the project record for further descriptions of travel route closure 

d decommissioning methods. 

Alternative Two, Proposed Action 

he proposed action for the Caribou Travel Plan Revision was created by district staffs using an updated 

ads and trails inventory, The 2003 Forest Roads Analysis, direction identified in the Revised Forest Plan 

FP), and previous public comments on travel access. The proposed action considered issues of nonotorized settings, motorized opportunity and the potential of resource impacts from designated travel 

utes.

now Free Travel

ountain bike restrictions remain the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. This alternative retains the 

osure dates of all routes and areas, as depicted on the 2002 Caribou travel plan map (site specific closures 

ay be determined by Ranger). The Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized travel and a 

ore” area within the Stump Peak drainage is managed for a non-motorized setting. 

he Winschell Dugway is managed as a designated motorized trail open to vehicles under 50” in width, or 

TVs; if further analysis and design prove that the ATV trail is feasible to build and maintain and that the 

TV trail would meet Plan standards and guidelines. The final decision to construct/reconstruct the historic 

ute as a motorized route would require further design and analysis. This alternative proposes to 

ecommission 5 miles of motorized trail, in areas that have parallel routes. 

now Travel

esignated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map, with 

ditional routes through areas of new winter range prescription. Areas managed as non-motorized during 

e snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with these exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile travel during the snow season, as 

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

tures Common to Alternatives Two, Three, Four and Five 

Ne

P

N

D

ac

T

T

al

if

al

cl

an

T

ro

(R

m

ro

S

M

cl

m

“c

T

A

A

ro

d

S

D

ad

th

19
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

• Additional closures to motorized travel (snowmobiles) during snow season are the eastern slope of 

Bonneville Peak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the RFP 

prescriptions. 

 

Figure 2. Alternative Two and Three –Snow Season Travel 

20
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative 3 

lternative Three was developed from me. 

ish and Game staff wanted an alternative to the Proposed Action that emphasized managing large areas as

non-motorized during the snow-free season, to reduce ildlife disturbance from motorized travel. The 

Department also wanted more areas that offer a non-motorized hunting experience. This alternative 

manages some designated roads and trails as closed to motorized travel during the snow-free season creating 

larger non-motorized areas in Upper West Portneuf Range, the East Portneuf Range, Elkhorn Mt and Oxford

Peak of Westside District and in the Bear River Range of the Montpelier District in addition to the Stump 

Peak drainage non-motorized area of the Proposed Action. 

Snow Free Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions and seasonal closures remain the same as the No Action and Proposed Action. 

Huckleberry Basin area is open to cross-country motorized travel. The Winschell Dugway is managed as a 

designated non-motorized trail. 

Snow Travel 

Snow-season travel remains the same as in the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative Four was developed from issues received by a local trail group, the Southeast Idaho Recreation 

Alliance. This group wanted an alternative to the Proposed Action that emphasized managing more areas for 

a “non-motorized” setting during the snow and snow-free seasons. This alternative manages some

designated roads and trails as closed to motorized travel during the snow-free season creating more nonmotorized areas forest-wide. This alternative manages additional areas as non-motorized during the snow 

season. 

Snow Free Travel 

Mountain bike restrictions and seasonal closures remain the same as the No Action and Proposed Action. In 

the Huckleberry Basin area motorized travel is restricted to designated routes. The Winschell Dugway is 

managed as a designated non-motorized trail. 

Snow Travel 

Designated snowmobile routes in winter range are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. Areas of 

new winter range do not have designated snowmobile routes going through them. Areas managed as nonmotorized during the snow season are the same as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map with these exceptions: 

• Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness is open to snowmobile travel during the snow season, as 

mapped in RFP prescriptions. 

• Additional closures to snowmachine travel during snow season are the eastern slope of Bonneville 

Peak, Bear Creek area (north of Caribou Mt.) and Meade Peak as mapped in the RFP prescriptions, 

and additional areas in Mink Creek, Gibson Jack and Trail Creek on the Westside District as 

mapped in the Alternative Four Snow Season Travel Map. 

• The boundary for the eastern slope of Mt. Bonneville snowmobile closure has been changed from

RFP prescription. The boundary moves north to take in “Strawberry Fields” as depicted on the 

Alternative Four Snow Season Travel Map. 

A

F

wildlife issues received by Idaho Department of Fish and Ga

w

21
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Figure 4. Alternative Four - Snow Season Travel. 

22
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative 5

ce

onc n

of t T

loop rou

bou da prove compliance. 

Snow

now free travel for this alternative is the same as the Proposed Action with these exceptions: 

n the Soda Springs and Montpelier Districts, mountain bikes 

 are restricted to existing routes. 

• Motorized travel is restricted to designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin area. 

• This alternative does not manage the Winschell Dugway as a designated trail, motorized or nonmotorized, due to maintenance concerns. Portions of the trail can be traveled by hikers, stock 

users, and people on mountain bikes, but the route will not be maintained to standard. 

• This alternative would provide direction to explore a preliminary design and analysis for new trail 

construction for a designated motorized trail paralleling Cub River Road, from Albert Moser 

Campground to Willow Flat Campground. This trail would allow trail users of all kinds to travel to 

other recreation destinations without mixing with the full-sized vehicle traffic on Cub River Road. 

• This alternative proposes to decommission 5 miles of motorized trail, in areas that have parallel 

routes. 

This alternative proposes three new motorized loop opportunities on the Montpelier District: 

 

Motorized Loop #1: A designated motorized trail exists between Squirrel Hollow and Main Canyon. 

ATVs use the trail from both sides of the watershed divide, but a 200 yard length of rocky ridge keeps the 

routes from connecting. There is an opportunity to relocate the trail to the north of the ridge. The route 

goes through forested vegetation near the top of the slope. The re-route improves an existing, very tight,

switchback. 

Motorized Loop #2: A designated road exists into the Hawks Roost area. A collection of non-system

logging roads and user-created trails exist south of Summit View Campground. Firewood gatherers and 

ATV riders have created a route south until it was within a quarter of a mile of the Hawks Roost Road. A 

properly located connector to these two routes would create a loop for motorized use in close to proximity 

to popular camping areas. 

 

Motorized Loop #3. The Green Mountain Road runs along the top of the east face of Green Mountain. 

A different road of unknown origin (possibly mineral exploration) leaves the Diamond Creek Road at a 

dispersed camping area and proceeds southwest, eventually becoming a two-track route at the south end 

of a large open basin. A minor reroute of the user-created connector would put the trail in a more 

appropriate location, following a mountain brush and aspen ridge up to the Green Mountain Road. 

T

c

his alterative was developed from the proposed action with specific changes in response to resour

er s, issues of non-motorized settings, the quality of motorized opportunities and the initial findings 

he ravel Plan Roads Analysis. This alternative emphasizes improving motorized opportunities through

tes and offering some additional non-motorized trails and areas close to Pocatello. Closure 

n ries have been altered for some non-motorized snow season areas to im

Free Travel

S

• Mountain bike are restricted to designated motorized routes on the Westside District with some 

exceptions, see alternative maps. O

23
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Snow Travel 

Snow Season travel is the sam ese exceptions: 

• The boundary for the eastern slope of Mt. Bonneville snowmobile closure has been changed from

RFP prescription. The boundary moves north to take in “Strawberry Fields” and moves west up the 

slope as depicted on the Alternative Five Snow Season Travel map. 

• Portions of the Gibson Jack Natural Research Area, west of Pocatello, are managed as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

• Three areas in the vicinity of Emigration Summit on the Montpelier District, are managed as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

 

e as Alternative Two, the proposed action, with th

24
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Figure 5. Alternative Five - Snow Season Travel 

25
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives 

The Forest Service also developed the following mitigation measures to be used as part of all of the action

l

itage resources, all areas proposed for ground disturbing activities will be surveyed by for 

s, with State Historical Preservation Office review. 

minated from Detailed Study

natives that were not developed in

etail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided 

and for 

provide a transportation plan that offers a variety of 

d

zed”. 

ovide a transportation plan that offers a variety of 

creation opportunities. This alternative does not meet the guidelines of ROS categories as mapped for 

ld offer little motorized travel opportunity off of established main travel 

alternatives. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing soil, water, and noxious weeds will be applied to al

reconstruction or maintenance of roads and trails. 

In regards to her

heritage resource

Alternatives Considered but Eli

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

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alter

d

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may

have been outside the scope of the travel plan revision, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or 

determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. 

An alternative that designates all routes for motorized travel and/or builds new 

routes 

Some people want the decision to “maximize” all possible motorized routes to meet the growing dem

motorized travel on the forest. A “motorized travel emphasis” alternative would “grandfather” in all existing

travel routes on the ground as designated motorized road or trail, and/or construct new designated motorized 

routes. This alternative would not meet RFP direction to 

recreation opportunities. This alternative does not meet prescriptions regarding OMRD limits, or the 

guidelines of ROS categories mapped for forest areas. Although most routes would be open to hikers, 

mountain bikers and stock or horse use, this alternative would offer few areas for a non-motorized 

experience on the forest. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of a revised travel plan that 

complies with programmatic direction for travel and access of the 2003 RFP.

An alternative that closes most motorized routes to motorized travel 

Some people want the decision to “maximize” non-motorized experiences to meet the demand for nonmotorized settings for people and wildlife on the forest. An alternative that would emphasize non-motorize

settings would close many existing motorized routes and manage large forest areas as “non-motori

This alternative would not meet RFP direction to pr

re

forest areas. This alternative wou

routes. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of a revised travel plan that complies with 

programmatic direction for travel and access of the 2003 RFP. 

26
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________

This section provides a narrative summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information

he narrative is focused on activities and effects where different levels of

in

effects or outputs can be 

y or qualitatively among alternatives. 

n

ld meet 

here are

lternative Two offers motorized routes to most areas, with 1,800 miles, with some redundant routes not

designated. Alternative Two offers an additional non-motorized setting in the core of Stump Peak drainage. 

 offer additional non-motorized areas with 1,530 and 1,430 miles of motorized 

s;

ific opportunities, motorized and non-motorized. 

Alternatives One through Four do not address existing illegal mountain bike use on the forest. Alternative 

ckleberry Basin area on the Soda Springs District as open to cross-country motorized use. Alternatives 

gnated routes forest wide, providing management 

rces.

obile routes through new 

reas of winter range. Alternative Four sets more areas aside for non-motorized use, which could displace 

ome snowmobile e uses. Alternative Five provides additional non-motorized areas. These areas are 

popular with skiers and would not displace most snowmobile uses. 

t

distinguished quantitativel

Recreatio

Summer or Snow-free Season 

All alternatives provide a variety of recreation opportunities, motorized and non-motorized and wou

plan intent for ROS settings with some adjustments. 

Alternative One offers the most motorized routes, with 1,860 miles. However, trails dead-end and t

numerous redundant routes, which can affect the recreation setting. 

A

Alternative Three and Four

route respectively. However, increasing non-motorized areas decreases motorized access, and in these 

alternatives many forest areas can only be reached on foot or horse. 

Alternative Five maintains motorized access to many forest areas, with 1,740 miles of motorized route

while providing improved site-spec

Five offers more legal mountain bike opportunity. 

 

All alternatives provide equal access to people with disabilities; wheelchair travel is considered nonmotorized travel. Generally, alternatives that offer more motorized routes (Alternative One, followed by

Two and Five) would be preferred by people with disabilities who rely on motorized vehicles and for 

hunters who rely on motorized vehicles to retrieve game. 

Motorcycle riders have many opportunities in all alternatives, but some prefer a single-track motorized trail. 

Designated motorcycle trail miles are decreased in all action alternatives. All action alternatives offer 

between 100 and 140 miles of single-track motorcycle trail. Alternatives One through Four manage the 

Hu

Four and Five manage motorized travel on desi

consistency and reducing risks to forest resou

Winter or Snow Season 

All alternatives offer a variety of non-motorized and motorized opportunity. Alternatives Two and Three 

implement the new closure areas identified in the RFP and offer designated snowm

a

s

27
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

OMRDs 

All alternatives would require a plan amendment to change the standard for OMRD prescription ceilings on 

ildlife

lan

motorized travel routes. All alternatives offer areas of “refugia” from motorized 

least

Designated motorized travel routes can affect sensitive soils. Alternative One has the most designated roads 

eas of sensitive soils. Alternative Three and Four have the least designated routes within 

nd Five all reduce the risk to water resources from travel route by managing 

ss designated motorized travel routes, less motorized travel routes in AIZs, and less stream crossings than 

proving and maintaining road and

.

specific areas. With the exception of Alternative One, the overages are not excessive, and would not 

fundamentally change the areas’ setting for recreational use and travel. 

W

Travel routes have the potential to affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. All action alternatives meet P

Open Motorized Route Densities (OMRDs) in most forest areas, which reduces the risk of wildlife 

disturbance along

disturbance. “Refugia” is defined as non-motorized areas over 1,000 acres. Alternative One offers the

“refugia” at 24 percent of forest acres, and Alternatives Three and Four offer more, at 37 and 40 percent 

respectively. Alternatives Two and Five offer 29 percent of for est acres as “refugia” for wildlife. 

Alternatives Two through Five are expected to meet forest plan standards and guidelines for wildlife species

and habitat. 

Soils 

and trails, within ar

sensitive soils. Alternatives Two and Five have less designated routes on sensitive soils than the existing 

condition, but more that Alternatives Three or Four. All alternatives are expected to meet forest plan 

standards and guidelines for soils. 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources 

Alternatives Two, Three, Four a

le

Alternative One, the existing condition. The action alternatives include im

trails to standard and closing user-created routes. These actions can mitigate risks to riparian and water 

resources from travel routes and uses. All action alternatives reduce potential risks to riparian areas and 

water resources, however, Alternatives Three and Four would reduce potential risks to water resources more 

than Alternatives Two and Five. All alternatives are expected to meet forest plan standards and guidelines 

for riparian resources. However, Alternatives Two through Five reduce impacts over the existing condition

 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

It is expected that Alternatives One and Two would have the most impact upon aquatic biota and their 

habitat and Alternatives Three and Four would have the least. Alternative Five, when considered in the 

range of alternatives, has a median amount of impact upon aquatic biota and their habitat. All alternatives 

are expected to meet forest plan standards and guidelines for fish and fish habitat. 

28
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area 

and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter. 

Tribal Treaty Concerns____________________________

Introduction 

A revised travel plan has the potential to affect tribal members’ ability to exercise their treaty rights; 

including hunting, fishing, and gathering on the Forest. Travel routes also can contribute to the spread

noxious weeds which affect native plant pop

of

ulations. This concern is discussed under the “noxious weeds” 

ea

he portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered by the Westside, Soda Springs, and Montpelier 

Ranger

Analys

This sec

exercise

Treaty

These in

specifies hunting, the lawsuit “State of Idaho vs. Tinno” established that any rights not specifically given up 

the Treaty were, in fact, reserved by the Tribes. Further, in the Shoshone language, the same verb is used 

headquartered at the Fort Hall Reservation, in southeast Idaho. The 

ation boundary encompasses about 544,000 acres of land along the Snake River. The original 

t Tribes

a y areas 

istrict of the Caribou-Targhee NF are ceded lands. As described previously in this 

ed

s

Seminar: April 12-13, 2004). 

section. Travel routes have the potential to impact water quality, fish and fish habitat, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. These concerns are discussed under their own heading in the document. A portion of the Westside 

District is included in the “ceded lands.” These were originally part of the Fort Hall Reservation but were 

ceded to the United States around the turn of the century. On the ceded lands the Tribes also retain the right 

to graze. Access needed for this grazing is also a concern. 

Analysis Ar

T

Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

is Methods 

tion will discuss the existing condition for access and resource availability, as it relates to the 

of tribal-treaty rights. 

Rights defined in the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868. 

clude hunting, fishing, gathering, and other practices such as trade. While the Treaty itself only

in

for hunt, fish and gather so it is assumed that the Indians expected to retain rights for all of those practices 

(Smoak 2004, From a presentation at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty Rights 

Seminar: April 12-13, 2004). 

Background 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are

current reserv

reservation was over 1.8 million acres but due the expansion of white settlers, Congress required he

to cede much of this land. The Tribes did, however, retain grazing rights on those ceded lands. M n

of the Westside D

document, the Fort Bridger Treaty established off-reservation treaty rights on all unoccupied lands. These 

rights include hunting, fishing, gathering, and other practices such as trade. While the Treaty itself only

specifies hunting, the lawsuit “State of Idaho vs. Tinno” established that any rights not specifically given up

in the Treaty were, in fact, reserved by the Tribes. Further, in the Shoshone language, the same verb is us

for hunt, fish and gather so it is assumed that the Indians expected to retain rights for all of those practice

(Smoak 2004, From a presentation at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty Rights 

29
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

The Caribou-Targhee is also part of the ancestral homeland of the Northwest Band of the Shoshoni. In

1863 Treaty, they assented to the Fort Bridger Treaty. Chief Pokatello claimed the area from Raft River

 their 

to

e Portneuf for himself and his people. This area includes the Curlew National Grassland and Westside 

 30, 1863). 

rior to white settlement of the west, the Shoshone and Bannock peoples were comprised of many smaller 

ng a vast area of the west. Their aboriginal territory includes six states and ranged 

south to Mexico. The bands were generally extended family groups who moved 

ribes. This is due mostly

privacy issues. For this analysis, we assume that the National Forest System lands were, and are, used for 

tradi n

Caribou tect the privacy

of the Tribes, these activities will be discussed and analyzed in general terms. The following information is 

from

Tribal E

always played a significant role in Indian cultures. 

Natural resources played an integral part of these ceremonies. Items such as sweet sage and 

y

ermint. A myriad of

other plants were gathered for food and to provide shelter. Rocks and clays were also used for 

own

ose

re also hunted and used by the aboriginal people. The Shoshone and Bannock bands also relied 

on upland game birds and small mammals. Salmon fishing was an integral part of aboriginal

pools and other water features were also utilized heavily by the Shoshonebes. 

n.

raditional way of life. 

ccess for these activities is important. Some tribal members rely on motorized access to reach forest areas. 

le access to reach forest areas. Forest Service managers have a 

tinue to support these traditional tribal uses, while maintaining 

_____________________________________

s

ety of trails, 

th

Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee NF (Treaty with the Shoshoni-Northwestern Bands, July

Thus, tribal members of the Northwest Band also have rights to hunt, fish, and gather on all unoccupied

lands of the United States. 

P

nomadic bands inhabiti

north into Canada and

across the western landscape hunting, fishing and gathering with the changing seasons. The Fort Hall area 

was a traditional wintering area for many of the bands. In addition to digging camas bulbs, many bands met 

on the Camas Prairie for trade events each spring. The Caribou-Targhee NF is an integral part of the 

Shoshone Bannock Tribes ancestral lands. 

Few “traditional use sites” have been documented through consultation with the T

to

tio al practices such as hunting, fishing, and gathering. We also assume that tribal members utilize the 

-Targhee for traditional activities such as ceremonies and religious practices. To pro

“Shoshone-Bannock Tribes” published by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Cultural Committee and 

lders.

Spirituality and religious ceremonies have

tobacco made from a variety of plants were and are used in ceremonies. The Indians gathered man

plants for medicinal purposes, including chokecherry, sagebrush, and pepp

ceremonies, ornamentation and shelter. Some bands inhabiting the upper Snake region were kn

as the “sheepeaters” since bighorn sheep were a staple of their diet. Buffalo, elk, deer and mo

we

culture. Geysers, thermal 

Bannock Tri

These activities are still practiced today across the Forest although the extent of those activities is unknow

Many tribal members hunt, fish and gather for subsistence and to maintain their t

A

Some tribal members rely on full-sized vehic

responsibility to ensure that the resources con

reasonable access to forest areas. 

Recreation _

Introduction 

Caribou Travel Plan alternatives will affect the quantity and quality of recreation settings and opportunities.

Significant recreation issues include the opportunity for non-motorized and motorized experiences, the los

of single-track motorcycle trails, seasonal closures effecting recreation access, cross-country motorized 

travel in Huckleberry Basin, and the effect of exceeding prescribed Open Motorized Route Densities

(OMRDs) in some areas. Other concerns discussed in the analysis are seasonal closures, saf

30
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

quality of experience, special access for persons with disabilities, and big game retrieval. The public 

ed

ses and

followed by a description of the quantity and quality of motorized forest 

w season travel. The following 

ies: 

etting during the snow and snow-free season and miles of nonexisting opportunity for non-motorized experiences. 

zed travel routes compared to the OMRD limit by prescription area

y for motorized travel during the snow-free season, and compare this 

y the existing opportunity for 

g single-track opportunity for motorcycle 

Chapter Four, the same indicators will illustrate the differences between alternatives for a variety of 

nd acres have been rounded to the nearest 10 for comparative 

d

ysis Area

,

l.

und. The 2002 Caribou 

avel Plan depicts seasonal closure dates. Closure dates for wildlife concerns are as shown on the map. 

concern over the management of specific travel routes are discussed in more detail later in this section. 

This chapter provides background information describing general trends for outdoor recreation, 

management direction, and the current condition of forest roads and trails. The analysis then discusses 

current uses and opportunities by travel mode and season, followed by a description of the existing 

condition of other access concerns and specific routes. 

Analysis Method 

The analysis method compares current travel use and demand with existing travel opportunity by recreation 

activity and by season (snow-free and snow). Non-motorized trail uses and demand are discussed, follow

by a description of the quantity and quality of non-motorized forest opportunities. Motorized trail u

demand are then discussed,

opportunities. Summer or snow-free travel is discussed first, followed by sno

indicators are used to describe the existing condition of recreation opportunit

• Acres managed for a non-motorized s

motorized trail illustrates the

• The miles of designated motori

describe the existing opportunit

condition with RFP direction. Acres open to snowmobile travel quantif

motorized travel during the snow season. 

• Miles of designated motorcycle trail indicate the existin

travel. Miles of motorcycle trail converted to ATV trail is also discussed. 

In

recreation travel activities. Trail miles a

purposes. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects encompasses the Caribou and Cache NF areas administere

by the Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts. Some information and comparisons are

drawn from the Caribou-Targhee Forest as a whole and from the State of Idaho.

Cumulative Effects Anal

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the State of Idaho, and the Forest Service Intermountain Region

which includes southern Idaho, Utah, Nevada and western Wyoming.

Seasons of Use 

For the purpose of defining travel access, the DEIS will use the terms snow season and snow-free season. 

Idaho weather is unpredictable, and Forest elevations vary from just over 5,000’ to 10,000’ above sea leve

Defining a use season with specific dates may not reflect the conditions on the gro

Tr

However, closures based on road conditions reflect a “typical” closure date. Conditions might allow a route 

to be opened early, or may require a route to be closed longer than stated on the map. 

31
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Background 

Outdoor recreation provides valuable quality-of-life benefits to Idahoans and citizens throughout the United 

rest

s

• A rapidly growing, aging population 

• Diversification of recreation preferences and activities 

• travel and recreation opportunities on and across private lands 

Re

ccordi % between 1990 and 2000. Population 

row 2000

.S en

id a

Outdoo

aho’s landscapes are diverse, from the rugged northern and central mountains to the Snake River Plain. 

ve 8

abu n )

cludes utart p

an e e

iew g

thes a

he CO

For .

or s and hikers. Both motorized and nonStates. It also contributes to the health and well being of individuals and communities. The Caribou NF 

provides outdoor recreation opportunities to local communities and visitors. Typical summer and fall 

activities include camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, ATV travel, mountain biking and 

picnicking. From December thru mid-March, the Caribou offers a winter setting for cross-country skiing,

snowmobiling, snowshoeing, dog-sledding, snowboarding and downhill skiing. 

The following discussion addresses recreation uses and settings as they relate to the management of fo

roads and trails. Most of the travel on forest roads and trails is for leisure. The majority of public comment

regarding travel management supported either non-motorized settings or motorized travel opportunities. 

Understandably, people want the Forest Service to manage travel routes to benefit their recreation 

preferences and activities. 

Factors affecting recreation and forest travel routes on the Caribou include: 

• More people living in cities 

• Increased road and trail travel 

• New technologies that are changing access and use of the Forest 

The loss of

creation Use and Demand

A ng to U.S. Census figures, the nation’s population grew 13

g th for the states of Idaho, Utah, Washington, and Oregon was over 25% for the same timeframe, (

U . C sus). The southern portions of the forest, on the Westside and Montpelier Districts, receive “overflow” recreation visits from Utah. As the Salt Lake City metropolitan area grows and spreads northward

towards the Idaho-Utah border, forest use from Utah residents will increase. As an area’s population 

increases, so will the demand for outdoor recreation. Forest Service research indicates that participation in a

w e v riety of outdoor recreation activities is increasing nationally (2000 RPA Assessment). 

r Recreation in Idaho

Id

O r 6 percent of Idaho land is public land. Statewide, outdoor recreation opportunities are diverse and 

nda t. Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (Idaho, SCORTP, 2003

in an assessment of outdoor recreation supply and demand for the state. Idaho’s population o

p ici ated the nation in 19 out of 28 comparable outdoor recreation activities. Idahoans hike more often

th th national average and participate more in wildlife activities including hunting, fishing and wildlif

v in . Idahoans also participate in OHV travel and snowmobiling at a higher rate than the nation, and

e p rticipation rates are growing. (SCORTP, Idaho State Trails Plan, pg.154)

T S RTP discusses statewide issues for recreational trails, of which the majority are found on National 

ests The SCORPT indicates that trail users want more motorized trails for ATV and motorcycle travel

and m e non-motorized trails for equestrians, mountain biker

32
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

motoriz

improve

In 2000, the Forest Service began using a sampling system and method of estimating use known as the 

r the

creation visits to the Caribou will continue to increase annually between one and four 

ercent.

sampling for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest indicates the top five recreation 

.

The RFP discusses management direction for the transportation system and recr ation on pages 3-36 to 40. 

It states that system ro ess for the management o eation, special uses,

timber, range, mineral scribes a road and trail sy of 

opportunities, both mo

The RFP goals that pe de:

• Forest roads and trails provide for user safety and are maintained to mi mize impacts to forest 

resources 

e

• The OMRD standard and restrictions depicted on the travel plan map do not restrict responses to 

hicle access on a restricted road or trail or in a restricted area shall be for official 

administrative business only and shall be officially approved. 

• Unless otherwise posted, motorized access is allowed for parking, wood gathering and dispersed 

camping within 300 feet of an open designated road. 

ed trail users want trails that are close to home. All types of trail users feel that Idaho’s trails need

d information, signing and maintenance (Idaho, SCORPT). 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project. NVUM sampling on the Caribou-Targhee NF in 2000 

estimated recreation use on the combined forests at 2.2 million forest visits for that year. The FEIS fo

RFP, estimates that re

p

The 2000 NVUM

activities of forest visitors were viewing scenery, viewing wildlife, snowmobiling, general relaxation and

hunting. The top primary activities were snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, OHV travel and viewing nature

Use trends need to be watched closely. Researchers indicate the only thing that is predicable in outdoor 

recreation is change. Technology will introduce new recreational pursuits. Management will need to adapt 

to changing recreation uses on the Forest. (2000 RPA Assessment, pg.69). 

Management Direction 

e

ads and trails will provide acc

so de

f recr

s and fire programs. It al stem that provides a variety

torized and non-motorized. 

rtain to travel planning inclu

ni

• The transportation system is developed and maintained at the minimum level necessary to manag

resources, provide access and protect facilities 

• Forest and local governments work cooperatively towards resolution of R.S. 2477 assertions. 

An objective identified in the RFP is to revise the Caribou travel plan to incorporate RFP direction for 

access management. RFP standards and guidelines that are applicable to travel planning include: 

• OMRD shall not exceed the limits identified in the Plan OMRD Map. OMRD is defined as the 

miles of designated motorized roads and trails per square mile within a specific prescription 

polygon. 

emergency events to protect human life, property values, structures, and forest resources. 

• The travel planning process shall consider additional areas for non-motorized winter recreation. 

• Any motorized ve

33
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

• The construction of new or maintenance of ex ting, motorized and non-motorized access routes 

should be consistent with S) class in which they are

located. 

The RFP does not specifically identify special access to people with disabilities for special access for game 

retrieval. The forest does provide equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in a variety of 

recreation activities. 

ROS Classes 

ROS is a planning tool used to divide outdoor settings and activities into categories: Primitive, 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, 

Rural, and Urban. The Forest Service uses ROS to inventory and manage recreation areas and 

activities. ROS classes are defined by the quality of the setting and the distance from roads and 

motorized trails. Statewide, national forest system lands provide a significant amount of areas that 

retain the more primitive ROS settings. (SCOPRT). 

Table 3.1 Estimated Acres of Current ROS Classifications on the Caribou NF 

 

is

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (RO

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 26% 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 29% 

Roaded Modified and Roaded Natural 45%

 

Snow Season- non-motorized 6% 

Snow Season - motorized 94% 

 

ROS estimates used for the analysis are different than the ROS estimates used for the FEIS of the RFP. 

Modifications to the ROS inventory were made in response to the improved accuracy of the travel route 

inventory and minimum acres for SPNM areas were reduced to reflect site-specific conditions. The Caribou 

does not have acres that would be classified as “Primitive”, which is defined as an area 3 miles or more from

a motorized route. Twenty-six percent of forest acres are mapped as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, which 

are acres over 1⁄2 mile from a designated motorized route with few facilities and development. Most SemiPrimitive Non-motorized areas are found on the “eastside” of the forest. Twenty-nine percent of forest acres 

are mapped as Semi-Primitive Motorized, meaning these acres are within 1⁄2 mile of a motorized route, with 

few facilities and development. Most of these areas occur on the Westside District. The remainder of the 

Forest is classified as Roaded Modified and Roaded Natural. These are acres that are within 1⁄2 mile of a 

system road and generally offer more facilities, information and management presence. These areas are 

found in the Bear River Range and the Pruess section, both on the Montpelier District. The Caribou has no 

acres classified as Rural or Urban. 

The snow season setting is divided into two classes, motorized and non-motorized. Most of the forest acres 

allow snowmobile travel, and are classed as motorized. These acres include winter range prescription areas

that restrict snowmobiles to designated routes. Currently six percent of forest acres are classified as nonmotorized during the snow season. Toponce and Bear Creek are the larger areas managed as non-motorized

during the snow season. 

34
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative One - Snow-Free ROS map. 

35
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Caribou’s Road and Trail System 

Most forest visitors use a motorized vehicle to reach the forest. Scenic driving is the single largest recreation 

use on national forests. Public comments include concern over access to the forest and access within the 

rest. Forest acreage is distributed over several linear mountain chains. Access to national forest system

anages over sixty developed recreation areas, including campgrounds, organization camps, 

ailheads and cabin rentals. Generally, these high-use areas can be reached by full-sized vehicles on 

ps act as points of

Travel Plan with the 2003 Special 

ay

e

he Forest roads are maintained with federal and cooperator funds. For more information on system roads 

the Transportation section of Chapter Three. Annually, less than twenty percent of the 

aintenance of designated motorized trails through the OHV Grant Program and the Trail Ranger Program. 

popular motorized trails receive regular maintenance and reconstruction through these programs. Less 

ship funds for 

ate

e

are historic mining 

fo

lands is often dependent on crossing private lands. The fragmented land ownership makes it difficult to 

improve and maintain public road and trail access to the forest. Local interested citizens have formed the 

organization Save Our Road Access, or SOAR to help promote and retain access to public lands in 

Southeast Idaho. See the Transportation section of Chapter Three for additional information on right-of-way

access to forest system lands. 

The Forest m

tr

improved roads. Developed sites such as campgrounds, trailheads and organizational cam

departure for popular motorized and non-motorized trails. Under the 2002

Order, the Caribou offers over 1,010 miles of designated roads, over 850 miles of designated motorized 

trails and 600 miles of designated non-motorized trails during spring, summer and fall. The majority of 

designated forest trails are managed for multiple use, meaning they are available for most modes of travel,

motorized and non-motorized. 

Bear Lake-Caribou Scenic Byw

The Tincup Highway, State Highway 34, is the Forest's portion of the Bear Lake Caribou Scenic Byway. 

As part of the National Scenic Byway Program, area counties and communities have created a scenic byway 

corridor management plan. The Caribou NF is a partner in the planning process. Many forest visitors use th

Tincup Highway as an access corridor to numerous secondary roads and motorized and non-motorized

trails. 

 

Road and Trail Maintenance 

T

and maintenance see

Forest's system trails receive maintenance and clearing. Most system trails were not constructed, they

evolved over time by repeated travel, motorized and non-motorized. Many system trails do not meet today’s 

standards for erosion control and stream crossings. Most trail maintenance activities are completed by 

volunteers or cooperators. In the State of Idaho, a portion of OHV registration fees goes towards the 

m

Many

popular motorized trails and non-motorized trails are not as likely to receive partner

maintenance. Trail condition records for the forest are not complete at this time. Staff observations indic

that over 80 percent of the Forest's system trail miles need some maintenance for improved drainage of th

trail surface. Staff observations estimate between 10 and 15% of system trail miles need reconstruction 

and/or relocation. 

User-created and Unplanned Travel Routes 

Some roads and trails were designed and built to standard by the Forest Service, others

and timber roads, travel routes created to maintain facilities, and two-track routes that forest visitors have 

created through repeated use. These unplanned travel routes may be located in riparian zones, have steep 

grades, and poor drainage. User-created travel routes often occur on ridgelines, or as short-cuts between 

designated roads or trails. Many of these user-created travel routes are signed and closed in areas that 

restrict motorized travel to designated routes. 

Before the 2003 RFP, over forty percent of Forest acres were managed as open to cross-country motorized 

travel. These areas were primarily located on the Soda Springs Ranger District and the northern two-thirds 

36
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

of the Bear River Range of the Montpelier District. Steep terrain and thick vegetation constrained the actu

amount of acres that received cross-country motorized use. However, many travel routes were created in 

these areas through repeated cross-country motorized travel. Some of these travel routes have been in use 

for many years. 

al

d

n area. Generally these routes are found 

long popular roads adjacent to streams and creeks. Signs, fencing and rock barricades have been installed 

o

on-motorized summer travel includes hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking. Hunting may involve 

iding

he Mink Creek Recreation Area and the East Portneuf Range of the Westside District are within a twenty 

and hiking than the rest of the Forest. Nond Wilderness receives some hikers exploring its early mining history.

Mountain biking

Com on

the lley

pop

f th e.

ikes to designated motorized routes forest-wide. There are approximately 850 miles of 

tain bike travel. Some of these routes are two-track ATV trails and some are 

travel 

e

y opportunities for non-motorized and mechanized travel; however some trail users prefer 

d settings on a maintained single-track trail (RFP and Travel Plan Revision comments). Some 

l

forest manages 41,010 acres on the northern portion of the District for a nonotorized setting during the snow-free season. These areas include the West Mink Creek Research Natural

The RFP has a guideline that allows for vehicular travel off of a designated road up to 300’ to park, camp, 

fish, and picnic, if no resource damage occurs. These routes are not designated “system” roads or trails an

are not included when determining the OMRD for a prescriptio

a

in many high use areas to protect stream banks and vegetation from human and vehicle impacts. These 

measures have helped to restore streamside vegetation, reduce soil compaction and sediment delivery int

waterways. 

Non-motorized Use and Demand (Summer or Snow-free Season) 

N

travel by motorized vehicle or by non-motorized means. This activity is discussed separately in this section. 

Generally, non-motorized day use occurs in close proximity to developed campgrounds and to area 

communities. 

Hiking and horse-back r

T

minute drive of greater Pocatello and receive more walking

motorized activities in this “urban interface” area will increase with the valley population. Non-motorized

travel is not as prevalent in other areas of the Forest. In the Bear River Range, Bloomington Lake is a 

destination for many forest visitors looking for a scenic hike. Mount Naomi Recommended Wilderness 

receives some “over flow” hikers and stock users from the Wasatch Front. Caribou Mountain 

Recommende

pared with horseback riding and hiking, mountain bikes are a relatively new mode of transportation

Forest. Mountain bike use is common in the Upper West Portneuf area due to the proximity to the va

ulation and students who attend Idaho State University. Mountain bike travel is incidental in other areas 

o e forest, but use is expected to expand with tim

Non-motorized Opportunity and Settings (Summer or Snow-free Season) 

Hiking and stock travel is unrestricted, with few exceptions. There are over 1,450 miles of system trail, 

motorized and non-motorized, available for these activities. In 1987, a travel plan decision was made to 

restrict mountain b

designated trails for moun

single-track motorized trail. Many mountain bike riders are unaware of the existing restrictions of the

plan, and they use many routes that are restricted for foot and stock use only. The West Fork Trail is th

only trail on the forest that restricts motorized travel, but allows mountain bike travel. 

There are man

non-motorize

people object to sharing the trail with motorized travelers because they don’t like the noise and exhaust 

fumes and some are concerned with the safety of sharing trails with motorized vehicles (Caribou Trave

Plan Revision comments).

On the Westside District, the

m

37
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Area and portions of the Gibson Jack Research Natural Area directly adjacent to Pocatello, as well as the 

Toponce area. Portions of Bonneville Peak, Haystack Mountain and Pebble Basin are also managed as nonmotorized during the snow-free season. There are few areas managed for a non-motorized setting in Elkhorn 

and Oxford Peak areas. 

The Soda Springs Ranger District manages Caribou Mountain Recommended Wilderness Area and Bear 

rized setting. Due to their larger size, these non-motorized areas receive heavy use 

xperience during the snow-free season. Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness Area offers a large nonrom

te interior of Mt. Naomi Recommended 

e Toponce area is the only large nons

isitors to the Caribou-Targhee participate in OHV riding, 

ither as the primary reason for the visit, or as part of another activity, such as camping or hunting. The 

ribouTarghee monitored use in CY2000. Recreation behaviors vary from year to year based on weather, 

ter

aintained primary and secondary roads throughout the forest, and is most common during summer 

TV travel

amatically in the last few years. In general, learning to ride an ATV is 

r loop trails, as opposed to trails that dead-end (SCORPT, Travel 

lan Revision comments). 

Creek for a non-moto

during hunting season, but low use in the spring and summer. 

The Montpelier Ranger District manages the Worm Creek/Bloomington Lake area for a non-motorized 

e

motorized setting that is adjacent to Utah’s Mt. Naomi Wilderness. These areas receive moderate use f

Bear Lake Valley and Utah residents. Additional non-motorized areas occur along the Idaho/Wyoming

border in the Gannett Hills of the Montpelier Ranger District. These areas offer few facilities, are remote

and receive low use. 

The forest offers a variety of non-motorized settings, from the remo

Wilderness to the paved trails of Cherry Springs Nature Area. Th

motorized area close to Pocatello where demand for a non-motorized setting is high. Forest-wide, 600 mile

of system trail are managed for a non-motorized experience, but many of these trails are not maintained and

some are in remote areas. 

Motorized Use and Demand (Summer or Snow-free) 

The NVUM survey indicates that over 16% of v

e

survey defines OHV users as people who use 4X4s, ATVs, and motorcycles on the forest. (Footnote two 

items: 

 

1. Snowmobile use was not included as OHV use. 

2. These use figures and percentages are based on one year of survey data per forest, the Ca

economy, national events, etc.) 

Popular OHV roads and trails close to communities, campgrounds, and major roadways receive heavy use 

during summer weekends and holidays. Before the RFP, 40 percent of forest acres were open to crosscountry motorized travel, and OHV travelers became accustom to unrestricted motorized access in these 

areas. The Southern Bear River Range receives high OHV use from Utah residents, due to it’s proximity to 

the Utah border. 

Full-sized vehicle travel 

Driving for pleasure is the most common activity for forest visitors. This activity occurs on the bet

m

weekends and holidays. 

 

A

ATV use on the Forest has grown dr

not as difficult or physically demanding as learning to ride a motorcycle. ATV use tends to attract the 

younger and older riders. Some ATV riders prefer a semi-primitive setting on a two-track trail as opposed to

a low standard road Some ATV riders prefe

P

38
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Forest travel routes in close proximity to Pocatello, Malad, Preston, Soda Springs and Montpelier receive 

in

otorcycle travel

 single-track trails that were used by hikers, stock 

ck motorized routes have been converted to doubletrails to ATV

se as a concern statewide. 

Motorized Opportunity (Summer or Snow-Free Season) 

The existing condition for road and trail management is the travel restrictions shown on the 2002 Caribou 

Travel Map with the 2003 Special Order. Before the RFP, 42 percent of the Forest was managed as open to

cross-country motorized travel. For these unrestricted areas, the 2003 Special Order designated any road or 

trail depicted on the map as a motorized route. This was a short-term measure to stop cross-country 

motorized travel until a travel planning analysis and decision could be implemented. Because any road or 

trail shown on the map became a designated route, many of the travel routes in these areas are not 

constructed or maintained for motorized travel. 

Currently the Forest manages over 1,010 miles of designated road open to motorized vehicles over 50” in 

width. Some of these roads can be traveled in a low clearance two-wheel drive vehicle and others are 

restricted to high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles. The Forest offers over 680 miles of designated 

motorized trail that are available to ATV riders. Some low-use designated roads can also be used for ATV 

travel. The current travel plan offers over 170 miles of designated single-track motorcycle trails. These 

routes are not designed for ATVs and some segments of these routes are not safe for ATV use. 

The forest offers a variety of terrain and opportunity for OHV travel in most areas of the forest. The more 

accessible and better maintained roads and trails receive the most use. Designated roads and motorized trails 

close to campgrounds and waterways receive heavy use, especially during summer weekends and holidays. 

Designated motorized roads and trails that are “off the beaten path” receive moderate to low use. Designated

road opportunities range from driving paved scenic canyon roads, such as St. Charles Canyon, to the more 

rustic, steep and challenging Hillyard Canyon Road. ATV trails range from gentle two-track routes to rocky 

challenges such as the Reed Canyon Trail on Elkhorn Mountain. The Boundary Trail is a thirty-mile loop in 

the Portneuf Range. The Highline Trail is a 55 mile route along the backbone of the Bear River Range. 

These routes offer long-distance ATV travel. There are many motorized trail opportunities for ATVs, but 

use could be better distributed with additional trailhead facilities and improved trail information. 

The Forest offers over 170 miles of designated motorcycle trail, but portions of these travel routes have 

already been converted to two-track routes by illegal ATV use. 

 

Cross-country motorized travel 

Twenty-two thousand, nine hundred acres in Huckleberry Basin are managed as open to cross-country

motorized travel during the snow-free season. This area contains many miles of old timber roads to explore 

by full-sized vehicle, ATV or motorcycle. 

moderate weekday and evening use and heavy weekend and holiday use. Before the growth of ATV travel,

some forest areas open to motorized use received few motorized visitors due to their remote nature. With

the last ten years, ATV use has increased in more remote areas such as Stump Creek, Lanes Creek and Deer

Creek on the Soda Springs District. 

 

M

In the 1980s most forest travel routes were unrestricted

users and motorcycles. Over the years many single-tra

track trails either by repeated ATV travel or by the Forest Service reconstructing the trail for ATV use. 

Some people who travel on motorcycles prefer a single-track trail that provides some challenge. Some 

motorcycle riders prefer loop trails, as opposed to trails that dead-end (Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

comments and SCORPT). The Idaho SCORPT identifies the loss of single-track motorcycle

u

39
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Seasonal Closures 

The 2002 Travel Plan closes 34 miles of designated travel routes during the spring and/or fall for a variety

of reasons, including wildlife concerns and wet road conditions. These closures limit access by wheeled 

otorized vehicle to some forest areas during hunting season and early in the spring. Seasonal closures are 

plemented with gates. Most of the seasonal closures are located on the northern portion of the Westside 

nated motorized roads and trails in each 

fe and to maintain a quality recreation experience. In limiting the miles of

s. 

Travel

m

im

District. 

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Experience 

The RFP sets OMRDs or ceilings on the number of miles of desig

prescription area to benefit wildli

motorized route, OMRDs can help define and manage for a recreation “carrying capacity” for forest area

OMRDs range from zero in areas recommended for Wilderness to 3.5 in areas of high use. The 2002

Plan with the 2003 Special Order exceeds the OMRDs in 12 prescription areas as mapped. 

40
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative One - OMRD Map 

41
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Hunting and Travel

unting of big game, upland game and waterfowl is a popular activity on the Forest. These activities occur 

late summer, fall and early winter and are dependent on travel routes. Hunters may rely on a combination 

stination.

coincided with popular big game hunting units, and some hunters became accustom to unrestricted 

motoriz

some u scout, access hunting areas and to retrieve game. 

Non

Idaho Fish and Game hunter surveys have indicated that some hunters prefer to hunt in areas managed as 

non o

while hu nits of the forest. Hunters cannot take their motorized vehicle off of a 

designated travel route, as defined in Idaho Fish and Game regulations. This has changed the hunting 

r

ot

t. The RFP and current travel 

lan does not provide special access to hunters with disabilities. The Forest does provide equal opportunities

e,

on-motorized Use and Demand (Winter or Snow Season)

ek

s backd down the 

undeveloped” eastern slopes. This has been a popular activity for many years. 

of Soda Springs, receives ski and snowmobile use. The pullobilers. Currently, skiers and 

h conflict. This seems to occur in areas 

H

in

of motorized and non-motorized travel to reach their de

Motorized travel for hunting 

Before the RFP, 40 percent of forest acres were open to cross-country motorized travel. These areas

ed access in these areas. Today much of the forest is restricted to designated motorized routes and 

h nters rely on these designated motorized routes to

-motorized travel for hunting 

-m torized. In response to these concerns, Idaho Fish and Game restricted ATV and motorcycle use 

nting in some hunting u

experience in some areas of the Forest. Horse and stock use is often associated with scouting and hunting fo

big game in areas that provide a semi-primitive setting, such as Caribou Mountain and Stump Creek 

drainages. Caribou Mountain is popular for big game hunting because it offers a large non-motorized area. 

Game Retrieval & Disabled Hunter Access 

Some hunters would like motorized access on roads and trails otherwise closed to motorized travel to 

retrieve downed deer and elk. The opportunity to retrieve game with a motorized vehicle is popular with 

some hunters, while others find it intrusive (Caribou Travel Plan Revision comments). The RFP does n

provide for “special access” off of designated roads and trails for game retrieval. However, under the 

existing travel plan there are many designated motorized roads and trails to facilitate game retrieval. 

Violations of motorized travel restrictions do occur to retrieve downed game. The lack of designated 

motorized routes in some areas can determine where some people chose to hun

p

for all individuals to participate in a variety of recreation activities. There are numerous designated 

motorized routes on the Forest that provide access and hunting opportunities. 

Fishing and Travel 

People visit the Caribou to fish, however the Forest does not offer quality fishing opportunities when 

compared to the volume and variety of fishing available off-forest. Anglers use forest travel routes to hik

ATV, motorcycle or drive a full-sized vehicle to their favorite river, stream or pond. 

N

Snowshoeing, back-country skiing and snowboarding activities are popular on the Forest. The Mink Cre

Recreation Area and the Portneuf Range of the Westside District receive the bulk of these uses due to the 

proximity to the Pocatello area and Idaho State University. The Portneuf Range Yurt System attract

country skiers to the Bonneville Peak area. The “backside” of Pebble Creek Ski Area offers a unique 

opportunity to ride the ski-lift to the upper portions of Bonneville Peak and then ski or snowboar

“

Trail Canyon Winter Sports Area, just outside

offs and parking lots of Emigration Canyon are used by skiers and snowm

snowmobilers use some of the same winter facilities without muc

where both uses are not concentrated, indicating that conflict may be related to crowding (Forest staff 

observation).

42
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Non-motorized Opportunity and Setting (Winter or Snow Season) 

.

sitors annually. The ski 

ed

s

o and local snowmobile clubs help provide groomed trails, signing and

ibed incidents of snowmobiles hitting 

n. The

wmobile use in some areas identified as winter range for big game. Other 

eas restrict snowmobiles to designated routes as they pass through big-game winter range. On the Caribou, 

Skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing and dog-sled travel is unrestricted on the Forest, with few exceptions

There are many opportunities for these types of travel. However, some non-motorized winter travelers 

prefer a non-motorized setting for reasons of noise, fumes, safety and wildlife disturbance, (RFP and Travel

Plan Revision comments). 

The Forest offers 59,300 acres, or six percent of the forest, for a non-motorized setting during the winter. 

Some of these acres are in Mink Creek Recreation Area. Idaho State University and the City of Pocatello are

partners in providing Nordic ski opportunities in the Pocatello area. The State of Idaho Park and Ski 

program provide funds for signing and plowing of parking lots. The Mink Creek Area offers plowed parking

lots and marked trails. The City of Pocatello operates Mink Creek Nordic Ski Area under a special use 

permit. Pebble Creek Ski Area offers skiing and snowboarding to over 40,000 vi

area is operated under a special use permit. 

In the Upper West Portneuf Range, Toponce and the “backside” of Pebble Creek Ski Area offer a nonmotorized setting during the snow-season. There are occasional conflicts between skiers and snowmobiles 

in these areas. 

Trail Canyon Winter Sports Area offers a non-motorized setting and marked ski trails just outside of Soda 

Springs. The forest restricts snowmobiles to designated routes on 18% of forest acres for big game winter 

range. These areas may provide a non-motorized setting in winter, but they are managed for big game

security, not cross-country skiing and they offer few facilities and no marked or groomed non-motoriz

trails. 

Snowmobile Use and Demand 

Winter in Southeast Idaho can last from November to early March. Snowmobiling is a popular activity on 

the Forest. Southeast Idaho is a national destination for snowmobiling (SCORPT). The western slopes of 

the Bear River Range, Oxford Peak and Crystal Summit receive heavy use from local riders, Utah resident

and other visitors. The State of Idah

warming shelters. Snowmobile registration fees contribute to these efforts. District staff and partners sign 

and/or groom 300 miles of snowmobile trail. 

 

Snowmobile Travel and the Safety of Route Closure Methods 

In the last ten years, the Forest has closed some roads and trails with earth berms to discourage wheeled

vehicle travel. There is a concern that berms built for route closures could be a potential safety hazard to

snowmobile riders in the winter. Snowmobile hazards, both man-made and natural occur throughout the 

Forest. Public comment received on other Forest actions have descr

and or getting stuck on earth berms. (Henry’s Lake Travel Plan Implementation EA, 2003) 

Snowmobile Opportunity 

Most acres, 94 percent, of the Forest are open to cross-country snowmobile use during the snow seaso

2002 Travel Plan restricts sno

ar

snowmobile opportunities can be restricted by lack of good snow conditions, but most Forest areas are 

available for snowmobile travel. 

43
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Travel Plan Compliance and Enforcement 

Travel plans require education and enforcement to be an effective tool for managing motorized and nonmotorized travel. Successful travel plan education has to provide three messages to forest travelers: 

-

hased

s

forest”. Many people cannot understand that traveling off of a designated route can cause damage to 

rest resources. The forest uses the Tread Lightly Program and other information to help people understand 

at repeated off route use does cause damage, and in some areas just one vehicle traveling through a 

ht

tion the enforcement partnership with Idaho Fish and Game. 

ls.

ason. Non-compliance with the travel plan increases before and 

ring hunting seasons as more people are out traveling on the forest to scout for and to pursue game

ns). Idaho Fish and Game have included “travel regulation” information on their 

gulations, and other publications. The Forest Service and Idaho Fish and Game

notices, do not necessarily

flect trends or problem areas as enforcement efforts fluctuate with available staff and funding. Some years 

compliance, but more tickets and warnings are issued when more enforcement 

game trail that evolved into a recreation trail. Many

• Vehicular travel on forest roads and trails is regulated. This means mountain bikes, motorcycles, 

3 wheelers, 4-wheelers, SUVs, trucks and cars. 

• The rules and regulations need to be clear and understandable to most people. 

• Vehicular travel on the forest is restricted to protect resources, for user safety or to provide a non

motorized experience. 

The rules and regulations are available on the Travel Plan Map. The Caribou Travel Map can be purc

at most forest offices. Forest offices are not open after 5:00 pm and they are not open on weekends. The 

Visitor Center in Idaho Falls is open on weekends during summer months. The 2002 Caribou Travel Map i

complicated and has numerous errors. The forest needs to improve on these key items to help forest users 

comply with the Travel Plan. Education also includes the message of “why there are restrictions for travel 

on the

fo

th

sensitive area, such as a wet meadow, can do long-term harm to water quality, soils, vegetation and wildlife

habitat. Forest staff sends out press releases about travel regulations several times a year, usually rig

before the fall hunting season. The press releases focus on the resource reasons for travel regulations. Press 

releases also men

Travel plan compliance is directly related to enforcement and “presence” of forest staff on roads and trai

As with any program, people are more likely to comply to the rules if they feel they may receive a ticket.

Travel plan violations occur year-round, especially in areas formerly managed as open to cross-country

motorized travel during the snow-free se

du

(annual staff observatio

website, their hunting re

work as partners to educate hunters about travel plan regulations. Field contacts and news releases are used

to remind hunters of travel regulations on the Forest. The additional visibility of field officers helps reduce

violations of the travel plan. 

Enforcement records of travel plan non-compliance, warnings and violation

re

indicate higher nonpersonnel are in the field. However, records do indicate an increase in non-compliance with motorized travel 

over the last ten years. This would be expected, given the increase in ATV travel on the Forest. 

Specific Travel Routes of Interest 

The Northern Section of Trail 131 on Elkhorn Mountain 

The origin of this trail is unknown. It may have been a

established travel routes on the Forest began as game trails. Trail #131 was mapped as a designated 

motorized trail on the 1984 Caribou Travel Plan map. 

The trail is located in two prescription areas, Elk and Deer Winter Range and Rangeland Vegetation 

Management. Elk and Deer Winter Range access direction is to restrict motorized vehicles to designated

44
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

routes during the snow and snow-free seasons. Rangeland Vegetation Management is to restrict motorized

vehicles to designated routes during the snow-free season. The trail area is mapped within the ROS class of 

emi-primitive Motorized. 

to

s the

r

 and Iowa Bar, sprang up shortly after gold was discovered on Mt. 

City

). In 

ed

storical

ociety, Reference #5, pg.6). 

ith the demise of the mining towns, the Winschell Dugway became a popular “jeep” route for fall hunting, 

sigh e ric mining area. During the 1950s and up to the mid-1980s the most 

ommon motorized vehicle on the forest was a full-sized 4-wheel or 2-wheel drive vehicle such as a Jeep or 

truc A monly used on forest roads and trails until the late 1980s. 

IM records, field observations).

hrough the 1970s and 80s, the steep, dirt road was often impassable to trucks and Jeeps when the surface 

was er District Ranger, personal communication).

Full-sized vehicles using t d drainage problems and the need 

intaining and interpreting the historic values associated with Caribou Mountain. The access 

tandard allows motorized travel on designated routes during the snow-free season. Guidelines describe 

Semi-primitive Motorized and Semi-primitive Non0). 

uilt during the mining operations of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The 

lide event illustrates the unstable nature of the soils and hydrology in some locations on Caribou Mountain, 

includin he Winschell Dugway has an intact roadbed on its 

outhern end as it departs from Morgan Meadows, but the road template soon disappears as one travels 

north to vels

orth, the roadbed becomes intermittent. Small landslides and/or soil creep along with heavy downfall have 

entirely

road wa came impassable, and an alternative route was created to keep the road 

assable for wagons and horses. Intermittent and year-round streams also bisect the former roadway. The 

nort rn There 

no recreational travel on this portion of the wagon road. 

S

 

Large portions of the trail have deteriorated over time from lack of use and maintenance. Some trail 

segments are no longer visible on the ground (Fall 2004 field visit). In the last ten years, public access on

the Forest across private land has been lost on the northeast slopes of Elkhorn Mountain. This trail offer

only motorized public access into the area. The northern portion of this trail provides motorized access fo

forest personnel to administer and manage a special use permit to graze cattle. 

The Winschell Dugway on Caribou Mountain 

Caribou City, along with Keenan City

Pisgah in 1870 by Carriboo Jack and others, (Idaho State Historical Society, Reference #5, pg.6). After the

discovery, the mountain was renamed Carriboo Mountain. (footnote- original spelling for the city and 

mountain was Carriboo, after the Carriboo area in British Columbia, Canada. To avoid confusion, the

modern spelling will be used in this document.) The Winschell Dugway was a freight route for Caribou

and other mining operations from the 1880s and later (from the 1990 book, The Mountain: Carriboo

1889, William Winschell built the freight route with hand tools and dynamite. After the gold rush subsid

around 1910, Caribou City slowly declined, being almost abandoned by 1920 (Idaho State Hi

S

W

t-s eing, and visiting the histo

c

k. ll-terrain vehicles, ATVs, were not com

(R

T

wet in the spring and fall months (Tony Variloni, form

he road during wet conditions created rutting an

for yearly maintenance. In the mid 1980s, the Soda Springs District Ranger closed the route to motorized 

vehicles. The decision was made to prevent erosion and for user safety. The surrounding area was also 

closed to provide a large area for non-motorized hunting experience. The Winschell Dugway has been

managed as a non-motorized trail for the past twenty years. 

The Winschell Dugway is located in the Caribou Mountain Special Emphasis Area. The prescription area 

goals include ma

s

maintaining the ROS classes of Roaded Natural, 

motorized (RFP, 4-28-3

In 1996, a landslide occurred along the southeast slope of Caribou Mountain. The slide obliterated the 

remnants of a large water ditch b

s

g the vicinity of the old wagon road. Today t

s

 Caribou City. On the southern end of the route, illegal ATV use is evident. As the route tra

n

obscured the roadbed in numerous locations. In several locations there is evidence that the wagon 

s re-routed as one route be

p

he segment of the old route does not meet agency trail standards, motorized or non-motorized.

is

45
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Cub i

The Cub River area receives heavy summer recreation use. This area is in close proximity to Logan, Utah 

and it is free of snow. Recreation 

.

this road has proven to be a safety concern. 

for

ub River trail

sers.

troduction

he Roadless Area Conservation Rule, implemented in 2001, does not prohibit motorized trails within 

ventoried Roadless Areas. However, designated travel routes have the potential to affect the existing 

ilderness characteristics and roadless values of Inventoried Roadless Areas, or IRAs. This section will 

iscuss the existing wilderness potential and roadless values of the Caribou’s 34 IRAs specific to designated 

otorized roads and trails. 

nalysis Method 

he analysis relies on the findings of the FEIS for the 2003 RFP, Appendix C which discusses the existing 

ilderness attributes of each IRA and Appendix R which analyzes the roadless characteristics of the each 

A. It is important to note that there is a difference between evaluating effects on the wilderness potential 

of IRAs and evaluating effects on the roadless characteristics of IRAs. The IRA’s existing wilderness 

potential will be discussed first, followed by their existing roadless values. 

Plan Direction 

In preparation for revising its Forest Plan, the Caribou NF completed an IRA re-inventory describing 

changes in the boundaries and character of the 34 IRAs in the Forest from 1985 to 1996. In 2001, the Forest 

Service published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) describing how to evaluate IRAs 

for management decisions. During the revision process, the Forest then conducted an Inventoried Roadless 

Area Re-evaluation, using the five principles for evaluating IRAs that were published in the ANPR. The 

results from this re-evaluation were incorporated into Alternative 7R of the FEIS for the RFP which 

subsequently became the 2003 RFP for the Caribou. 

 

In July of 2004, the Forest Service issued an Interim Directive regarding IRA management which reinstated 

the previous policy that IRA management should be decided at the local level if the Forest has a revised 

Plan which “has considered the protection and management of inventoried roadless areas” (ID 1920-2004-1; 

Bosworth Letter, June 7, 2001). As stated, the 2003 Caribou RFP did carefully consider protection and 

management of all 34 IRAs on the Forest; therefore the prescription direction in the RFP will be followed 

regarding access management in IRAs. 

R ver Road

the Wasatch Front. The road is extremely busy during the six months that

sites exist along the entire seven miles of road from the Forest boundary to Willow Flat Campground. 

Designated motorized trails are found in the Worm Basin area to the north and west of this recreation area

The only travel route connecting these recreation destinations is the Cub River Road, forcing ATV users to

utilize the system road to travel from camping areas to trail systems and to reach adjacent trail systems. 

Mixing ATVs with the heavy vehicle traffic on

Franklin County has accepted responsibility for maintenance of the Cub River Road from the Forest 

Boundary to Willow Flat Campground. This has led the County Sheriff to increase patrols and issue 

warnings and citations for violations of State laws pertaining to registration, licensing, and insurance of 

OHV’s on the road. Compliance with Idaho State laws regarding insurance and registration is difficult

out-of-state weekend visitors. The existing transportation system is not meeting the needs of C

u

Roadless Area ___________________________________

In

T

In

w

d

m

A

T

w

IR

46
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

The RFP manages the IRAs under a variety of prescriptions. IRAs that rated higher for roadless area values 

and/or had special features are managed under prescription categories 1, 2 and 3, which have a resource 

protection theme, such as a special management area or a semi-primitive recreation emphasis. Over 60 

percent of the forest’s IRA is managed under the prescription categories 1, 2 and 3. The remaining 40 

percent is managed under a variety of prescriptions including forested vegetation and phosphate leasing 

prescriptions. OMRDs are used to retain the existing setting for most forest IRAs. 

Wilderness Potential 

As part of revising a forest plan, IRAs are re-evaluated for their wilderness potential. As defined in FSH 

1909.12, Chapter Seven, Appendix C of the 2003 RFP evaluates the existing wilderness potential of each 

IRA by the three criteria of availability, capability, and need. Availability considers other resource or 

management concerns, including forested vegetation, livestock grazing, and gas and mineral potential. 

Need considers the demand for wilderness and if an area would offer a unique wilderness setting or 

represent an ecosystem not already represented within the National Wilderness System. The capability

assessment describes to what degree an IRA possesses the six characteristics of wilderness: 

• Apparent Naturalness 

• Opportunity for Solitude 

• Opportunity for Primitive Recreation 

• Challenging Experiences 

• Special ecological, geological or cultural features 

The Forest’s IRAs do not offer much opportunity for solitude, primitive recreation, or challenge, due to their 

size and the fact that the sights and sounds of human development are often evident for the lower valleys. 

Most of the Caribou IRAs rate low for manageability, which is based on the size of the area and the 

configuration of an area’s boundary. From this process, two areas were recommended for wilderness 

consideration, a portion of Caribou Mountain IRA and a portion of Mt. Naomi IRA. These areas are 

managed under a recommended wilderness prescription that protects and retains their existing wilderness 

characteristics. 

Roadless Values 

In the past, roadless areas were only considered for their potential as designated wilderness. It is now 

recognized that roadless areas have significant ecological, as well social values, beyond their wilderness 

consideration. Roadless areas: 

• Provide sources of clean drinking water 

• Function as biological strongholds for populations of Threatened and Endangered Species 

• Provide large relatively undisturbed landscapes important for biological diversity and the long-term

survival of many species 

• Provide opportunities for primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and motorized recreation 

• Serve as bulwarks against the spread of non-native invasive plant species; and 

• Offer reference areas for study and research. (RFP FEIS, 3-194,195) 

47
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

The Forest has 34 IRAs. “Roadless Areas” refer to areas that do not have constructed and maintained roads 

and that are substantially natural. The word “roadless” implies to many people that no roads exist in the 

areas. Roadless area criteria state that the area does not “...contain improved roads maintained for travel by 

standard passenger-type vehicles.” Many of the forest’s IRAs have unimproved or historic roads. Some of 

these roads are managed as motorized trails. 

Each IRA’s wilderness potential and roadless area values and the miles of motorized routes within the IRA 

are summarized in the table below. In some cases, the improved accuracy of GPS data and GIS mapping is 

depicting roads within IRAs, which were intended to be the road boundary of the IRA. Appendix C and

Appendix R of the FEIS for the RFP contain the complete description of the wilderness potential and 

roadless area characteristics of each IRA on the Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

The Caribou’s IRAs offer many unique features and settings, however many have unconstructed roads 

within their boundaries. In 1996, the Forest completed a re-inventory of the IRAs to capture and map the 

changes in areas that no longer met roadless criteria as described in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12. 

These are areas that had pre-existing constructed roads that were not identified in 1985 as well as adjacent 

acres that were not identified as roadless, but met the criteria. 

48
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

49

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

49
Draft E Draft Environmental I ental Impact Statement Ca Caribou Travel Pla Travel Plan Revision 

50

Table 3.2. Roadless Area 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

51
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

52
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Heritage ________________________________________

Introduction 

Designating user-created travel routes as system routes has potential to effect heritage resources. Closing 

and decommissioning user-created routes and system routes has potential to effect heritage resources. The 

Winschell Dugway is an historic wagon road and future management of this route needs to consider the 

s

n

aluated by an archaeologist, in an effort to locate and record any historic and/or 

chaeological properties. In the event that significant archaeological and/or historical resource sites are 

discovered to be present and any proposed action will have an adverse effect on the site mitigation will 

ill

or all

rtakings. The percentage of assessment area to be surveyed will be dependant upon 

ection 106 Process. One hundred percent of high cultural site probability areas will be inventoried. Cultural 

 significance, i.e., National Register of Historic Places eligibility shall be determined by

ural Resources Specialist in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

ended in order to achieve a "no adverse 

fect" determination. All inventory reports will be submitted to the SHPO in completion of the NHPA 

mining, harvesting timber and 

aveling. Archaeological investigations of known and as yet undiscovered cultural resources may offer 

ed to planners so that management decisions can be made to avoid or 

itigate the effects of proposed project activities.

s

ic, historic, and social values. The significance or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

lity of cultural resources is determined by the Forest Archaeologist in consultation with the State 

ervation Officer (SHPO). 

 

Winschell Dugway’s historic attributes. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for direct and indirect and cumulative effects is the portions of the Caribou and Cache NF

administered by the Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF.

Analysis Methods 

Areas of high probability within proposed ground disturbing areas associated with this travel plan revisio

will be surveyed and ev

ar

occur in consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Analysis methods w

include pedestrian transects and visual assessments of the projected area of potential effects (APE) f

site specific unde

identified site location probability and actual areas affected by the proposed action. Coverage of such 

previously unsurveyed areas will be performed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

S

resources property

Forest Service Cult

(SHPO). If significant cultural resource properties fall within the area of potential effects or impact area of 

site specific undertakings, mitigation measures will be recomm

ef

Section 106 process. 

Background 

Archaeological and ethnographic sources indicate the historic and prehistoric utilization of the Caribou 

Travel Plan Analysis Area for camping, hunting, fishing, gathering, grazing,

tr

insights into the historic and prehistoric land uses and settlement patterns of the area. One of the goals of 

land managers is to protect and preserve cultural resources within an agencies jurisdiction. In order to fulfill 

this responsibility, an inventory of these resources is essential. Once site locations are identified, this

information can then be provid

m

 

Laws and Regulations 

Cultural resources may be identified as those resources either directly or indirectly related to the material 

life ways of a cultural group, or groups as specified by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 CFR 

296.3. Cultural resources may refer to sites, areas, buildings, structures, districts, and objects which posses

scientif

eligibi

Historic Pres

53
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Cultural resource site locations are not disclosed in this document. In order to protect and preserve c

resources, detailed description and locations are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Infor

ultural

mation

e Forest Service Policy (FSH 6209.13, section 11.12) in accordance with the 

volvement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Eastern Shoshone of Wind River 

ning Native American cultural resource matters will be carried out as specified by the 

h

ultural resources are non-renewable resources. As such, Federal regulations have been passed which 

nificant cultural sites and obligate Federal agencies including the Forest Service to

ral resource properties (CRP's). The Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act 

and the 

Direction

the management of heritage resources on the 

aribou NF.

Goa

2. Manage archaeological and historic resources including inventory, evaluation, nominating to the 

enance of archaeological and historic resources on 

or

tandards

urces inventories shall be conducted in consultation with the Idaho State Historic 

likely

include homesteads, mining sites, Civilian Conservation 

Act as stated in th

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 usc 170hh) and the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC 470w-3). Such information is disclosed in full to the SHPO in

order to facilitate decisions on sites which should be included on the NRHP, or which sites should be 

designated as significant. 

Notification and in

Reservation concer

Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 296.7, 36 CFR 800 section101(d)(6)(B) and in accordance wit

Presidential Memorandum concerning Government-to-Government consultation signed April 29,1994. 

C

prohibit destruction of sig

protect and manage cultu

of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 with its 1992 Amendments, the Archaeological and 

Historic Preservation Act of 1974, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979,

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 exemplify the long and

progressive history of regulations concerning the protection of significant archaeological resources. 

Management

The Caribou NF RFP identifies goals and standards towards

C

ls

1. Identify archaeological and historic properties on the Caribou NF. 

National Register of Historic Places, and Maint

the Forest for educational, scientific, and public benefit.

3. Protect archaeological and historic properties through stabilization and monitoring efforts. Monit

those which may be adversely affected by management decisions. 

S

1. Cultural reso

Preservation Office, local Native American Tribes, and interested individuals or organizations

to have knowledge of interest in the historic properties of the area. 

2. Unevaluated cultural resources sites shall be treated as significant until comprehensive evaluations 

are completed. 

Existing Conditions 

Evidence of prehistoric occupation and use, spanning the last 11,000 years, are present on the Forest and 

include significant open sites and rock shelters. Important archaeological evidence including stone circles,

hunting blinds, bison kill sites, projectile points, and rock art panels are located in various locations 

throughout the Forest. Significant historical sites 

Corp camps, wagon trails and other developments are also present throughout the Forest. 

54
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the Caribou-Targhee NF has been 

actively identifying, evaluating, and documenting archaeological and historical resource sites throughout the 

Forest. Currently approximately 5% of the Forest has undergone archaeological survey. The currently has 

pproximately 350 sites recorded with 150 of these sites unevaluated, 21 determined eligible for listing on 

ich

toric

nclude managing the area as non-motorized, or managing 

avel routes that lead to the resource area as designated non-motorized routes. Terrance Canyon, on the 

rized area to protect remnants of the historic Lander Trail. 

red by

ts

f

designated as Class II areas as authorized by the Clean Air 

ing,

issions. These 

a

the National Register of Historic Places, 2 sites currently listed on the National Register, and 4 sites wh

have been interpreted for public appreciation and awareness. 

The 2002 Travel Plan with the 2003 Special Order provides protection to known archaeological and his

resources. Examples of “protection” measures i

tr

Soda Springs District is managed as a non-moto

Portions of the Hudspeth Cutoff Trail, on the Westside District, can only be reached by a non-motorized 

trail. 

The Huckleberry Basin area is managed as open to cross-country motorized use during the snow-free 

season. This management may not protect known and unknown cultural resources from adverse impacts 

from motorized travel. 

Air Quality ______________________________________

Introduction 

Some people are concerned with motorized travel on the forest adversely affecting air quality from motor 

emissions. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for air quality is the portions of the Caribou and Cache National Forests administe

the Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts. 

Existing Condition 

The Federal Clean Air Act is a legal mandate designed to protect human health and welfare. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are defined in the Clean Air Act as levels of pollutan

above which may result in detrimental effects on human health and welfare. 

Class I areas have the highest air quality protection standards while Class II areas have a moderate level o

protection. All lands within the Forest have been

Act. The nearest Class I area to the Caribou is the Bridger Wilderness, which is approximately 100 

kilometers east of the Forest. 

Generally conditions of excellent air quality exist on the National Forest System lands administered by the 

Forest. Occasionally air quality is affected adversely from pollutants from adjacent communities such as 

Pocatello and Soda Springs. These effects occur during winter inversions or when stable air masses develop

under stationary high-pressure systems. Management activities on the Forest, such as prescribed burr

mining, and road construction and use produce particulate matter and carbon monoxide em

activities create fugitive dust and smoke that are carried and dispersed by prevailing winds. (RFP FEIS 3-

244). 

55
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Soils ___________________________________________

r Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee

F.

t

isk

tive soils discussion of this section. The 

ill be miles of designated motorized travel routes on erodible and unstable soil types, collectively 

ational laws and regulations have been interpreted for implementation in Forest Service Manuals, 

sturbances and by retaining ground cover, which could include fine organic matter, rock fragments, 

er

nt

003). To insure the goals are being implemented toward the DFC, the Forest Service Soil Management 

provide direction for the maintenance of soil properties that affect soil productivity. 

Introduction 

Caribou Travel Plan alternatives have the potential to affect soil resources, especially travel routes located 

on sensitive soils. Travel routes and route closures have the potential to affect soils when on erodible, 

unstable, or landslide prone areas that have the potential to increase mass movement and sediment on the 

Forest. 

Analysis Area 

The geographic area for the soil analysis is limited to those portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs 

administered by the Westside, Soda Springs and the Montpelie

N

Analysis Methods 

This report evaluates soil risks for motorized trails and roads that are located on erodible soils and areas tha

are prone to be unstable. Collectively the soils are defined as sensitive soils and are rated for r

assessment as high, medium, and low as defined in the sensi

indicator w

defined as sensitive soils.

Activity Areas

For this analysis, the area is divided into four large blocks: 

1. Caribou Block – Caribou, Webster and Preuss Ranges 

2. Bear River Range Block 

3. Pocatello – Basin and Range Transitional Mountains and East Portneuf Block 

4. Malad – Elkhorn and Oxford Mountains Block 

Soil Quality and Forest Service Directives

N

Handbooks and Regional Guides. All land management activities occurring on National Forest System

lands must comply with these laws, regulations, and policies, which are intended to provide general 

guidance for the management of soils. 

Plan Direction 

The RFP also states the goals for long-term soil productivity are sustained by limiting detrimental soil 

di

microbial crusts, and woody residue, in activity areas. Soil productivity is maintained or improved through

application of land capabilities as identified in the Soil Resource Inventory and by completing soil and wat

resource improvements as identified in the Soil and Water Resource Improvement Action Plan. Erosion 

from management-caused disturbances should be within soil tolerance limits, and soil resource manageme

is consistent with maintaining or improving long-term soil productivity and hydrologic function (USDA 

2

Handbook is used to

Soil Quality Guidelines set the limits of disturbance beyond which there will be long-term losses in soil 

productivity (USDA 2003). 

In general, system roads and trails are a “dedicated use” for lands that comprise the road prism. In this

context, impacts to soil productivity resulting directly from the presence of system roads and trails are not 

56
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

evaluated for compliance with Region 4 Soil Quality Standards, because the affected land is managed for 

transportation andis not managed for vegetation production. Lands affected by system roads and tra

not be evaluated for compliance for soil productivity in this analysis. 

ils will

anagement and restoration of soil resources depends on current and site-specific information about 

difficult terrain or wet 

r-established routes can occur on routes used for motorized or nons 

rosion rates by allowing runoff to accumulate on 

e trails, often collecting water from upslope. 

widths, depths, 

e operated to induce wheel spinning and sliding, easily damage

icrobiological crusts resulting in reduced soil stability, soil fertility, soil moisture retention, and 

p, et al, 1999). The impacts to soils will vary by location, 

M

existing conditions. Management activities with the potential for disturbing or restoring soil resources 

will be assessed through a combination of watershed analyses, inventories and monitoring and sitespecific NEPA analysis. Land capabilities as identified in the Soil Survey of the Caribou NF (USDAFS, 1990) will be applied where appropriate. 

Soil Impacts from Roads and Trails 

Transportation uses can directly impact soil productivity on lands outside the road or trail prism when 

travelers establish new routes, especially to avoid trail obstructions and crossing 

areas. Soil impacts associated with use

motorized access. Since these “pioneered” travel routes have not been dedicated to transportation uses and 

are not included in the Forest’s system roads category, they are considered soil disturbance. 

Management actions with the greatest impacts to soils are those that remove vegetation or disturb the soil 

surface. These actions include construction and use of travel routes. Cross-country motorized travel has a

greater potential to adversely impact soil resources than travel restricted to designated routes. The 

magnitude and extent of soil impacts are generally greater on roads when compared to trials, because cut 

and fill road construction often causes soil disturbance on areas adjacent to the road template. Soil impact

are generally less on trails designed for non-motorized uses compared with motorized trails. 

The building and reconstruction of roads and trails requires vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and 

slope re-contouring; actions which loosen soils and can lead to substantial contributions of sediment to 

stream systems (Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996). Moll (1996) summarizes some slope stability

investigations: “Road fills increase steepness and place added burdens on slopes, creating stability

problems, or elevating moderate risk to higher risks.” Risk, in this context, is a function of probability

and consequence. Road cuts undermine upper slopes, increasing the probability of soil movement and

mass failure. Following “best management” practices establishes effective road and trail drainage systems 

and stabilizes cut and fill slopes; this effectively reduces erosion. (Seyedbagheri, 1996; Heffner, 1999,

Idaho Department of Lands, 1992.). 

Established road surfaces are eliminated from the productive soil base. Soil erosion and sedimentation 

from established trails occurs because of lack of vegetative cover on the running surface is compacted, 

(Seyedbagheri, 1996). Poor road drainage accelerates e

th

Soil impacts tend to be more severe at high elevations; on steeper slopes; and on wetter, poorly drained 

soils. Soil impacts are greater at high elevations due to higher precipitation intensity and duration, an 

extended period of snowmelt resulting in muddy soils, more severe freeze/thaw cycles, and increased 

exposure to wind erosion (Leung and Marion, 1996). Weaver and Dale (1978) found trail

and erosion was greater from motorcycles compared to horses and humans on steep travel routes. Erosion

resulting from soil compaction and other adverse off-road vehicle impacts, such as trail widening or 

multiple trails, are generally greater in wetter soils, especially if subjected to heavy use. 

Off road vehicles, especially thos

m

increased wind and water erosion (Belna

vegetation and soil types, and post disturbance environment. 

57
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Erosion and Mass Wasting Influences 

The amount of erosion generated from travel routes is dependent on the type of surfacing, maintenance 

level, use level and season of use. The road system on the Caribou National Forest has caused some mass 

Moll,

ce of roots and vege tes to mass 

om roads (Swanston and Dyrness, 1973). Ma ents have been documented on system

e Forest. 

rred on the road prism in the past several years (Soil Monitoring Report, 1999). Small cut-slope 

ve also occurred in various areas on system r

he Caribou National Forest falls within the Overthrust Mountains Section. Within the four activity areas, 

compasses the tpelier Ra oda Springs

ern portio nge Overthrust ountains. It includes Caribou, 

Mountains o 9,800 feet. Predominate geology is 

one and sandst d metamorphic parent materials. 

eomorphic processes in these lands landslides. Most landslides are associated with 

groundwater occurrences within the W

On the ridges and mountainsides, the eep (40 –60 inches). Soils are well drained with

rface textures of loam and silt loam. The valleys are located on low to mid-elevation sites with draws and 

open basins. These soils are moderately deep (20-40 inches) to very deep (over 60 inches) and well-drained. 

Surface textures are loam or silt loam. 

Located directly below, is the Webster Ridges & Valleys Subsection. These ridges and valleys formed from

sedimentary rock that was subjected to gravitational, fluvial and residual geomorphic processes. Elevations 

are between 6,400 to 10,000 feet. The geology is marine limestone, shale, siltstone and sandstone. This 

subsection has phosphoria deposits and has active phosphate mining. The soils found on the ridges and 

mountainsides are shallow, and well-drained with surface textures of loam and silt loam. The soils in the 

valleys are very deep and in some instances, poorly drained. Soil surface textures is generally loam, and 

support willow and wetland vegetation. 

 

The bottom portion of the Caribou block is the Preuss Ridges and Hills. The Preuss Range, Gannett Hills, 

and the west slopes of the Aspen Range have elevations of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. Many of these mountain 

slopes have locally unstable soils. The geology is marine and non-marine deposits of shale, siltstone and 

sandstone. Some salt and gypsum deposits are also present. Geomorphic processes in this area include 

landslides. 

Bear River Range 

The Bear River Range has two subsections, the Bear River Karst Highlands on the eastern slopes and the 

Cache Valley Front, on the western slopes.The Bear River Karst Highlands consist of glaciated mountains, 

canyons, broad basins, meadows and foothills formed from marine limestone and dolomite. Unconsolidated 

glacial deposits are also present. Glacial and karst processes shaped these landscapes. The soils of the 

mountains and ridges are shallow (less than 20 inches), the foothill soils range from moderate to deep (20–

wasting in the form of landslides and soil creep on areas prone to mass movement. Road cuts and fills often 

increase steepness and place an added burden on slopes that may increase the risk of mass instability (

1996). Removing the stabilizing for tation from the road prism also contribu

wasting fr

on th

ss movem

roads

The Herman-McCoy Creek Road was located and constructed on unstable landforms, and several landslides 

have occu

failures ha oads.

Subsections and Soil Characteristics 

T

there are seven different subsections. A brief discussion for each subsection’s characteristics 

is listed in the FEIS of the Revised Forest Plan, 4-3 and 4. 

Caribou 

The Caribou Block en eastern portion of the Mon n

M

ger District and the S

Ranger District. The north

ttle Elk

n is in the Caribou Ra

Black, Bald and Li with elevations of 5,600 t

limestone, shale, siltst one with some intrusive an

G capes include

ayan Formation. 

soils are shallow to d

su

58
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

40 inches) to very deep (over 60 inches) and in some instances are poorly drained. Soil textures are silt or 

loam, and are associated with aspen, Douglas-fir and sagebrush. Broad valleys are located on high 

elevations. The soils are deep to very deep and are well drained and associated with tall forb and sagebrush 

vegetation. 

The Cache Valley Front subsection comprises the west slopes of the Bear River Mountain Range, which 

consists of very steep mountain faces formed from limestone, dolomite and quartzite. These block-faulted 

and uplifted mountains have elevations of 5,000 to 10,000 feet. The rock types are limestone, dolomite, 

sandstone, mudstone, and quartzite. The soils are shallow (less than 30 inches) to deep (40 to 60 inches) and 

are well-drained. Surface textures are loamy or silty, and associated with subalpine fir and Douglas-fir 

vegetation. Canyons are located on all elevational ranges with slopes ranging from 50 to 90 percent. The 

soils are shallow to moderately deep and well-drained. Surface textures are loamy or silty, associated with 

mountain big sagebrush, curileaf mahogany, limber pine and Douglas –fir. 

Pocatello East and West Portions 

The Westside District has two subsections, to the east is the Portneuf Uplands and to the west lies the Basin 

and Range Transitional Mountains. 

The Portneuf Uplands are located in the Portneuf River drainage and consist of high mountains together 

with narrow valleys and steep foothills formed from marine limestone, dolomite, chert, sandstone, 

mudstone, siltstone and quartzite. More recently, tuff and ash have influenced the soils. Basin and range 

block faulting is also present. Geomorphic processes that have modified the landscape are localized 

windblown deposits and mass wasting. Elevations range from 4,500 to 9,300 feet. Mountain landscapes 

include ridges and steep mountain side slopes. The soils are shallow to deep and generally well-drained. 

Surface soils have loamy or silty textures, associated with conifer forest with some aspen and sagebrushgrass. Valley soils are very deep (greater than 60 inches) and are somewhat poorly drained. Surface soils 

have gravelly loam and gravelly sandy loam textures, associated with willow-sedge community type. 

The Basin and Range Transitional Mountains have soils that are shallow (less than 20 inches to bedrock) to 

deep (40 to 60 inches to bedrock) and well to somewhat poorly drained. The soils are associated with 

sagebrush and maple communities are soils with thick, dark surfaces, often with a layer of clay that helps 

retain water and minerals. The soils associated with the drier Douglas-fir communities are similar to 

grassland soils; they are have thick, dark surfaces with a clay accumulation. 

Malad 

The Elkhorn and the Oxford portions of the Malad activity area is also in the Basin and Range Transitional 

Mountain subsection, these soils have been described. 

Existing Conditions 

The Forest contains approximately 1,110 miles of open roads, and 850 miles of open motorized trails, of 

which 170 miles are designated motorcycle trails, for a total of 3,820 acres (acres were determined by using 

an average disturbance width of twenty feet for roads and five feet for motorized routes). 

The Forest’s Roads Analysis Report contains an assessment of the effects of the primar or “key roads” on 

erosion and mass stability (USDA-FS, 2002). The FEIS for the RFP states that, “the principle management

activities affecting soil quality on most forest areas are roads, logging, mining, livestock grazing, fire and 

recreation”, (pg. 3-5 through 9). 

Sensitive Soil and Risk Rating 

An overall soil risk rating is provided that considers unstable soils and soils with erosion hazards, 

collectively defined as Sensitive Soils. For this analysis, GIS was used to identify landtypes that are 

59
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

susceptible to surface erosion and mass movement by the four activity areas. The percent of the area with 

nsitive soils was then used as a risk factor. The following table identifies the values for low, moderate and 

rosion potential and mass movement potential. 

ial.

se

high surface e

Table 3.3. Values for Low, Moderate, and High Surface Erosion Potential And Mass Movement Potent

Ratings for Surface Erosion Potential Percent of Block Area with Sensitive Soils 

Low 1-20%

Moderate 20-50%

High 50-100%

Ratings for Mass Movement Potential Percent of Block Area with Sensitive Soils 

Low 1-20% 

Moderate 20-50%

High 50-100%

The following table shows how the ratings of low, moderate and high were determined. These ratings are 

used to describe the overall soil risk for the analysis. 

Table 3.4. Overall Soil Risk Ratings for Key Roads (as defined in the Forestwide Road Analysis) 

High Moderate Low 

High Erosiongh Mass MovementModerate ErosionHi Moderate Mass MovementLow ErosionLow Mass Movement

High ErosionntModerate ErosionModerate Mass Moveme Low Mass Movement

Moderate ErosionHigh Mass Movement Moderate Mass MovementLow Erosion- 

 High ErosionLow Mass Movement

 Low ErosionHigh Mass Movement

60
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

61
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Deep gully Erosion from 

old road segment, 

Winschell Dugway 

Erosional Processes, 

in some

tion.

rush and mountain shrubs occur on

ost east-facing aspects and mountain mahogany and Utah juniper occur on most south and north aspects. 

ects. This trail is still being used by

ave been brushed out by users (brush 

nd

cts;

potential for erosion. The unam

are s

Win h

The hist

in many

landtyp

soil i

witi h

erosion

Current Soil Conditions for Routes of Interest 

Trail #331 

This designated motorized trail is a faint single-track trail. Trail #331 has an alignment that is not 

susceptible to erosion, but would require some short segments to be relocated near Shive Spring and

of the steep draw sections to prevent excessive erosion. Soils are suitable for trail widening and reloca

Soils in the area are Landtype 476 Kilburn-Blaine-Dranyon Families complex, with 30 to 55 percent slopes.

Site-specific soil evaluations indicate the soils are consistant with the soil maps. They are mollisols with 

sagebrush, Utah juniper and mountain mahogany vegetation cover. Sageb

m

Vegetation has obscured the trail on some of the south and north asp

recreationists, permittees and livestock. Some segments of the trail h

cut away by chainsaws). Opportunities exist for improving the trail prism to further control erosion a

make the trail usable to ATVs and motorcycles. Some areas are in need of watershed improvement proje

near Shive Spring and on areas where groundcover is low. 

There is an un-named travel route along the fence line that is being used by ATVs. This route should be 

closed, and the original Trail #331 relocated off of steep terrain with high

n ed travel route dead-ends about one forth of a mile south of the trailhead. Sections of this travel route 

on lopes greater than 45% and rills are forming in the trail prism. 

sc ell Dugway

oric wagon road lies within soils that have a large component of clay, and silty or sandy clay loam

 of the surface horizons. The soil type that encompases most of the Morgan Meadows area is 

e 362, which is composed of Swede –Dranyon –Nisula family. This map unit is located on unstable 

s w th all soil types represented. The erosion hazard is moderately high. The Winschell Dugway lies 

n t e Caribou Inventoried Roadless Area, which has 76% unstable soils and 31% soils with a high 

hazard rating (Appendix R, RFP FEIS. 2003).

Winschell Dugway 

62
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources ______________

Introduction 

Travel plan alternatives have the potential to effect riparian areas. Designating motorized and non-motorized 

routes within AIZs and designating travel routes that cross perennial or intermittent streams have the 

potential to affect water quality, fisheries and related aquatic species. The issue could be mitigated in most

cases by relocation of route and hardened crossing or a bridge. Indicators for this issue are 1) miles of 

designated motorized routes within a watershed (5 and

ions 

de system of watershed delineation is primarily a product of the 

ever only the portions within the Forest 

boundary for this study. In m , this includes small s atershed du

differences in scale between the compilation o the district and Forest boundar is is

the “size” of watershed that is us

 

Gener Protec

Resourc uirem . Requ nservati soil

and wat tection attentio and floo s, and

avoiding ractice nges in wa such that th ect

beneficial aw IDAPA antidegradation protection of r

quality within the State of Idaho. As such, basic pr tion of the all action 

alternati easures incl tives, Standard ound in the RFP and 

other applicable management p atures. 

State Law

The Forest is obligated to comp les and regulations. The Idaho Adm rative

Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.

“whereve urface wa tected for be es, which for ace

th code) 2) miles of designated motorized within AIZs

3) the number of times designated motorized travel routes cross a stream or mapped wetland (F&WL 

service mapping). 

This section discusses forest plan direction and legal constraints. The section will discuss current condit

of hydrologic and riparian resources as they are affected by existing system travel routes and user-created 

travel routes. 

Analysis Area 

The affected area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs 

administered by the Malad, Pocatello, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou/Targhee 

NF. 

Analysis Methods 

This analysis uses data from 2003 Travel Route Inventory, list of Water Quality Limited (303d) streams, 

other Forest Service data and other sources, including private consultants and state and local governments.

This analysis is tiered to the FEIS for the 2003 RFP and relies on the findings of the 2002 Caribou NF 

Roads Analysis (RA). The FEIS for the RFP and RA contain a comprehensive discussion of the current 

conditions relative to hydrologic and riparian resources. Watershed scale is categorized into Hydrologic 

Unit Codes or HUCs. The analysis area is divided up into HUC level 5 (HUC-5) watersheds, described by

unique 10-digit identifiers. The nationwi

U.S. Geological Survey (Seaber, et al, 1987) with assistance of various cooperators. For this project the full 

watersheds vary in size between about 50 to 200 square miles, how

 are analyzed ost cases livers of w e to the

f the HUC-5s and ies. Th

ed in this analysis. 

al Resource tion

e protection req ents are outlined in 36 CFR 219

o ial

irements include co

n to eas

on of

er resources, pro f streams, providing spec riparian ar dplain

management p s that can cause detrimental cha ter quality ey aff

uses. State L 58.01.02 provides an policy for wate

otec

ude Goals, Objec

se resources is inherent in

ves. Protection m s and Guidelines f

ractices and project design fe

Water Quality s and Regulations

ly with State water quality ru inist

02 addresses water quality standards. IDAPA 58.01.02.050.02a states: 

r attainable, s ters of the state shall be pro neficial us surf

63
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

waters, includes all recreational use in and on the water surface and the preservation and propagation of 

desirable species of aquatic life”; and (b) “in all cases, existing beneficial uses of the waters of the state will

be prote 8.01.02. ragraph 051.01 states: “The existing in 

stream w the lev otect the es shall be m ined

and protected.” The U.S. 9th Cir d that this polic

maintain t levels ng uses. In re decision,

recogniz quality” rep ditions and not int. The c

dismisse t this policy ffect to water q ho Sportin s v.

Thomas, summary, t ter quality impacts is not whether or c

features ’s whether o ained. 

 

Water Quality Regulatory Framework and Practices 

As a part role in n Wate for the Id

Department of Environmental Q rea stre rvations e in

these surv review signat tic, recre al,

economic ic ben d for wa state. The re ments 

and/or ext uses are defined by the state of Idaho as follows: 

• Cold Water Aquatic Life: appropriate for the protection and 

a viabl -water s n the IDA (Idaho

Procedu 0.01.a. 

• Salmonid Spawning: Requires waters that provide or could pro

pulations of s APA 58.01.02.10 y inference, waters must 

first meet Cold Water Aquatic Life before the potential for s spawning is 

t all streams th r Cold Water port sa id

spawning, most notably where use of waters by salmonids is

• P tact R ality ap ged and intimate 

c ngestion are li ming PA

.a).

• S ontact appropriate for recreational uses on or 

a r where kely to occu 58.01.02.10 ). 

• Agricultura Water Sup r quality appropriate for the irrigation of crops or as 

d for livestock. o all surface APA

b).

• In ater Supp ality approp water supplies. This 

designation a plies to a (IDAPA ).

• W itats: te for his use a s to all

s of the state (IDAPA 58.01.02.100.04). 

• s use the state (ID 01.02.100.05

While site-specific beneficial u the Sta y of the perennial 

streams, these streams are still cov , by the Idaho a ation wate olicy 

(IDAP he o re that exis uses and the of

ater quality necessary to protect these uses is maintained and protected (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.01). 

mming, etc) for most streams on the Forest. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act covers the 

protection of beneficial uses of surface waters. The section states: “Each State shall identify those waters

within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required...are not stringent enough to implement any 

cted.” IDAPA 5 051 addresses antidegradation. Pa

ater uses and el of water quality necessary to pr

cuit Court of Appeals foun

existing us ainta

y obligates the Forest Service to 

water quality a necessary to preserve existi aching this the

ourt also

y

ed that “water

d a

resents a range of con a single po

the claim th requires there be no e uality (Ida g Congres

97-35339). In

are affected; it

he true measure of wa

r not bene

not aquati

ficial uses are maint

of the State’s enforcement of the federal Clea r Act, field crews aho

uality survey conditions of a ams. Data and obse mad

eys are then ed to determine the support of de ed and existing bio ation

, and aesthet

ent for these

eficial uses that should be maintaine ters of the quire

Requires water quality

maintenance of e a ld

A e

quatic community for co pecies as set forth i PA

dministrativ res Act) section 58.01.02.10

vide a habitat for active selfpropagating po almonid fishes (ID 0. 01.b). B

upport of salmonid

Aquatic Life can sup

only seasonal. 

considered. No at can support fo lmon

rimary Con ecreation: Requires water qu propriate for prolon

ontact when i of small quantities of water kely to occur... e.g. swim (IDA

58.01.02.100.02

econdary C Recreation: Requires water quality

bout the wate the ingestion of water is not li r (IDAPA 0.02.b

l

rinking water

ply: Requires wate

This use applies t waters of the state (ID

58.01.02.100.03.

dustrial W ly: Requires water qu riate for industrial 

p

ildlife Hab

ll surfa e state

equires water quality appropr

ce waters of th 58.01.02.100.03.c

R ia wildlife habitats. T pplie

urface waters

Aesthetics: Thi applies to all surface waters of APA 58. ).

ses have not been assigned by te of Idaho for man

ered, as all streams are nti-degrad r quality p

A 58.01.02.051). T bjective of this policy is to ensu ting water level

w

303d Streams 

Water quality, as identified by the State of Idaho, is adequate to support identified beneficial uses (fishing, 

swi

64
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

water quality standard applicable to such waters.” For waters identified not meeting water quality standards, 

oxic Substances, Deleterious Materials (not to include 

ting,

ies),

, and Sediment. “Sediment shall not exceed quantities 

nce of specific sediment criteria, quantities which impair 

r quality monitoring and 

v 50 describes water quality

old water 

u ously or more 

llution controls to sources of pollution affecting the impaired 

ater body would restore the water body to full support status.” (58.01.02.054.01). 

l uses

ting

r impaired waters. The individual analysis units 

ultiple smaller tributary streams, each under 

and

he forest

each State shall establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for those pollutants at a level necessary to 

implement the applicable water quality standards. IDAPA 58.01.02.050.02 states: “Wherever attainable,

surface waters of the state shall be protected for beneficial uses which, for surface waters, includes all 

recreational use in and on the water surface and the preservation and propagation of desirable species of 

aquatic life.” IDAPA58.01.02.200 states that in addition to the water quality criteria set forth for specifically

designated waters, criteria for Hazardous Materials, T

suspended sediment produced as a result of nonpoint source activities), Radioactive Materials, Floa

Suspended or Submerged Matter (not to include suspended sediment from non-point source activit

Excess Nutrients, Oxygen Demanding Materials

specified in Sections 250 and 252, or in the abse

designated beneficial uses. Determinations of impairment shall be based on wate

sur eillance and the information utilized as described in Section 350.” Section 2

criteria for aquatic life use designations. Section 250(e) states that for waters designated for c

aq atic life, turbidity shall not exceed background turbidity by more than 50 NTU instantane

than 25 NTU for more than 10 consecutive days. Section 252 addresses public, agricultural and industrial 

water supplies. Turbidity is addressed only for public water supplies drawn from surface sources. If a water

body is determined not to fully support designated or existing beneficial uses, the Department...” shall 

evaluate whether the application of required po

w

IDEQ professional office staff review BURP field surveys and other data to determine the beneficia

for individual waterbody analysis units, decide if the current water quality supports designated and exis

uses, and attempt to determine the pollutant responsible fo

are not necessarily segmented by land ownership, such that m

different ownership, can be lumped into one unit. Some streams, due to their own pattern, plan, profile, or 

watershed factors such as soils, fire history, or other conditions, are more or less sensitive than others to l

management practices. For these reasons, the listing of a stream may not always indicate that adequate land

management practices are taking place within the watershed of that stream. Streams are reviewed by the 

state every two years. Table 3-1 gives the latest final (official) list of 303d streams, dated 1998 for t

and vicinity. 

Table 3. 6. Water Quality Limited (303d) Streams (IDEQ, 1998).

Stream Name Location Pollutant Stream

Miles 

INSIDE FOREST

Dry Creek Headwaters to Thomas Fork Nutrients, sediment 8.7 

Snowslide Canyon Headwaters to Montpelier Creek Sediment 2.0 

Meadow Creek Headwaters to North Creek Metals, sediment 3.1 

Weston Creek Headwaters to Bear River Nutrients, sediment 19.6 

Williams Creek RF Williams Creek to Bear River Nutrients, sediment 5.0

Fivemile Creek Headwaters to Bear River Unknown 11.0 

Wrights Creek Headwaters to Daniels Reservoir Sediment 11.1 

Deep Creek Headwaters to Mouth Unknown 14.0 

Blackfoot River Several segments

Sediment, flow alteration,

nutrients, organics 

2.5 

Slug Creek Headwaters to Blackfoot River Sediment 23.6 

Angus Creek Headwaters to Blackfoot River Sediment 8.0 

Dry Valley Creek Headwaters to Blackfoot River Sediment 11.1 

Diamond Creek Headwaters to Blackfoot River Sediment 20.0 

Lanes Creek Headwaters to Blackfoot River Sediment 10.4 

Sheep Creek Headwaters to Lanes Creek Sediment 7.9 

Maybe Creek Maybe Canyon waste dump

to Dry Valley Creek Unknown 2.9

65
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Stream Name Location Pollutant Stream

Miles 

Hawkins Creek Headwaters to Marsh Creek Nutrients, sediment 15.1

North Creek Unnamed tributary to 3.2 km

Mill Hollow to Ovid C

below 

reek Unknown 8.1 

Boulder Creek Headwaters to Stump Creek Unknown 6.5 

Bridge Creek Source to Grays Lake Unknown Unknown 

Harrison Creek Source to Grays Lake Unknown Unknown

Eagle Creek Source to Grays Lake Unknown Unknown 

Willow Creek Source to Grays Lake Unknown Unknown

OUTSIDE FOREST 

Bear River Various reaches 

Flow alternation, nutrients, 

sediment 100+ 

Preuss Creek Forest boundary to Thomas Fork Habitat alteration, 

sediment 3.7 

Pearl Creek NF Pearl Creek to Bear River Nutrients, sediment 2.2 

Coop Creek Forest Boundary to Stauffer Creek Nutrients, sediment 3.4 

Ovid Creek Confluence of North and Mill Creeks 

to Bear River 

Sediment 14.5

St. Charles Creek Lower State lands boundary 

to Refuge 

Nutrients, sediment 6.6 

Cub River Sugar Creek to Utah State line Nutrients, sediment 9.1 

Whiskey Creek Headwaters to Bear River Nutrients, sediment 3.2 

Deep Creek Oxford Slough to Bear River Unknown 10.2

Elkhorn Creek Little Malad River 

Unknown 14.0 Forest boundary to

Portneuf River Various reaches Sediment, Oil & Gas, 

Flow alternation

75+ 

Bacteria, Nutrients, 

Cherry Creek Forest boundary to Birch Creek Nutrients, sediment 7.4 

Malad River Headwaters to Pleasant View Sediment 30.6 

Blackfoot River Various reaches 

Sediment, flow alterations, 

nutrients, organics 

80+ 

Bacon Creek Forest boundary to Lanes Creek Sediment 3.0 

Dairy Creek Headwaters to Wrights Creek Unknown 12.0 

Worm Creek Glendale Reservoir 

to Utah State line Unknown, temperature 12.9 

Strawberry Creek Forest boundary to Mink Creek Unknown 5.3

Devil Creek Devil Creek Reservoir 

to Marsh Creek Nutrients, sediment 18.5 

Marsh Creek Calvin Road to Portneuf River Nutrients, sediment 48.4 

Birch Creek Birch Creek Road to Marsh Creek Nutrients, sediment 6.5 

Indian Creek Forest boundary to Portneuf River Unknown 3.5

Little Malad River Headwaters to Malad River Sediment 24.2

Maple Creek Left Fork Cub River Bacteria, unknown 8.1 

Garden Creek Garden Creek to Marsh Creek Nutrients, sediment 7.5 

Grays Lake Grays Lake Tributaries Sediment 115 acres 

Grays Lake Outlet Brockman Creek to Homer Creek Sediment 34.8 

Excessive nutrient levels do not appear to be a problem on the Forest. This is supported by condition 

surveys by Forest Service personnel, which have not found visible slime growths or other nuisance aquatic 

growths which result from elevated nutrient levels that could impair designated or existing beneficial uses. 

66
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Revised Forest Plan Direction 

The 2003 Caribou RFP states that the roads and trails of the Forest transportation system that are needed fo

long-term objectives are maintained in a manner that provides for user safety and minimizes impacts to 

forest resources. Roads and trails not needed for long-term objectives are decommissioned, stabilized, and

restored to a more natural state. The RFP also states that forest roads and trails are managed to maintai

r

n or

to avoid making channel 

hanges on streams or drainages (RFP-3-15).

o increase the available

nd for agriculture, to regulate and direct flows and provide water for mining operations. As a result, stream

eas were depleted by lowered water tables. The result has been 

ge 

the

ld

other

el. The correlation between increases in traffic and sediment has been documented in the case 

f logging roads in the northwest (Reid, 1984). Routes composed of unsurfaced native material have greater 

roducing sediment than do surfaced routes. Also, the more surface area bared and disturbed, 

ng 

improve watershed condition (RFP pg 3-36). 

The Desired Future Condition for Prescription 2.8.3 - Aquatic Influence Zone relative to roads is: 

 Roads in riparian areas are few and stable. 

 Roads exist in riparian areas only where there are no practical alternatives. 

 Some road corridors are apparent, but roads in sensitive landscapes are few and stable. 

General Riparian Area Management in the RFP has standards and guidelines for limiting new construction 

of roads, proper design and maintenance of culverts and stream crossings and

c

Overview 

Riparian/wetland attributes directly influence the quantity and quality of water and aquatic habitat. 

Riparian/wetland areas, although limited in extent on the Forest, are highly productive, and as a result,

receive more intensive use by both animals and humans. 

Very few riparian areas within southeastern Idaho remain in an undisturbed condition. Riparian areas have 

been impacted by human activities, such as mining, agriculture, urban expansion, and livestock grazing. 

Disturbance has been direct and indirect. Direct disturbances modify the riparian area through mechanical, 

chemical, or biological means, such as grazing and beaver activity. Indirect changes occur through changes

in stream flow regimes, which in turn, affect the amount and timing of available water for riparian 

vegetation. In the past, some believed riparian vegetation was a nuisance and attempted to eradicate it. 

Others believed riparian areas occupied precious acres that could be plowed, mined, or grazed. This often

led to stream channels being re-routed to the edges of meadows and valleys in order t

la

stability was impaired and some riparian ar

an overall departure from potential acreages and overall quality. 

Travel and Sediment 

One of the main impacts of travel, motorized and non-motorized, over unconsolidated surfaces is to dislod

and loosen soil material, making it susceptible to being carried or washed into the drainage network to 

become sediment. The amount of soil dislodged depends on the mode of travel, type of surface on which

travel occurs and level of traffic. Generally speaking, foot travel has the least potential for displacing soil

material. As the weight, size and torque increase, so does the potential to loosen the soil. Concentration of

use also increases the potential to displace soil. A large number of mountain bikes on a travel route cou

loosen and displace more soil than a single mountain bike. The same relationship would be true for

modes of trav

o

potential of p

the greater the likelihood for the material to become sediment. As a rule, an unsurfaced primitive road 

would be more likely to produce sediment than a single-track trail. It has been found that roads and trails, 

can act as channels that multiply sediment loads to the stream networks during runoff events. Sediment from

roads is often much greater than sediment from all other land management activities combined, includi

67
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

skidding and yarding in logging operations (Furniss, et al 1991). Sediment may adversely affect stream

macroinvertebrates, intergravel dissolved oxygen and migration paths (Stednick, 2000). When water with 

creased sediment must be used for drinking supply, costs increase, including the need to increase 

acteria (Stednick, 2000). 

d

aintenance practices. Small changes in road and trail drainage can result in large changes in erosion and 

n sloped, native surface roads and trails generates sediment laden 

e or into the associated ditch. When this occurs within an AIZ, the 

V

se

ms.

ed” to avoid overflow

uring peak runoff periods, allow for sediment and woody debris transport, reduce velocities and thereby

improve fish a rs culverts for blockages during the

spring and sum d clears them as needed. Most trea the use of a

culvert. Most forest system trails do not have culverts at s ossings

Roads and Pollutants 

Roads can deliver potential pollutants to stream channels. s such as surfacing oils

and herbicides applied to roads for maintenance, r ther ement. Roads may also 

me contaminated by material from vehicles, in u ation of small spills, such as crankcase 

il, brake pad linings, and hydraulic fluid; or from accidental spills of hazardous or harmful materials being 

transported ov epending on road 

drainage syste erity of depend at orga ight be exposed, 

their susceptib degree, duration iming of exposure. 

Roads and Trails and Water Flow 

Roads and trai d harder surfaces than the land from which they are built. 

They have a m city than unaltered ground. Road trails frequ generate 

Horton overlan ain or snowmelt on t latively im eable runn surfaces and 

cutslopes. Rain s not infiltrate on road and trail surfac refore bec runoff,

going to the ro d ditches tend to re-route water in, and sometimes een 

watersheds an y channelized stream ls. Wher occur in AIZs, ditches tend 

to drain these increases in runoff down slopes very quickly and efficiently ore rapidly than the shallow 

in

chlorination levels to kill b

Surface Erosion of Roads and Trails 

Surface erosion occurs on most wildland roads because their surfaces, cutslopes, fillslopes and associated 

drainage structures are usually composed of erodible material that is exposed to rainfall and concentrated 

surface runoff. Surface erosion differs greatly depending on many factors, the most influential are: the 

erodibility of the exposed surface; the slope of the exposed surface; and the area of exposed surface that 

generates and concentrates runoff. Surface erosion and associated sedimentation are highly sensitive to roa

m

the routing of eroded sediments. Runoff o

water which travels down the road surfac

sediment laden water can easily reach the stream, degrading water quality. The potential for increases in

sediment delivered to streams tends to be greatest in silty and non-cohesive soils. Many user-created AT

trails have been created in the bottoms of ephemeral drainages. Where this has occurred in canyon bottoms

in fine soils, these trails can quickly become gullies. Trails so located cannot be properly drained, becau

they become the drainage path. This appears to frequently be the case on user-created trails. Outsloping, 

cross-drainage, waterbars and proper location of engineered roads and trails away from channel bottoms in 

and near AIZs minimize the erosion amount of sediment reaching streams by diffusing flow onto 

surrounding terrain and dissipating flow energy, causing sediment to be deposited before reaching strea

Culverts 

A culvert is often used when a road crosses a stream. If a culvert’s capacity is exceeded, or the culvert 

capacity is reduced by trapped debris or collapse of the culvert structure; stream flow will overtop the road

fill, sediment is delivered to the stream. Generally, newer culverts are “over-design

d

nd aquatic macroinvertebrate passage. Forest staff monito

mer, an forest system roads cross s ms with

tream cr .

Chemical , de-icing salts 

may be safety, o o

l

improv

beco

o

cluding accum

er roads. Applied or spilled materials may have access to waterbodies, d

ms and runoff patterns. The sev damage s on wh nisms m

ility to the material, and the , and t their

ls by their nature are smoother an

uch lower infiltration c

r

apa s and ently

d flow resulting from

e

heir re perm ing

or snowmelt that do es the omes

ad’s drainage system. Roa

ssentially highl

betw

d are e channe e they

, far m

68
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

sub-surface flo ase peak flows.

Increases in peak flows, if substantial, can lead to adjustments in the channel dimension, plan and profile. 

Where these s een ro treams, the road generating or receiving the 

runoff is consi nnected to the stream ork. Wherever a hydrologic connection 

exists, rapid ru ociated chemic w into th ral channe ork.

Roads and the routing of water throu watershed ntercepting, concentrating, 

and diverting paths. These cha n routing

flows by both ckflow and chan the timing of storm runoff to streams. 

Though roads of the area of a watershed, road surfaces typically have runoff rates 

10 to 100 time rain, depending on the soil textur

compaction or e and the precipit rate (NRC EH, 1975). In areas where 

roads and trails are in AIZs ch st substantial change in the 

hydrologic sys ds do not always increase runoff infi . However, in the case of one percent of a 

watershed that is roads, generating a minimal 10 times increase in the runoff than the “un-roaded” 99% can 

translate to much more than a 10 percent increase in runoff from those sites. 

Travel Rou

Roads and trai steeper slopes, can be subject to failure through mass ing

processes. The -related mass wasting failures include removing slope support in

road and trail lslopes, groundwater saturation of the road/trail prism,

intercepting subsurface flow, hillslope drainage rerouting, and initiating de lows at fai tream

crossings. If th nel, the initial failure and subsequent surface erosion of 

the slide will d the channel. These failures are ty where unstable fill is placed 

on steep slopes. Road and trail construction on unstable slopes can increase the frequency o ss wasting 

failures by an that may influence the potential for road-related mass-wasting 

failures are hil , soil type, bedrock geology an ogic structure, type of 

construction, d ater characteristics. M vel route ar relative able under 

normal climat s but may fail durin intensity pitation ev or in major 

earthquakes. S experienced these failures. These system roads and trails 

were redesigned and or relocated and occasionally closed to prevent future failures. 

nd Erosion 

ser-created travel routes tend to occur on flatter terrain at the bottom of a draw, where they cannot be 

rained; or pe drainage. These

types of travel oss-drainage

features such a minimi r sed spo

and trails do n e, if use persists, erosion increases. Once

change is reac volves into a self-enhancing feedback loop which enlarges a 

relatively sma gully. As these gullies form, they are difficult and dangerous for 

vehicles to tra s seek another route, often parallel to t vious one, ating the

cycle. General most potential to impact the watershed proce , water 

quality and rip in literature dealing with watersheds, roads or 

ecosystems. 

Wetlands 

Travel routes can affect wetlands by direct encroachmen ugh changes in hydrology. Tr vel routes

can modify both surface and subsurface drainage in ng changes in wetland m ture regimes.

here roads and trails cross or are near wetlands, the effect on wetland form, process, and function is 

w or diffuse surface flow that they intercept and replace, which tends to incre

urface flows are continuous betw ads and s

dered hydrologically co netw

noff, sediments, and road-ass als flo e natu l netw

ir ditches can affect the gh a by i

flows from their natural flow nges i can result in increases in peak 

a volumetric increase in qui ges in

may only represent 1-3%

s greater than the native ter

d surfac

e of the native terrain, the 

surfacing of the roa

 these ditch flows can rea

ation S-N

reams, and can create a

tem. Roa nitely

tes and Mass Wasting 

ls, especially those on wast

mechanisms behind road

cuts, increasing the weight on fil

bris f led s

e failure extends to a stream chan

eliver sediment directly to pical 

f ma

order of magnitude. The factors

lslope gradient, slope position d geol

rainage, and groundw any tra s appe ly st

ic and geologic condition g high preci ents

ome forest roads and trails have

User Created Trails a

U

d rpendicular to the slope, where they can quickly rut and become the path of

routes are prone to erosion. Properly designed system r nd trails

rs to

oads a

iment

have cr

s rolling dips and waterba rt. User

d over tim

ze erosion o tran -created roads 

ot have these features, an a threshold of 

hed, the erosive process e

ll rill into a much larger

verse, so the trail user he pre repe

ly, user-created routes have the sses

arian health. This is well documented 

t or thro a

wetlands, causi ois

W

69
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

evaluated by e quantity,

timing, routing

Channel Dy

Stream channe nsport and deposi e pieces of dy debris, ent and fine 

organic matter ure and diverse aquatic habitat in the channel. When travel routes 

encroach direc ese processes can ified. Wo ent can be trapped 

behind stream nstream transport and increasing the risk of crossing failure. Road 

alignment and road fills can isolate floodplains, constrict the channel, constrain channel mi

simplify riparian and aquatic habitat. In some places, road and trail encroa nt can divert streamflows to 

the opposite bank, thereby destabilizing the hillslope and resulting in unstable side slopes. 

Travel Rou

Tables 3-2 thro mileage of designated travel routes in all areas of each district 

block by HUC f travel routes for UC-5 wa pleted usin S tools.

Some HUCs s cause only a very portion of within the analysis 

area and yet contains travel routes. A few HUCs are split between districts district blocks. The average 

mileage densities given are a weighted value based on the total area and mileage for the respective table. 

Designated travel route densities per HUC-5 as a whole av range fro to 1.3 mil r square

mile. Roads ca rity in a variety of ne study by Furniss (1991) found 

that changes in when road occupied more than 2.5% of a watershed in 

northern Idaho. Most Forest system roads have a running , w ore sideslope on each side, 

giving a nominal disturbed width of 16’. Motorized trails generall have a disturbed width out 5’. If all 

avel routes present had the larger 16’ wide disturbance, the 2.5% threshold of watershed road disturbance 

y of about 8. However the calculation does not consider many factors, such 

s. native surfaced roads in the cited study vs. the current condition on the 

xamining the degree to which the local hydrology is modified, in terms of flow

, and water quality. 

namics

ls are dynamic. Streams tra t larg woo sedim

, providing physical struct

tly on stream channels, th be mod od and sedim

crossings, reducing dow

gration, and 

chme

te Miles in All Areas

ugh 3-7 give the existing

-5. Calculation of miles o each H s com g GI

how very high densities, be small the HUC lies 

erages m 1.0 es pe

n affect hydrologic integ ways. O cited

fish spawning gravels occurred

width of 12’ ith 2’ m

y of ab

tr

would translate to a road densit

as the percentages of graveled v

Caribou, nor greatly increased effects that roads can have when they are in AIZs. 

Table 3.7. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by District. 

District Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

Malad 207.04 241.3 1.2

Montpelier – Eastside 241.86 278.9 1.2 

Montpelier - Westside 411.57 538.4 1.3 

Pocatello 207.55 243.6 1.2

Soda Springs 560.31 558.7 1.0 

Total 1628.33 1860.9

Average 1.1

Table 3.8. Malad District. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 5.34 6.1 1.1 

1601020205 Weston Cr 24.20 26.8 1.1

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 7.08 13.2 1.9 

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 10.22 16.1 1.6 

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 1.53 1.4 0.9 

1601020408 Henderson Cr 33.69 33.6 1.0 

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 14.25 18.9 1.3

1601020411 Wright Cr 18.08 22.9 1.3 

1601020412 Third Cr 41.38 54.2 1.3 

1704020807 Mill Cyn 51.27 48.1 0.9

Total 207.04 241.3

Average 1.2

70
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 3.10. Montpelier District – Westside. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by

HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density

1601020101 Bailey Cr 9.80 12.4 1.3 

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 30.05 49.7 1.7 

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 22.39 26.3 1.2 

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 53.31 93.8 1.8

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 78.20 85.6 1.1 

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 19.08 17.9 0.9

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 2.36 0.1 0.0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 54.84 52.6 1.0 

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 1.95 0.0 0.0 

1601020209 Mink Cr 36.20 45.5 1.3 

1601020211 Main Cyn 26.50 42.1 1.6 

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 3.95 11.3 2.9 

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 30.21 38.6 1.3 

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 42.73 62.5 1.5 

Total 411.57 538.4

Average 1.3

Table 3.11. Pocatello District. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0.64 0.0 0.0 

1704020620 Michaud Cr 4.73 6.1 1.3 

1704020621 Midnight Cr 8.91 17.0 1.9 

1704020801 Casick Cr 4.55 7.9 1.7

1704020802 Mink Cr 48.77 79.2 1.6 

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 20.88 13.1 0.6 

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 33.97 34.8 1.0 

1704020805 Lost Cr 7.02 3.9 0.6 

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 5.69 5.4 0.9 

1704020809 Pebble Cr 36.79 46.6 1.3 

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 35.60 29.6 0.8 

Total 207.55 243.6

Average 1.2

Table 3.9. Montpelier District – Eastside. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by

HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density

1601010204 Wood Cyn 0.43 2.0 4.7 

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 27.14 28.4 1.0 

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 6.80 4.2 0.6 

1601020102 Jones Cyn 3.13 1.3 0.4 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 8.66 16.3 1.9

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 49.44 53.6 1.1 

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 47.90 73.2 1.5 

1601020107 Bear Hollow 0.75 3.0 4.0

1704010507 Crow Cr 92.27 87.9 1.0

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 5.11 8.8 1.7 

1704020713 Slug Cr 0.23 0.2 0.9 

Total 241.86 278.9

Average 1.2

71
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 3.12. Soda Springs District. All Existing Designated Travel Routes by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601020101 Wood Cyn 2.63 6.5 2.5 

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 16.21 25.4 1.6 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0.94 2.8 3.0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0.09 0.1 1.1 

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 1.46 3.6 2.5 

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0.01 0.0 0.0

1704010411 McCoy Cr 88.12 60.6 0.7

1704010500 Salt R 0.42 0.9 2.1 

1704010501 Smith Cyn 26.30 25.6 1.0 

1704010503 Jensen Cr 10.24 6.5 0.6 

1704010507 Pole Cyn 2.79 0.0 0.0 

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 75.93 88.6 1.2 

1704010509 Tincup Cr 75.62 49.7 0.7 

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 43.94 13.4 0.3

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0.17 0.2 1.2 

1704020507 Grays Lake 27.84 27.2 1.0 

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 2.20 1.9 0.9 

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0.28 0.0 0.0 

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 4.17 7.0 1.7 

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 72.99 82.4 1.1 

1704020712 Diamond Cr 42.37 60.9 1.4 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 65.59 95.4 1.5

Total 560.31 558.7

Average 1.0

Route Milea

Tables 3-8 thro miles of designated travel routes in the Aquatic Influence Zones 

(AIZs) for eac district by HUC-5. Ca tion of mi comp d using GIS

tools. Densitie times greate the densi for the HU s a whole.

The AIZ densi Som ear to ha densities because only a 

very small por e HUC lies within the analysis area and contains travel routes. 

Because of the treams, they can produce mu ore substan effects than

roads in upland areas. A review of protective widths by Belt (1992) indicate the necessity of protective 

o protect streams from the eff ts of runoff fr m roads in the case of non-channelized 

ges in AIZs

ugh 3-13 give the existing

h district or portion of a lcula leage was lete

s within AIZs average about four r than ties Cs a

ties show very few radically high values. e app ve high 

tion of the AIZ within th

proximity of roads in AIZs to s ch m tial

widths of up t

fl

 300’ to ec o

ow from roads to streams. By nature the presence of roads in the AIZs indicates that protective widths of 

less than 300’ are present. 

Table 3.13. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by District. 

District Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Malad 89.7 88.6 65.6 59.2 86.7 

Montpelier 288.2 264.7 228.8 228.3 259.2 

Pocatello 87.3 85.8 67.1 61.5 85.7 

Soda Springs 218.1 168.4 161.4 144.4 163.2 

Total 683.3 607.5 522.9 493.4 594.8 

Table 3.14. Malad District. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 0.39 3.9 10.0 

1601020205 Weston Cr 2.05 9.3 4.5 

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 0.63 3.9 6.2 

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 0.74 2.9 3.9 

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 0.10 0.1 1.0 

72
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 3.14. Malad District. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601020408 Henderson Cr 3.46 13.6 3.9 

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 1.21 7.9 6.5 

1601020411 Wright Cr 2.19 7.6 3.5 

1601020412 Third Cr 4.09 14.1 3.4 

1704020807 Mill Cyn 4.54 26.4 5.8

Total 19.40 89.7

Average 4.6

Table 3.15. Montpelier District – Eastside. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs 

by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601010204 Wood Cyn 0.01 0.4 40.0 

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 4.10 16.3 4.0 

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 0.81 0.3 0.4 

1601020102 Jones Cyn 0.24 1.2 5.0 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0.44 9.7 22.0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 3.66 25.7 7.0 

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 6.05 36.0 6.0 

1601020107 Bear Hollow 0.02 0.0 0.0 

1704010507 Crow Cr 11.06 39.0 3.5

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 0.66 3.7 5.6 

1704020713 Slug Cr 0.00 0.0 0.0 

Total 27.05 132.3 

Average 4.9

Table 3.16. Montpelier District – Westside. Existing Designated Travel Routes in

AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601020101 Bailey Cr 1.15 2.8 2.4 

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 3.92 18.2 4.6 

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 2.52 3.6 1.4 

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 4.02 26.1 6.5

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 6.07 31.2 5.1 

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 1.35 6.2 4.6 

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 0.08 0.0 0.0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 4.77 18.9 4.0 

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 0.11 0.0 0.0 

1601020209 Mink Cr 2.40 11.2 4.7 

1601020211 Main Cyn 1.08 12.9 11.9 

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 0.30 0.3 1.0 

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 3.15 4.7 1.5 

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 3.48 19.8 5.7

Total 34.40 155.9 

Average 4.5

Table 3.17. Pocatello District. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs.

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0.05 0.0 0.0 

1704020620 Michaud Cr 0.39 0.0 0.0 

1704020621 Midnight Cr 0.76 5.8 7.6 

1704020801 Casick Cr 0.41 1.6 3.9 

1704020802 Mink Cr 5.38 27.8 5.2 

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 2.41 7.5 3.1 

73
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 3.17. Pocatello District. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 2.95 8.8 3.0 

1704020805 Lost Cr 0.49 0.7 1.4 

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 0.48 2.9 6.0 

1704020809 Pebble Cr 3.54 18.5 5.2 

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 4.50 13.7 3.0 

Total 21.36 87.3 

Average 4.1

Table 3.18. Soda Springs District. Existing Designated Travel Routes in AIZs by

HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Area-mi

2 Miles Density 

1601020101 Wood Cyn 0.26 2.2 8.5 

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 1.08 10.0 9.3 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0.03 0.2 6.7

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0.00 0.0 0.0 

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 0.03 0.0 0.0 

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0.00 0.0 0.0 

1704010411 McCoy Cr 17.96 20.6 1.1

1704010500 Salt R 0.02 0.0 0.0 

1704010501 Smith Cyn 2.86 13.0 4.5 

1704010503 Jensen Cr 1.08 1.0 0.9 

1704010507 Pole Cyn 0.33 0.0 0.0 

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 10.36 41.9 4.0 

1704010509 Tincup Cr 11.35 26.4 2.3 

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 9.51 10.8 1.1 

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0.01 0.0 0.0 

1704020507 Grays Lake 3.20 6.8 2.1 

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 0.09 0.4 4.4 

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0.00 0.0 0.0 

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 0.40 4.5 11.3 

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 8.02 31.9 4.0 

1704020712 Diamond Cr 4.59 24.4 5.3 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 4.59 24.0 5.2 

Total 75.77 218.1 

Average 2.9

Some causes o eages in AIZs than the HUCs as a whole relate to the geomorphology of 

mountain area practices. Most roads presently on the Forest where 

constructed in l adverse effects of roads in AIZs 

and levels of concern for building roads in these areas were much lower. In moun ous areas, the most 

economical ro n the relatively flat floodplain areas of AIZs and their adjacent 

terraces. 

Road and T

Roads and trails often cross streams. Effects of these stream crossings vary according to stream morphology,

geomorpholog bottoms and crossing design. A well designed crossing that 

kes these fac nimize the associated impacts. Thes pacts include 

l

l

-

f the much higher mil

s and previous road construction

the 1950’s and before, when the knowledge of the potentia

tain

ute for roads is generally i

rail Crossings

y of banks and associated valley

ta tors into account can greatly mi e im

alterations of channel bottoms and banks, flow velocities and channel capacity that can be associated with

various types of crossings. Poorly designed crossings can result in direct effects such as sediment, channe

widening, expansion of the drainage network, and capture of stable channels by roads and trails. Poorly

designed stream crossings are the most common cause of hydraulic connectivity between streams and trave

routes. Hydraulic connectivity at stream crossings was commonly found during the field analysis of user

74
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

created routes throughout the Forest. User-created crossing points can become a gully that channels 

sediment from compacted trail surfaces into streams. Capture of stream flow by travel routes can lead to loss 

f stream function. In some cases, the disturbance can create a knickpoint (sharp change in channel 

elevation or gradient), which in turn can initiate channel adjustments that affect the channel plan, profile and 

i plant

ents may become wider and shallower. Both conditions can severely degrade aquatic 

19. Malad District. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

o

cross-section both upstream and downstream. Upstream segments can be eroded, impacting ripar an

communities and isolating the channel from the floodplain, which can trigger additional damage.

Downstream segm

habitat. 

Stream-crossings by HUC-5 for each district are shown below. Table 3-14 summarizes the stream crossings 

by district. Calculation of existing crossings was conducted using GIS tools. 

Table 3.

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings 

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 1 

1601020205 Weston Cr 13

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 12

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 6

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 0

1601020408 Henderson Cr 29

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 9

1601020411 Wright Cr 22

1601020412 Third Cr 16

1704020807 Mill Cyn 47

Total 155

Table 3.20. Montpelier District – Eastside. Existing Designated Travel Route Stream

Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings 

1601010204 Wood Cyn 0

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 34

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 0

1601020102 Jones Cyn 0

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 22

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 53

1601020107 Bear Hollow 0

1704010507 Crow Cr 63

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 2

1704020713 Slug Cr 0

Total 174

Table 3.21. Montpelier District – Westside. Existing Designated Travel Route Stream

Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings

1601020101 Bailey Cr 2

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 49

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 8

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 44

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 30

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 15

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 39

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 0

1601020209 Mink Cr 9

75
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 3.21. Montpelier District – Westside. Existing Designated Travel Route Stream

Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings 

1601020211 Main Cyn 0

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 0

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 3

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 12

Total 211

Table 3.22. Pocatello District. Existing Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by

HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings 

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0

1704020620 Michaud Cr 0

1704020621 Midnight Cr 13

1704020801 Casick Cr 0

1704020802 Mink Cr 26

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 13

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 26

1704020805 Lost Cr 0

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 2

1704020809 Pebble Cr 25

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 17

Total 122

Table 3.23. Sod

b UC-5. 

a Springs District. Existing Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings

y H

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Stream Crossings 

1601020101 Wood Cyn 0

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 4

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 0

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0

1704010411 McCoy Cr 47

1704010500 Salt R 0

1704010501 Smith Cyn 46

1704010503 Jensen Cr 0

1704010507 Pole Cyn 0

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 122

1704010509 Tincup Cr 41

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 14

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0

1704020507 Grays Lake 22

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 0

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 2

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 72

1704020712 Diamond Cr 42 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 24

As a rule, streams with coarse, angular bed material tend to show less impacts to the channel itself at the 

g. Impacts will also be lo dplains are dominated by coarse rock. 

at are characterized by s anks and floodplain areas are depend on 

r stability. In general, fine-g d banks can more easily erode and cause 

point of crossin wer where banks and floo

Channel types th oft, gravel to fine-grain b

vegetation fo rained floodplains an

76
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

increased impacts when sufficient vegetation is removed. Generally, the greater number of stream crossings, 

effect to water quali eds.

s ___________________

rticularly

n discusses issues, direction and existing

or aquatic and riparian-depen fish and fish habitat. Biological Evaluations 

ster Sensitive Species, will be prepared as

ocuments. 

irect s the portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs 

y the Westside, Soda Spri r Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF.

rized travel routes have the potential to affect fish habitat. Effects include decreases in 

alternative effects for these issues are miles of designated motorized route within 

riparian tes cross

fish bea

•

dire

threatened, and sensitive animal and plant species, are met. 

• 164

habitats for production of wildlife and fish. 

ensitive species to ensure that species 

d to preclude trends toward 

endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. There must be no impacts to 

species numbers. 

the greater potential ty, aquatic habitat and watersh

Fisheries and Aquatic Resource

Introduction

Travel Plan alternatives have the potential to effect aquatic and riparian-dependent species, pa

where they encroach upon riparian areas and water. This sectio

conditions f dent species, including

for Bonneville and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Regional Fore

separate d

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and ind and cumulative effects i

administered b ngs and Montpelier Range

Analysis Method

Designated moto

riparian vegetation and its benefits to riparian areas and water (shading, large wood delivery, bank 

stabilization, filtering, and nutrients), increases in erosion, and increases in sediment delivery to water.

Indicators used to compare

areas of fish bearing streams and the number of times snow-free designated motorized rou

ring streams. 

Existing Fisheries Management Direction 

Forest Service Manual 

2620.45 Each District Ranger has the authority and responsibility to implement management

ction and ensure that standards and objectives for wildlife and fish, including endangered, 

0.3 It is Forest Service policy to emphasize the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of 

• 2670.22 Develop and implement management practices for S

do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. Maintain viable 

populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats 

distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. 

• 2670.32 Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. 

• 2672.1 Sensitive Species Management: Sensitive species or native plant and animal species must 

receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability an

sensitive species without an analysis of the significance or adverse effects on the populations, their 

habitat, and on viability objectives when making decisions that would significantly reduce sensitive

77
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Interagency Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Memorandum of Agreement 

Conservation goals and objectives have been developed for Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Memorandum

sediment regimes. 

ew

ng

ve

ish Species List: Native Fish

ottled sculpin Cottus bairdi

Richardsonius balteatus

tah sucker Catostomus ardens

of Agreement for Conservation and Management of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout among Montana, Idaho,

Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, US Forest Service, Yellowstone National Park, and Grand Teton National Park 

(Anonymous 2000). Although these are general and rather broadly worded, they provide some conservation

direction. The agreement has a goal to ensure the persistence of Yellowstone cutthroat trout within its 

historic range and to manage them to provide adequate numbers and populations. The interagency

agreement includes objectives to secure and enhance conservation populations and restore populations. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Interagency Conservation Agreement 

The goal of the conservation agreement is to ensure the long-term existence of Bonneville cutthroat trout

within its historic range by coordinating conservation efforts among states, tribal governments, Federal 

management agencies, and other involved parties. Conservation actions include enhancing and maintaining

habitat. Specifically, restoring altered channel/habitat features and natural hydraulic/

Forest Plan Direction 

The goal of the Revised Forest Plan (RFP) is to restore native ecosystems to a healthy, resilient state using a

combination of active management activities and natural processes. Management direction is improved to 

maintain or restore riparian vegetation, channel stability and function, and other aquatic resources. N

standards and guidelines are established for riparian and aquatic areas, which provide for the protection of 

these resources and dependent species. Restoration of ecological systems is a key component of maintaini

the viability of native and desired nonnative species. One management emphasis is restoration of nati

cutthroat trout populations. 

Existing Conditions 

The Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF supports a diversity of both native and non-native fish. The

fish species on/near the Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF are listed below with their common 

names, scientific names, and status. This list is followed by narrative descriptions of each native and some 

selected non-native fish. 

F

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri S, SC-A 

Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah S, SC-A 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 

Bonneville cisco Prosopium gemmifer SC-A

Bear Lake whitefish Prosopium abyssicola SC-A

Bonneville whitefish Prosopium spilonotus SC-A 

Leatherside chub Lepidomeda copei SC-C

Utah chub Gila atraria

M

Piute sculpin Cottus beldingi

Bear Lake sculpin Cottus extensus SC-A

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus 

Redside shiner 

U

78
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus

Scientific Name 

t Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Salmo trutta

A. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 

ened in the near future. There are three categories: 

A. SC-A: Species, which meet one or more of the criteria listed above and for which Idaho 

ies).

ovide substantial 

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus 

Fish Species List: Introduced Nonnative Fish

Common Name

Rainbow trou

Brown trout

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Carp Cyprinus carpio

Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui

Status Codes 

S: USDA Forest Service Regional Forester Sensitive species designation (Forest Service Manual 2670.5).

Those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a 

concern as evidenced by: 

B. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species existing distribution. 

SC: Idaho Fish & Game Species of special concern: native species that are either low in number, limited in 

distribution, or have suffered significant population reductions due to habitat losses, but is not likely to 

become threat

presently contains, or formerly constituted, a significant portion of their range (i.e. priority 

species). 

B. SC-C: Species that may be rare in the state but for which there is little information on their 

population status, distribution, and/or habitat requirements (i.e. undetermined status spec

Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to list Yellowstone cutthroat trout in August 1998. In

February 2001, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the petition did not pr

information to indicate listing may be warranted. In January 2005, a Federal Court asked U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to re-visit their decision. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife re-assessment is pending. Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout currently retains its status as a Sensitive species on the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species 

List. The Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF is currently addressing the needs of Yellowstone

cutthroat trout by maintaining consistency with its RFP and an interagency conservation memorandum of 

agreement for Yellowstone cutthroat trout prepared and signed in 2000. 

Within Idaho, the original cutthroat trout native to the Snake River system may have been the Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout. It is believed they were replaced by rainbow trout and other subspecies of cutthroat trout in

79
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

drainages downstream of Shoshone Falls. Shoshone Falls isolated cutthroat trout from contact with rainbo

trout and the Yellowstone subspecies remains the native trou

w 

t in the upper Snake River basin. 

potted varieties of Yellowstone cutthroat trout occur on the Forest. The two 

. 

th nonnative, introduced fish species, others

ppear to be thriving in some streams or stream reaches. Apparently, some populations have been replaced

e 6 Code HUCs have depressed populations, and four 6 Code HUCs 

ave no Yellowstone cutthroat trout present where they have historically occurred. 

S Fish

s

s of Bonneville cutthroat 

out by maintaining consistency with the revised Caribou Forest Plan. An interagency conservation 

trout was prepared and signed in 2000. 

ns are threatened 

e, introduced fish species, others appear to be impacted by

es.

hroat trout, is endemic to the Bonneville Basin. While some 

evolved primarily in a lake environment. Upon the demise of 

ervice 1996). Habitat degradation within the range of Bonneville cutthroat 

of its aquatic habitat. 

e

e.

Both large-spotted and fine-s

varieties have been observed inhabiting the same streams and, in fact, the same habitat within the stream

Intensive surveys for Yellowstone cutthroat trout distribution have been conducted on the Caribou-Targhee

NF since 1996. The subspecies appear to be well distributed throughout the parts of the Forest within the 

Snake River Basin, but populations in various streams or stream segments vary in strength. While some 

populations are threatened by competition and interbreeding wi

a

by nonnative, introduced fish species. Distribution surveys of the fifty-five 6th Code HUCs within the 

Caribou NF that were historically inhabited by Yellowstone cutthroat trout determined thirty-nine 6th Code

HUCs have strong populations, twelv th th

h

Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list Bonneville cutthroat trout as Threatened in 

February 1998. The agency responded the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing

this species may be warranted. They initiated a status review of the subspecies. On 9 October 2001, U

and Wildlife Service determined the Bonneville cutthroat trout do not currently warrant listing. The 

Bonneville cutthroat trout currently retains its status as a Sensitive species listed on the Regional Forester

Sensitive Species list. The Caribou-Targhee NF is currently addressing the need

tr

agreement for Bonneville cutthroat

Intensive surveys for Bonneville cutthroat trout distribution have been conducted on the Caribou-Targhee

NF since 1998. The subspecies appear to be distributed throughout the southern part of the Forest, but 

populations in various streams or stream segments vary in strength. While some populatio

by competition and interbreeding with nonnativ

habitat alterations. Some populations have been completely replaced by nonnative, introduced fish speci

Of the thirty-five 6th code HUC’s expected to support Bonneville cutthroat trout populations, six HUC’s had

populations that were considered strong, fifteen had populations that were considered depressed, and 

fourteen included watersheds where populations were expected but were absent. 

Only one trout subspecies, the Bonneville cutt

stream populations survive, this subspecies

Lake Bonneville, trout were primarily restricted to perennial tributaries and connected watersheds and 

subbasins. Only Bear, Utah, and Panguitch Lakes retained lake populations. These historic lake populations 

have been lost, except in Bear Lake. During the last 150 years, the Bonneville cutthroat trout populations 

have been significantly reduced through human activities, including habitat degradation, over-fishing, and 

the introduction of non-native fish species. Bonneville cutthroat trout eat mainly aquatic insects and 

terrestrial insects that fall into the water from overhanging vegetation. Larger Bonneville cutthroat trout feed

on small fish (USDA Forest S

trout has fragmented and reduced the complexity

The Caribou-Targhee Forest Fish Distribution Crew has sampled all Bonneville cutthroat trout streams on

the Forest between 2000 and 2001. Habitat has been impacted by land management activities in all of thes

streams to various degrees. The primary impacts documented were from grazing, dewatering (irrigation), 

roads and trails (passage barriers, riparian vegetation, and sedimentation), and recreational vehicle us

80
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) 

n

are active feeders throughout the year, feeding on aquatic and terrestrial insects and fish 

ggs (Idaho Fish and Game 2000). 

ittle is known about the leatherside in Idaho. Available information suggests it was never abundant, and 

ly occurs at a lower elevation in the watershed than prime 

ool

dercut banks (Belk 2001). The species is less 

kely to be found in areas with a high frequency of fine sediment deposition. Leathersides have seldom

s or in areas that have been channelized. Overhanging

96). 

extensive stream sampling has occurred throughout its 

for the following reasons.

n and may be greatly reduced compared to its original range. 

ern areas of the Bonneville Basin of Utah, Idaho, and 

t

ly currently been documented in distribution surveys. The 

reams occupied by leathersides is unknown. 

the Forest have been conducting fisheries surveys on the Caribou NF 

r decades. During this time, there has been extremely limited documented observations of the species. 

Mountain whitefish is widely distributed throughout the western United States and occur in large streams o

the Caribou section of the Caribou-Targhee NF. They are considered abundant. Its preferred habitat is cold 

mountain streams where it rests in the deep pools and feeds in the riffle areas. They spawn in the fall in

riffles. Whitefish

e

Leathersides (Lepidomeda copei) 

L

rarely reported. Prime leatherside habitat general

cutthroat trout habitat. They have not been observed in high gradient stream reaches. They inhabit clear, 

cool streams and prefer a pool environment. It is likely the fish spends its entire life history in a limited 

segment of stream. It utilizes off channel pool or main channel pocket pool habitat and avoids pocket p

habitat when predators such as brown trout are present. Leathersides are dependent upon channel 

complexity for cover, particularly large instream wood and un

li

been observed in eroded, heavily silted stream reache

vegetation also appears to be an important component to quality leatherside habitat (Wilson and Belk 19

Wilson and Belk (1996) noted as numbers of brown trout increased, the probability of encountering 

leathersides decreased. They may be preyed upon by nonnative brown trout. 

The natural distribution of leathersides in Idaho was confined to the upper Snake River and Wood River 

drainages and the Bonneville Basin. Even though

range, observations of the species have been limited. In 2000, leathersides were collected in upper Tygee 

Creek and Tincup Creek on the Caribou NF. A historic collection has been documented in Angus Creek. 

Leathersides are currently listed as a State of Idaho Species of Special concern

First, the current distribution is not well know

Second, little is known about their basic habitat requirements. This makes it difficult to make 

recommendations concerning management of rehabilitation of waters where this fish occurs. Third,

leathersides occur in areas that have and will be impacted by future water development projects (Wilson and 

Belk 1996). 

The leatherside chub is native to the eastern and south

Wyoming, to Wood River, Idaho and to regions of the Snake River, Idaho and Wyoming, above Shoshone 

Falls. Even though extensive stream sampling has occurred throughout its range, observations of the species

have been limited. The general status of the species throughout its range is unknown. A leatherside 

distribution map was updated on March 2001 for the Caribou NF. There were two 6th code HUC’s with 

leathersides present. An additional 6th code HUC containing leatherside chub, Tygee Creek, is located jus

outside of the Forest boundary. We do not currently know the status of the populations. It is likely they

occur elsewhere on the Forest, but they have on

historic and current number of st

On the Forest, the stream segments preferred by leathersides are generally low in the watershed, in low 

gradient depositional areas. They may also be on neighboring private land. No Forest-wide habitat condition

assessment for leathersides has been performed on the Forest, so general habitat condition is mostly

unknown. A Properly Functioning Condition Assessment was performed on Angus Creek and it was 

functioning at risk-high. A PFC Assessment was performed on Tincup Creek and it was functioning at riskmoderate. 

Idaho Department of Fish & Game and

fo

81
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

This may be because surveys were concentrating on salmonids or other game species or because of their 

nvironment and is very abundant in waters with aquatic 

egetation. These fish spawn in late spring and early summer when surface waters reach or exceed 60F. The 

ggs are scattered indiscriminately over varied types of lake bottom in a water depth of 2 feet or less. Young 

n until they reach 6-7 inches in length. They then become omnivorous, eating aquatic 

and

is

).

rown trout (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 

ius balteatus) 

Wallace 1982). 

sparse distribution. Forest-wide species status is unknown. 

Utah chub (Gila atraria) 

In Idaho, the Utah chub is native to the Bear River drainage and the Snake River Drainage upstream of 

Shoshone Falls. It prefers a lake, pond, or reservoir e

v

e

chubs eat zooplankto

plants, insects, and crustaceans (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 

The Utah chub is very prolific and is a strong competitor with small trout for food and space (Simpson

Wallace 1982). Although they are native to waters of the Caribou NF, they have been introduced in some

waters, including the Henry’s Fork. 

Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) 

The mottled sculpin occur in the Snake River upstream of Shoshone Falls and in the Bear River Basin. It

abundant over its entire range and prefers streams with rubble stream bottoms (Simpson and Wallace 1982

They are seldom found in silted areas (AFS 2000). Spawning season is in May and early June. Their eggs 

are deposited in burrows, on the undersides of rocks (Hendricks 1997). The spawning nest is usually 

protected by a male until the eggs hatch. Mottled sculpin eat immature aquatic insects, crustaceans, small 

sculpins, fish eggs, annelids, and plants (Hendricks 1997). Sculpin are an important forage fish for trout,

particularly cutthroat, rainbow, and b

Piute sculpin (Cottus beldingi) 

Piute sculpin occur in the upper Snake River and Bonneville Basins. It is known to occur in both lakes and

streams where rubble is present. In streams, it occurs in riffle areas among rubble or large gravel. It also

serves as an important food source for trout (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) 

Longnose dace is widespread from the Pacific to the Atlantic in north, central America. In Idaho, it is a 

common species in every river system. It occurs primarily in the riffle areas of streams, but has been taken 

from lakes where the shoreline is composed of small rubble. Spawning likely occurs over gravel in riffle 

areas of streams. It eats immature aquatic insects. Because of its small size and preference for living in riffle

areas, it is an important forage fish for trout. 

 

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) 

Speckled dace are present in tributaries of the Snake and Bear Rivers in Idaho. They will live in a variety of

habitat, but normally prefer the shallow, cool, and quiet waters in contrast to the longnose dace that prefer 

the fast riffle areas (Simpson and Wallace 1982). They spawn in the spring, usually in May, and broadcast 

their eggs over the gravelly stream bottom. They are omnivorous, feeding on aquatic insects, plant material, 

and zooplankton (AFS 2000). Speckled dace are an important forage fish for trout and have been used as a 

baitfish in parts of its range. 

Redside shiner (Richardson

The redside shiner occurs in the Columbia River System and the Bonneville Basin. In Idaho, it is found in 

all the major river systems. It prefers the slow moving currents of lakes, ponds, ditches, springs, sloughs,

streams, and rivers (AFS 2000). Spawning generally occurs in June or July in water depths of less than 6 

inches. Eggs are broadcasted by the female and settle to the stream bottom, attaching to substrate or 

submerged vegetation. The fry of redside shiners feed on small planktonic organisms but switch to a diet of

insects, mostly terrestrial, by their second year of life. They will prey on eggs, often their own (Simpson and 

82
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens) 

The Utah sucker is presently found in the Snake River drainage above Shoshone Falls and the Bear River 

rainage. It is an adaptable species and lives in lakes, rivers, or streams in warm to very cold water. If living 

there is a variety of bottom material (Simpson and 

Wallace 1982). 

The Utah sucker spawns during the spring in small tributaries. Their diet is varied and includes animals and 

plants found at the bottom its ha

Bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) 

The bluehead s the the Bonneville basin and th ver above Shoshone

Falls. It is a river dwelling specie variety of habitats, ranging from cold, clear trout streams 

to warm, very turbid waters. It prefers riffle areas with rocky substrates. Little is known about the life 

history of this spe s as ilar her membe cker family. It is 

relatively rare in Idaho waters (Si lace 1982). 

Mountain suck mu s) 

Mountain sucker are widespread throughout the Snake and Bear River Systems in Idaho. The preferred 

habitat of this fish is usually clear, cold streams with clean rubble or sand ldom found in 

lakes. This is a e h bl ker (AFS of its preference 

for cool water, it may serve as an important forage fish to several trout species (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 

Selected Non-Native Species

Fourteen non-native fish species have been introduced to or just downstream of the waters of the Caribou 

NF. Of the non-n , thr rly i describe e valued by some

anglers and are considered a threat to h species on the Forest. 

Rainbow trout (O ynchu

Rainbow trout are native to the Pacific coast. They have been introduced to the Snake River above 

Shoshone Falls a iver urally g popula any streams on the 

Forest where past introduct ho 

rainbow trout in som to some recreational anglers. Current and future 

rainbow trout rele imar h.

Naturally reproducing populations g awn from March through June. They are basically stream

spawners and usu ut t ries riffles ter hatching, the

young drift into deeper pools of the streams. Their diet consists mainly of aquatic insects. Large individuals 

take small fish of any available spe s aquatic invertebrates (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 

Rainbow trout m wi at tr g the , rainbow 

trout compete with cutthroat trout for habitat. 

ssful introductions to Idaho waters began in 1948. The species is

.

insects and other fish (Simpson and 

allace 1982). Brown trout use some streams on the Caribou to spawn. They may prey upon native 

cutthroat trout and other fish species. 

D

in a stream, it prefers a slow moving current where

of bitat.

ucker occurs on Forest within

s, occurring in a

e Snake Ri

cies, but it i sumed to be sim

mpson and Wal

to that of ot rs of the su

er (Catosto s platyrhynchu

bottoms. It is se

small species, wh n compared wit uehead suc 2000). Because

Descriptions 

ative species ee are particula

some native fis

mportant to because they ar

ncorh s mykiss) 

nd the Bear R

ions have occurred. Ida

System. Nat reproducin

Department of Fish & Game still stocks non-native 

tions occur in m

e streams on the For

ases will pr

est to cater

ily be sterile fis

enerally sp

ally search o he small tributa where gravel are abundant. Af

cies as well a

ay interbreed th native cutthro out, affectin ir gene pool. In addition

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) 

The brown trout is native to Europe. Succe

now well established in several river systems, including the Snake and Bear Rivers. Its preferred habitat is 

larger streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs at lower elevations. It is more tolerant of the less favorable 

environment of the lower reaches of streams and rivers than are rainbow and cutthroat trout. The fish spawn 

in October through December. They usually move upstream some distance to small tributaries to spawn

Brown trout normally live longer than cutthroat trout. They eat aquatic

W

83
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) 

Brook trout are native to eastern Canada and the United States. They have been extensively planted in lakes,

s in the West, including on the Caribou NF. They compete for habitat with native cutthroat 

re

o prey

pon cutthroat trout juveniles and other native fish. 

itat throughout most of the planning area. 

r trail is to streams and the less maintenance and surfacing of 

g

spaces between 

success. Excessive sedimentation reduces stream

S Road 77) 

culvert with a 60” culvert as well as modifications to decrease 

some sediment sources were addressed by replacing a trail ford with a bridge and defining 

out of the stream and riparian area. At Eightmile Creek 

r

vement 

ile (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Managment 1997). High road densities are more 

likely to affect watershed drainage patterns and deliver sediment to streams. In addition, one would assume

a higher road density would indicate more land management and resource use activities and their associated

impacts to aquatic habitat and biota occur or have occurred in that watershed. The table below shows the 

rivers, and stream

trout and have completely displaced some cutthroat populations on the Forest. Brook trout appears to mo

readily compete with native fish when habitat has been altered (Marcus et al. 1990). Brook trout als

u

Roads and Trails 

Roads and trails present a moderate threat to fish and their hab

Roads and/or trails have frequently been established parallel to streams and often serve as sources of 

sediment to water bodies. In addition, these roads and trails may affect riparian vegetation, potentially

affecting stream temperature, frequency of large instream wood, and available floodplain (decreasing the 

ability of the stream to dissipate energy). These impacts have increased stream bank instability and surface 

fine sediment deposits in the stream channels (Furniss et al. 1991), likely affecting cutthroat trout and other 

aquatic species. Generally, the closer the road o

the road/trail, the more sediment delivery (Furniss et al. 1991). Generally, the wetter the weather durin

road/trail use, the more sediment delivered to streams from erosion during motorized use. Fine sediment, 

when delivered to streams, has the potential to affect aquatic habitat. Fine sediment fills the

and covers spawning gravels, decreasing spawning

channel complexity and diversity. Sedimentation can fill pools that would otherwise be valuable rearing and 

adult habitat (Kaufman et al. 1983 and Platts 1991). An increase in sediment decreases the survival of trout

embryos (Irving and Bjornn 1984). 

Recent projects on the Caribou portion of the Forest addressed some impacts from roads/trails and off-trail 

motorized use upon Bonneville and Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat. These include projects at Sugar, 

Maple, Clear, McCoy, Emigration, Eightmile, Beaver, Mill, and Preuss Creeks and Blackfoot and Cub 

Rivers. At Sugar and Maple Creeks (2004), trail segments were relocated out of riparian areas and bridges 

were constructed at eroding fords. At Clear Creek (2004), drainage at the Brockman Road (F

crossing was improved by replacing the 36”

beaver activity. At McCoy Creek (2003), a user-created motorized crossing near Box Canyon was blocked 

with boulders to decrease erosion and sedimentation along McCoy Creek and Box Canyon. At Emigration 

Creek (2004),

parking areas with boulders to keep motor vehicles

(2003), nearly 700 boulders were placed around dispersed campsites and roads along the stream to eliminate 

damage to the riparian area by motorized vehicles. At Beaver Creek (2003), boulders were placed around 3 

dispersed campsites and to block off an illegal road to keep motorized vehicles from riparian areas and 

streams. At Mill Creek (2003), near Nieber Springs, an illegal ATV trail that encroached upon the stream

was closed with boulders. At Preuss Creek (2001), a trail/livestock driveway crossing was fenced to reduce

impacts to the stream. At the Blackfoot River (2001 and 2003), magnesium chloride was applied to the road

surface through the Narrows to decrease sediment delivery from the road surface to the river. Boulders were

placed along Cub River (2003) and a tributary to eliminate damage from motorized vehicles. These types of 

projects will continue each year as the funding is available and by priority. The existence of Yellowstone o

Bonneville cutthroat trout strongholds in the watersheds have had a major role in the road/trail impro

project prioritization process.

Watersheds are considered to have high road densities if they had greater than 1.8 miles of road per square 

m

84
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

watersheds with high road density, the primary species at risk in the watershed, their population stat

their associated metapopulation.

us, and

Table 3.24. Watersheds with High Road Densities 

Watershed(s) Species at Risk Population 

Status Associated Metapopulation 

Mabey Creek Yellowstone

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Blackfoot 

Diamond Creek Yellowstone

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Blackfoot

Slug Creek Yellowstone Extirpated Blackfoot Cutthroat Trout 

Crow Creek Cutthroat Trout Strong Palisades/Salt Yellowstone

Montpelier Creek Bonneville Depressed Bear Rive Cutthroat Trout r East

Eightmile Creek Cutthroat Trout Depressed Bear River East Bonneville 

Pearl Creek Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Bear River East

Skinner/Coop 

Creeks 

Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Bear River East

North Creek Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Bear River East

Emigration Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout Strong Bear River East Creek 

Paris Creek Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Bear River East

Mink Creek Yellowstone

Cutthroat Trout Depressed Portneuf/American Falls

Cross-Country Motorized Travel 

During recent stream surveys, illegal off trail motorized vehicle impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat have 

been documented in the Palisades/Salt and Blackfoot Yellowstone cutthroat trout metapopulations

Bear River Bonneville cutthroat trout metapopulations. Motorized vehicle use that is not confined to roa

trail surfaces is difficult to manage and associated impacts to riparian and aquatic habitat is difficult to 

address due to its potential frequency, magnitude,

and the

d or

and reoccurrence. 

85
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ________

ion 4 sensitive plant species listed for the Caribou. 

tch is found on dry barren ridges, bluffs or river terraces, on shale, 

one and cobblestone. In Idaho, starveling milkvetch occurs on knolls, ridges, and other 

Montpelier District basically in the area north of 

servoir in an area of known and suspected habitat where shale is exposed. 

Franklin County, Idaho. Cache Beardtongue occurs on bedrock slabs, rock outcrops, cliff bands, or 

itats. It occurs on various aspects along high elevation ridgecrests and associated 

t communities near the fringe of, or fingering into, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and 

mber pine (Pinus flexilis) woodlands. Rock and bare soil cover is high. (Mancuso 2003) 

he beardtongue

wn

ayson’s Bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii) 

o the carbonate mountain ranges of west central Wyoming and 

the

west

om the border. One population is disjunct from its main range in Idaho, occurring 19 miles to 

e southwest on Caribou Mountain. Some populations are very small, while others cover large areas and 

viability. Payson’s Bladderpod 

nalysis area for Payon’s Bladderpod

enerally the area of known occurrence on Caribou Mountain. 

Introduction 

Currently there are no Threatened and Endangered species listed for the Caribou portion of the CaribouTarghee National Forest. There are three Reg

Sensitive Plant Habitat 

This assessment takes into account the habitat and known population areas of three sensitive plants species.

Starveling Milkvetch (Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus) 

Throughout its range, Starveling milkve

tuff, clay, sandst

exposures of raw, loose, sparsely vegetated, light-colored shale. It seems to be restricted to calcareous shale 

having a fine to stone size texture. These bright outcrops stand out visually on the landscape. (ICDC 2004) 

Analysis Area for Starveling Milkvetch 

The analysis area for Starveling Milkvetch is on the 

Montpelier Re

Cache Beardtongue (Penstemon compactus) 

Cache Beardtongue is endemic to the northern part of the Bear River Range in Cache County, Utah and 

adjacent

gravelly, shallow soil hab

summit or upper slopes areas, ranging from flat to moderately steep. All populations of Cache Beardtongue

in Idaho occur on carbonate substrate, either St. Charles Limestone or Fish Haven Dolomite, between about

8,600 to 9,400 feet elevation. The dry, open sites tend to be dominated by low herb and/or lowshrub 

subalpine plan

li

Analysis area for Cac

The general analysis area is the southern portion of the Bear River Range above 8,600 feet in area of kno

occurrences. 

P

Payson’s Bladderpod is largely endemic t

adjacent Idaho. Two disjunct populations are known from southwestern Montana. In Idaho, it occurs on

ridges and high peaks of the Snake River Range above the escarpment that parallels the Snake River. These

populations are contiguous with its known distribution in Wyoming and extend about 12 miles north

into Idaho fr

th

contain many thousands of individuals. There is little evidence of threats to

is found on sparsely vegetated ridgelines, less so on slopes in openings in sagebrush and forested stands. 

Elevation ranges between 6,000 to 9,950 ft., with most populations above 8,000 ft. (Moseley 1996) 

A

The analysis area for Payson’s Bladderpod is g

86
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Wildlife _________________________________________

otorized and non-motorized roads and trails, and associated human activities, have the potential 

ets Open Motorized Route Densities (OMRDs) to enhance 

e

isting roads and trails and their relationship with wildlife 

isturbance is disclosed in the section. The affected environment for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, 

ry Birds and Big Game are described. 

tive effects is the southern portion of the 

d

n suitable habitat down to the valley bottom to account for seasonal migration into the forest and 

nt migration of forest carnivores. 

data, known locations, aerial photos, elevation, soil 

g areas have been

to

r

 the draft Biological Evaluation (BE) for sensitive species, Biological 

ildlife Reports, and White Papers. The final BE

fe security

ncerns. OMRD standards range from 0mi/mi

2

, 0.5mi/mi

2

, 1.0 mi/mi

2

, 1.5 mi/mi2 and 2.0mi/mi

2

. These 

n, but also included reductions in specific areas due to wildlife 

life is found in CNF RFP FEIS Appendix D-26 – 34 (USDA 2003a). 

ed, 

ithin these types reside several wildlife species of management 

Introduction 

M

to affect wildlife and their habitat. The RFP s

wildlife habitat and reduce wildlife disturbance. The current travel plan does not meet OMRDs in som

prescription areas (Rx Areas). Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) are concerned about motorized travel and 

wildlife disturbance. They would like the forest to manage more large areas as non-motorized to reduce 

wildlife disturbance from motorized travel. The ex

d

and Management Indicator Species (MIS), Migrato

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect and cumula

Caribou and the northern portion of the Cache NFs administered by the Westside, Soda Springs, 

and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. Potential species occurrence is base

o

neighboring forested habitat for long dista

Analysis Method 

Wildlife Reports (MRD 2005) for this project, survey 

substrates, known habitat types, and field reconnaissance of the project and surroundin

used to determine the existing condition. The wildlife species of concern for this project are divided in

five groups: Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), Sensitive Species identified by the Regional Forester, Management Indicator Species identified 

in the Revised Forest Plan, Migratory Land Birds as required by Executive Order, and Big Game (mule dee

and elk). Miles discussed are generated from GIS calculations. Vegetation habitat is inferring suitable 

wildlife habitat. Information is from

Assessment (BA) for Threatened or Endangered species, W

and BA will be part of the Project Record. 

Forest Plan Direction 

The RFP sets OMRDs for many prescription areas to benefit the recreation setting and for wildli

co

were based mainly on existing conditio

concerns. The south end of the Bear River Range was given a lower prescribed OMRD due to concerns for

mule deer and connectivity to the Wasatch-Cache NF to the south. The analysis for the road and motorized 

trails and OMRDs on wild

Existing Conditions for T&E, Sensitive, MIS Species, Migratory Birds, and Big Game

The Forest provides a wide variety of diverse habitats for approximately 334 species of terrestrial vertebrate

wildlife known or suspected to occur on the forest. Habitats can be broadly classified as forest

rangeland, and riparian cover types. W

concern. The following are species considered in the analysis and the species to be considered further in the 

effects analysis. See wildlife table in Chapter 4. 

87
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Four Threatened and Endangered (or Candidate) Species may occur on the Caribou portion of the CaribouTarghee NF (USFWS 2005). The Travel Plan alternatives will be discussed and preliminary determination

made on the Preferred Alternative (F

s

ive) at the Section 7 streamlining meeting with the USFWS, scheduled 

arch 29, 2005, after the DEIS is published. 

l

ct ” on the gray wolf. 

for lynx. Forest roads do not deter migration movement of lynx. 

e action

etermination of “no affect” will be given. 

ellow-billed cuckoo

nc

2004

t e C

Sen

en population viability is a concern for species as 

d

e

Euderma maculatum) 

cracks and crevices on limestone or sandstone cliffs. There has been one vocal 

 

brush habitat. 

M

Gray Wolf 

The Caribou NF is within the Yellowstone nonessential experimental population area. All conditions 

required in the final rules (USFWS 1994a and 1994b) for the nonessential experimental population of gray

wolves are being met, and no road closures are required to meet the final rule. It is determine that there wil

be a “no affe

Canada Lynx 

The Caribou NF is within the linkage area

Paved two-lane roads and larger highways can alter lynx movement (Ruediger et al. 2000). All of th

alternatives decrease motorized roads and trails. There would be no change in linkage habitat and a 

d

Bald Eagle 

The Caribou NF provides nesting and winter habitat. A determination of “no affect” will be given because 

there would be no increase in motorized roads or trails in suitable nesting or winter habitat (GYBEWG 

1996). 

Y

The Caribou NF does not contain 50 acres of large cottonwood stands with a willow understory (Trec, I

). A determination of “no affect” will be given because this cuckoo is not expected to occur in or near

h aribou.

sitive Species

The Regional Forester identifies Sensitive Species wh

evi enced by current or expected downward trends in population numbers and/or habitat. These species 

hav been identified for the Caribou National Forest. 

Spotted bat (

The spotted bat roosts in

sighting of this bat in Southeast Idaho (Gillies 2004 draft). The alternatives will not disturb or alter cliffs.

Bats forage on insects that use riparian and upland vegetation. Roads and trails can impact riparian 

vegetation. 

Townsend's (Western) big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

The western bat occupies caves and underground mines on the Forest (Pierson, E.D. et al. 1999). Existing

roads allow firewood cutting of snags; potential bat roosting habitat. Roads and trails have impacted 

riparian habitat used by prey species. 

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 

Pygmy rabbits are typically found in dense stands of big sagebrush growing in deep, loose sediment. In 

Idaho, they are closely associated with large stands of tall, dense sagebrush (usually basin big sagebrush)

with a high percent of woody cover. Basin big sagebrush is found at lower elevations on the Caribou NF 

(Roberts 2003). Existing roads and associated use along roads may have reduced suitable sage

88
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 

Wolverines are found on the Caribou NF. Human disturbance on existing roads may disrupt wolverines. 

However, forest roads have not deterred migration movement of wolverines (Inman et al. 2004). 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) 

Swans nest on marshes, lakes, still water, or rivers with dense aquatic plant or invertebrates, and tall 

emergent vegetation. This habitat is limited on the Caribou NF. Human disturbance on existing roads ne

this habitat may have precluded the use. Road or trail construction was not indicated as a reason to list

trumpeter swans as threatened (USFWS 2003a2). 

ar

the

ar ) 

Har

large str

Per

Act e

peregrin

Nor

Gos

may e not indicated as a 

dist

Colum

Nesting habitat occurs at lower elevations on the Caribou NF. Chokecherry, serviceberry, and aspen 

provide winter forage on the Caribou NF. Existing roads and associated use along roads may have reduced 

additional ri i

measure (Ullima nes

within 400 yard

Greater sageSage-grouse nes

reduced addition as

lek sites. Howe of roads, powerlines, fences, reservoirs, ranches, farms, and housing 

developments has resulted in sage grouse habitat loss and fragmentation (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Great gray owl (Str n

Great gray owls nest in ab the top of broken trees in conifer and aspen forest types 

on the Caribou NF. Existi

habitat (Hayward 1994). 

Flammulated owl (Otu

Flammulated owls are f u nd old forest habitat on the Caribou NF. Existing roads allow 

firewood cutting of snags; 

Boreal owl (Aegolius fu

Boreal owls use tree caviti g

roads allow firewood cutti

lequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus

lequin ducks have been seen in McCoy Creek; at the southern edge of their range. Existing roads along

eams may have decreased use due to increased human disturbance (Atkinson and Atkinson 1990). 

H

egrine falcon (Histrionicus histrionicus) 

ive yries are found on and near the Caribou NF. Roads have not been associated with impacting 

e falcons (USFWS 1999c), but roads and trails can impact riparian habitat used by prey species. 

thern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

hawks nest in mature dense forest stands on the Caribou NF. Existing roads and increased disturbance 

 have reduced or precluded the use of potential nesting habitat. Roads and trails wer

urbance to goshawk (Reynolds 1992). 

bian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) 

par an vegetation or contributed to harm or death due to vehicle collisions. A conservation 

n et al. 1998) is to, “Avoid developing roads, fences, power/transmission poles, and li

s of an active lek.”

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

t and forage on the Caribou NF. Existing roads and associated use along roads may have

al sagebrush vegetation or caused disturbance to grouse lek or nest sites. Roads are used

ver, construction

ix ebulosa) 

andoned raptor nests or

ng roads allow firewood cutting of snags; which reduces the potential owl nesting

s flammeolus) 

o nd in mature a

which reduces potential owl nesting habitat (Hayward 1994). 

nereus) 

es in mature forest with a high density of large trees on the Caribou NF. Existin

ng of snags; which reduces potential owl nesting habitat (Hayward 1994). 

89
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Three-toed woodpecke

The three-toed woodpecke d trees.

Existing roads allow firew g

habitat (Wisdom et al. 200

Col

Montan

species

range of

collision al 

2000, 1

Manag

MIS for

section) .

Migratory Birds 

Rip n identified in the

Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (Ritter 2000) that are found in the Caribou NF. Ponderosa pine is the fourth 

high s

sections

• Rip

cot ining growth and reaching maturity. Existing roads and associated use 

along roads may have reduced additional riparian vegetation. 

 NF. 

ng roads

he 

r

land ownership patterns. Roads have been identified as the most significant consideration on 

lk summer range. During hunting season, vulnerability results from a complex relationship between 

hy, hunter density, type of season, and weather. The measure of this factor is the 

-235). Existing roads 

rovide corridors for snowmobile use and human disturbance in the winter. 

r (Picoides tridactylus) 

r nests in large (12”) snags and feeds on bark beetle larvae in recently kille

ood cutting of snags; which reduces potential woodpecker foraging and nestin

0, 112). 

umbia Spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) 

e wetland habitat (usually near springs, seeps or perennial streams) is found on the Caribou NF. The 

has not been found on the Caribou NF, and southeast Idaho is not identified as part of the predicted 

the spotted frog. However, roads can impact suitable habitat found on the Caribou NF. Vehicle 

s (road kill) can decrease amphibians and reptile population and restrict migration (Wisdom et 

22). 

ement Indicator Species

RFP are: Goshawk, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and sage-grouse (see Sensitive Species 

. Meeting the Revised Forest Plan (2003) Standards and Guidelines is the unit of measure for MIS

aria , non-riverine wetland, and sagebrush are three of the four highest priority habitats

priority habitat but it is not found in southeast Idaho. (Wildlife Report, See Hydrology and Fisherie

for additional information.) 

arian: Stream bank vegetation is found along perennial streams on the Caribou NF. Willows, 

tonwood, and aspen are susta

• Non-Riverine Wetland: Seeps, springs, and small beaver ponds provide habitat on the Caribou

Livestock water troughs and catchment ponds are also available for bird use in the area. Existi

may have reduced non-riverine wetlands. 

• Sagebrush: Sagebrush is found throughout the Caribou NF. Sage-grouse use habitats near and on t

Caribou NF. Existing roads may have reduced additional sagebrush habitat. 

Mule Deer and Elk

The Caribou NF contains summer and fall foraging habitat and a lesser amount of winter range. Summe

habitat effectiveness is defined as the percent of available habitat that is usable by elk from late green-up to

hunting season (Christensen, et al, 1993). Factors that influence summer habitat effectiveness include 

roads, special features such as wet sites, riparian areas, movement corridors, cover, domestic livestock 

grazing, and

e

access, cover, topograp

level of compatibility between the Forest Service and State management plans, such as number of bulls per

hundred cows (Christensen, et al, 1993). (USDA 2003a 3-235) 

The Forest Plan has identified approximately eighteen percent of the Forest as winter range. These areas

were identified based on big game flight information from IDFG (USDA 2003a 3

p

90
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

The Caribou NF RFP FEIS (USDA 2003a Appendix D-26) identified effects of roads on wildlife, based on 

ed in 

(Appendix D-29). 

cial to many

onvert

ilable habitat well beyond the road itself. 

d trails

splacement or avoidance, chronic negative interactions with humans – 

id

movement, speed, predictability (frequency and magnitude), and location. The most 

 avoidance, habituation and attraction. These responses may be of 

Rowland, et al, (2000) found that elk consistently selected areas away from open 

ith

ere away

from roads. 

 Elk response to roads varies, by season and according to the size and location of 

the road, traffic volume and cover availability. Some of these responses are 

ecome

ng

vehicles on a paved highway than by slow moving, infrequent traffic on loweravailable literature and research. The road-associated factors include: 1) snag and downed log reduction; 2)

habitat loss and fragmentation; 3) over-hunting, over-trapping, poaching, collection and recreational 

shooting; 4) harassment or disturbance, displacement or avoidance, chronic negative interactions with 

humans; 5) collisions; 6) movement barriers; 7) increased erosion and sedimentation of adjacent streams;

and 8) providing movement corridors for weeds. These effects from Wisdom et al. (2000) summariz

Appendix D-27 – 29 (USDA 2003a) are described below. These effects are also listed by species on the 

wildlife table 4.42. Road-associated factors also apply to motorized trails except snag and downed log 

reduction and collisions; they were incorporated into the open motorized route density for road density

analysis on the Caribou National Forest 

1) Snag and downed log reduction – Firewood gathering can contribute to a loss of snags and 

downed logs. Woodcutters often take larger-diameter snags, which are the most benefi

wildlife species (the larger the snag, the more species can use it; larger species need larger snags). 

2) Habitat loss and fragmentation – Road construction and associated road maintenance can c

large areas of habitat to non-habitat (Wisdom, et al, 2000). Because roads affect more area than the

actual road surface, they can reduce ava

3) Over-hunting, over-trapping, poaching, collection and recreational shooting – roads an

facilitate human activities that reduce wildlife populations. 

4) Human disturbances, di

Roads facilitate human activities that disturb habitats and displace animals or cause them to avo

habitats that would otherwise be suitable. Disturbance may cause behavioral and/or physiological 

responses to wildlife. 

a. Behavioral responses are influenced by the type of activity, distance away, direction of 

detrimental disturbances are those that are unanticipated. In circumstances where 

motorized use is predictable and localized (confined to routes), wildlife response to people

afoot or skiing may be more pronounced than it is to motorized vehicles. Behavioral 

responses range from

short duration (temporary displacement) or long-term, such as abandonment of preferred 

foraging areas. 

 Harlequin ducks avoid nesting along streams with human disturbance. 

 Thomas (2000) found the greatest concentration of elk in the area least accessible

to motorized vehicles. 



roads in both spring and summer, confirming that roads have an influence on 

summer habitat selection. They concluded that elk were able to use areas w

relatively high road densities if there were still areas available that w

summarized in Frederick, 1991 and Joslin and Youmans, 1999. Elk may b

habituated to some level of traffic; they may be less disturbed by fast-movi

standard roads. Elk appear to associate a stopping vehicle with human 

harassment, particularly hunting, and are most disturbed by people in out-ofvehicle activity. In a number of studies, avoidance of roads by elk varied 

91
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

between seasons in response to hunting access and pressure. Un-hunted animals 

High-speed highways and surfaced roads have the greatest potential for collisions with 

have determined the impact of this mortality at the population level (Maxell and Hokit, 1999). The 

degree of impacts is related to proximity of the road to breeding or other seasonal habitats and 

rough the loss of habitat connectivity, causing demography fluctuations, 

inbreeding, loss of genetic variability, and local population extinctions. 

nstruction of roads introduces new edge habitat, and consequently, 

invasive species of plants, birds and animals can be introduced into environments where they

ur. Ground disturbance associated with roads and with other activities 

des additional opportunity for establishment or expansion of non-native 

Ec n

Introduction 

Som

adverse t rely on local recreation opportunities. 

nalysis Area

nce, which is the same scale used for the FEIS of the 

may show greater tolerance to human activity. Elk can use areas in close 

proximity to large amounts of human activity, if it is a non-harassing type of

activity. 

5) Collisions – 

wildlife. Birds foraging along right-of-ways fly up and are killed. Many studies have documented 

the large number of amphibians and reptiles that may be killed on roadways, but only a few studies 

migration movements. 

6) Travel barriers – Habitat loss can result from the travel barriers caused by roads. For example, 

some researchers have found that some rodent species are reluctant to cross even the narrowest 

gravel roads (in USFS, 2000). This behavior can result in substantial habitat amounts of suitable 

habitat being unavailable to these species. In addition, habitat loss can fragment populations into

smaller subpopulations th

7) Increase erosion and sedimentation of adjacent streams – see aquatic section. 

8) Travel facilitation – The co

previously did not occ

enabled by roads provi

invasive plant populations. 

o omic Environment ___________________________

e public comments included concerns that any change or lack of change in travel management will

ly affect local economies and businesses tha

A

The analysis area is the Caribou NF Zone of Influe

RFP. This zone includes eight counties in Idaho; Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Bonneville, Caribou, 

Franklin, Oneida and Power, and Lincoln County, Wyoming. Rich and Box Elder Counties in Utah are not 

included due to the limited acres of the Forest that occur in Utah and lack of population surrounding the

Forest area. 

Analysis Method 

Initial findings and existing condition are taken from the FEIS for the RFP. Similar economic analyses for 

recreation and access were considered (North Belts Travel Plan DEIS, Helena NF). Findings were also 

based on Forest Service research on estimating the economic impacts of recreation response to resource 

management decisions. (GTR SE-91, Southern Research Station, English et al.) 

92
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Existing Condition 

Counties within the “zone of influence” of the Caribou have a few characteristics in common, including a

average of 41% of the county land base in federal ownership. The largest portions of the Forest are within

Bonneville and

n

Caribou Counties. These counties are likely the most directly impacted through potential 

attracted to scenic Bear Lake. The forest provides 

ber resources for the local mill, firewood and recreation including campgrounds, trails and 

n and Minnetonka Cave draw summer tourists. 

anufacturing, education and health care. The Forest 

y taxes and no income tax. The forest provides recreation along with 

hosphate mining. (2003 RFP FEIS, Economics) 

es

changes in use and access. Each county’s economic relationship to the forest is summarized below: 

Bannock County is considered “urban” with the City of Pocatello and serves as a center for health care,

retail and commercial concerns. The forest provides recreation, clean water, livestock forage, and phosphate 

that supplies local processing facilities. 

Bear Lake County’s employment includes wood products, light manufacturing, agriculture and 

construction. Seasonal homeowners and retirees are

tim

snowmobiling. St. Charles Canyo

Bingham County contains no forest system lands, but it lies in close proximity to the Forest. Major 

employment is agriculture, wood products, and food processing, education and health services. The forest 

provides recreation and hunting opportunities. 

Bonneville County is considered “urban” with the City of Idaho Falls. Employment is diverse, but 

dominated by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The forest provides 

recreation, year-round. 

Caribou County relies on the phosphate industry for employment, but also supports a small but stable 

agricultural sector. The forest provides timber resources, livestock forage and recreation. 

Franklin County employment includes agriculture, m

provides recreation, hunting, and snowmobile opportunities that draw Utah residents. Livestock grazing, 

timber, firewood are also important products from the Forest. 

Oneida County employment includes agriculture, pumice mining, and education. Some people live in 

Malad and work in Odgen, Utah; this has created local construction activity. The forest provides livestock 

grazing, hunting and recreation. 

Power County employment includes agriculture, phosphate and food processing, trade and services. The 

Forest provides livestock grazing, recreation and a phosphate supply to the local processing facilities. 

Lincoln County’s major employers are agriculture, mining/oil and gas facilities. This part of Wyoming is 

attractive to retirees due to low propert

p

While some of the “zone of influence” counties rely somewhat on forest products; recreation opportuniti

are important for economic benefits. Some “zone of influence” businesses may rely on people buying 

groceries, gas, equipment and supplies as part of their motorized and non-motorized outings. 

Roads _________________________________________

Introduction 

Transportation facilities provide important access to the Forest for a variety of uses, including recreation, 

timber harvest, livestock grazing, and mining. The Caribou Travel Plan alternatives have the potential to 

affect future access for forest management. 

93
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Analysis Method 

The analysis method used will compare existing designated road systems with findings from the Forestwide

Roads Analysis and the Travel Plan Revision Roads Analysis. Mineral Access is discussed separately. 

these 

g

or routes and became trade centers for the western pioneers. Some settlers moved on to other 

reas, and others remained; turning to ranching, farming, logging, and mining, or working for the growing 

on industry. 

• Roads analysis shall be used to inform road management decisions; including reconstruction, or

of 

ome of the local routes, fall into this category and are the backbone of the transportation system. 

Arterial and collector routes are generally higher standard roads and provide primary access to the Forest. 

intended

eir

ards have been approved prior to construction. Most of the unplanned routes are lower 

nstructed to reduce

Analysis Area 

The analysis area is portions of the Caribou and Cache NF administered by the Westside, Soda Springs and 

Montpelier Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

Road Development History 

Historically, roads were developed to provide access for local ranchers, miners and loggers. Many of

roads were once trails that facilitated forest use during the westward migration of the mid to late 1800’s. 

Many settlers passed through the area on their way to California and the Pacific Northwest. Towns spran

up along maj

a

railroad transportati

As public access through road construction has improved, local population pressure has increased and 

additional roads have been pioneered for hunting, firewood gathering, and other recreational activities. More

recently, timber and mineral interests have required new and/or improved access. Over time, an extensive 

transportation system has evolved. 

Management Direction 

The RFP standards and guidelines that apply to roads include: 

obliteration of roads. 

• Road construction, reconstruction and maintenance standards and criteria shall be guided by roads 

analysis and documented through the use of road management objectives. 

• For roads scheduled for decommissioning, the site specific analysis shall disclose and analyze

effects of closure methods. (RFP pg.3-37). 

Access and trail direction from the RFP are discussed under the Recreation section of this Chapter. 

Current Forest Transportation System 

Transportation facilities (roads, bridges, and culverts) provide important access to the Forest for a variety

uses, including recreation, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and mining. The current system is a 

combination of planned and unplanned roads. Most roads on the Forest were originally constructed for 

commercial access, including grazing, timber and mineral extraction. The majority of planned roads have 

been located, designed, and constructed to an approved standard. The main arterial and collector routes, as 

well as s

Local roads also provide important access to the Forest, and their design standards depend upon the

use. Single-purpose logging and mineral access roads are included in this planned category, since th

location and stand

standard two-track roads that forest users have pioneered. Typically, these roads were not constructed to a 

standard and were located based on topography, vegetation, or forest user convenience. Some of these 

existing, poorly located, unplanned roads are being closed, relocated, or reco

94
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

environmental impacts through ongoing timber management activities. For example, opportunities to 

uring the analysis for the 1985 Forest Plan, the transportation inventory, particularly roads, was updated. 

ed roads were added to the classified system in order to track these roads and 

s,

urlew Grasslands, stayed in the range of 1,800 miles 

ith approximately 700 miles managed as closed. 

ent policy requiring that all 

ad management activities, including construction, reconstruction or obliteration, must be preceded by a 

m. In 2002, the Forestthe environmental 

of “key forest roads”. These “key roads” as defined in the roads analysis process, included most of 

scal y

project el

Plan Ro mpleted on all classified and unclassified roads on the forest. This analysis 

con is 

makes r

RFP and the 2002 Forestwide Roads Analysis, the transportation system, including the road

s captured on a GIS layer using existing maps of inventoried system roads and trails. This was 

ade t Forestwide Roads 

Analy is as it dealt 

wer

the rem alysis validated the need for these key roads as the backbone of the 

forest transportation s

the

man gi

regarding the 

the

pdated Transportation Inventory

bou Travel Plan and the accompanying 2005 Travel Plan Roads Analysis, an 

upd IS

travel la superimposed 

over current (1999) digital orthoquads. Roads and trails were then moved, added or deleted, as necessary, to 

refl

from th oads Analysis but reflected a more accurate 

picture of the existing transportation system, including classified and unclassified roads and trails. 

The tran g this updated GIS transportation

laye and the interim travel plan direction of the RFP. This interim direction incorporated the existing travel 

plan d

travel o cross country motorized travel, 

relocate roads out of riparian areas, redesign roads to reduce steep grades, improve drainage by adding 

culverts or dips, and reduce surface erosion by adding gravel surfacing are accomplished through timber 

sale projects. 

D

Many miles of user creat

manage the system. To comply with the 1985 Forest Plan direction of no net increase in open road densitie

during the period between the1985 Forest Plan and the 2003 RFP, most newly constructed single-purpose 

roads for timber that provided new access were closed after management activities were completed. The 

inventoried road system on the Caribou, including the C

w

 

Roads Analysis Process 

In January 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service approved a new road managem

ro

roads analysis that identifies need for a road and emphasizes a minimum road syste

wide Roads Analysis was completed for the Caribou. It evaluated the need for and

impacts

the higher standard roads that are maintained for low clearance (passenger car) vehicles. Several smaller 

e Roads Analysis’, including watershed and project level have been performed in recent years to identif

level road management opportunities. As part of the Caribou Travel Plan revision, a second Trav

ads Analysis was co

siders the need for these roads and weighs those needs against the environmental effects. The analys

ecommendations for managing these roads. 

For the 2003 

inventory, wa

qua e for developing programmatic direction in the RFP and for performing the

s mainly with the “key” higher standard (passenger car) system roads. Recommendations 

e developed for these higher standard roads and strategies were developed for analyzing and managing

ainder of the road system. The an

ystem. It also stated that overall, the balance of the transportation system was meeting 

basic access needs of the forest, but that additional, mostly short term access, would be needed for 

a ng the suitable timber base and for mineral exploration and development. Further information 

existing road system and the strategies for managing the existing road system can be found in 

2002 Forestwide Roads Analysis. 

U

For the 2005 Revised Cari

ated and more detailed inventory of all travel routes was developed. This inventory started with the G

yer used for the 2003 RFP and 2002 Forestwide Roads Analysis. This layer was then

ect the actual locations and conditions on the ground. The number of miles of roads and trails varied 

e miles used in the 2003 RFP and 2002 Forestwide R

sportation layer for the No Action Alternative was developed usin

r

direction in areas that were previously closed to cross country motorized travel and managed motorize

n designated routes. In the forest areas that were previously open to

95
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

the direction was to allow motorized travel on any road or trail that was shown on the 2002 Caribou travel 

oad system receives some annual maintenance. 

are

ad

dary where traffic is dispersed onto these forest roads. Some of these forest 

es and Access

.

oads are usually administered under a lease, Plan of Operations, or Special Use Permit. Upon approval 

pany 

to

se

e

ermanent

se.

troduction

aribou Travel Plan alternatives have the potential to affect the spread of noxious weeds. The indicator to 

easure the effects on this issue will be acres open to cross-country motorized travel and miles of routes 

pen to motorized and non-motorized travel during the snow-free season. 

map. Based on this direction, the total miles of open road were estimated at 1,010 miles and the total miles

of closed roads were estimated at 498 miles. 

Road Operation and Maintenance 

The forest performs road maintenance on the forest road system as funding allows. On the combined 

Caribou-Targhee NF, it is estimated that only 21% of the r

Higher standard “passenger car” roads receive more maintenance than lower standard roads. Priorities

based on environmental concerns or as needed to implement forest projects. The Forest cooperates with

local counties to perform maintenance or improvements on primary forest access roads. Additional ro

maintenance and improvements are performed by special use holders, timber purchasers and mining 

companies. Forest road maintenance budgets are expected to stay flat or decline in the future. Identifying 

unneeded roads to reduce road maintenance costs will help the Forest Service improve road conditions 

forest-wide.

Forest Access 

County roads and state highways provide access to the National Forest. Some of these roads and highways 

traverse into or through the Forest. Other state and county roads connect to key forest arterial, collector, and 

local roads at the forest boun

roads then serve as primary “through route” across the Forest connecting local communities. The Forest has 

worked closely with adjacent counties to maintain and improve legal public access to the Forest and will 

continue to work with private landowners and local counties to legally secure additional public access 

routes. The 2002 Forest-wide Roads Analysis has a listing and maps of legal public access routes to the 

Forest key road system. Additional needs exist to provide public access to lower standard forest roads and 

forest trails. 

Mineral Resourc

Roads needed for mining, oil, or gas activities on the Forest range from small, temporary exploration roads 

to large, temporary but longer-term haul roads for mining operations. Environmental impacts created by

these roads are assessed in site specific NEPA analysis conducted for each mining activity. The use, 

maintenance, and reclamation of these roads are outlined and performed according to the Mine/Exploration 

and Reclamation Plan submitted by the mining company and reviewed by the administering agencies

 

R

and prior to construction, a bond is secured for the reclamation of the roads in the event the mining com

is unwilling or unable to complete the agreed reclamation requirements. Mining roads are usually closed

public access during operations for safety reasons. Once mining activities are completed, most of the

single use roads are reclaimed or closed to motorized vehicles. Site specific analysis and long term needs 

will determine the long term management of these roads. Occasionally, a mine road will upgrade or reduc

environmental impacts from existing forest development roads. Where the situation is favorable, pre-mine 

roads are obliterated and the road created for mineral exploration or development is adopted for p

u

Noxious Weeds __________________________________

In

C

m

o

96
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Analysis Area 

The af direct, indirect, a ve effects to upland non-forested vegetation and noxious

weeds s of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered e Westside, Soda s and

Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

ent Plan (LRMP) for the Caribou NF has identified specific standards and 

ide; for noxious weed management, as follows: 

o u pages 3-20 and 3-21)

invasive plant species through 

ent (IPM), and Best Management

2. The Forest is an active member of cooperative weed management areas established across the 

Sta a

1. Only weed-free hay, straw, pellets, and mulch shall be used on the Forest. 

2. All seed used shall be certified to be free of noxious weed seeds from weeds listed on the current 

xious weeds and other invasive species. 

Sources infested with noxious weeds shall be closed until the weeds are successfully controlled. 

cally prohibited, 

sing the IPM approach. Methods of control and 

access shall be consistent with the goals of each prescription area. 

uidelines

should be timed to achieve desired 

effects on target vegetation, while having minimal effects on non-target vegetation. 

2. Protect biological control insectories and allow harvest for distribution to other weed infestations, 

landings, skid trails, roads, mines, burned areas, etc., 

necessary.

4. Evaluate the potential for invasion by noxious weeds into proposed vegetation units and wildland 

fire use plan areas and modify units or mitigate where necessary.

fected area for nd cumulati

is the portion by th Spring

Analysis Methods 

This section presents current conditions and trends for noxious weeds. Designated travel routes and acres 

open to cross-country motorized travel can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. Comparing miles of 

designated motorized routes by alternative will indicate the relative risk of each alternative contributing to 

the spread and intensity of noxious weed infestations. 

Plan Direction 

The Land and Resource Managem

guidelines that apply forest-w

N xio s Weeds and Invasive Plant Species (RLMP

Goals 

1. Minimize the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other 

the application of Forest Direction, Integrated pest managem

Practices (BMP’s). 

forest. 

nd rds

All States Noxious Weeds List. 

3. Gravel or borrow material sources shall be monitored for no

4. Noxious weeds shall be aggressively treated throughout the Forest, unless specifi

following the Caribou Noxious Weed Strategy. U

G

1. Weed treatment projects, especially those using herbicides,

providing the original insectory can be maintained. 

3. Monitor, as needed, disturbed areas, such as

for noxious weeds or invasive species and treat where 

97
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Existing Conditions 

Invasive species, which include noxious weeds, have been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as 

one of the four significant threats to forest and rangeland ecosystems. A 2004 National Strategy and 

es

species challenge. The plan identifies four program elements: prevention, early detection

nd rapid response, control and management and rehabilitation and restoration. The Caribou-Targhee 

izes these elements. 

ee Noxious Weed Program is active and gaining more 

articipants in all the CWMAs of the forest. The CWMAs have adopted the philosophy that weed 

to be viewed much like a wildfire, catching infestations quickly while they are still small

rove the Forest’s

apability to deal with weed management issues. Noxious weed prevention methods are routinely

management activities such as grazing permits and annual operating instructions, 

d research have shown that noxious weeds are no longer just a problem in disturbed sites. 

of the primary

athways for the introduction of noxious weeds, because vehicles tend to cover the most ground, including 

ross-country travel”, (FEIS for RFP, pg. 3-256). The current travel plan allows cross-country motorized 

RFP describes the impact of the 14 species of undesirable plants that occupy the Forest, 

mation is now available 

om additional monitoring and inventory for noxious weeds. Now, 15 plant species occupy an estimated 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management was produced to guide the Forest Service as it tak

on the invasive

a

Noxious Weed Program also emphas

Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are a coalition of land management agencies, tribal 

agencies, private landowners, and others with an interest in reducing the spread of invasive species, 

including noxious weeds. The Caribou-Targh

p

infestations need

(2002-2003 Caribou Monitoring and Evaluation Report). 

Noxious weed management is not new to the Forest. In 2001, the Caribou-Targhee NF adopted a Noxious

Weed Strategy for the Forest to increase emphasis on weed management and to imp

c

incorporated into resource

and timber sale contracts.

The source of many weed infestations and other introduced plant species has been traced to disturbed sites

such as travel corridors (roads, trails, skid trails, etc.), trailheads, parking areas, campsites, fire suppression

activities, harvest units and landings. Unwanted plants can be spread by vehicles, material from gravel pits, 

livestock, wildlife and birds, camping/fishing gear and clothing, straw and mulch, and livestock feed (hay

and grain). Noxious weed infested acres continue to increase due to a variety of factors including; 

continuing drought conditions and the ability of noxious weeds to out-compete native plants for space,

nutrients, water, sunlight, etc. One source of noxious weed seed are the tires of motorized vehicles, 

including OHV’s. 

Experience an

These plants are becoming established in relatively undisturbed ecosystems. (USDA Forest Service, 1998) 

Cross-country travel off of designated routes contributes to this trend through the transport of seed on stock, 

people and vehicles. Cross-country motorized travel contributes to this trend through loss of native 

vegetation and soil disturbance. 

Before the RFP, cross-country motorized travel was allowed on large portions of the Soda Springs and 

Montpelier Ranger Districts. The FEIS for the RFP states that noxious weeds are, “often hitchhikers on 

vehicles, people’s footwear, or animals feet or hair.” Contaminated vehicles are one

p

c

travel on 29,400 acres in the Huckleberry Basin area of the Soda Springs District. This could be a concern 

as off-route motorized travel can contribute to initial infestations and spread of noxious weeds. 

The FEIS for the

(pages 3-255 through 3-260). Since the completion of the FEIS in 2003, more infor

fr

31,128 acres (Table 3-XX). 

98
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 3.25. Approximate acres of Noxious Weeds by Ranger District /1 

Ranger District Total Acres Acres Infested Acres Treated

Westside 217,409 8,192 2,530 

Soda Springs 350,972 7,225 880 

Montpelier 440,307 15,711 1,041 

 Total 1,008,688 31,128 4,451 

/1 Source is 2004 Forest Noxious Weed Report 

to the spread of noxious

ount of 

weed spread by stock eating and then distributing weed seeds and weed seed being brought into the 

trav

travel ro

nger District

Travel and travel routes of all types, motorized and non-motorized can contribute

weeds. The Weed-Free Hay Program was initiated on National Forests in the1990s to reduce the am

noxious

forest as stock feed. Motorized travel is of special concern because a motorized vehicle user typically 

els further than someone traveling by non-motorized means. Below is a summary of acres and miles of

ute (snow-free) and areas open to cross-country motorized use per District: 

Westside Ra

• otorized travel 

open to cross country motorized travel 

The Westside Ranger District consists of about 217,409 acres with: 

• 480 miles of designated motorized travel routes 

140 miles of travel routes designated for non-m

• There are no acres

• 217,409 acres open to non-motorized cross country travel 

Soda Springs Ranger District

The Soda Springs Ranger District consists of about 350,972 acres with: 

• 29,400 acres open to cross country motorized travel 

• n-motorized cross country travel 

Montpelier Ranger District

• 560 miles of designated motorized travel routes 

• 150 miles of travel routes designated for non-motorized travel 

350,972 acres open to no

The M ict consists of about 44 cres with about:

• iles of designated motorized travel rou

for the RFP on pg. 4-

ontpelier Ranger Distr 0,307 a

820 m tes

• 190 miles of travel routes open to non-motorized travel 

• There are no acres open to cross country motorized travel 

• 440,307 acres open to non-motorized cross country travel 

The existing condition for noxious weeds and travel routes is summed up in the FEIS

256. “Infestations of weeds will continue to exist under all alternatives. Access will be the biggest threat to 

the spread of new infestations of noxious weeds.” 

99
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Forested Vegetation and Access ___________________

Introduction 

The transportation plan, including public access, has the potential to affect access for forested vegeta

management. 

tion

stside, Soda Springs 

nd Montpelier Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. In this section, the existing condition for forested 

egetation management access is discussed. 

50’s, roads have been built by timber sale purchasers and through public works projects to 

xisting Condition

ber harvest, are used to promote healthy, productive forest conditions. 

ate

large scale damage from any single insect or disease agent. A key element 

the implementation of forest management practices that promotes biodiversity is the presence of an 

twork is required to provide access for the heavy

vegetation off-site to processing facilities, and forest 

ting, thinning, fuels treatment and fire 

ppression.

tes, open to motorized use at some time during the

he Caribou NF. These roads are the main avenues of access to the Caribou portion of the 

e

iles of open 

stem travel routes, or 20%, pass through these lands with a primary management emphasis of scheduled 

forested ecosystem processes. 

Vegetation __________________________

ion

cts

Analysis Area and Methods 

The analysis area is the portion of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered by the We

a

v

Background 

Since the early 19

access and haul commercial timber. These roads have provided continued access for forest management 

and opportunities for public forest product collection and other types of recreation. 

E

Silvicultural treatments, including tim

These treatments can reduce or suppress insect and disease infestations, improve tree growth, manipul

wildlife habitat and salvage economic values. An important indication of forest health is the diversity and 

distribution of stand ages and species. The greater the diversity and distribution of stand ages and species, 

the more resistant the forest is to

in

effective network of forest access roads. This ne

machinery needed to move logs and other forest

product gatherers to reach and remove vegetative resources. It also facilitates movement of personnel to

conduct other forest management activities, such as tree plan

su

There are approximately 1,860 miles of system travel rou

year, within t

Caribou-Targhee NF from county or state highways. Many were developed for long-term land and resourc

management purposes, including vegetation management for multiple resource objectives. There are 

approximately 84,000 acres of land within the Forest’s suitable timber base. Nearly 360 m

sy

wood fiber production while maintaining or restoring

Non-Forested

Introduction 

Recreational travel has potential to affect the condition of non-forested vegetation. 

Analysis Area and Methods 

The affected area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to upland non-forested vegetation is the port

of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered by the Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Distri

100
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. This section presents current conditions and trends for upland n

forested vegetation 

onlan Direction for non-forested vegetation 

The RFP for the Caribou NF has identified specific standards and guidelines that apply forest-wide; and 

rested Vegetation Plant Communities (RLMP page 3-22) 

g populations of native plant species and their pollinators; 

b) contributing to recovery of federally listed species, and c) supporting plant biodiversity to meet 

s, biological diversity, and ecological and functional integrity.

naturally where the seed source and 

social conditions are favorable (e.g. low erosion potential, deeper soils) and noxious weeds are not 

roblem. 

d to be non-forested upland vegetation. Of this, 

bout 86% is classified as sagebrush/mountain shrub. Upland vegetation is considered to be vegetation 

sed

riparian and forested ecosystem portions of this Chapter. 

P

pertain to the management of upland non-forested vegetation for the Caribou NF, as follows: 

Upland Non-fo

Goals 

1. Provide habitat capable of : a) supportin

social need

Guidelines 

1. Where practical, disturbed sites should be allowed to revegetate

expected to be a p

Existing Conditions 

The 2003 FEIS for the RFP describes the condition of non-forested upland vegetation, (pg. 3-93 to 127; pgs.

3-271 to 275). Approximately 45% of the forest is considere

a

away from streams and is not streamside vegetation or vegetation in riparian areas. 

The description of the vegetation associated with riparian areas and forested ecosystems will be discus

under the

Table 3.26. Approximate acres of Upland Non-Forested/Woodland Vegetation Types/1 

Vegetation Type Acres Percent Total of 

Non-Forested Acres 

Sagebrush/Mountain shrub 404,500 86% 

Mountain mahogany 20,000 4% 

Maple 24,700 5%

Juniper 11,900 2%

Rock (including mines) 7,900 2% 

Water 200 Less than 1% 

 Total 469,200 100% 

 /1 Source is Table 3.30 of the FEIS for the CNF Revised Forest Plan, 2/03 

 open 

ain vigor and health, attendant soil and 

atershed conditions respond favorably, as well. Based on information in the FEIS for the Caribou NF, 

about 22% of the rangeland (which includes forested and non-forested vegetation) is in less than satisfactory 

condition. At the site specific scale, some areas occupied by the upland non-forested vegetative 

A wide variety of non-forested vegetation cover types occur on the Forest. The types range from

sagebrush-grasslands to wet meadows and riparian areas and from drier juniper and mountain mahogany

sites to moist bigtooth maple stands found in canyon bottoms and foothills. Factors such as climate, soils, 

aspect, elevation, and past disturbance determine the type of vegetation that exists on a site, which may

differ from the potential natural vegetation or climax community. (FEIS CNF, 2/03). 

Recent rangeland inventories indicate that for the most part, conditions are generally satisfactory with either

stable or upward apparent trends. It is assumed, that as the plants g

w

101
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

communities have diminished for a variety of reasons. For example, departure from historical succe

has been related to historical grazing activities, changes in fire regimes due to suppression, and inva

ssion 

sions of

s than

,

Livestock Access_________________________________

aribou travel plan alternatives have the potential to affect access to the forest. People who hold grazing 

ermits are concerned about motorized access to facilities, such as fences, troughs, livestock handling 

facilities and locations for sheep herder camps. 

dministered by the Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the 

aribou-Targhee NF. This section presents current access conditions for range administration and livestock 

ermittee access to forest areas. 

lan Direction for Livestock Grazing

FP for the Forest has identified specific standards and guidelines that apply forest-wide; and pertain to 

facilities and areas, as follows: 

ivestock Grazing Permits (RFP page 3-43)

uidelines

ermittees may be allowed motorized access to maintain or develop range improvements assigned in their 

razing permits or for other authorized administrative activities. AMP’s and Annual Operating Instructions

hould include direction to comply; travel permits should be issued to authorize this use.

xisting Conditions – Livestock Grazing

ivestock grazing has been an historic and traditional use of the Caribou NF for over 100 years. Livestock 

portant forest product and many permittees use this forage to meet at least part of their yearund grazing needs. 

razing on the NF is authorized by Congress and is a significant use on the Caribou NF. Presently about 

63 grazing permittees are authorized to graze their livestock on 130 grazing allotments. About 694,000 

acres (67%) of the Caribou NF are suitable for grazing cattle and sheep. According to the 2003 Annual 

Statically Grazing report, 21,775 cattle and 68,651 sheep are permitted to graze the Forest. To facilitate 

management of the program, existing improvements include 482 miles of fence, 370 troughs, 733 stock 

ponds, and 51 miles of pipeline, 5 wells, and 22 corrals. Livestock grazing permittees are required to 

maintain all these structural range improvements and to manage their allotments in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of their grazing permit. 

undesirable forb and grass species. Generally, the sagebrush/mountain shrub vegetation types in les

satisfactory condition have been invaded by other cover types such as Douglas-fir as a result of fire 

suppression. The tall forb communities in less than satisfactory condition have been impacted by

overgrazing; and the woodland cover types which are not in satisfactory condition, which consist of juniper

maple, and mountain mahogany; have expanded outside their natural range because of fire suppression. 

Recreation activities, cross country motorized travel, and travel on forest roads and trails was not identified 

in the RFP FEIS as contributors to diminished non-forested vegetation communities. 

Introduction 

C

p

Analysis Area and Methods 

The affected area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to livestock grazing is the portion of the 

Caribou and Cache NFs a

C

p

P

R

livestock grazing access to 

L

G

P

g

s

E

L

forage is an im

ro

G

2

102
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Permittee and other special use access can be accomplished on designated motorized travel routes,

travel permit can be issued to allow motorized travel on restricted travel routes, as identified in the

or a

annual

Fir

Intr

The ran ing motorized and non-motorized trails, has the potential to effect access 

to m plement prescribed fires. Roads and trails can contribute to 

hum

xisting Condition

ears, periods of drought throughout the Western United States have resulted in stressed 

e

e as the beginning of an improved 

reline.

ses and Long-term Productivity _________

operating plan for the permitted use. 

e Management and Access ______________________

oduction

t sportation system, includ

onitor and/or suppress wildfires and to im

an-caused fires, intentional and accidental. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area are the portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered by the Westside, Soda 

Springs, and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

E

Over the last fifteen y

vegetation that is more susceptible to uncharacteristic wildland fire. While the Caribou has not experienced 

wildland fires to the same extent or severity as other areas in the West, the potential for uncharacteristically

large wildland fires exists on the Forest. (RFP FEIS 3-249) 

During wildland fires, access to the fire is very important. Easy access helps people and equipment reach th

fire within a short time of discovery. Wildland fire emergency crews may need to use non-system roads that

are not designated for public use. Any type of road or trail can serv

fi

The 2000 National Fire Plan and the 2004 Healthy Forests Initiative both emphasize measures designed to 

reduce the risk to communities an the environment from wildfires. These measures include prescribed fire 

and other means of fuel reduction. Access for fire management, including suppression and fuels reduction, 

need to be considered in travel planning. 

Forest roads and trails allow the public to access forest areas. This access can also lead to human-caused 

fires. On the Caribou-Targhee, less than 10% of wildland fires are contributed to human-caused ignition 

(Forest fire records, 1980-2000). 

Short-term U

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress,

this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a 

manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which

man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of

present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

103
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects _______________________

travel represents a commitment to accept loss 

f production on these lands. This has an irretrievable effect, the vegetation that would have been produced 

nd trails cannot be regained. There are no irreversible impacts identified in this analysis. 

EPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

ements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review laws 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable resources such as soils, 

wetlands, unroaded areas and cultural resources. Such commitments are considered irretrievable when the 

resources cannot be regained. Designating roads and trails for

o

on these roads a

Cumulative Effects _______________________________

Other Required Disclosures ________________________

N

environmental impact stat

and executive orders.” 

104
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Tribal Treaty Concerns____________________________

ffects Common to All Alternatives

which those rights rely. 

or tribal grazing activities is not governed by the travel plan, and will not be affected by

Reservation through the 

Toponce area during the snow and snow-free season. 

nd motorized access to hunt, fish, and gather would remain as it 

ctice their traditions would not change. The existing risk 

 and little-used routes. Fullzed vehicle access would not change in most forest areas. This alternative reduces the risk of travel route 

an areas by decreasing travel routes in riparian areas and decreasing stream

le

 on 

e reduces the risk of travel route impacts to fish and riparian areas by decreasing travel 

utes in riparian areas and decreasing stream crossings. This alternative decreases motorized disturbance 

g non-motorized areas in the Elkhorn, Oxford, Stump Peak, Worm Creek and 

l

turbance for wildlife by creating non-motorized 

d, Stump Peak, Worm Creek and Snowdrift Mountain. This alternative reduces 

urces from motorized travel and travel routes. However, this alternative reduces motorized 

E

• All alternatives will maintain tribal treaty rights and the resources upon

• Access f

travel plan alternatives. 

• All alternatives limit motorized access onto the Shoshone-Bannock

Alternative One (No Action) 

In this alternative, tribal treaty rights a

currently exists. The ability of tribal members to pra

to forest resources from motorized travel and travel routes would also remain the same. 

Alternative Two 

In this alternative, the decrease in designated travel routes represents redundant

si

impacts to fish and ripari

crossings. This alternative decreases motorized disturbance to wildlife by creating a non-motorized area in 

the Stump Peak drainage. While this alternative reduces travel routes, many forest areas are still accessib

and the risk to forest resources from motorized travel is reduced. 

Alternative Three 

This alternative designates less travel routes than the existing condition and some forest areas are only 

accessible by foot or horse. Full-sized vehicle access changes in some forest areas. If tribal members rely

motorized vehicles, especially ATVs, to hunt, fish or gather; they may not be able to reach some forest 

areas. This alternativ

ro

for wildlife by creatin

Snowdrift Mountain. This alternative reduces risk to forest resources from motorized travel and trave

routes. However, this alternative reduces motorized travel routes and reduces motorized access to many

forest areas. 

Alternative Four 

Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative Three, this alternative designates less travel routes, and 

additional forest areas are only accessible by foot or horse. If tribal members rely on motorized vehicles to

hunt, fish or gather, they may not be able to reach some forest areas. This alternative reduces the risk of 

travel route impacts to fish and riparian areas by decreasing travel routes in riparian areas and decreasing 

stream crossings. This alternative decreases motorized dis

areas in the Elkhorn, Oxfor

risk to forest reso

travel routes and reduces motorized access for many forest areas. 

105
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Five 

In this alternative the decrease in designated travel routes generally represents redundant and little-used

routes. Full-sized vehicle access would not change in most forest areas. This alternative reduces the risk of 

travel route impacts to fish and riparian areas by decreasing travel routes in riparian areas and decreasing 

stream crossings. This alternative decreases disturbance for wildlife by creating a non-motorized area in the 

areas are still accessible and 

o most forest areas. Alternatives Two 

rough Five retain most existing motorized access, while reducing risks to forest resources from motorized

lower, but they substantially change 

ers who rely on motorized access to 

may not be able to reach a particular forest area in all alternatives, however, 

ments of resources with any of the alternatives. 

ity of 

d degradation of the resources over time. Dams along the Snake River affected salmon runs and limited 

. Development of open space, access restrictions, and land 

disposals reduced unoccupied lands for practicing tribal tr s. Fi , gra ng and

timber h ged n an water e Idaho National Engi

Environm bora es access t acreage l lands.

In recent wever, these trends are slowly being reversed and federal land manag e

more informed regarding tr ponsibilities. Elk, moose ite-taile mbers 

have increase es are enhancing native fish and wildlife habitat. In the shift towards 

cosystem management federal land managers have reintroduced natural processes such as fire across the 

ition of natural resources collectively serve to protect and begin 

he Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF is a just a part of the cumulative effects area. The action 

ereby, treaty rights. Since the no action

ntal consequences of implementing the five alternatives considered in 

Stump Peak drainage. While this alternative reduces travel routes, many forest

the risk to forest resources from motorized travel is reduced. 

Conclusion 

Alternative One, the existing condition, provides motorized access t

th

travel routes. Alternatives Three and Four reduce those risks even 

motorized access to some forest areas on the Caribou. Tribal memb

exercise their treaty rights 

Alternatives Three and Four offer the least motorized access. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

There will be no irreversible or irretrievable commit

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for tribal treaty rights is southern and central Idaho. This area is chosen 

because it encompasses the majority of the area currently used by tribal members. In this area, the abil

Native Americans to practice their traditional culture has been reduced through loss of “unoccupied lands”

an

the availability of salmon for consumption

eaty right

quality. Th

to vas

re suppression

s of federa

zing, mini

arvest chan neering and 

ental La

the vegetatio

tory (INEEL) r

d affected

tricted tribal

years, ho ers have becom

eaty rights and trust res and wh d deer nu

d. Federal and state agenci

e

landscape. Efforts to improve the cond

restoration of tribal treaty rights. 

T

alternatives, however, would enhance natural resources and th

alternative maintains the status quo and the action alternatives enhance tribal members’ ability to practice 

treaty rights, this proposal would not add to negative cumulative impacts. 

Recreation ______________________________________

Introduction

This section discloses the environme

detail. Effects are discussed by tracking the following indicators: non-motorized settings, motorized

opportunities compared to RFP limits, miles of motorcycle trail and cross-country motorized travel during 

the snow-free season. Summer or snow-free season travel effects are discussed first, followed by the winter 

106
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

or snow-season travel effects. The analysis compares recreation use with the opportunities offered by each 

alternative. The effects of each alternative on other recreation concerns, such as season of use, quality of 

experience, and special access are also discussed. The public and other agencies were interested in the 

management effects of specific travel routes and these are covered in more detail. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives, including the No Action 

plementation of any travel plan alternative will result in the displacement of some forest visitors. A travel 

 not offer the desired setting or the desired mode of transportation on a preferred trail or area 

zed travel

he opportunity to travel cross-country by non-motorized means in most forest areas and on most travel 

all alternatives. 

otorized, this includes West Mink Creek RNA, Gibson Jack RNA, Toponce, Bloomington Lake, Gannett 

d Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness areas. Effects from additional 

een 600 and 1,020 miles of designated non-motorized trails. Many of these trails 

ave not been maintained and some are in close proximity to motorized routes. Over time; appropriated 

outside funding will maintain and reconstruct these non-motorized trails to meet 

some of these actions would require additional analysis and 

ubic involvement. 

d

ducation and Enforcement

nd enforcement will continue under all alternatives. The analysis cannot predict 

s

ll alternatives exceed prescribed OMRDs in some areas of the forest. Generally speaking, overages contain 

oth roads and trails. In areas managed as semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized, a substantial 

crease in densities could effect the quality of the recreation experience, degrading the “semi-primitive” 

Displacement

Im

plan that does

will displace some people to other areas or they will chose other activities. 

Non-motori

T

routes is the same for

Existing Semi-primitive Non-motorized Areas 

During the snow and snow-free season, the larger semi-primitive non-motorized areas remain nonm

Hills, Bear Creek and Caribou Mt. an

non-motorized areas vary by alternative. 

Non-motorized trails 

All alternatives offer betw

h

funds, partnerships and

Forest Service standards. 

Maintenance and Reconstruction 

Implementation of any travel plan alternative will require some road and trail maintenance, construction, 

reconstruction and relocation for designated travel route conditions to meet Forest Service road and trail 

standards. This would occur over time, and

p

Seasonal Closures 

Forty miles of designated motorized routes are closed seasonally in all alternatives. These miles are 

primarily designated roads and are closed to minimize wildlife disturbance or to protect the road surface

from wheeled vehicles when conditions are wet and muddy. These closures will continue to affect fall an

spring motorized access for activities like hunting and gathering of forest products. 

E

Travel Plan education a

which alternative would be easier or less costly to implement and enforce on the ground. More travel route

could be more costly to patrol, but more closures could be more costly to enforce. All alternatives would 

require funding for education, signage and enforcement. 

Plan OMRDs 

A

b

in

107
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

ROS setting. In the Bear Creek area, north of Soda Springs, the overage is due to a motorized trail along the 

of

D.

our and Five

el routes than the existing Travel Plan. Reducing motorized 

ffects Common to Alternatives One through Four

hese alternatives restrict mountain bike travel to designated routes. 850 miles of designated motorized trail 

ese alternatives, the only non-motorized trail available to mountain 

travel restrictions shown on the 2002 Caribou Travel Map with the 2003 Special 

perimeter of the area. Bear Creek is managed under a non-motorized recreation and wildlife security 

prescription. Home Canyon is over the OMRDs in all alternatives, this area has a prescription emphasis

forested vegetation. Home Canyon contains popular motorized trails in close proximity to Montpelier, I

Effects Common to Alternatives Two, Three, F

These alternatives designate less motorized trav

roads and trails from 1,860 miles to a range of 1,800 to 1,430 miles will reduce the costs to maintain roads

and trails to standard. There will be additional “one time” costs associated with closing routes. These 

differences vary by miles of travel route closed in each alternative. 

E

Mountain Bike Travel 

T

are available to mountain bikes. In th

bike use is the West Fork Trail, in Mink Creek. Under these alternatives, illegal mountain bike use will 

continue on trails managed for foot and stock only. 

Alternative One, No action

This alternative reflects the

Order, which is the existing condition. In areas that were formerly managed as open to cross-country

motorized travel, any road or trail depicted on the 2002 travel map became a designated motorized route. 

 

Table 4.1. Indicators (Snow-free season) 

SPNM acres

and % of 

Forest 

Miles of nonmotorized trail 

Miles of

motorized 

travel routes

Miles of

motorcycle 

trail 

Acres open to

x-country

motorized 

Winschell 

Dugway 

270,860 600 1860 170 mi. 29,400

non-motorized

trail, not 

maintained 26% 

Table 4.2. Indicators (Snow Season) 

Non-motorized acres Motorized acres 

59,300 (6%) 982,790 (94%) 

Non-mot Setti or Season

This alternative manages 2 otorized snow- on. Th ized

reas adjac Pocatello will continue to receive high use during peak times of the summ ce, a

ernative to the high use areas in Mink Creek and 

otorized setting close to home. Caribou Mountain, Bear Creek 

(north of Caribou M t Hills, adjacent to Wyoming o n-motorized setting 

ith few facilities. Mt. mended Wilderness and Bloomin more accessible 

orized ng, Summer Snow-free

70,860 acres as non-m during the free seas e non-motor

a er. Topon

sh

ent to

ort drive from Pocatello, would be a reasonable alt

Gibson Jack for people seeking a non-m

ountain) and Gannet ffer a remote no

w

n

Naomi Recom gton Lake offer a

on-motorized setting in the Upper Bear River Range. 

Motorized Use and Opportunity 

This alternative offers the most miles of motorized routes, 1,950 miles. Counting only the miles of 

motorized routes within prescription areas with an OMRD ceiling, there are 1,510 miles out of an allowable 

108
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

mileage of 1,880. This alternative could be the most advantageous for people with disabilities who rely on 

ver 1,010 miles of designated road provide many opportunities for “driving for pleasure”. These roads 

travel in many forest areas for hunting, fishing and gathering forest products. 

TV travel

ighty miles of ATV trail are available in most forest areas to meet the growing demand for 

his

aring a 

ross-country Motorized Travel

erry Basin as open to cross-country motorized travel during the snowr education and enforcement of the travel plan and is 

nfusing to the public. 

does not provide additional non-motorized areas for hunters who 

refer this type of setting and experience. 

Non-motorized Travel (Winter or Snow Season) 

This alternative manages 59,300 acres, or six percent of the forest, as non-motorized during the snow 

season. Not all of these areas offer a quality non-moto zed experience. Areas within the Mink Creek area

e heavily used for skiing, boarding, and other non-motorized winter travel. The “backside” of Pebble 

reek offers a large non-motorized area for back-country travel. This alternative does not manage some

popular areas in around the Portneuf Yurt System as non-motorized. The conflict between ski travel and 

snowmobile travel in these areas will continue. 

Snowmobile Travel 

This alternative manages 982,790 acres (96 percent) as open to snowmobile use. Some of these areas (18 

percent of total forest acres) restrict snowmobile travel to designated routes to protect wintering wildlife 

from disturbance. This alternative does not provide designated snowmobile routes through areas of new 

winter range along the Bear River Range. This alternative would provide snowmobile opportunities, but 

some favorite play areas would not be available due to the lack of access through winter range. 

motorized travel to experience the forest. There are no designated travel routes within Caribou Mountain 

and Mt. Naomi Recommended Wilderness areas and there are no designated routes within Toponce, Worm

Creek/Bloomington Lake, Bear Creek, and in the Gannett Hills area. This alternative would provide most 

people with a variety of motorized route settings and opportunities.

Full-sized vehicles 

O

allow full-sized vehicle

A

Six hundred e

ATV travel. However, some trails dead-end and loop opportunities have not been considered in this 

alternative. 

Motorcycle Travel 

This alternative offers 170 miles of designated motorcycle trail, the highest miles of any alternative. T

alternative would also benefit mountain bike riders who prefer a single-track trail and don’t mind sh

trail with motorcycles. Use of these trails will remain low by restricting these routes to motorcycle use only. 

C

This alternative manages the Huckleb

free season. This is the only forest area that does not restrict motorized vehicles to designated routes during 

the snow-free season. This creates a mixed message fo

co

Hunting and Travel 

This alternative offers the highest number of designated motorized routes and the highest number of 

designated roads. This alternative could be the most advantageous for hunters who rely on motorized access 

to scout, hunt and retrieve game. However, this alternative does not provide motorized access to all forest 

areas. Caribou Mountain and Toponce are the only large non-motorized areas that offer a quality hunt in a 

non-motorized setting. This alternative

p

ri

ar

C

109
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Maintenance Costs 

In areas that were formerly managed as open to cross-country motorized travel, any road or trail depicted 

on the 2002 Travel map became a designated motorized route. This alternative has the highest miles of 

designated travel routes that were not designed or maintained for motorized travel. These travel routes 

would require reconstruction and relocation to meet Forest Service road and trail standards. Some actions 

would require additional analysis and public involvement. 

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Experience 

This alternative exceeds the prescription OMRDs in thirteen prescription areas. These areas are discussed 

under the existing condition section of Chapter Three and the ORMD map is also found there. The overages 

range from 0.8 to 0.1 miles per square mile. This alternative has the largest departure from Plan OMRDs. 

See Recreation, Chapter Three for OMRD map for Alternative One, which is the existing condition. 

Specific Travel Routes of Interest 

Trail 131 on Elkhorn Mountain 

This alternative manages the section of Trail #131 between Potter Creek and Rowley Canyon as an ATV 

trail, as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. The trail would need reconstruction to meet Forest Service trail 

standards for ATV use. The Westside Ranger District has updated their road and trail numbering system, 

this trail is now referred to as Trail # 311 on all alternative maps. 

The Winschell Dugway 

The Winschell Dugway would remain a designated non-motorized trail. The existing condition of the trail 

makes it marginal for even foot and horse traffic. Given existing conditions, it is questionable that this trail 

could be reconstructed to meet the lowest Forest Service standard for foot and horse use. 

Cub River Road 

The alternative does not change motorized access in the corridor of the Cub River Road. Conflicts between 

ATVs and full-sized vehicles will continue. 

Alternative Two, Proposed Action 

This alternative is the proposed action, as described in Chapter Two. 

Table 4.3. Indicators (Snow-free season) 

SPNM acres,

percent of 

Forest 

Miles of nonmotorized trail 

Miles of

motorized 

travel routes 

Miles of

Motorcycle 

Trail 

Acres open to 

x-country

motorized 

Winschell 

Dugway 

313,930 

30 % 700 1800 140 miles 29,400 Managed as

ATV trail 

Table 4.4. Indicators (Snow Season) 

Non-motorized acres Motorized acres 

59,300 (5.7%) 982,790 (94.3%)

Non-motorized Setting, Summer or Snow-free Season 

This alternative manages 39,300 acres as non-motorized during the snow-free season. The effects for the 

opportunity of non-motorized settings are similar for Alternative One, with additional non-motorized acres 

available in the Stump Peak drainage. Stump Peak is a popular area for stock use, especially during hunting 

season. This alternative would benefit these activities. 

110
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Motorized Use and Opportunity

e forest. In addition to the non-motorized areas described in Alternative One, there are no designated 

core area of Stump Peak drainage. As with Alternative One, this alternative provides 

en.

er 690 miles of ATV trail are available in most forest areas to meet the growing demand for ATV travel. 

have not been considered. 

otorcycle Travel

pproximately 140 miles of designated motorcycle trails. These trails are also 

il.

ross-Country Motorized Travel 

This alternative manages the Huckleberry Basin as open to cross-country motorized travel during the snowve One.

erience

e

have no new routes

apping has shown higher miles than previous mapping indicated for these areas.

ely

This alternative offers approximately 1,800 miles of motorized routes. Counting only the miles of motorized

routes within prescription areas with an OMRD limit, there are 1410 miles out of an allowable mileage of 

1,880. This alternative is advantageous to people with disabilities that rely on motorized travel to experience 

th

travel routes within the

a variety of motorized route settings and opportunities.

Full-sized vehicles 

This opportunity is similar for Alternative One, Two and Five. Most popular designated roads remain op

ATV travel

Ov

However, some trails dead-end and loop opportunities

M

This alternative offers a

available to mountain bike riders who prefer a single-track trail and don’t mind sharing a trail with 

motorcycles. Thirty miles of designated motorized trail are proposed to be converted to two-track ATV tra

Use of these converted trails will increase, as there are more ATV riders than motorcycle riders. 

C

free season. Effects are the same as Alternati

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Exp

This alternative does not meet plan OMRDs in 11 prescription areas. Overages range from 0.4 to 0.1. Hom

Canyon is over by .2, redundant motorized routes are not designated, which reduces the overage from

existing condition. The six areas on the Westside District that are over the plan OMRDs

proposed. Improved GIS m

This alternative meets the plan intent of OMRDs more successfully than Alternative One, but not as clos

as Alternatives Three, Four and Five. 

111
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

112
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Hunting and Travel

his alternative is advantageous to hunters who rely on motorized access to scout, hunt and retrieve game. 

However, this alternative does not provide motorized access to all forest areas. Caribou Mountain, Toponce 

and Stump Peak area provide large non-motorized areas that offer a quality hunt in a non-motorized setting. 

Maintenance Costs 

In this alternative, some designated travel routes have not been designed or maintained for motorized travel. 

A portion of these travel routes would require reconstruction and relocation to meet Forest Service road and 

trail standards. Some actions would require additional analysis and public involvement. The costs to 

maintain travel routes to standard would be less in this alternative than Alternative One, but higher than 

Alternative Three, Four and Five. There would be one-time costs to close approximately 32 miles of road, 

convert 13 miles of road to ATV trail, and convert 30 miles of motorcycle trail to ATV trail. 

 

Non-motorized Travel (Winter or Snow Season) 

Effects for this issue are the same as Alternative One. 

Snowmobile Travel 

Snowmobile restrictions and effects are similar to Alternative One, with the exception that new winter range 

areas have designated snowmobile routes through them. See Winter Map for Alternative Two in Chapter 

Two. This alternative provides ample snowmobile opportunities, including areas that are reached through 

winter range. 

Specific Travel Routes of Interest 

Trail 131 on Elkhorn Mountain 

This alternative manages the section of Trail #131 between Potter Creek and Rowley Canyon as an ATV 

trail, as depicted on the 2002 Travel Map. Effects are the same as for Alternative One. 

The Winschell Dugway 

The Winschell Dugway is proposed as a designated motorized trail for ATV use, if further analysis and 

design show that an ATV trail is feasible to build and maintain and would meet RFP standards and 

guidelines. 

An ATV route would be popular due to the scenery, historic flavor and unique setting of Caribou Mountain. 

The route would tie into other area trails creating a variety of loop opportunities. The trail experience could 

include interpretive opportunities that would tell the story of the gold miners of the late 1800s.

The final decision to construct/reconstruct the dugway as a motorized route would require further design and 

analysis. The methods of construction, design and long-term maintenance need to be determined. Taking 

into account typical wet conditions in the spring and fall, an ATV trail would be available for travel during 

the months of June, July and August. 

Cub River Road 

The alternative does not change motorized access in the corridor of the Cub River Road and conflicts 

between ATVs and full-sized vehicles will continue. 

T

113
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Three 

This alternative emphasizes managing key roads and trails for non-motorized travel to create more and 

larger non-motorized areas to reduce motorized disturbance to wildlife during the snow-free season. 

Table 4.5. Indicators (Snow-free season) 

SPNM 

acres, 

percent of 

Forest 

Miles nonmotorized 

trail 

Miles 

motorized 

travel routes 

Miles 

Motorcycle 

Miles of

seasonal 

closure of 

Acres open

to Winschell 

x-country

motorized 

Dugway motorized 

route 

Trail 

393,0

38%

00 930 1530 100 miles 29,400

Managed as

nonmotorized 

trail 

Table 4.6. Indicators (Snow Season) 

Non-motorized acres Motorized Acres 

59,300 (5.7%) 982,790 (94.3%)

Non-motorized Settings for Summer or Snow-free Season 

This alternative manages 393,000 acres as non-motorized during the snow-free season. In addition to the

non-motorized areas of Alternative One and Two, more acres adjacent to Pocatello are managed as nonmotorized. This alternative manages “core” areas in Elkhorn Mountain, Oxford Peak, and Snowdrift 

ountain as non-motorized, and enlarges the Worm Creek/Bloomington Lake and Deer Creek noneases non-motorized settings in many areas of the forest. 

. 

M

motorized areas. This alternative incr

114
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

115
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Motorized Use and Opportunity 

This alternative offers 1,530 miles of motorized routes. Counting only the miles of motorized routes within 

rescription areas with an OMRD ceiling, there are 1,174 miles out of an allowable mileage of 1,880. This 

n opportunities for people with disabilities who rely on motorized travel to 

y of motorized route settings and opportunities, but 

me forest areas can only be accessed by non-motorized means. 

. Many forest areas can still be accessed with a full-sized 

sting

miles and does not meet the growing demand for ATV travel as well as Alternatives 

trails dead-end and loop opportunities are less than Alternative One, Two and 

Highline Trail, a popular ATV route, become non-motorized. 

e Travel

signates approximately 100 miles for motorcycle travel, reducing existing miles by

iles. No motorized trail is proposed to be converted to two-track ATV trail in this 

stside

ross-country Motorized Travel

es the Huckleberry Basin as open to cross-country motorized travel during the snowwho rely on motorized access to scout and hunt and for hunters 

trieval in some areas. 

Th ive o ort n-mo xperi mp Peak

Mountain, Oxford Peak, and Snowdrift 

aintenance Costs

tes would require reconstruction and relocation to meet Forest Service 

road and trail standards. Some actions would require additional analysis an ment. In this 

alternative, the cost utes to standard would be less than Alternatives One, Two and Five. 

here would be one-time costs to close approximately 70 miles of constructed and user-created roads and 

e areas 

one is 

orested vegetation prescription. This alternative meets the plan intent of OMRDs more

ccessfully than Alternative One and Two. 

p

alternative would lesse

experience the Forest. This alternative provides a variet

so

Full-sized vehicles 

This alternative designates 940 miles of road

vehicle.

ATV travel

Four hundred ninety miles of ATV trail are available in some forest areas. This alternative reduces exi

ATV routes by 190

One, Two and Five. Many

Five. In this alternative, portions of the 

Motorcycl

This alternative de

approximately 70 m

alternative. Motorized single-track trails are available in some areas of the Forest, primarily on the We

District. 

C

This alternative manag

free season. Effects are the same as Alternatives One and Two. 

Hunting and Travel

This alternative lessens access for hunters

who rely on motorized access for game re

is alternat ffers more opp unity for a no torized hunting e ence in Stu , Elkhorn

Mountain. 

M

A portion of the designated travel rou

d public involve

s of maintain ro

T

190 miles of user-created trail. 

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Experience 

This alternative does not meet OMRDs in six prescription areas, overages range from 0.4 to 0.1. Thre

are over plan OMRDs on the Westside District; two have semi-primitive recreation prescription and

managed under a f

su

116
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

117
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Non-motorized Travel (Winter or Snow Season) 

1 on Elkhorn Mountain 

e manages the section of Trail #131 between Potter Creek and Rowley Canyon as a 

he Winschell Dugway is managed as a non-motorized trail. Effects are the same as Alternative One, Four 

orridor of the Cub River Road and conflicts 

etween ATVs and full-sized vehicles will continue. 

ging additional areas as non-motorized during the snow and snow-free 

on-motorized areas for a non-motorized recreation setting. 

Effects for this issue are the same as Alternative Two. 

Snowmobile Travel 

Effects for this issue are the same as Alternative Two. 

Specific Travel Routes of Interest 

Trail 13

This alternativ

designated non-motorized trail. This would create a non-motorized setting along the eastern slopes of 

Elkhorn Mountain. 

The Winschell Dugway 

T

and Five. 

Cub River Road 

The alternative does not change motorized access in the c

b

Alternative Four 

This alternative emphasizes mana

seasons to create more n

Table 4.7. Indicators (Snow-free season) 

SPNM acres,

percent of 

Forest 

Miles nonmotorized trail Miles motorized

travel routes 

Miles of

Motorcycle Trail 

Acres open xcountry 

motorized 

Winschell 

Dugway 

410,960 

39% 1430 100 miles 0 

motorized

Managed as non-

 trail 

Table 4.8. Indicators (Snow Season) 

Non-motorized acres Motorized acres 

61,900 (5.9 %) 98,0190 (94.1%)

Non-motorized Settings for Summer or Snow-free Season 

This alternative increases non-motorized settings, 410,960 acres, in many areas of the forest. In addition to 

the non-motorized areas of Alternative One and Two, more acres adjacent to Pocatello are managed as nonotorized. This alternative manages “core” areas in Elkhorn Mountain, Oxford Peak, and Snowdrift 

rized, and enlarges the Worm Creek/Bloomington Lake and Deer Creek nonmMountain as non-moto

motorized areas. 

118
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Four - ROS map. 

119
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Motorized Use and Opportunity

This alternative offers 1,430 miles of motorized routes. Counting only the miles of motorized routes within 

prescription areas with an OMRD ceiling, there are 1,174 miles out of an allowable mileage of 1,880. This 

alternative decreases opportunities for people with disabilities who rely on motorized travel to experience 

the forest. This alternative provides a variety of motorized route settings and opportunities, but some forest 

areas can only be accessed by non-motorized means. 

Full-sized vehicles 

This alternative designates 940 miles of road. Some forest areas can still be accessed with a full-sized 

vehicle. 

ATV travel

Four hundred ninety miles of ATV trail are available in some forest areas. This alternative reduces existing 

ATV routes by 190 miles and does not meet the demand for ATV trails as well as Alternatives One, Two 

and Five. Many trails dead-end and loop opportunities are less than Alternative One, Two and Five. In this 

alternative, portions of the Highline Trail, a popular ATV route, become non-motorized. 

Motorcycle Travel 

This alternative designates 100 miles for motorcycle travel, reducing existing miles by 70 miles. No 

motorized trail is proposed to be converted to two-track ATV trail in this alternative. The designated 

motorcycle trails are primarily on the Westside District. 

Cross-country Motorized Travel 

This alternative manages motorized travel on designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin area during the 

snow-free season. The effects of this management are less confusion by the public, and a consistent message

for education and enforcement. 

Hunting and Travel 

This alternative lessens access for hunters who rely on motorized access to scout, hunt and retrieve game in

some areas. This alternative offers more opportunity for a non-motorized hunting experience in Stump Peak, 

Elkhorn Mountain, Oxford Peak and Snowdrift Mountain. 

Non-motorized Travel (Winter or Snow Season) 

This alternative provides additional non-motorized settings in Mink Creek, Gibson Jack, Trail Creek 

(adjacent to Pocatello),and the “backside” of Pebble Creek closure boundary including “Strawberry Fields” 

to provide a non-motorized setting on this slope, which is popular with skiers. 

Snowmobile Travel 

Snowmobile restrictions and effects are similar to Alternative One, with the exception that new winter range 

areas have no designated snowmobile routes through them. See Winter Map for Alternative Three in 

Chapter Two. This alternative would reduce snowmobile opportunities for the lack of access routes through 

winter range prescriptions along the Bear River Range. 

Maintenance Costs 

A portion of the designated travel routes would require reconstruction and relocation to meet Forest Service 

road and trail standards. Some actions would require additional analysis and public involvement. In this 

alternative, the costs of maintaining routes to standard would be less than Alternatives One, Two and Five. 

be one-time costs to close approximately 110 miles of constructed and user-created roads and 

90 miles of user-created trail. 

There would 

1

120
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Experience

his alternative does not meet OMRDs in six prescription areas, overages range from 0.4 to 0.1. Three areas 

e District; two have semi-primitive recreation prescription and one is 

more

T

are over plan OMRDs on the Westsid

managed under a forested vegetation prescription. This alternative meets the plan intent of OMRDs

successfully than the other alternatives. 

121
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

122
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Specific Travel Routes of Interest 

Trail 131 on Elkhorn Mountain 

31 between Potter Creek and Rowley Canyon as a 

Cub River Road 

The alternative does not change motorized access in th corridor of the Cub River Road. Conflicts between 

ATVs and full-sized vehicles will continue. 

Alternative Five, Preferred Alternative 

This alternative was based on the proposed action, with specific changes to offer more non-motorized 

settings while improving the quality of motorized opportunities with loop routes. 

Table 4.9. Indicators (Snow-free season) 

This alternative manages the section of Trail #1

designated non-motorized trail. This would create a non-motorized setting along the eastern slopes of 

Elkhorn Mountain. 

The Winschell Dugway 

The Winschell Dugway is managed as a non-motorized trail. Effects are the same as Alternative One, Three,

and Five. 

e

SPNM 

acres, 

percent of 

Forest 

Miles nonmotorized 

trail 

Miles 

motorized 

travel routes 

Miles Motorcycle 

Trail 

Acres open to

x-country

motorized 

Winschell 

Dugway 

316,360 

30% 700 1740 140 miles 0 Managed as

ATV trail 

Table 4.10. Indicators (Snow Season) 

Non-motorized acres Motorized acres 

60,400 (5.8 %) 98,170 (94.2 %)

123
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

124
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Non-motorized Setting, Summer or Snow-free Season

his alternative manages 316,360 acres as non-motorized during the snow-free season. The effects for the 

g are similar for Alternative One, with additional non-motorized acres 

his alternative offers approximately 1,740 miles of motorized routes. Counting only the miles of 

scription areas with an OMRD limit, there are 1,376 miles out of an allowable 

ll-sized vehicles 

similar for Alternative One, Two and Five. Most popular designated roads remain open. 

el.

otorized loop opportunities. 

el

e also 

t mind sharing a trail with 

ve game. 

native does not provide motorized access to all forest areas. Caribou Mountain, Toponce 

ing uses, and avoid future conflicts 

T

opportunity of a non-motorized settin

in the Stump Peak drainage. 

Motorized Use and Opportunity 

T

motorized routes within pre

mileage of 1,880. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative Two. As with Alternative One and 

Two, this alternative provides a variety of motorized route settings and opportunities. 

Fu

This opportunity is

ATV travel

Over 670 miles of ATV trail are available in most forest areas to meet the growing demand for ATV trav

This alternative was offers more m

Motorcycle Trav

This alternative offers approximately 130 miles of designated motorcycle trails. These trails ar

available to mountain bike riders who prefer a single-track trail and don’

motorcycles. Forty miles of designated motorized trail are proposed to be converted to two-track ATV trail.

These converted trails are primarily on the Westside District. Use of converted trails will increase, as there 

are more ATV riders than motorcycle riders. 

Cross-country Motorized Travel 

This alternative manages motorized travel on designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin area during the

snow-free season. Effects are the same as Alternative Four. 

Hunting and Travel 

This alternative is advantageous to hunters who rely on motorized access to scout, hunt and retrie

However, this alter

and Stump Peak area provide large non-motorized areas that offer a quality hunt in a non-motorized setting. 

Non-motorized Travel (Winter or Snow Season) 

Effects for this issue are the same as Alternative Two, with additional areas for non-motorized travel along 

the Emigration Highway (Bear River Range), the “backside” of Pebble Creek and Gibson Jack RNA 

adjacent to Pocatello. These additional areas will accommodate exist

between skiers and snowmobilers. 

Snowmobile Travel 

Snowmobile restrictions and effects are similar to Alternative Two, with the additional non-motorized areas

as shown on the Winter Map for Alternative Five. This alternative provides ample snowmobile 

opportunities, including areas that are reached through winter range. 

Maintenance Costs 

In this alternative some designated travel routes have not been designed or maintained for motorized travel. 

A portion of these travel routes would require reconstruction and relocation to meet Forest Service road and 

trail standards. Some actions would require additional analysis and public involvement. The costs to 

maintain travel routes to standard would be less in the alternative than Alternative One, but higher than 

125
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Three, Four and Five. There would be one-time costs to close approximately 32 miles of road, 

0.1. Five

ore

wo.

convert 13 miles of road to ATV trail, and convert 30 miles of motorcycle trail to ATV trail. 

Plan OMRDs and Recreation Experience 

This alternative does not meet OMRDs in seven prescription areas. The range of overage is 0.4 to

areas are on the Westside District. These areas have no new motorized routes within them. Two are 

managed under a semi-primitive recreation prescription, two under a forested vegetation prescription and 

one is managed under a range prescription. The remaining two areas, Bear Creek and Home Canyon, are 

discussed under “effects common to all alternatives” This alternative meets the plan intent of OMRDs m

successfully than Alternative One and T

126
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

127
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Specific Travel Routes of Interest

ley Canyon as an ATV 

ail, as a designated motorcycle trail. Effects are the similar as for Alternative One and Two. Motorized use 

f a

 with the RFP. 

poses a designated ATV trail, paralleling the road, from Albert Moser Campground to 

This trail would allow users of all kinds to reach other recreation sites without 

d. Construction and alignment of the new construction would require further 

vement. 

ns 

rtunity and Non-motorized Setting (Snow-free) 

ide a variety of recreation opportunities, motorized and non-motorized and would meet 

settings with some adjustments. Alternative One offers the most motorized routes, but 

there are numerous redundant routes, which can affect the recreation setting. Alternative 

ized routes to most areas of the forest with some redundant routes not designated. 

ffers an additional non-motorized setting in the core of Stump Peak drainage. Alternative 

dditional non-motorized areas in the Bear River Range, Oxford Peak, Elkhorn 

al acres adjacent to the Pocatello area, where demand for non-motorized settings is 

reasing non-motorized areas decreases motorized access, and in these alternatives many

y be reached on foot or horse. Alternative Five maintains motorized access to many

roviding improved site-specific opportunities, motorized and non-motorized. 

gh Four do not address existing illegal mountain bike use on the forest. Existing 

rstood by most riders. Alternative Five offers more legal mountain bike opportunity

here use is most common. In Alternative Five, the Soda Springs and Montpelier 

ntain bike use to existing travel routes, which would control cross-country bike travel, 

ple opportunity for future mountain bike travel. 

d Game Retrieval

ld

e ample opportunity in all alternatives on designated motorized trails. Some 

in all

ction alternatives offer between 100 and 140 miles of single-track motorcycle trail. Alternatives Two, 

Three and Five convert some motorcycle trails to ATV trails. 

Trail 131 on Elkhorn Mountain 

This alternative manages the section of Trail #131 between Potter Creek and Row

tr

of the route is less that if the route were opened to ATV use. 

The Winschell Dugway 

The Winschell Dugway would remain a non-motorized trail. The existing condition of the trail makes it

marginal for even foot and horse traffic. This management does not rule out future analysis to determine i

motorized trail would be feasible and would comply

Cub River Road

This alternative pro

Willow Flat Campground.

having to travel on the roa

analysis and public invol

Conclusio

Motorized Oppo

All alternatives prov

plan intent for ROS

trails dead-end and

Two offers motor

Alternative Two o

Three and Four offer a

Mountain and addition

high. However, inc

forest areas can onl

forest areas while p

Mountain Bikes 

Alternatives One throu

regulations are not unde

adjacent to Pocatello, w

Districts restrict mou

but still provide am

Disabled Access an

Generally, alternatives that offer more motorized routes (Alternative One, followed by Two and Five) wou

be preferred by people with disabilities who rely on motorized vehicles to reach forest areas, and for hunters 

who rely on motorized vehicles to scout, hunt and retrieve game. All alternatives provide equal access 

opportunities, and wheelchair travel is considered non-motorized travel. 

Motorcycle Trails 

Motorcycle riders hav

motorcycle riders prefer a single-track motorized trail. Designated motorcycle trail miles are decreased

action alternatives. Some routes are closed to motorized use and some are converted to ATV trails. All 

a

128
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Snow Season Travel 

All alternatives offer a variety of non-motorized and motorized opportunity. Alternatives Two and Three are

implement the new closure areas identified in the RFP and offer designated snowmobile routes through new 

eas of winter range. Alternative Four sets more areas aside for non-motorized use, including larger areas 

owmobile 

se on the lower reaches, and expands the closure area to include acres to the north. These changes would 

bson Jack and along the Emigration Highway. These areas are popular with skiers and 

ould not displace snowmobile users. 

ea for cumulative effects is the State of Idaho, and the Forest Service Intermountain Region, 

hich includes southern Idaho, Utah, Nevada and western Wyoming. This region represents a “recreation 

ated.

he 2000 SCORPT identifies shortages of both motorized and non-motorized opportunities statewide. Over 

ands. Approximately 94 percent of the State of Idaho lies in public ownership 

3.7 percent in various federal ownership and 30.2 percent in State of Idaho lands, SCORPT) 

quired by public agency

olicies, the result could be a net loss in motorized opportunities in Idaho and the region. All alternatives, 

es

oadless Areas __________________________________

ess

ed by

les in each IRA with the area’s existing wilderness 

characteristics by alternative. Effects on wilderness capabilities of each IRA are 

he roadless values of each IRA are discussed in this analysis. 

rect Effects Common to All Alternatives on Wilderness Potential 

igh for wilderness potential due to the presence of historic roads, evidence of past 

of screening from the lower valley and their limited size. Most IRAs’ wilderness 

ltered by changing the amount of designated roads and trails within them. These areas 

o other factors. The portions of Caribou City IRA and Mt. Naomi IRA that are 

ar

adjacent to Pocatello and additional acres on the “backside” of Pebble. This could displace some 

snowmobilers that use these areas. Alternative Five changes the “backside” boundary to allow sn

u

better fit the existing use patterns of snowmobiles and back-country skiers. Additional non-motorized areas

were added in Gi

w

OMRDs 

All alternatives would require a plan amendment to change the standard for OMRD prescription ceilings on 

specific areas. With the exception of Alternative One, the overages are not excessive, and would not 

fundamentally change the areas’ setting for recreational use and travel. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis ar

w

zone” that people would be willing to travel for day trips; and recreation opportunities would be interrel

T

the past decade motorized use on public land has dramatically increased. A large portion of outdoor

recreation occurs on public lands. Motorized and non-motorized opportunities will be affected by future 

management trends on public l

(6

As use restrictions are being considered in various management plans and as re

p

with the exception of Alternative One, the “no action”, will contribute to this cumulative effect. Alternativ

Three and Four would contribute more than Alternatives Two and Five. No irretrievable or irreversible 

effects have been identified for recreation. 

R

Introduction 

This section discloses the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative on the wildern

potential and roadless values of the Forest’s Inventoried Roadless Areas, or IRAs. Effects are measur

comparing the amount of designated travel route mi

potential and roadless

discussed; and effects on t

Direct and Indi

Most IRAs did not rate h

human disturbance, lack

potential will not be a

will still rate low due t

129
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

managed under a Recommended Wilderness prescription have no designated motorized routes within them. 

ll alternatives retain these areas as non-motorized during the snow-free season. 

ss characteristics and also contain motorized routes. 

orm Creek IRA has motorized trails on its perimeter, which does not affect the “core” area that contains 

Stump Creek has 8 miles of road and 112 miles of motorized trail. These routes could 

aturalness” of this IRA. In the remaining IRAs with “moderate” wilderness 

te 131 miles of road and 543 miles of motorized trail 

the 

illiams Creek IRA 

orm Creek IRA 

ade,

ative

nt naturalness”.

iles of road and 320 miles of motorized trail 

lternative Three with additional reductions of 

A

Alternative One 

Implementation of this alternative would retain the existing 142 miles of road and 633 miles of motorized

trail within the IRAs. Bonneville Peak, Meade Peak, Mink Creek (North of Preston), Stump Creek and 

Worm Creek have “moderate” ratings for some wilderne

W

wilderness character.

reduce the “apparent n

characteristics, an increase in motorized use on these routes has the potential to reduce the “apparent 

naturalness” of the areas. 

Alternative Two 

Implementation of this alternative would designa

within the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative One, with the exception of Stump Peak

IRA. This IRA has high ratings for wilderness characteristics, and reducing 82 miles of motorized trails 

would reduce potential impacts to these characteristics. Other IRAs with less motorized trail include Mink 

Creek and Red Mountain. These areas do not possess strong wilderness characteristics, but reducing

amount of motorized routes within the area can enhance the “apparent naturalness”. 

Alternative Three 

Implementation of this alternative would designate 122 miles of road and 376 miles of motorized trail 

within the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative Two, with the exception of less 

motorized travel routes within the following IRAs: 

Bonneville Peak IRA 

Clarkston Mountain IRA 

Elkhorn Mountain IRA 

Meade Peak IRA 

Mink Creek IRA 

Oxford Mountain IRA 

Red Mountain IRA 

West Mink IRA 

W

W

Most of these areas do not possess strong wilderness characteristics. Of these IRAs, Bonneville, Me

Stump and Worm Creek have “moderate” ratings for some wilderness characteristics, and this altern

would reduce potential impacts to the areas’ “appare

Alternative Four 

Implementation of this alternative would designate 116 m

within the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to A

motorized routes in Bonneville Peak, Elkhorn, Meade, Oxford, and Stump Peak. Less motorized routes 

within these IRAs would reduce potential impacts to the areas’ “apparent naturalness”. 

 

130
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Five 

Implementation of this alternative would designate 134 miles of road and 533 miles of motorized trail 

ithin the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are the same as Alternative Two, there is little difference 

ithin IRAs.

n existing roadless

alues of the IRAs listed below, if existing uses do not increase to the degree that they adversely impact 

FP, Roadless, Chapter Four) 

eade Peak IRA 

chmid Peak IRA 

es,

w

between the alternatives concerning the miles of motorized routes w

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives on Roadless Values 

The travel plan alternatives do not propose much change in motorized route miles within the following

IRAs. Motorized route miles vary by less than 1.5 miles. All alternatives will retai

v

soil and vegetation. (R

Bear Creek IRA 

Bonneville IRA 

Caribou City IRA 

Clarkston Mountain IRA 

Deep Creek IRA 

Elkhorn Mountain IRA 

Gannett Spring Creek IRA 

Gibson IRA 

Hell Hole IRA 

M

Mount Naomi IRA 

North Pebble IRA 

Paris Peak IRA 

Pole Creek IRA 

Sage Creek IRA 

Scout Mountain IRA 

S

Soda Point IRA 

Station Creek IRA 

Stump Creek IRA 

Swan Creek Mountain IRA 

Telephone Draw IRA 

Toponce IRA 

West Mink Creek IRA 

Williams Cree IRA

Worm Creek IRA 

Alternative One 

Implementation of this alternative would retain the existing 142 miles of road and 633 miles of motorized 

trail within the IRAs. Motorized trails within IRAs can be compatible with maintaining roadless area valu

if densities do not compromise the semi-primitive setting and forest resources are not adversely impacted. 

This alternative would not adversely affect the existing roadless values of these IRAs. 

Alternative Two

Implementation of this alternative would designate 131 miles of road and 543 miles of motorized trail 

within the Forest’s IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative One, with these exceptions: 

131
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

This alternative proposes to close 82 miles of motorized trail within Stump Creek IRA, which has high 

values for heritage, fish habitat, wildlife security, and high for semi-primitive motorized and non-motoriz

opportunities.

 

This alternative proposes three additional miles of motorized trail within Dry Ridge IRA, which rates high 

for fish habitat and wildlife security; and moderate for semi-primitive motorized opportunities. 

ed

his alternative proposes five additional miles of motorized trail within Huckleberry IRA, which rates low 

for s

This alternative proposes three additional miles of motorized trail within Liberty Creek IRA, which rates 

high r

This alt zed trail within Mink Creek IRA, which rates moderate for fish 

abitat and wildlife habitat; and high for semi-primitive motorized opportunities.

s

es.

his alternative closes 14 miles of motorized trail within Red Mountain IRA, which rates high for fish 

rates

tat; and high for semi-primitive motorized opportunities and moderate for semi-primitive 

tive proposes three additional miles of motorized trail within Stauffer Creek IRA, which rates 

igh for fish habitat and moderate for semi-primitive motorized opportunities. 

lternative would not

versely affect the existing roadless values of the seven IRAs with the increase of three to five miles of 

ot change the recreation setting or potential for 

larkston Mountain IRA 

lkhorn Mountain IRA 

Worm Creek IRA 

T

mo t values 

fo fish habitat and wildlife security; and high for semi-primitive motorized opportunities. 

ernative closes six miles of motori

h

This alternative proposes three additional miles of motorized trail within Oxford Mountain IRA, which rate

high for fish habitat and wildlife security; and high for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized 

opportuniti

T

habitat. 

This alternative proposes three additional miles of motorized trail within Sherman Peak IRA, which

high for fish habi

non-motorized opportunities. 

This alterna

h

This alternative enhances the semi-primitive non-motorized value of Stump Creek, Mink Creek and Red 

Mountain IRAs. An increase in motorized trails within IRAs has the potential to impact the roadless values 

of reference landscapes and semi-primitive non-motorized opportunities. This a

ad

motorized trail in each IRA. This degree of increase would n

a reference landscape. 

Alternative Three 

Implementation of this alternative would designate 122 miles of road and 376 miles of motorized trail 

within the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative Two, with the exception of less 

motorized travel routes within the following IRAs: 

Bonneville Peak IRA 

C

E

Meade Peak IRA 

Mink Creek IRA 

Oxford Mountain IRA 

Red Mountain IRA 

West Mink IRA 

Williams Creek IRA 

132
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

This alternative enhances the semi-primitive non-motorized value of these IRAs. 

Alternative Four 

Implementation of this alternative would designate 116 miles of road and 320 miles of motorized trail 

within the IRAs. Effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative Three with additional reductions of 

tion of this alternative would designate 134 miles of road and 533 miles of motorized trail 

ithin the Forest’s IRAs. Effects of this alternative are the same as Alternative Two, there is little difference 

lternatives concerning the miles of motorized routes within IRAs. 

Con

All t nd trails in Caribou IRAs. Most of the 34 IRAs found 

n th r due to past human activities, including historic 

ads. Motorized trails have the potential to change the “apparent naturalness” of an area with increased use

ized trail can be closed and in time, the travel route template would diminish, 

on

nce

u,

plus the portio that are contigu h adjacent for mand for sem

motorized and non-m ties will continue to grow with southeast Idaho’s population. The 

alterna ized and non-motorized opportunities within the 34 IRAs, and will contribute to

meetin r these recreation activities. There are no expected irretrievable or irreversible 

effect ntial or roadless values the alternatives.

Her ______________ __________ _________ _

Effects Common to Action Alternative

All alternatives provide access to a variety of heritage sites, while maintaining the motorize trictions

protec e sites, such as the non-motorized area of Terrace Canyon. 

 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

out the ana area. All roads and trails that have proposed ground 

isturbance either through closing, decommissioning or construction/reconstruction will be surveyed on a 

site specific basis to determine if any adverse affect to archaeological and/or historical resources will occur 

as a direct or indirect result of these activites. User-created roads and trails proposed to be incorporated into 

motorized routes in Bonneville Peak, Elkhorn, Meade, Oxford, and Stump Peak. This alternative enhances

the semi-primitive non-motorized value of these IRAs. 

Alternative Five 

Implementa

w

between the a

clusion for Wilderness Potential 

ravel plan alternatives designate motorized roads a

o e Forest do not contain strong wilderness characte

ro

and time. But a motor

depending on soil, and vegetation cover. Motorized trails within the Caribou IRAs have minimal impact

the existing wilderness capabilities of the IRAs. 

Motorized trails within IRAs can be compatible with maintaining roadless area values, if densities do not 

compromise the semi-primitive setting and forest resources are not adversely impacted. All alternative

would not adversely affect the existing roadless values of these IRAs. Alternatives Three and Four enha

the semi-primitive non-motorized value of these IRAs. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for potential wilderness and roadless values are the 34 IRAs of the Caribo

ns of some IRAs ous wit ests. De i-primitive 

otorized opportuni

tives offer both motor

g future demand fo

s to wilderness pote from

itage ___ _ _ _

s

d res

ting key heritag

Cultural resources are located through

d

lysis 

133
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

the transportation system will also be surveyed for primary or secondary effects to cultural resources prior to

eberry 

ed travel duri g the snow-free season, which has potential to 

archaeological and/or histor al resources in this area.

Alternative Tw

Alternative Two prop en the Winschell Dug motorized travel, requiring reconstructing the 

route to ATV standard; a 60” wide trail tread. This action would require detailed site-specific analysis. 

Witho n criteria and specific route tion a determination of effect cannot be made. 

Based ric use, and local or regional ric importance, the trail itself may ligible for

inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 800.4[c][2]). The effect to this potenially

signifi site be determined as required by the National Historic Preservatin Act (36 CFR 

800.5) ry design and constuction sp ations. It would recommended that if this 

alterna at a site-specific cultural resources survey and repo o any

potential adverse aff ric resources.

Alter d Five

These alternatives ma gnated routes during the snow-free season in the 

Huckl area. While this area has numerous ignated motorized routes in both alternatives, 

keepin l to designated routes will reduce adverse impacts to known and unknown 

archae r historical resources in this area.

umulative impacts:

defined as the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of 

r to

containing cultural resources. If additional sites are discovered during on the ground layout and design of 

any action alternatives or other on-going survey activiti the Forest Ar logist will con ith the

State H v cer (SHPO), as require law, to document and determine ignificance

of the ffects of the project on it. Th oshone-Bannock Tribes and Northwest Band of 

Shosh ed regarding Native American sites. 

Mitiga to dentified cultural resource sites could be ac plished throug mplete

avoida oval of the resource. If cultural resources are discovered during f ground

disturbing activities, such activities will be stopped until the cultural materials are properly documented and 

evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist in compliance with 36 CFR 800.11. 

the implementation of the decision. 

Effects Common to Alternative One, Two and Three 

The RFP eliminated cross-country motorized travel in most areas of the forest, which reduced impacts on

heritage resources from cross-country motorized travel. However, these alternatives leave the Huckl

Basin area open to cross-country motoriz n

adversely affect unknown ic

o

oses to op way to

ut preliminary desig

on antiquity, histo

loca

histo be e

cant historic cannot

without prelimina

, th

ecific be

tive is chosen rt be conducted t asses 

ects to histo

native Four an

nage motorized travel on desi

eberry Basin des

g motorized trave

ological and/o

C

Cumulative impacts are

the action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

whether an agency or person(s) undertakes such action (43 FR 5600 §1508.7). The potential impacts to 

cultural resources may include the proposed project recreation, trail and road construction, or 

decommissioning projects. The effect of all impacts will require a complete cultural resource review prio

additional undertakings which have the potential to affect cultural resources, either independently or

cumulatively. 

Mitigation 

The location of new and existing road or trail areas present the possibility of having an effect in areas

es, chaeo sult w

istoric Preser ation Offi d by the s

discovery and the e

sult

e Sh

one will be con

tion of effects other i com h co

nce or scientific rem uture

134
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Withi l management analysis areas the Caribou-Targhee NF, in consulta ith the

Idaho nitor all significant historical and archaeological resources to determine adverse 

effects are present due to road or trail activities. All proposed road and trail improvement or 

decom jects will be reviewed prior to im entation to as the effect of th posed

activit oric and prehistoric resource it is determine t motorized or motorized

ctivit y affecting significant historic an r archaeologica urces, a varie mitigation 

easures will be employed. An example of mitigation measures which will be considered is as follows: 

atural barriers (rocks, logs or other woody debris, or other natural materials) to deter 

e

les of mitigation measures which may be considered the list is not exhaustive and 

and

wable

resources. 

Air _______________ _________ _________ _

Intro

Some people are concerned with motorized travel he Forest advers ffecting air qual om motor 

emiss

Anal

The an direct and indirect effects to air quality is the portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs 

administered by oda Springs and elier Ranger D s.

 

Direct and Indirect Effects for All Alternatives 

motorized vehicles is a sour f pollution. However, the primary source of air 

uality concern on the Forest is particulate matter and carbon monoxide from prescribed fire and wildfire. 

articulate matter and carbon monoxide do not currently exceed, not do are they expected to exceed 

. (RFP FEIS 3-246). All parts of the Caribou are Class II Air Quality areas. None of 

efinitions and Assumptions

ecommissioning of roads and trails will be evaluated as soils reclaimed to productive use. In the short 

rm, decommissioning can compound soil impacts from roads or trails, such as accelerated erosion. 

n the proposed trave tion w

SHPO, will mo if

missioning pro plem sess e pro

y to significant hist s. If d tha nona

m

ies are adversel d/o l reso ty of

• Placement of n

vehicles from accessing the areas 

• Excavation and data recovery of historic and/or archaeological material. (Excavation would only b

utilized in an extreme condition and as a last viable option. Excavations are not only costly, but they

also permanently destroy a site.) 

Although these are examp

the Caribou-Targhee Heritage Resources staff in consultation with the Idaho SHPO, travel managers,

interested parties will consider all mitigation measures which will preserve and protect these non-rene

Quality _ _ _ _

duction

on t ely a ity fr

ions.

ysis Area

alysis area for

the Westside, S Montp istrict

Recre

q

ational travel by ce o

P

NAAQS in the future

the alternatives are expected to have a measurable change in air quality or effect air quality classifications.

The amount of emissions from vehicle use would not vary significantly between alternatives. Even with 

increased motorized travel, the Forest air quality would most likely meet the standards. None of the 

alternatives are expected to result in measurable cumulative effects. 

Soils ___________________________________________

D

D

te

135
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Reclamation of site productivity is a long-term effect since recovery of vegetation and soil conditions 

For the purpose o g, methods such as soil ripping, re-contouring, or culver

considered as soil rec easures. However, there are no reclamation treatments that c y 

restore soil productivit

Road closure with barriers only, and without physical manipulation of the road prism, is not considered a 

soil re Soil impacts such as compa and decreased infiltration capacity on road or 

trail p t for several decades even without continued transportation or access us

Winte se is not analyzed in all alternatives as impacts to the soil resource would be 

neglig

Mitigation Measures for All Alternatives 

1. ocate trail or road away from table, landslid ne soils.

2. State BMP’s where applicable. 

Alter

Alternative One represents existing conditions. There pproximately 1860 miles of motorized route 

ithdr and dedicated to transportation. Pre , there are 19 es of roads 

nd trails on sensitive soils rated as high risk and 969 miles of roads and trails on sensitive soils rated as 

oderate risk. 10 percent of designated routes rated “high” for soil risk, and 52 percent of designated travel 

erate” for soil risk. This alternative manages 29,400 acres as open to cross-country

requires time. 

f decommissionin t removal are 

lamation m

y to pre-disturbance conditions.

an immediatel

clamation measure. ction

risms can persis e.

r snowmobile u

ible.

When possible, l uns e pro

Follow Idaho

native One

are a

w awn from productive capacity sently 5 mil

a

m

routes rated ‘mod

motorized use, which has potential for adverse impacts to soils. This alternative has the highest risk to 

sensitive soils. 

Table 4.11. Alternative 1 

Miles of roads and trails located on low, medium and high soil risk areas within each analysis block. 

Block Locations 

Trails 

miles 

Roads 

miles 

Total 

miles 

Pocatello 

Low Soil Risk 75 50 125

Moderate Soil Risk 57 60 117

High Soil Risk 0 0 0 

Malad 

Low Soil Risk 42 28 70

Moderate Soil Risk 124 47 171

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Bear River 

Low Soil Risk 112 133 245

Moderate Soil Risk 118 175 293

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Caribou 

Low Soil Risk 82 175 257

Moderate Soil Risk 155 231 386

High Soil Risk 84 111 195 

136
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Two 

Under this alterative, th ximately 1,800 miles of motorized route withdrawn from productive 

capacity and dedicated to transportation. This alternative has 167 miles of designated roads and trails that 

occur on soil types that rate “high” and 897 miles of designated motorized routes on soils that rate 

“moderate” for soil risk tive manages 29,400 acres as open y motorized use, 

which has potential for o soils. This alternative has le ve soils than

Alternative One, the existing condition. 

ere are appro

. This alterna to cross-countr

adverse impacts t ss risk to sensiti

Table 4.12. Alternative 2 

Miles of roads and trails located on low, medium and high soil risk areas within each analysis block. 

Block Locations 

Trails 

miles 

Roads 

miles 

Total 

miles

Pocatello 

Low soil risk 76 50 126 

Moderate soil risk 59 60 119 

High soil risk 0 0 0 

Malad 

Low soil risk 42 28 70

Moderate soil risk 127 46 173

High soil risk 0 0 0 

Bear River 

Low soil risk 121 120 241 

Moderate soil risk 116 166 282 

High soil risk 0 0 0 

Caribou 

Low soil risk 120 176 296

Moderate soil risk 116 207 323

High soil risk 55 112 167

Alternative Three 

Under this alterative, there are approximately 1,530 miles of motorized route withdrawn from productive 

capacity and dedicated to transportation. This alternative has 163 miles of designated roads and trails that 

occur on soil types that rate “high” and 737 miles of designated motorized routes on soils that rate 

“moderate” for soil risk. This alternative manages 

which has potential for adverse impacts to soils

29,400 acres as open to cross-country motorized use, 

. This alternative has less risk to sensitive soils than 

igh soil risk areas within each analysis block. 

Alternative One and Two. 

Table 4.13. Alternative 3 

Miles of roads and trails located on low, medium and h

Trails Roads Total Block Locations miles miles miles 

Pocatello

Low Soil Risk 55 49 104

Moderate Soil Risk 36 58 94

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Malad 

Low Soil Risk 27 25 52

Moderate Soil Risk 75 46 121

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Bear River 

Low Soil Risk 78 116 194

137
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Moderate Soil Risk 71 162 233

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Caribou 

Low Soil Risk 105 176 281 

Moderate Soil Risk 93 196 289 

High Soil Risk 51 112 163

Alternative Four 

Under this alterative, there are approximately 1,430 miles of motorized route withdrawn from productive 

capacity and dedicated to transportation. This alternative has 135 miles of designated roads and trails that 

occur on soil types that rate “high” and 428 miles of designated motorized routes on soils that rate 

moderate” for soil risk. This alternative manages motorized travel on designated routes forest-wide, which 

 alternative has the least risk to sensitive soils. 

“

has potential to reduce adverse impacts to soils. This

Table 4.14. Alternative 4 

Miles of roads and trails located on low, medium and high soil risk areas within each analysis block. 

Block Locations 

Trails 

miles 

Roads 

miles 

Total 

miles 

Pocatello 

Low Soil Risk 46 43 89

Moderate Soil Risk 32 46 78

High Soil Risk 0 0 0 

Malad 

Low Soil Risk 23 24 47 

Moderate Soil Risk 62 44 106 

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Bear River 

Low Soil Risk 101 118 219

Moderate Soil Risk 73 163 236

High Soil Risk 0 0 0 

Net loss or Gain -56.3 -27.1 -83.4 

Caribou 

Low Soil Risk 80 174 254 

Moderate Soil Risk 68 192 260

High Soil Risk 39 96 135

Alternative Five

of motorized route withdrawn from productive 

h

n

, it eliminates cross-country motorized travel on 

9,400 acres; which could be greater risk to the soil resource. 

Under this alterative, there are approximately 1,740 miles

capacity and dedicated to transportation. This alternative has 153 miles of designated roads and trails that

occur on soil types that rate “high” and 902 miles of designated motorized routes on soils that rate 

“moderate” for soil risk. This alternative manages motorized travel on designated routes forest-wide, whic

has potential to reduce adverse impacts to soils. This alternative has less risk to sensitive soils than 

Alternative One, the existing condition. Although it has five more miles of travel routes that are located o

soils that rate “moderate” for soil risks than Alternative Two

2

138
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 4.15. Alternative 5 

Miles of roads and trails located on low, medium and high soil risk areas within each analysis block. 

Block Locations 

Trails Roads 

miles miles

Total 

miles

Pocatello 

Low Soil Risk 73 50 123 

Moderate Soil Risk 59 59 118 

High Soil Risk 0 0 0 

Malad 

Low Soil Risk 42 26 68

Moderate Soil Risk 128 47 175 

High Soil Risk 0 0 0 

Bear River 

Low Soil Risk 121 123 244 

Moderate Soil Risk 118 166 284 

High Soil Risk 0 0 0

Caribou 

Low Soil Risk 97 178 275 

Moderate Soil Risk 115 210 325 

High Soil Risk 44 109 153 

h the Alternative One, the existing 

condit r reduces the more ltern Two and Five. Alternative 

Two a sensitive soils; Alte ve Tw s five l iles o torized routes 

that ra isk, while Alternative Five elimina ss-co trave 9,400 acres, 

which has the potential to reduce adverse impacts to s sourc

Cum

The cu the same as the analysis area. Cum ve eff rom all past, present and 

forese nt actions on the soil res were ated ch alt ve. Pa d

presen in the section above.

orese proposed management actions include o ads ils, d ed re n ar

ductive base for all 

disp

recrea ravel, and pres ov ctiv atio tter

and will compact, displace, puddle, and erode soils. Natural disturbances including wildfire, windthrow, 

severe , and extended drought cy have a ill continue to cause similar cts

to soils for all alternatives. Off-forest lands used for ag ture pr dry fa g and ted

farming, have experienced higher soil loss than most t soils A, 1 Cumu ly, so s and 

risk to off the Forest, beca urba elopm d agr ral practices. 

An an alternative had the greatest cumu effec comp by evaluating 

the pr cross-country motorized tr nd p d ope

Conclusions 

All action alternatives reduce risks to sensitive soils when compared wit

ion. Alternatives Three and Fou risks that A atives

nd Five have similar risks to rnati o ha ess m f mo

te “moderate” for soil r tes cro untry l on 2

oil re es.

ulative Effects

mulative effects area is ulati ects f

eable future manageme ource evalu for ea ernati st an

t effects are described

F eable pen ro and tra evelop creatio eas and

special use areas, and phosphate mining that will continue to remove soils from the pro

alternatives. Noxious weed invasions, livestock grazing, timbe est, r nstr

rized t

r harv oad co

e p

uction,

e v

ersed

tion, cross-country moto cribed fires will rem rote eget n and li

rain events, landslides cles nd w impa

ricul actices, such as rmin irriga

Fores (USD 979). lative il los

soil productivity is greater use of n dev ent an icultu

alysis to determine which lative t was leted

oposed acres open to avel a ropose n miles of roads and trails. 

139
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 4.16. Ranking of Cumulative Soil Impacts by Alternative. 

Alternative Ranking 

Alternative 1 5, most soil risk

Alternative 2 4

Alternative 3 2

Alternative 4 1, least soil risk

Alternative 5 3

Overa st should improve over xisting ation Altern s Two

Five. S lines (FSH 2509. ave b tabli nd in

RFP to vement, maintenan nd en ment in ma ortions of the 

Forest mprovements are identifie he Ra Distr oil an er im ment 

action is updated annually. Wa d ass nts a o use entify and 

update soil resource conditions and will continue, as well. Site-specific project implementation, when they

occur, measures that reduce detrimental conditions. 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources ______________

Project Design Features common to all alternatives 

Obligations Mandated By the Clean Water Act 

The Forest sees this planning effort as an opportunity to maintain and possibly enhance watershed health 

and water quality. We are directed by the Clean Water Act to protect and maintain watersheds that are 

healthy and functioning. The Forest Service was originally chartered to protect and improve watersheds to

achieve favorable conditions of water flow. The Clean Water Act states, “No discharge.... shall be 

permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States." (40 

CFR 230.10(C). In order to meet the intent of the Clean Water Act, we must incorporate the appropriate 

watershed conservation or Best Management Practices in all our plans, contracts, and other requirements, 

and we must also insure their implementation, irrespective of whether a 404 permit is required. (Forest roads 

and trails are considered non-point sources and fit under the exemption from the 404 permitting 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Protection of designated and existing beneficial uses of water resources identified by the State of Idaho is 

inherent in all action alternatives. Each alternative will be evaluated for the maintenance of water quality

and impacts on identified beneficial uses. The information for this analysis comes from field examination of 

selected routes and geographic spatial analysis (GIS). 

The existing seasonal travel restrictions will continue under all alternatives. In some areas, these restrict 

full-sized vehicular access on major access routes during various periods in the fall, beginning from Sept.30 

to Nov 30 and ending April 30 - May 30 to protect native surfaced roads during extended wet periods and 

some for wildlife protection reasons. During this period there is less use at route crossings, however some

off-route use by ATV or motorcycles could occur, impacting drainages and wet areas to some degree. 

Table 4-1 is a summary table of designated route mileages in both uplands and AIZs for each district. 

Tables 4-4 – 4-8 contain a more detailed breakdown of these routes by 5th code watershed for each district or 

district block. Table 4-2 is a summary table of designated route mileages in AIZs for each district. Tables 

4-9 – 4-13 contain a more detailed breakdown of designated routes in AIZs by 5th code watershed for each 

district or district block. Table 4-3 is a summary table of crossings for each district. Tables 4-14 – 4-18 

ll, soil quality on the Fore the e situ with ative thru

oil quality standards and guide 18) h een es shed a corporated in the 

help direct soil quality impro ce, a h

nger

ance

ict’s s

with naged p

. Areas requiring soil i d in t d wat prove

plan. This District plan tershe essme re als d to id

will also include soil mitigation

140
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

contain a more detailed breakdown of stream crossings by 5th code watershed for each district or district 

block. Calculation of stream crossings and miles of travel routes were completed using GIS tools. 

Alternative One - No Action 

This alternative represents the existing condition for recreational travel on roads and trails. This alternative 

has the most miles overall of designated travel routes on the Forest with 1,861 miles forest wide. Alternative 

One has the most miles within AIZs at 683 miles. There are 1,098 stream crossings, substantially more than 

the other alternatives. While miles of travel route are similar in Alternatives One, Two and Five for the 

Malad and Pocatello sections of the Westside Districts, Alternative One has the greater number of stream

crossings. Stream crossings represent a more direct risk to water quality and riparian resources than a slight 

increase in route mileage. Therefore, this alternative does not reduce the risks to riparian and aquatic areas 

from travel routes as well as the other alternatives. 

Alternative Two - Proposed Action 

Alternative Two has the second highest miles of designated travel routes on the Forest. Travel route miles 

are reduced by 4% from Alternative One. This alternative has the second highest miles within AIZs, with 

11% less than Alternative One at 608 miles. It has the second highest number of stream crossings by

motorized routes, 812, which are 26% less than Alternative One. The substantially fewer number of stream

crossings under this alternative represents the most notable difference over Alternative One, and signifies a 

considerable reduction in risk to water resources. The 11% reduction in miles in AIZs also translates to a 

reduction in risk to streams. Many issues of protecting riparian and aquatic areas and water quality would 

be addressed in this alternative. 

Alternative Three 

This alternative in general has next to the least miles of designated travel routes on the Forest 1,530 miles, 

or 18% less than Alternative One, the existing condition. It has 523 miles within AIZs, 23% less than 

existing condition. There are 40% fewer crossings of streams by motorized routes than under Alternative 

One. This alternative reduces risks to water resources and aquatic areas more than Alternative One and 

Two. 

Alternative Four 

This alternative has the least miles of designated roads and trails on the Forest with 1,424 miles, or 23% 

less than Alternative One. It has 493 miles within AIZs, 28% less than existing condition. There are 513 

stream crossings by motorized routes, 53% less than the existing condition. This alternative ranks the 

highest in reducing risks to riparian and aquatic areas and water quality. 

Alternative Five, Revised Proposed Action 

This alternative has 1,765 miles of designated travel routes on the Forest, ranking third (middle) overall, 

with 5 percent less miles than Alternative One. It has 595 miles within AIZs, 13 percent less than the 

existing condition. There are 789 stream crossings by motorized routes, 28 percent less than the existing 

condition. This alternative ranks in the middle of the five alternatives, and reduces risks to riparian and 

aquatic areas and water quality from the existing condition. 

141
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 4.17. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by District. 

District Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Malad 241.3 243.3 173.1 153.8 243.5 

Montpelier 817.3 771.1 647.3 654.1 771.1 

Pocatello 243.6 244.2 197.6 166.9 239.9 

Soda Springs 558.7 537.3 511.9 449.6 510.1 

Total 1860.9 1795.9 1529.9 1424.4 1764.6

Table 4.18. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by District. 

District Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Malad 89.7 88.6 65.6 59.2 86.7 

Montpelier 288.2 264.7 228.8 228.3 259.2 

Pocatello 87.3 85.8 67.1 61.5 85.7 

Soda Springs 218.1 168.4 161.4 144.4 163.2 

Total 683.3 607.5 522.9 493.4 594.8 

Table 4.19. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by District. 

District Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Malad 155 151 86 78 134 

Montpelier 385 318 265 163 315 

Pocatello 122 119 97 94 120 

Soda Springs 436 224 209 178 220 

Total 1098 812 657 513 789 

Tables 4.20 to 4.24. show travel route miles for uplands and riparian areas. 

Table 4.20. Malad District. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 6.1 6.1 2.8 5.8 6.2 

1601020205 Weston Cr 26.8 26.8 23.5 22.3 26.4

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 13.2 13.2 10.1 6.1 13.2 

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 16.1 16.2 8.0 5.7 15.4 

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 

1601020408 Henderson Cr 33.6 34.5 25.3 32.9 33.4 

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 18.9 17.9 17.9 12.0 18.1

1601020411 Wright Cr 22.9 22.4 13.7 11.5 22.7 

1601020412 Third Cr 54.2 54.4 38.9 33.2 55.5 

1704020807 Mill Cyn 48.1 50.4 31.5 22.9 50.2

Total 241.3 243.3 173.1 153.8 243.5 

Table 4-21. Montpelier District - Eastside. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601010204 Wood Cyn 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 28.4 13.5 13.3 7.8 13.0 

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 4.2 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 

1601020102 Jones Cyn 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 16.3 15.9 11.0 15.8 15.3

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 53.6 52.8 46.2 47.6 54.0 

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 73.2 58.5 54.7 55.3 59.9 

1601020107 Bear Hollow 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 

1704010507 Crow Cr 87.9 91.0 78.2 60.1 81.9 

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 8.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 

1704020713 Slug Cr 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 

Total 278.9 248.4 220.0 199.3 242.4 

142
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 4.22. Montpelier District - Westside. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Bailey Cr 12.4 11.0 10.1 8.5 11.1 

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 49.7 48.5 37.2 40.8 52.6 

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 26.3 31.7 22.5 28.5 30.4 

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 93.8 96.3 79.0 82.7 95.8

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 85.6 82.1 64.6 64.8 80.9 

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 17.9 18.2 11.2 18.2 17.7

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 52.6 46.6 36.4 46.5 51.7 

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1601020209 Mink Cr 45.5 34.1 32.9 23.7 34.1 

1601020211 Main Cyn 42.1 42.5 33.2 38.0 40.9 

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 11.3 9.7 8.0 9.5 11.2 

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 38.6 39.7 37.2 35.1 41.8 

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 62.5 62.3 55.0 58.5 60.5 

Total 538.4 522.7 427.3 454.8 528.7 

Table 4.23. Pocatello District. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020620 Michaud Cr 6.1 6.1 6.1 0.8 6.1 

1704020621 Midnight Cr 17.0 15.5 15.2 13.4 14.9 

1704020801 Cusick Cr 7.9 8.2 8.2 0.0 8.2 

1704020802 Mink Cr 79.2 79.9 61.2 54.1 77.8 

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 13.1 13.1 9.0 5.9 13.0 

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 34.8 36.0 32.7 30.7 36.1 

1704020805 Lost Cr 3.9 4.3 3.9 2.8 4.3 

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 5.4 5.4 3.8 3.8 5.4 

1704020809 Pebble Cr 46.6 46.6 34.8 31.9 46.9 

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 29.6 29.1 22.7 23.5 27.2 

Total 243.6 244.2 197.6 166.9 239.9 

Table 4.24. Soda Springs District. All Designated Travel Route Mileage by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Wood Cyn 6.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 25.4 32.1 32.1 32.1 33.3 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010411 McCoy Cr 60.6 62.1 60.0 57.9 54.5

1704010500 Salt R (WY) 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 

1704010501 Smith Cyn 25.6 14.1 14.1 4.8 14.6 

1704010503 Jensen Cr 6.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 6.4 

1704010507 Pole Cyn 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 88.6 35.5 35.5 19.3 34.9 

1704010509 Tincup Cr 49.7 33.6 30.8 20.1 30.1 

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 13.4 15.2 13.4 13.4 13.4

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 

1704020507 Grays Lake 27.2 33.2 33.2 23.8 33.5 

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.9 

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 7.0 10.9 10.9 10.9 9.4 

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 82.4 82.9 78.9 68.1 81.4 

1704020712 Diamond Cr 60.9 61.4 61.4 57.6 54.6 

143
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 95.4 129.7 115.0 115.0 125.3 

Total 558.7 537.3 511.9 449.6 510.1 

Tables 4.25. to 4.29. give travel route mileages that fall within AIZs of perennial streams. 

Table 4.25. Malad District. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 3.9 3.9 1.1 3.9 3.9 

1601020205 Weston Cr 9.3 9.3 8.4 9.3 9.3 

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 3.9 3.9 3.1 2.3 3.9 

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 2.9 2.9 0.2 0.6 2.1 

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

1601020408 Henderson Cr 13.6 13.6 8.2 12.6 12.6 

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 7.9 6.9 6.9 3.9 6.5 

1601020411 Wright Cr 7.6 7.5 4.5 4.3 7.3 

1601020412 Third Cr 14.1 14.1 12.3 9.3 14.5 

1704020807 Mill Cyn 26.4 26.4 20.8 12.9 26.5

Total 89.7 88.6 65.6 59.2 86.7 

Table 4.26. Montpelier District - Eastside. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601010204 Wood Cyn 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 16.3 4.5 4.5 2.1 4.5 

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 

1601020102 Jones Cyn 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 9.7 9.7 5.6 9.7 9.7

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 25.7 25.3 24.0 24.9 25.9 

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 36.0 29.6 28.9 26.8 28.8 

1601020107 Bear Hollow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010507 Crow Cr 39.0 44.3 39.3 27.1 36.3 

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 

1704020713 Slug Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 132.3 117.7 106.6 94.6 110.5 

Table 4.27. Montpelier District - Westside. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Bailey Cr 2.8 2.4 2.3 1.3 2.6 

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 18.2 14.8 12.2 13.1 17.6 

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 3.6 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.5 

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 26.1 28.1 24.1 25.2 26.6

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 31.2 29.1 21.5 24.1 29.2 

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 6.2 6.2 5.4 6.2 6.2 

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 18.9 17.5 13.5 17.5 18.1 

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1601020209 Mink Cr 11.2 8.3 8.2 7.8 8.3 

1601020211 Main Cyn 12.9 12.9 10.2 11.9 12.9 

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.7 

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 19.8 19.8 17.7 19.0 18.7 

Total 155.9 147.0 122.2 133.7 148.7 

144
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Table 4.28. Pocatello District. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020620 Michaud Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020621 Midnight Cr 5.8 4.9 4.9 4.7 5.0 

1704020801 Cusick Cr 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 

1704020802 Mink Cr 27.8 27.7 21.6 19.5 27.6 

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 7.5 7.5 4.8 4.3 7.5 

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 8.8 8.8 7.7 7.5 8.9 

1704020805 Lost Cr 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 2.9 2.9 1.2 1.2 2.9 

1704020809 Pebble Cr 18.5 18.5 14.7 14.5 18.5 

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 13.7 13.2 9.9 9.6 13.0 

Total 87.3 85.8 67.1 61.5 85.7 

Table 4.29. Soda Springs District. Designated Travel Route Mileage in AIZs by HUC-5.

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Wood Cyn 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 10.0 11.2 11.2 11.2 12.3 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010411 McCoy Cr 20.6 19.6 18.6 18.4 16.6

1704010500 Salt R (WY) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010501 Smith Cyn 13.0 3.8 3.8 0.6 3.8 

1704010503 Jensen Cr 1.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.6 

1704010507 Pole Cyn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 41.9 10.1 10.1 7.9 9.9 

1704010509 Tincup Cr 26.4 16.2 15.1 12.9 15.4 

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 10.8 11.3 10.8 10.8 10.8

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020507 Grays Lake 6.8 7.8 7.8 6.8 7.7 

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.9 

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 31.9 23.4 23.3 15.5 22.8 

1704020712 Diamond Cr 24.4 21.1 21.1 20.7 21.5 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 24.0 33.2 28.9 28.9 32.5

Total 218.1 168.4 161.4 144.4 163.2 

Tables 4.30. to 4.34. give numbers of crossings of perennial streams. 

Table 4.30. Malad District. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020204 Jenkins Hollow 1 1 0 1 1 

1601020205 Weston Cr 13 13 10 13 13 

1601020206 Fivemile Cr 12 12 11 10 12 

1601020207 Gooseberry Cr 6 6 0 1 3 

1601020405 Water Canyon (Utah) 0 0 0 0 0 

1601020408 Henderson Cr 29 29 7 16 16 

1601020410 Elkhorn Cr 9 9 9 9 8

1601020411 Wright Cr 22 22 11 9 22 

1601020412 Third Cr 16 16 10 4 16 

1704020807 Mill Cyn 47 43 28 15 43

Total 155 151 86 78 134 

145
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Table 4.31. Montpelier District - Pruess. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601010204 Wood Cyn 0 0 0 0 0 

1601010205 Pruess Cr, Dry Cr 34 5 5 0 5 

1601010206 Giraffe Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

1601020102 Jones Cyn 0 0 0 0 0 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0 0 0 0 0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 22 21 21 0 21 

1601020105 Montpelier Cr 53 36 34 0 34 

1601020107 Bear Hollow 0 0 0 0 0 

1704010507 Crow Cr 63 71 61 0 58 

1704020712 U. Diamond Cr 2 2 2 0 2 

1704020713 Slug Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 174 135 123 0 120 

Table 4.32. Montpelier District – Bear River Range. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Bailey Cr 2 1 1 1 2

1601020102 Eightmile Cr 49 32 26 26 43 

1601020103 Pearl Cr, Stauffer Cr 8 7 4 6 7 

1601020106 North Cyn, Mill Cr 44 44 35 36 44

1601020108 Paris, Bloomington Cr 30 29 20 27 29 

1601020109 Fish Haven Cr 15 15 15 15 15 

1601020202 Oxkiller Cyn 0 0 0 0 0

1601020203 Cub River, Deep Cr 39 38 25 37 39 

1601020206 Worm Cr (Cub R) 0 0 0 0 0

1601020209 Mink Cr 9 2 2 1 2 

1601020211 Main Cyn 0 0 0 0 0 

1601020212 Nelson Cyn 0 0 0 0 0 

1601020213 Trout Cr, McPherson 3 3 3 3 3 

1601020303 Logan R, Beaver Cr 12 12 11 11 11 

Total 211 183 142 163 195 

Table 4.33. Pocatello section of Westside. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1704020606 Thirty Day Cr 0 0 0 0 0

1704020620 Michaud Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

1704020621 Midnight Cr 13 13 13 13 13 

1704020801 Cusick Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

1704020802 Mink Cr 26 26 24 22 26 

1704020803 Webb Cr, Indian Cr 13 13 5 5 13 

1704020804 Walker Cr, Quinn Cr 26 26 23 23 27 

1704020805 Lost Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

1704020808 East Bob Smith Cr 2 2 1 1 2

1704020809 Pebble Cr 25 25 23 23 25 

1704020811 Bear Camp Gulch 17 14 8 7 14 

Total 122 119 97 94 120 

Table 4.34. Soda Springs District. Designated Travel Route Stream Crossings by HUC-5. 

HUC-5, major streams on Forest Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1601020101 Wood Cyn 0 1 1 1 1 

1601020102 Fossil Cyn, Sulphur 4 5 5 5 5 

1601020103 Rattlesnake Cyn 0 0 0 0 0

1601020104 Georgetown Cr 0 0 0 0 0 

1704010409 (Targhee NF) 0 0 0 0 0

1704010410 (Targhee NF) 0 0 0 0 0

146
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

1704010411 McCoy Cr 47 43 40 39 35 

1704010500 Salt R (WY) 0 0 0 0 0 

1704010501 Smith Cyn 46 7 7 0 7 

1704010503 Jensen Cr 0 1 1 1 1 

1704010507 Pole Cyn 0 0 0 0 0 

1704010508 Stump Cr, Smoky Cr 122 15 15 14 16 

1704010509 Tincup Cr 41 23 21 17 23 

1704010510 Jackknife Cr 14 15 14 14 14 

1704020505 (Targhee NF) 0 0 0 0 0

1704020507 Grays Lake 22 22 22 20 22 

1704020708 Blackfoot Res 0 0 0 0 0 

1704020709 Meadow Cr 0 0 0 0 0

1704020710 Trail Cr, Wooley Vly 2 2 2 2 2 

1704020711 Lanes, Chippy, Angus 72 34 34 18 37 

1704020712 Diamond Cr 42 31 31 31 32 

1704020713 Slug Cr, Dry Valley 24 25 16 16 25 

Total 436 224 209 178 220 

Conclusions 

To summarize, Alternatives Two, Three, Four and Five all reduce the risk to water resources from travel 

route by managing less designated motorized travel routes, less motorized travel routes in AIZs, and less 

stream crossings than the existing condition. The action alternatives include improving and maintaining 

road and trails to standard and closing user-created routes. These actions can mitigate risks to riparian and 

water resources from travel routes and uses. All action alternatives reduce potential risks to riparian areas 

and water resources, however, Alternatives Three and Four would reduce potential risks to water resources

more than Alternatives Two and Five. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects will be limited to the NFS portions of the watersheds.

The cumulative effects of the combined past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Forest 

that have the potential to have a measurable effect on riparian and water quality values are timber harvest 

and associated road construction, livestock grazing, mining, recreation and prescribed burning. Of these, 

livestock grazing probably has the greatest impact on riparian areas of the forest. No road or motorized trail 

building is specifically identified to occur in any AIZs in any alternative. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

It is believed that the use of the appropriate watershed conservation practices will protect water quality and 

watershed health to the point that adverse effects from designating motorized routes and route 

decommissioning activities will be minimized. Adaptive management will be used where practical to 

modify practices to minimize unavoidable adverse effects. 

 

Irreversible Effects and Irretrievable Effects 

Even with the appropriate use of watershed conservation practices, adoption of additional trails represents a 

commitment to accept continuing disturbance on the ground. These are activities with irretrievable effects. 

With the appropriate use of watershed conservation practices, no irreversible impacts are anticipated. Roads 

and trails can be obliterated and hydrologically restored. Adaptive management will be used to modify

practices to minimize all irreversible effects where future research, experience and monitoring makes 

possible. 

147
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ___________________

Analysis Methods 

Of all modes of road and trail transportation within AIZs, motorized road and trail use has the most potential 

to affect aquatic habitat due to potential erosion and resultant sedimentation. To analyze the effects of each 

alternative upon aquatic biota and habitat, the number of motorized road and trail miles per square mile 

(motorized road and trail density) in AIZs where totaled within each Caribou Forest Subsection and Caribou 

Forest-wide for each alternative. In addition, road density within perennial stream AIZs for each 

Yellowstone and Bonneville cutthroat trout 6th Code HUC stronghold were calculated. Key assumptions 

were made during the analysis. All motorized use on roads and trails in AIZs were considered together. 

There was no effort to differentiate between types of motorized use or proximity of the riparian road or trail 

to the stream. In addition, all motorized road and trail miles were considered as long as they were in AIZs 

along perennial streams. It was assumed most perennial streams were fish-bearing. No intermittent streams 

were included in the analysis. 

The number of road crossings of perennial streams is compared for each alternative, as road crossings at 

streams are direct avenues for road surface sediment delivery to streams and could also affect stream

hydrology. The discussion further discloses these numbers for each Yellowstone and Bonneville stronghold 

6th Code HUC. Forest data for the type of stream crossing; such as a bridge, culvert, bottomless structure, or 

ford; is incomplete. For this discussion, all stream-crossings are equal. 

Alternative One 

Alternative One is the existing condition. For this alternative, the motorized route density is 3.73 miles per 

square mile of perennial stream AIZ Forest-wide. There are 4.46, 4.64, 4.26, 4.66, and 2.86 miles per square 

mile of motorized road and trail use in Bear, Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda Subsections, respectively.

This alternative has the highest motorized route density in AIZs along perennial streams forest-wide. In 

addition, this alternative has the highest motorized route density in AIZs along perennial streams within 

each Forest Subsection (Bear, Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda Subsections). 

Giraffe, Skinner, Stauffer, Emigration, Logan, and Maple 6th Code HUCs contain the streams that are 

considered by the Forest as Bonneville cutthroat trout strongholds. Alternative One maintains the highest 

density of motorized roads and trails in AIZs in all but two of these stronghold 6th Code HUCs. In 

Emigration HUC6, motorized route density in AIZs is higher in Alternatives Two and Five. In Logan 

HUC6, motorized route density in AIZs is higher in Alternatives Two and Three. 

Several watersheds located on Soda and Westside Ranger Districts that drain into the Snake River Basin are 

considered by the Forest as Yellowstone cutthroat trout strongholds. Alternative One maintains the highest 

total density of motorized routes in Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold HUC6 AIZs. 

Alternative One maintains 1,098 motorized route stream crossings across the Forest. All alternatives 

generally maintain a similar number of motorized route stream crossings in Bonneville cutthroat trout 

stronghold 6th Code HUCs as the existing condition. Alternative One maintains 395 perennial stream

crossings in Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCS. This is the highest of all alternatives. 

Alternative Two 

Alternative Two is the proposed action. Under this alternative, there is a motorized route density of 3.07 

miles per square mile of perennial stream AIZ Forest-wide. This is the second highest of the alternatives. 

There are 4.06, 4.55, 4.16, 4.66, 3.97, and 1.92 miles of motorized routes per square mile of AIZ in Bear, 

Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda Subsections, respectively. 

148
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Two did not significantly change riparian motorized road and trail lengths in Giraffe, Skinner, 

Emigration, and Logan Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs. However, motorized riparian 

route miles per square mile of AIZ in Stauffer and Maple decreased by 0.59 and 0.96 miles, respectively. 

Alternative Two maintains the 2nd highest total density of motorized roads and trails in AIZs (106.64 total 

miles per square mile) for Yellowstone cutthroat trout strongholds. 

Alternative Two maintains 812 motorized route stream crossings across the Forest. This is the second 

highest of all alternatives. All alternatives generally maintain a similar number of motorized route stream

crossings in Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs as existing condition. Alternative Two 

maintains 259 perennial stream crossings in Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCS. This is 

the second highest of all alternatives. 

Alternative Three 

Alternative Three is the alternative based on comments received by Idaho Fish and Game. Under this 

alternative, there is a motorized route density of 2.72 miles of trail per square mile of perennial stream AIZ 

Forest-wide. There are 3.50, 3.33, 3.47, 3.71, and 1.85 miles of motorized route per square mile of AIZ in 

Bear, Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda Subsections, respectively.

Alternative Three does not significantly change riparian motorized route densities in Giraffe, Emigration, 

and Logan Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs. However, riparian motorized route miles 

per square mile of AIZ in Skinner, Stauffer, and Maple 6th Code HUCs decreased by 0.21, 1.15, and 0.96 

miles, respectively. 

Alternative Three maintains the second lowest total density of motorized roads and trails in Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout stronghold HUC6 AIZs (97.24 total miles per square mile). 

Alternative Three maintains 657 motorized route stream crossings across the Forest. This is the second 

lowest of all alternatives. All alternatives generally maintain a similar number of motorized route stream

crossings in Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs as existing condition. Alternative Three 

maintains 231 perennial stream crossings in Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCS. This is 

the second lowest of all alternatives. 

Alternative Four 

Alternative Four is the alternative based on comments received by a trail user group. Under this alternative, 

there is a motorized route density of 2.53 miles per square mile of perennial stream AIZ Forest-wide. This is 

the lowest of all the alternatives. There are 3.87, 3.19, 3.25, 3.02, and 1.61 miles of motorized route per 

square mile of AIZ in Bear, Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda Subsections, respectively. 

Alternative Four does not significantly change riparian motorized route miles in Giraffe, Emigration, and 

Logan Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs. However, riparian motorized route miles per 

square mile of AIZ in Skinner, Stauffer, and Maple decreased by 0.21, 0.63, and 0.96 miles, respectively. 

Alternative Four maintains the lowest total density of motorized roads and trails in Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout stronghold HUC6 AIZs (78.74 total miles per square mile). 

Alternative Four maintains 613 motorized route stream crossings across the Forest. This is the lowest of all 

alternatives. All alternatives generally maintain a similar number of motorized route stream crossings in 

Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs as the existing condition. Alternative Four maintains 

194 perennial stream crossings in Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCS. This is the lowest 

of all alternatives. 

149
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Five 

Alternative Five is was based on the proposed action with site-specific changes to offer more non-motorized 

settings and improve the quality of motorized opportunities. Under this alternative, there is a motorized 

route density of 2.97 miles per square mile of perennial stream AIZ Forest-wide. This is generally in the 

median of the range of road and trail densities proposed under all the alternatives. There are 4.14, 4.36, 4.18, 

3.55, and 1.85 miles of motorized routes per square mile of AIZ in Bear, Malad, Pocatello, Preuss, and Soda

Subsections, respectively.

Alternative Five did not significantly change riparian motorized route miles per square mile of AIZ in 

Giraffe, Skinner, and Emigration Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs. However, motorized 

riparian road and trail miles per square mile of AIZ in Stauffer, Logan, and Maple decreased by 0.59, 0.75,

and 0.96 miles, respectively. 

Alternative Five maintains a median (middle between alternatives) total density of motorized roads and trail 

length per square mile of AIZs (100.3 total miles per square mile). 

Alternative Five maintains 789 riparian road and trail stream crossings across the Forest. Between all 

alternatives, this alternative is generally median. All alternatives generally maintain a similar number of 

riparian road and trial stream crossings in Bonneville cutthroat trout stronghold 6th Code HUCs as existing 

condition. Alternative Five maintains 243 perennial stream crossings in Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

stronghold 6th Code HUCS. This is generally the middle of the range of alternatives. 

Summary of Effects 

It is expected that Alternatives One and Two would have the most impact upon aquatic biota and their 

habitat and Alternatives Three and Four would have the least. Alternative Five, when considered in the 

range of alternatives, has a median amount of impact upon aquatic biota and their habitat. 

Measure of Impact Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Most road and trail density in perennial 

stream AIZs 1 2 4 5 3 

Most road and trail density in Bonneville 

cutthroat trout stronghold stream AIZs 1 2 5 4 3 

Most road and trail density in Yellowstone

cutthroat trout stronghold stream AIZs 1 2 4 5 3 

Most road and trail perennial stream

crossings 1 2 4 5 3 

Most road and trail perennial stream

crossings within Bonneville cutthroat trout

strongholds 

1 2 5 4 3 

Most road and trail perennial stream

crossings within Yellowstone cutthroat trout

strongholds 

1 2 4 5 3 

150
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Tabulated Data 

Table 4.36. Miles of motorized road and trail per square mile of fish-bearing stream aiz 

Subsection Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Bear 4.46 4.06 3.50 3.87 4.14 

Malad 4.64 4.55 3.33 3.19 4.36 

Pocatello 4.26 4.16 3.47 3.25 4.18 

Preuss 4.66 3.97 3.71 3.02 3.55 

Soda 2.89 1.92 1.85 1.61 1.85 

Forest-wide 3.73 3.07 2.72 2.53 2.97 

Table 4.37. Miles of motorized road and trail per square mile of fish-bearing stream aiz in bonneville cutthroat trout

strongholds (6th code huc) 

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Giraffe HUC6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Skinner HUC6 2.51 2.49 2.30 2.30 2.49 

Stauffer HUC6 1.39 0.80 0.24 0.76 0.80 

Emigration HUC6 6.91 6.93 6.83 6.83 6.93 

Logan HUC6 3.44 3.46 3.46 3.36 2.69 

Maple HUC6 1.63 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 

TOTAL 15.88 14.35 13.5 13.92 13.58 

Table 4.38. Miles of motorized road and trail per square mile of fish-bearing stream aiz in yellowstone cutthroat trout 

strongholds (6th code huc) 

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Spring 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.20 3.16 

Crow (50706) 4.44 4.22 4.22 1.67 4.22 

Crow (50705) 4.80 4.12 2.11 1.94 4.12 

Crow (50703) 5.22 4.94 4.94 4.93 4.24 

Crow (50707) 2.73 7.78 7.78 2.22 2.48 

Sage 1.31 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 

Diamond (71203) 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 

Diamond (71202) 5.64 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.02 

Diamond (71201) 4.19 3.56 3.56 3.56 4.86 

Bacon 6.59 1.91 1.91 0.50 1.51 

Browns 6.61 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.51 

Sheep 5.56 7.31 7.31 0.00 7.19 

Stump (50803) 5.65 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 

Stump (50804) 0.82 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.71 

Stump (50805) 4.25 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.46 

Toms 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.25 

Tincup (50903) 6.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tincup (50901) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 

Tincup (50902) 2.09 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 

Tincup (50901) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 

Tincup (50905) 0.14 0.47 0.11 0.03 0.14 

Jacknife (51001) 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.21 

Jacknife (51002) 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 

McCoy (41101) 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 

151
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

McCoy (41102) 1.30 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 

McCoy (41103) 0.53 0.78 0.53 0.53 0.53 

McCoy (41104) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 

McCoy (41105) 0.96 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.67 

McCoy (41106) 4.01 4.01 4.01 3.91 4.01 

Willow 1.32 1.32 1.32 0.33 1.32

Eagle 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.27 2.29 

Bridge 3.23 3.53 3.53 3.08 3.53 

Robbers Roost 2.75 2.75 0.75 0.75 2.86 

Inman 9.45 9.45 5.78 5.78 9.45 

Walker 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 

Bell Marsh 5.37 5.37 4.59 5.37 5.37 

Goodenough 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 

Mink 6.13 6.13 5.89 5.89 6.13 

Gibson Jack 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86 

TOTAL 125.11 106.64 97.24 78.74 100.3 

Table 4.39. Road and trail crossings at perennial streams 

Subsection Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Bear 211 183 142 163 195 

Malad 155 151 86 78 134 

Pocatello 122 119 97 94 120 

Preuss 174 135 123 100 120 

Soda 436 224 209 178 220 

Forest-wide 1098 812 657 613 789 

Table 4.40. Road and trail crossings in bonneville cutthroat trout strongholds (6th code huc) at perennial streams 

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Giraffe HUC6 0 0 0 0 0 

Skinner HUC6 4 4 3 3 4 

Stauffer HUC6 4 3 1 3 3 

Emigration HUC6 16 16 15 15 16 

Logan HUC6 5 5 5 4 4 

Maple HUC6 1 1 1 1 1 

TOTAL 30 29 25 26 28 

Table 4.41. Road and trail crossings in yellowstone cutthroat trout strongholds (6th code huc) at perennial streams 

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Spring 8 8 8 7 6 

Crow (50706) 7 7 7 3 7 

Crow (50705) 21 20 10 8 20 

Crow (50703) 11 11 11 11 9 

Crow (50707) 5 13 13 3 4 

Sage 11 12 12 12 12 

Diamond (71203) 2 2 2 2 2 

Diamond (71202) 24 19 19 19 18 

Diamond (71201) 3 1 1 1 3 

Bacon 39 9 9 3 13 

Browns 11 1 1 1 1 

Sheep 10 10 10 0 10 

Stump (50803) 49 4 4 4 4 

Stump (50804) 4 1 1 0 2 

Stump (50805) 31 1 1 1 1 

152
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Stronghold Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Toms 0 1 1 1 1 

Tincup (50903) 18 0 0 0 0 

Tincup (50901) 0 0 0 0 0 

Tincup (50902) 5 5 5 5 5 

Tincup (50901) 0 0 0 0 0 

Tincup (50905) 2 3 1 1 2 

Jacknife (51001) 14 14 14 14 14 

Jacknife (51002) 0 1 0 0 0 

McCoy (41101) 0 0 0 0 0 

McCoy (41102) 14 5 5 5 5 

McCoy (41103) 8 11 8 8 8 

McCoy (41104) 3 3 3 3 3 

McCoy (41105) 12 14 14 14 9 

McCoy (41106) 10 10 10 9 10 

Willow 1 1 1 0 1

Eagle 12 12 12 12 12 

Bridge 9 9 9 8 9 

Robbers Roost 5 5 2 2 6 

Inman 12 12 5 5 12 

Walker 10 10 10 10 10 

Bell Marsh 5 5 5 5 5 

Goodenough 2 2 2 2 2 

Mink 13 13 11 11 13 

Gibson Jack 4 4 4 4 4 

TOTAL 395 259 231 194 243 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects analysis for fisheries will concentrate upon effects to Yellowstone and Bonneville 

cutthroat trout and their habitat. All project alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are expected 

to result in slight sediment delivery to streams in the project area due to road and trail use. 

Analysis Area for Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for discussion of fisheries cumulative effects include watersheds located on the Forest. 

The cumulative effects analysis area extends downstream from the Forest where migratory life history forms 

of cutthroat trout spend part of their life in larger water bodies off Forest. 

When you consider past, present, and future land management activities associated with this project area, 

most either directly or indirectly contribute sediment to aquatic habitat. Some past activities that contributed 

sediment to streams include firewood collection, road and trail use, grazing, timber sales, post and pole 

cutting, cross country motorized access, aspen cutting, prescribed burns, trail construction, and trail 

maintenance. Wildfires have also increased sediment delivery to streams. Present land managemenactivities 

in the analysis area that likely contribute sediment to streams include firewood collection, grazing, timber 

harvest, road and trail use, illegal cross-country motorized travel, and trail maintenance. Wildfires continue 

to contribute sediment to streams. Likely future activities in the project area that directly or indirectly

contribute sediment to streams include firewood collection, grazing, timber sales, road and trail use, harvest 

of posts and poles, manipulation of aspen stands, illegal cross country motorized vehicle use, prescribed 

fires, trail maintenance, road maintenance, and road reconstruction. While most of these actions do not 

individually contribute overwhelming amounts of sediment to streams, they collectively maintain a baseline 

of sediment delivery to streams within the project area that is greater than pre-management baselines. The 

increase in road use associated with the project has the potential to add to the current baseline. 

153
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

The duration of the increase in sediment delivery to streams as a result of road and trail use is primarily

through the life of the plan. The duration of effects may continue for a couple of years after the total 

duration of plan implementation as sediment is flushed from the stream system. The amount of sediment 

actually delivered to streams is dependent upon the proximity of the access roads and trails to streams, road

surface material, and the weather conditions during use. The closer the road or trail is to streams and the less 

maintenance and surfacing of the road or trail, the more sediment delivery (Furniss et al. 1991). Generally, 

the wetter the weather during road or trail use, the more sediment delivered to streams from erosion during 

motorized use. Generally, the wider the tracks left by motorized vehicle use on roads and trails near streams, 

the more sediment delivered to streams from erosion during motorized use. The amount of sediment 

delivery associated with this analysis is generally low, but widespread across the analysis area, resulting in 

cumulative effects from any alternative. Alternatives One and Two would likely have the most cumulative 

effects associated with them, because they have the most direct and indirect effects. Alternatives Three and 

Four have the least cumulative effects associated with them, because they have the least direct and indirect 

effects. Alternative Five has a median amount of cumulative effects associated with it because it has a 

median amount of direct and indirect effects when considered in the range of all alternatives. 

RELATED DOCUMENTS 

Yellowstone and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Biological Evaluation 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ________

The travel plan alternatives do not propose any designated travel routes within habitat and known population 

areas of the three sensitive plants species. 

Wildlife _________________________________________

Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Because all action alternatives will close some motorized roads and trails, the analysis of impact to wildlife 

will be determined by length in miles of roads and trails closed in comparison to Alternative One (the 

existing condition). Motorized road and trails are considered a detriment to wildlife. A small increase in 

trail building (approximately one mile) would not impact sagebrush, forested or riparian habitat considered 

important to wildlife. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect “negative” impacts to wildlife species. 

Because beneficial impacts are difficult to qualify or quantify, this analysis will not go beyond a No Impact 

determination and make a Beneficial Impact call for a species or habitat. Even though there would not be a 

Beneficial Impact determination, potential or possible beneficial impacts to wildlife or habitat will be 

measured by length of road or trail closed. It is assumed that “refugia” would increase by amount of 

motorized roads and trails closed in large contiguous areas. Closing roads in one Rx Area can increase the 

use of an adjacent Rx Area by wildlife (Wisdom et al. 2000). In this analysis “refugia” areas are defined as 

non-motorized areas over 1,000 acres, buffered 1⁄2 mile from a motorized route. 

Effects Analysis 

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis for wildlife will concentrate upon road density by Rx

Area and number and size of large areas (refugia) that restrict motorized vehicle access. All alternatives, 

including the No Action Alternative, are expected to have impacts from motorized vehicle disturbance in the 

project area; identified as cumulative impacts 

154
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Cumulative Effects Area 

The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) is the same as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects, Areas 

that are adjacent to the forest must be considered to determine which wildlife species may occupy the area 

and be impacted. These areas are limited to the valley bottom or adjacent forest depending on the distance 

the species migrates. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects of motorized roads and trails are acres of wildlife habitat lost/gained during road or trail 

construction/decommission. Indirect effects are human activities that use the roads and trail that reduce 

additional habitat or displace wildlife from the habitat. Table 4.42 is a list of wildlife species found in 

Chapter Three; potential habitat or species occurrence in the area of road closures; a summary of how 

motorized roads and trails impact wildlife as discussed above, and the affect of Alternatives One through

Five. 

Management Indicator Species 

Goshawk 

A forest wide survey (Trek 2005 [in preparation]) conducted in 2004 met the RFP monitoring requirement 

(USDA 2003b 5-15). Approximately twelve active territories were found on the Caribou NF. There would 

be no new system roads built with this activity. Goshawk S&Gs would be met to support viable 

populations. The existing goshawk nests have been productive with existing road density and associated 

human activities. Goshawks have been productive in the past, are currently productive, and goshawk 

productivity is expected in the future with the existing road density. Because the proposed reduction of 

motorized road and trail density may decrease some human disturbance, we conclude that goshawk 

occupancy and production within the Caribou National Forest would continue with the preferred alternative. 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

IDFG (2004b) completed the 2004 lek survey meeting the RFP monitoring requirement (USDA 2003b 

5-15). There would be no loss of habitat conditions with this activity. Sharp-tailed grouse S&Gs would 

 be met to support viable populations. The current population has existed with the existing road density. 

Sharp-tails are currently hunted and the season and bag limit have not changed. Birds have been seen in 

new areas and proposed reduction of motorized road and trail density may decrease some human 

disturbance. We conclude that sharp-tail occupancy and production within the project area would 

continue with the preferred alternative. 

Sage grouse 

IDFG (2004a) completed the 2004 lek survey meeting the RFP monitoring requirement (USDA 2003b 5-

15). Sage grouse are currently hunted but the season and bag limit have been reduced. Although Idaho's 

sage-grouse populations are below 1960s levels, they have been generally stable for the last decade (IDFG

2005a). There would be no change in habitat conditions with this activity. Sage-grouse S&Gs would be 

met to support viable populations. The proposed reduction of motorized road and trail density may decrease 

some human disturbance. We conclude that sage grouse occupancy and production within the project area 

would continue with the preferred alternative. 

TES and Migratory Land Birds 

Gray Wolf, Canada Lynx, Bald Eagle, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Pygmy 

rabbit, North American Wolverine, Trumpeter swan, Harlequin duck, Peregrine falcon, Northern Goshawk, 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Greater Sage-grouse, Great Gray owl, Flammulated owl, Boreal owl, Three155
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

toed woodpecker, Columbia Spotted frog, Migratory Land Birds (Riparian, Non-Riverine Wetland, 

Sagebrush). 

Alternative One 

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative One. However, because no 

motorized roads or trails would be closed no benefits to wildlife would occur. Those benefits expected to 

occur from closing roads and trails are 1) a decrease in loss of snag and downed logs used as firewood, 2) 

lost habitat would slowly restore on the road and trail bed, 3) reduced fragmentation, 4) decreased hunting, 

trapping, poaching, collection and recreational shooting, 4) a decrease in human harassment or disturbance, 

reduced animal displacement or avoidance, and reduced chronic negative interactions with humans, 5) 

reduced vehicle collisions, 6) a reduction in movement barriers, 7) decreased erosion and sedimentation of 

adjacent streams, and 8) a reduction of movement corridors for weeds. 

Cumulative Effects: 

Impacts to wildlife would continue on 1,010 miles of existing motorized roads and 850 miles motorized 

trails. The effects of these roads and trails are described in Caribou NF RFP FEIS Appendix D-26 – 34. 

Mining is the only foreseeable future activity that would increase road and human disturbance in the long 

term. Future timber sales would build roads causing short term increases in road density and human 

disturbance until the roads are closed. It is assumed that any new open road construction would be within 

RFP OMRDs. Road and trails off-forest are outside the cumulative effects area but are expected to increase 

in amount and use. (RFP and Wildlife Reports). 

Alternative Two 

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Two. However, closing 45 miles 

of roads and 20 miles of trails are expected to improve habitat conditions along the closed miles, benefiting 

wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects: 

The same as Alternative One except impacts to wildlife would continue on 965 miles of existing motorized 

roads and 831 miles motorized trails. 

Alternative Three 

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Three. However, closing 70 miles

of roads and 261 miles of trails are expected to improve habitat conditions along the closed miles, benefiting 

wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects: 

The same as Alternative One except impacts to wildlife would continue on 940 miles of existing motorized 

roads and 590 miles motorized trails. 

156
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Four 

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Four. However, closing 110 miles 

of roads and 326 miles of trails are expected to improve habitat conditions along the closed miles, benefiting 

wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects: 

The same as Alternative One except impacts to wildlife would continue on 900 miles of existing motorized 

roads and 525 miles motorized trails. 

Alternative Five 

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Five. However, closing 65 miles 

of roads and 54 miles of trails are expected to improve habitat conditions along the closed miles, benefiting 

wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects: 

The same as Alternative One except impacts to wildlife would continue on 945 miles of existing motorized 

roads and 797 miles motorized trails. 

Big Game (Spring, Summer and Fall) 

Alternative One 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative One. However, because no 

motorized roads or trails would be closed, the RFP OMRDs would not be met in 15 Rx Areas. The Rx 

Areas are over by 0.9 to 0.1 mi

2

. 

Cumulative Effects 

It is assumed that any new open road construction on the forest would be within RFP OMRDs. Human 

access and associated disturbance and wildlife mortality would continue on 601 miles of non-motorized 

trails. Cross-country travel, including uses on non-motorized trails, is unpredictable and irregular and may

cause the largest amount of disturbance or displacement. It also results in loss of habitat due to loss of 

vegetative cover and forage, direct mortality of small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds through loss 

of adults or nests (USDA 2003a Appendix D-29). (RFP and Wildlife Reports) 

Alternative Two 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Two. However, closing motorized 

roads and trails would leave 11 Rx Areas over the RFP OMRDs; four more than Alternative One. The Rx 

Areas are over by 0.5 to 0.1 mi

2

. 

Cumulative Effects

The same as Alternative One except human access and associated disturbance and wildlife mortality would 

continue on an additional 96 miles of non-motorized trails. 

157
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Three 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Three. However, closing 

motorized roads and trails would leave 6 Rx Areas over the RFP OMRDs; nine more than Alternative One. 

The Rx Areas are over by 0.4 to 0.1 mi

2

. 

Cumulative Effects 

The same as Alternative One except human access and associated disturbance and wildlife mortality would 

continue on an additional 327 miles of non-motorized trails. 

Alternative Four 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from Alternative Four. However, closing motorized 

roads and trails would leave 4 Rx Areas over the RFP OMRDs; 11 more than Alternative One. This 

alternative meets the OMRDs most successfully. This alternative would meet IDFG desire for large Rx 

Areas without motorized access to increase wildlife security during the spring, summer and fall. The Rx 

Areas are over by 0.2 to 0.1 mi

2

. 

Cumulative Effects

The same as Alternative One except human access and associated disturbance and wildlife mortality would 

continue on an additional 420 miles of non-motorized trails. 

Alternative Five 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no detrimental impacts to these species from alternative Five. However, closing motorized 

roads and trails would leave 7 Rx Areas over the RFP OMRDs; eight more than Alternative One. The Rx 

Areas are over by 0.4 to 0.1 mi

2

. 

Cumulative Effects

The same as Alternative One except human access and associated disturbance and wildlife mortality would 

continue on an additional 97 miles of non-motorized trails. 

Big Game (Winter Range) 

Alternative One 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Designated snowmobile routes through big game winter range would not be implemented. There would be 

disturbance to all areas of wintering big game. 

Cumulative Effects 

CEA – Winter Range prescription areas. Non-motorized human access and associated disturbance and 

wildlife mortality would continue in the winter range. 

158
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Two, Three and Five 

Direct and Indirect Effects

These alternatives would implement the designated snowmobile routes in the Caribou NF RFP through big 

game winter range, reducing disturbance to wintering big game. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the same as Alternative One. 

Alternative Four 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative is the same as alternative Two, Three, and Five except no snowmobiling disturbance would 

occur through new Winter Range designated in the RFP on the southern end of the Bear River Range as 

depicted on Winter Travel Map in Chapter Two, Alternative Four. This alternative would have the least 

disturbance to wintering big game from snowmobiles. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the same as Alternative One. 

Table 4.42. Wildlife Species – Summary of Effects/Impacts 

Wildlife Species or Habitat 

T&E Listed Species 

Potential 

Habitat 

in area 

Species 

expected

in area 

How motorized 

roads & trails 

impact wildlife 

Alt. 

1 – 5 

Gray Wolf – XN Yes Possible 2, 3, 4, 5 NE 

Canada Lynx – Threatened Yes Possible 1, 2, 3, 4 NE 

Bald Eagle – Threatened Yes Possible 2, 4, 5 NE 

Yellow-billed cuckoo - Proposed No No 2 NE

Sensitive Species Potential In or Near A. 1-5 

Spotted bat Yes Possible 2 NI 

Townsend’s big-eared bat Yes Yes 1, 2 NI 

Pygmy rabbit Yes Possible 2, 3, 5, 6 NI 

North American Wolverine Yes Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 NI 

Trumpeter swan Yes Yes 2, 3, 4 NI 

Harlequin duck Yes Yes 2, 3, 4 NI 

Peregrine falcon Yes Yes 2, 4 NI 

Northern Goshawk Yes Yes 2, 4 NI 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Yes Yes 2, 4 NI 

Greater Sage-grouse Yes Yes 2, 4, 8 NI 

Great Gray owl Yes Yes 1, 2 NI 

Flammulated owl Yes Yes 1, 2 NI 

Boreal owl Yes Yes 1, 2 NI 

Three-toed woodpecker Yes Yes 1, 2 NI 

Columbia Spotted frog Yes No 2, 5, 7 NI 

Management Indicator (MIS) Potential In or Near A. 1-5 

Northern Goshawk Yes Yes See above MH 

Columbian sharp-tail grouse Yes Yes See above MH 

Sage-grouse Yes Yes See above MH 

Migratory Land Birds Potential In or Near A. 1-5 

Riparian Yes Yes 1, 2, 7, 8 NI 

Non-Riverine Wetland Yes Yes 2, 7, 8 NI 

Sagebrush (Sage-grouse) Yes Yes See above NI 

 

159
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Big Game Potential In or Near A. 1-5 

Hiding Cover (spring, summer 

fall) Yes Yes 2, 3, 5 MIIH 

Winter Range Yes Yes 2, 4, 5 MIIH 

NE – No effect. 

NI – No impact to any populations, species, or habitat. 

MIIH – May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal 

listings or loss of viability to the populations or species. 

MH maintain habitat able to support viable populations. 

XN – nonessential experimental population. 1) Snag and downed log reduction, 2)* habitat loss and 

fragmentation. 3)* over-hunting, over-trapping, poaching, collection and recreational shooting. 4)* 

harassment or disturbance, displacement or avoidance, chronic negative interactions with humans. 5) 

Collisions, 6) Movement barriers, 7)* Erosion and sedimentation of adjacent streams. 8)* Provide

movement corridors for weeds 

Table 4.43 Wildlife – Comparison by Alternatives 

Alternative – Miles open / 

change in miles from Alt 1

Alt 1

No action 

Alt 2

Proposed

Alt 3

Fish&Game 

Alt 4

UserGroups

Alt 5

Preferred 

Best meets RFP OMRD intent 5 4 2 1 3 

R&T Motorized / A1 change 1,861 / 0 1796 / -65 1530 / -331 1425 / -436 1742 / -119

Roads open / A1 change 1011 / 0 965 / -45 940 / -70 900 / -110 945 / -65

Trails open Motorized 851 / 0 831 / -20 590 / -261 525 / -326 797 / -54

Trails non motorized 601 / 0 697 / +96 928 / +327 1021 / +420 698 / +97

Ranking of snowmobile Dist. 3 2 2 1 2 

Snowmobile Disturbance All areas RFP WR PFP WR <RFP WR RFP WR 

REFUGIA Ranking 

SemiPrimitive/NonMotorized

Areas Over 1000 Acres 

(5) (4) (2) (1) (3) 

Bear River Range (5) 35,616 (3) 38,632 (1) 71,344 (2) 55,863 (4) 36,760

Malad (5) 27,841 (3) 27,978 (2) 48,162 (1) 52,942 (4) 27,845

Pocatello (4) 38,014 (5) 37,400 (2) 50,675 (1) 62,656 (3) 38,097

Pruess (5) 36,171 (4) 43,583 (2) 52,741 (1) 64,637 (3) 44,629

Soda /Caribou Mtn (5) 114,943 (4) 152,040 (2) 157,989 (1) 185,825 (3) 153,794 

Caribou NF Total (5) 252,585 (4) 299,633 (2) 380,911 (1) 421,923 (3) 301,125 

Meets connectivity concern 3 2 1 2 1 

South end Bear River Range 1 over 0.1 1 over 0.1 None over 1 over 0.1 None over 

Density over RFP OMRD 5 4 2 1 3 

Range of Density Over 0.9 – 0.1 0.5 – 0.1 0.4 – 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 0.4 – 0.1 

Rx Areas over RFP OMRDs 15 11 6 4 7 

Rx Area over RFP / Rx ** 

Big Elk/NMRec-WildlifeSec 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Home Cyn/Forest Veg Mgt 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Red Pine/Forest Veg Mgt - 0.1 - 0.1 - 

Clifton/SP Recreation 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 - 

Indian Ck/SP Recreation 0.4 0.4 0.4 - 0.4 

Box Cyn/Forest Veg Mgt 0.3 0.3 0.3 - 0.3 

ClearCk/Range Veg Mgt 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - 

ChickenCoopH/WinterRange - - - - 0.1 

Pebble/Range Veg Mgt 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 

Slate Mtn/SP Recreation 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 

Sherman Pk/Forest Veg Mgt - 0.1 - - - 

I-15 East/Winter Range Crit. 0.1 0.1 - - - 

Red Mtn/NMRecWildlifeSec 0.9 - - - - 

Hell Hole/Range Veg Mgt 0.7 - - - - 

Worm Ck/SP Recreation 0.1 - - - - 

160
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

McPherson/WinterRange-C 0.1 - - - - 

Soda Point/Winter Range-C 0.1 - - - - 

Elk Meadow/SP Recreation 0.3 - - - - 

** Rx Areas over RFP OMRD ceilings 

The item “Rx Areas over RFP / Rx” in the table above is a list of the Prescription Areas by name over the 

RFP OMRDs for that area and the RFP Prescription (Rx) for that area. Many of the Rx Areas over the RFP 

OMRDs are not managed for wildlife, with the exception of winter range. OMRDs do not impact winter 

range disturbance. These areas are managed under a Forested or Rangeland Vegetation Management or 

with a Semi-primitive Recreation prescription emphasis. 

 Big Elk Mountain, north of McCoy Creek (Non-motorized Recreation and Wildlife Security

prescription). 

 Home Canyon northeast of Montpelier (Forest Vegetation Management prescription). 

 Red Pine, southern Bear River Range (Forest Vegetation Management prescription). 

 Clifton area south of Pocatello (Semi-primitive Recreation prescription). 

 Indian Creek south of Pocatello (Semi-primitive Recreation prescription). 

 Box Canyon south of Pocatello (Forest Vegetation Management prescription) 

 Clear Creek northwest of McCoy Creek (Range Vegetation Management prescription). 

 Chicken Coop Hollow northeast of Malad (Winter Range prescription). 

 Pebble east of Pocatello (Range Vegetation Management prescription). 

 Slate Mountain south of Pocatello (Semi-primitive Recreation prescription). 

 Sherman Peak, southeast of Soda Springs (Forest Vegetation Management prescription). 

 I-15 East, the long narrow strip southeast of Malad, (Winter Range – Critical prescription). 

 Red Mountain west of Geneva (Non-motorized Recreation and Wildlife Security prescription). 

 Hell Hole east of Montpelier (Range Vegetation Management prescription). 

 Worm Creek on the south end of the Bear River Range (Semi-primitive Recreation prescription). 

 McPherson north end of the Bear River Range (Winter Range – Critical prescription). 

 Soda Point north end of the Bear River Range (Winter Range – Critical prescription). 

 Elk Meadow south of Pocatello (Semi-primitive Recreation prescription). 

Conclusion 

Although open motorized route densities affect many species, big game security was one of many reasons 

to implement route density ceilings [in the RFP] (Appendix D-33). In many areas of the Forest, elk 

numbers are at or above state population objectives. The Caribou NF RFP used a 1.0 mi/mi

2

 ceiling in 

areas where elk habitat was to be maintained, and a 2.0 mi/mi

2

 limit for areas that were to benefit elk. 

Because the available literature on open road densities is largely based on elk, these numbers were used 

roughly to also address the needs of other species that avoid areas of human activity or are affected by

roads, as shown above. 

The Final Plan OMRD standards included reductions in specific areas due to wildlife concerns. The largest 

reductions are in the south end of the Bear River range, where there were concerns for mule deer and 

connectivity to the Wasatch-Cache NF to the south (Appendix D-33). Alternatives Three and Five meet this 

concern. 

Alternative One does not meet Caribou NF RFP intent for route density ceilings. Alternatives Two 

through Five move toward RFP OMRD Standards. Alternatives Three and Four reduce risk to wildlife 

from motorized disturbance better than Two and Five. Alternative Four, followed by Three, Five, and 

Two, contains the most acres of areas over 1000 acres. This provides the most “refugia” to wildlife from

motorized vehicle disturbance. However, human disturbance, and their associated activities, on non161
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

motorized trails and non-motorized cross-country travel will continue throughout the Forest under all 

alternatives. 

The action alternatives would close some existing roads and therefore would not have an adverse impact 

 to individuals or habitat. Because monitoring has been completed as required in the RFP (USDA 2003b 

5-15) and Caribou NF RFP S&Gs would be met, this project will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. As the Caribou NF RFP FEIS 

(Appendix D-162) “Overall Viability Assessment” stated: “Based on the risk assessments presented in 

this section, we have determined that Alternative 7R, the Forest Plan, will maintain habitat able to support

viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. We 

have determined that the Plan is sufficient to provide well distributed habitat for reproductive individuals.” 

Economic Environment____________________________

Introduction 

Some public comments included concerns that any change or lack of change in travel management will 

adversely affect local economies. 

 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the Caribou NF Zone of Influence. This zone includes 

eight counties in Idaho; Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida and Power, 

and Lincoln County, Wyoming. 

Analysis Method 

Effects to the economy of local communities are difficult to evaluate. The question of how the alternatives 

would affect recreation use levels, and ultimately economic benefits, is difficult to predict. This analysis 

cannot determine how people would react to different travel plan alternatives, and if the changes in 

recreation patterns would affect local economies. These findings are based on Forest Service research on 

estimating the economic impacts of recreation response to resource management decisions. (GTR SE-91, 

Southern Research Station, English et al.) Effects to some businesses can be predicted in general terms, but 

cannot be quantified. 

 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are numerous ways people may react to changes in travel management. If specific travel routes were

managed as motorized, some people might not visit the Caribou to enjoy non-motorized activities. If 

specific areas and trails are managed as non-motorized, some people might not visit to the Caribou to enjoy 

motorized activities. Some people might decide to not visit the Caribou at all, as a result of the revised travel 

plan decision. However, they could choose to visit on another area within close proximity to the same

communities, and therefore continue to contribute to the local economies. 

Alternative One, Two and Five 

Local businesses benefit from recreation opportunities of surrounding areas, and in Idaho much of the 

opportunities are on public lands, including the Caribou. There could be some benefits to OHV dependent 

businesses with Alternatives One, Two and Five that designate more motorized routes. 

162
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Alternative Three and Four 

There could be some benefits to non-motorized dependent businesses with Alternatives Three and Four that

manage more areas for a non-motorized setting and experience. 

Conclusions 

All alternatives offer a variety of motorized and non-motorized activities, and businesses that rely on these 

activities will still experience benefits from the Caribou’s recreation opportunities. It is likely that the range 

of difference between alternatives, from 1,424 miles to 1,860 miles of motorized route, would not have a 

meaningful economic difference to local economies and businesses. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects for economics is Southeast Idaho. This area is the likely range of 

distance that a forest visitor might travel for a recreation outing. 

Other recreation providers in the Southeast Idaho include the Targhee portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF, 

the Sawtooth NF, Bureau of Land Management Lands, State of Idaho Parks and various private land 

owners. These areas provide travel route opportunities similar to those offered by the Forest. As recreation 

use increases it will become increasingly difficult to provide the same wide range of recreation opportunities 

that have been available in the past as the number of users increase and uses on the already limited space are 

further constrained. Growing numbers of forest users, conflicting objectives, and the need to ensure 

ecosystem health and sustainability will require compromise on the part of all involved to resolve 

differences. Increased strain between user groups in many cases may be unavoidable. (RFP FEIS, pg. 4-30) 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects 

In general, because none of the alternatives vary significantly for the current condition, it is unlikely that any 

alternative would result in irreversible and irretrievable impacts within the analysis area. 

Roads __________________________________________

Effects common to all alternatives 

For all of the alternatives, the “key roads” as defined in the 2002 Forest wide Roads Analysis, would remain 

open as recommended in the analysis. These roads provide important access for forest management 

activities and form the backbone of the forest transportation system. The remaining roads of the

transportation system also provide important access to local areas of the Forest. The difference of open road

miles between the alternatives will provide different levels of road access to forest areas. Many of these 

differences will be discussed below in more detail. For a list of individual roads and their management by 

alternative, reference the road and trail tables in Appendix B or refer to the alternative maps. 

Road Operation and Maintenance 

It is not anticipated that road operation and maintenance activities would change much between the 

alternatives. Currently, only 21% of the road system receives annual maintenance. Generally, the roads that 

are receiving this limited annual maintenance would remain open and would continue to receive annual 

maintenance as funding allows. Many of these roads are the “key road” noted above. The lower standard 

less-used roads receive maintenance to reduce environmental affects and to provide for safety. For roads 

that are identified to be closed and/or obliterated, there will be one-time costs to accomplish those activities.

Operation and maintenance savings from closing these roads would be minimal since most of these roads 

receive little if any maintenance. 

163
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Forest Access 

The existing public access to and through the Forest provided by county and state roads would remain the 

same for all alternatives. The Forest would continue to work with adjacent counties and private landowners 

to maintain and improve public access to the Forest as opportunity allows and would not be dependent on 

which alternative is selected. 

Effects by Alternative 

Alternative One – No Action 

This alternative incorporated the interim travel plan direction of the RFP with the existing 2002 Travel Plan. 

This is the “no action” alternative and represents existing condition. Based on the updated GIS travel layer 

depicting the RFP travel direction, the total miles of open roads would be 1,010.5 miles and the total miles 

of closed roads would be 498.0 miles. This alternative would provide for basic open road access necessary 

to manage forest resources, including timber, range, and minerals and provide access for recreation. Because 

the interim travel direction designated any road or trail shown on the 2002 Travel Map there are instances 

were roads exist on the ground, but by default are legally closed. Conversely, there are roads that are being 

managed as closed but are depicted as a designated route on the travel map. Additional temporary increases

in public road access would occur as necessary to manage forest resources, such as firewood gathering after 

a timber sale, but would be closed to the public after these activities were completed. 

Alternative Two 

This alternative was developed by the Forest as the proposed action. This alternative designates motorized 

travel routes, both road and trail, to meet open motorized route densities per RFP direction. In this 

alternative, the total miles of open roads would be 965.4 miles and the total miles of closed roads would be 

423.4 miles. This alternative would reduce the amount of open road miles from Alternative 1 by 45.1 miles 

(4.5%). 

On the Westside Ranger District, excluding the Curlew National Grasslands, the miles of open road would 

be reduced from 186.0 miles to 184.4 (1.6 miles = 0.9%). Motorized travel on this district was previously

limited to designated routes and closed to cross country travel, so changes in open road miles were minimal, 

mostly to reflect existing conditions on the ground. The decrease of 1.6 miles of open road is a combination 

of closing 3.0 miles of road and adding 1.4 miles of open road. The decreases included closing several short 

spur roads in the Toponce Creek, Pebble Creek and South Fork of Mink Creek drainages. The East Monson

Road 21233 would also be closed. The increases included adding a few open routes in the Toponce Creek 

and Trail Creek drainages. 

On the Soda Springs Ranger District, the miles of open road would be increased from 334.2 miles to 336.3 

miles (2.1 miles = 0.6%). The 2.1 miles of open road increase is a combination of closing 34.8 miles of 

roads, including managing 19.0 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 37.0 miles of open road. These 

changes corrected problems with the interim travel plan, especially in the areas formally open to cross 

country travel, to reflect existing conditions on the ground. 

Some of the roads that would be closed include several spur roads in the Diamond Creek area, several spurs 

in Dry Valley, 21256 Mosquito South, 20218 Clark Valley Boundary, 20142 Limekiln, 20107D Flat Valley 

Spur D, 20190A Ed’s Canyon Spur A and 20306 Swab Creek. Roads or portions of roads that would be 

closed but managed as a motorized trail include 20104 Bear Canyon, 20156 Deer Creek, 20184 Messenger 

Canyon, 20269 Old Man Ridge, 20309 Mill Springs, 20382 Reservoir Canyon, 20625 Stewart Flat, and 

21257 Mosquito Creek Ridge. 

164
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Some of the roads that would be added as open roads include 20252 Corailsen Creek, 20058 Iowa Creek 

Camp, 20086D Brockman Spur D, 20100 South Dry Valley Well, 20103 Campbell Canyon, 20103 Upper 

Bacon Creek, 20127 Swan Lake Gulch, 20171 Harrison Creek, 20224 Coyote Creek, 20876 Daniels Draw, 

21238 Harrington Peak, 21309 Lower Wilde Canyon, and 50507 Water Canyon 

On the Montpelier Ranger District the miles of open road would be reduced from 490.4 miles to 444.8 miles 

(45.6 miles = 9.3%). The 45.6 miles of open road reductions are a combination of closing 65.0 miles of 

roads including managing 23.7 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 19.7 miles of open road. These 

changes corrected problems with the interim travel plan, especially in the areas formally open to cross 

country travel, to reflect actual existing conditions on the ground. 

In the Bear Range, some of the roads that would be closed include 20401J South Ant Spur J, 20467 Squirrel

Hollow, and 21183 King Canyon. Roads that would be closed and managed for non-motorized travel 

include 20464 Worm Creek, 20475 North Wilson Creek, 20913 Strawberry-Williams Creek, 21127 Blue 

Lake and 21152 Limekiln Fork Roads. Some of the roads or sections of roads that would be closed and 

managed as motorized trails include 20426 Middle Fork Bloomington, 20452 Worm Creek, 20496 South

Ant, 20499 Dry Basin, 20813 Willow Patch Spring, 20976 Tie Hack, 21151 Red Sinks, 21166 Big Creek 

Lake, 21197 Bailey Creek Loop, and 21152 Limekiln Fork. Some of the roads or sections of roads that 

would be added as open roads include 20499 Dry Basin, 20941 Right Miles Canyon, 21089 Grandy Hollow,

21118 Franklin Face, 20437 North Pearl Creek, 20454 Maple Canyon, 20814 Copenhagen Basin-Liberty,

and 20950 Rocky Knoll Cutoff. 

 

In the Pruess section, some of the roads that would be closed include several spur roads along the Crow 

Creek area, several spur roads in the Home Canyon area, several spur roads in the Georgetown Canyon area, 

and several spur roads in the Bear Hollow area. Some of the roads that would be closed and managed as 

non-motorized trails include 20113 Halfway, 20239 Big Dog, 20793 Bennington Ridge, and 20794 Fox 

Ridge. Some of the roads that would be closed and managed as motorized trails include 20227 Fox Flat, 

20310 Upper Diamond Creek, 20680 Hawks Roost, 20686 Georgetown Mine, and 20904 Goodhart Spring. 

Some of the roads that would be added as open roads include 20516 White Ridge, and 21283A Harrington 

Spur A. 

Overall, this alternative would provide the basic public open road access necessary to manage forest 

resources, including timber, range, minerals and recreation. The changes from Alternative One corrected 

many of the road and trail issues associated with the interim travel plan. Additional temporary increases in 

public road access would occur as necessary to manage forest resources, such as firewood gathering after a 

timber sale, but would be closed to the public after these activities were completed. 

Alternative Three 

This alternative was developed from comments received from Idaho Fish and Game. In this alternative, the 

total miles of open roads would be 940.0 miles and the total miles of closed roads would be 420.1 miles. 

This alternative would reduce the amount of open road miles from Alternative One by 70.5 miles (7.0%). 

On the Westside Ranger District, excluding the Curlew National Grasslands, the miles of open road would 

change from 186.0 miles to 178.1 (7.9 miles = 4.2%). The 7.9 miles of open road reduction would be a 

combination of closing 8.7 miles of road and adding 0.8 miles of open road. These changes would include 

many of the small adjustments noted in Alternative Two. In addition, there are several existing open roads 

that would be closed including 20024 Big Canyon, 20513 Corral Creek, 21233 East Monson, 20230 

Gooseberry, 20238 Jenkins Hollow and portions of 21096 Sheep Dip Hollow roads. 

On the Soda Springs Ranger District, the miles of open road would be increased from 334.2 miles to 336.3 

miles (2.1 miles = 0.6%). The increase in 2.1 miles of open road is a combination of closing 35.0 miles of 

road, including managing 17.3 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 37.0 miles of open road. These 

165
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

changes are very similar to the changes in Alternative Two except 1.7 fewer miles of closed road would be 

managed as motorized trails, including the 21257 Mosquito Creek Ridge Road. 

On the Montpelier Ranger District the miles of open road would be reduced from 490.4 miles to 425.6 miles 

(64.8 miles = 13.2%). The 64.8 miles of open road reductions is a combination of closing 81.0 miles of road 

including managing 18.6 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 16.3 miles of open road. Many of 

these changes would be the same as in Alternative Two. Some of the additional changes are discussed 

below. 

In the Bear Range, one of the additional roads to be closed includes the 20976 Tie Hack Road. Some of the 

additional roads to be closed and managed as non-motorized trails include 20401J South Ant Spur J, 20445

Gully, 20813 Willow Patch Spring, 21000 Bartlett Lake and 21183 King Canyon Roads. There were no 

additional roads to be closed and managed as motorized trails and there were no additional roads to be 

added as open roads. 

In the Pruess section, some of the additional roads or sections of roads that would be closed and managed as

non-motorized trails include 20097 Rattlesnake, 20664 Jones Canyon, 20239 Big Dog, 20794 Fox Ridge, 

and 21025 South Elbow Driveway. The only additional road to be closed and managed as a motorized trail 

was the 20687 Georgetown Mine Road. There were no additional roads added as open roads. 

This alternative would restrict some basic public open road access necessary to manage forest resources, 

including timber, range, minerals and recreation. Existing access for full size vehicles >50” would be 

reduced and would affect access for some recreational activities such as hunting, firewood gathering, or 

berry picking. Additional temporary increases in public road access would occur as necessary to manage

forest resources, such as firewood gathering after a timber sale, but would be closed to the public after these 

activities were completed. 

Alternative Four 

This alternative designates motorized travel routes, both road and trail, that meet or exceed open motorized 

route density requirements per RFP direction. In this alternative, the total miles of open roads would be 

899.7 miles and the total miles of closed roads would be 424.3 miles. This alternative would reduce the 

amount of open road miles from Alternative One by 110.8 miles (11.0%). 

On the Westside Ranger District, excluding the Curlew National Grasslands, the miles of open road would 

change from 186.0 miles to 157.4 (28.6 miles = 15.4%). The 28.6 miles of open road reduction would be a 

combination of closing 29.0 miles of road including managing 0.5 of these miles as motorized trail and 

adding 0.3 miles of open road. These changes include most of the adjustments in alternative 2 and 3. 

In addition, there would be several existing open roads that would be closed including, 20336 Middle Fork 

of Toponce, 20276 Microwave Delight, 20281 Trail Creek, 20282 Outlaw Spring, 20280 Trail Ridge, 20010 

Cusick Creek, 20289 City Creek, 20294 Johnny Creek, 20277 Michaud, 20287 Horse Creek, 20292 Kinney 

Creek, 20656 Birch Creek, and 20043 Farmers Canyon. Many of these roads are in the Trail Creek area west 

of Pocatello and would restrict motorized access on both roads and trails in this area. 

On the Soda Springs Ranger District, the miles of open road would be reduced from 334.2 miles to 314.4 

miles (19.8 miles = 5.9%). The 19.8 miles of reductions would include closing 55.0 miles of road including 

managing 11.8 of these miles as motorized trails and adding 35.2 miles of open roads. Many of the changes 

proposed in Alternative Two and Three, are also proposed in Alternative Four. 

An additional 20.0 miles of open road would be closed and managed as non-motorized (bike) trails and 6.0 

miles of roads that were proposed to be closed in Alternative Three and managed as motorized trail would 

be closed and managed as non motorized trail. These additional roads or portions of roads to be closed 

166
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

include 20107 Lander Trail, 20118 Willow Creek, 20156 Deer Creek, 20169 Upper Bridge Creek, 20184 

Messenger Canyon, 20188 Barnes Creek, 20258 Bear Creek, 20269 Old Man Ridge, 20284 Little Elk 

Mountain, 20365 Beaver Pond, 20265 Stewart Flat, and 21257 Mosquito Roads. 

On the Montpelier Ranger District, the miles of open road would be reduced from 490.4 miles to 427.9 

miles (62.5 miles = 12.7%). The 62.5 miles of open road reductions would be a combination of closing 81.0

miles of road including managing 17.8 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 18.5 miles of open road. 

Many of these changes would be the same as in Alternative Two. Some of the additional changes are 

discussed below. 

In the Bear River Range, some of the additional roads or sections of roads that would be closed include 

20499 Dry Basin, and 21208 Bloomington Base roads. Some of the additional roads that would be closed 

and managed as non-motorized trail include 20401J South Ant Spur J, 20499 Dry Basin, 20813 Willow 

Patch Spring, 20967 BK-3, and 21000 Bartlett Lake. There were no additional roads that would be closed 

and managed as motorized trails and there were no additional roads that would be added as an open road. In

the Bear River Range there would be a couple of sections of the Highline Trail that would become

disconnected for motorized trail users due to proposed closure of roads to all motorized traffic. 

In the Pruess portion of the Montpelier District, additional roads that would be closed and managed as nonmotorized trails include 20148 Dry Creek, 20220 Snowdrift, 20664 Jones, 20696 Camel Hollow, and 20834

Boulevard. There were no additional road closures or road closures to be managed as motorized trails. There 

were also no roads to be added as open roads. In the Pruess area, the closure of the Boulevard Road to all 

motorized traffic would reduce motorized opportunities in a large portion of the Forest.

This alternative would reduce open road access. It would restrict some access necessary to manage forest 

resources, including timber, range, and minerals. Existing recreational access for full size vehicles >50” 

would be reduced and would affect access for recreational activities such as hunting, firewood gathering, or 

berry picking. Additional temporary increases in public road access would occur as necessary to manage

forest resources, such as firewood gathering after a timber sale, but would be closed to the public after these 

activities were completed. 

Alternative Five 

This alternative was developed by the Forest, incorporating public comments and recommendations from

the travel planning forest wide roads analysis process. In this alternative, the total miles of open roads would 

be 945.0 miles and the total miles of closed roads would be 435.0 miles. This alternative would reduce the 

amount of open road miles from Alternative 1 by 65.5 miles (6.5%). 

On the Westside Ranger District, 4.1 miles of reductions would be a combination of closing 6.5 miles of 

roads including managing 0.6 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 2.3 miles of open road. In 

addition to the adjustments noted in Alternative Two, the 4.1 miles of open road reduction would include 

closing additional short spur roads in the Toponce and Pebble Creek drainages as well as closing 20522 Bull 

Canyon, 20230 Gooseberry, and 20232 Grease Hollow Roads. 

On the Soda Springs Ranger District, the miles of open road would be reduced from 334.2 miles to 331.3 

miles (2.9 miles = 0.9%). The 2.9 miles of open road reductions would be a combination of closing 37.4 

miles of open road including managing 19.9 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 34.6 miles of open 

road. These changes are similar in scope to the open road reductions in Alternative Two. 

Some roads that were shown as closed but managed as motorized trail in Alternative Two, but are proposed 

only as closed include 20618 BZ2 and 20625 Stewart Flat. Additional road closures that would be managed 

as motorized trails include portions of 20128 Fossil Canyon, 20123 Horse Creek, 20201 Aspen Ridge and 

167
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

20218 Clark Valley Boundary Roads. There would also be some additional roads that were managed as 

open including 20659 Exclosure, 20123A and 20121 Rasmussen Valley Roads.

On the Montpelier Ranger District the miles of open road would be reduced from 490.4 miles to 454.4 miles 

(35.9 miles = 7.3%). The 35.9 miles of open road reductions would be a combination of closing 59.3 miles 

of road including managing 18.9 of these miles as motorized trail and adding 21.4 miles of open road. Many 

of these changes would be the same as in Alternative Two. Some of the additional changes are discussed 

below. 

On the Bear River Range, additional road closures would include 20421E & F Old Paris Alignments, 20976

Tie Hack, and 21114 Cub Basin. Additional road closures that would be managed as non-motorized trails 

include 21113 White Canyon. Additional roads that would be closed and managed as motorized trails would

include 20423 Horseshoe Basin, 20814 Copenhagen Basin-Liberty, 20929 Upper Mill Creek 21183 King 

Canyon, and 20475 North Wilson Roads. Additional roads that would be added as open roads include 

21109Foster Creek, 20969 BH-3, 21082 Crib Springs, 20940 Danish Flat, and 20950 Rocky Knoll. 

In the Pruess area, there were several additional road closures in the Bear Hollow area. There were no 

additional road closures that would be managed as non-motorized trails. There was only one additional road 

that would be closed and managed as motorized trails including 20696 Camel Hollow. There were several 

additional short roads that were added as open roads including 20113C Halfway Spur C, 21013B & E 

Willow Springs Spurs B & E in the Bear Hollow area, and 20586 Sage Valley. 

This alternative would provide the basic public open road access necessary to manage forest resources, 

including timber, range, minerals and recreation, but would reduce road access. Road access in this 

alternative was informed by the forest-wide roads analysis as part of the travel planning effort. This 

alternative should provide needed road access for forest management activities. Additional temporary

increases in public road access would occur as necessary to manage forest resources, such as firewood 

gathering after a timber sale, but would be closed to the public after these activities were completed. 

Conclusions 

All alternatives maintain the majority of basic road access to major sites and facilities. One, Two and Five 

maintain road access to most forest areas. Three limits some road access to specific forest areas, and Four 

closes some roads that many forest visitors rely on to access larger sections of forest area. Alternative Two 

and Five reduce the road system while maintaining most recreational road access. 

Cumulative Effects 

All action alternatives reduce designated roads, which reduce motorized access to some areas of the Forest. 

All alternatives provide primary road access to most areas of the forest. There are no cumulative, 

irretrievable or irreversible effects to transportation from any alternative. 

Noxious Weeds __________________________________

Introduction 

Use of travel routes has the potential to spread noxious weeds during the snow free season. The indicators 

to measure this concern will be acres open to cross country motorized travel and miles of route designated 

for motorized and non-motorized travel during the snow- free season. 

168
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Analysis Area 

The analysis area is the portions of the Caribou and Cache NFs administered by the Westside, Soda Springs 

and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 

Analysis Methods 

The risk of noxious weed spread can be compared between alternatives by comparing miles of motorized 

designed routes and area managed as open to cross-country motorized travel. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Designated motorized travel routes, especially high-use roads, are monitored and treated for noxious weed 

infestations. All alternatives will maintain these activities. Continuing use of designated travel routes, 

motorized and non-motorized, has the potential to spread noxious weeds and other invasive species. 

Routes that are to be decommissioned, which varies by alternative, are expected to return naturally to 

vegetative production, unless there is a localized need to vegetate some areas to prevent erosion, noxious 

weed invasion, etc. Routes proposed for decommissioning will be surveyed to determine whether any 

noxious weed infestations exist. 

Alternative One 

Alternative One has 1,860 miles of designated routes and manages 29,400 acres as open to cross-country

motorized travel. Managing the Huckleberry area open to cross country motorized travel increases the risk 

of the spread of noxious weeds into adjacent areas as well as increases the risk of noxious weeds being 

continually spread within the areas already infested. Under this alternative, the spread of noxious weeds to 

areas physically accessible to rubber tired vehicles of all kinds would be accelerated. The use of OHV’s in 

areas never before accessed by tired vehicles can import weed seed which may eventually establish noxious

weed populations in other areas of the Forest. This alternative has the highest number of designated 

motorized routes and maintains cross-country travel in some Forest areas. This alternative has the highest 

risk to increase the spread of noxious weeds Forest wide. 

Alternative Two 

Alternative Two has 1,800 miles of designated routes and manages 29,400 acres as open to cross-country

motorized travel. Managing the Huckleberry area as open to cross country motorized travel has the same 

effects as described in Alternative One. This alternative does not have as many miles of designated 

motorized routes as Alternative One. A reduction in the miles of open motorized routes has the potential 

to: 1) reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced or transported into un-infested areas or 2) reduce 

the risk of noxious weeds being continually spread within the area already infested. 

Alternative Three 

Alternative Three has 1,530 miles of designated routes and manages 29,400 acres as open to cross-country

motorized travel. Managing the Huckleberry area as open to cross country motorized travel has the same 

effects as described in Alternative One and Two. This alternative does not have as many miles of designated 

motorized routes as Alternative One and Two. A reduction in the miles of open motorized routes has the 

potential to: 1) reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced or transported into un-infested areas or 2) 

reduce the risk of noxious weeds being continually spread within the area already infested. 

169
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Alternative Four 

Alternative Four has 1,430 miles of designated routes and manages motorized travel on designated routes 

forest-wide during the snow-free season. Compared to the existing condition, Alternative Four reduces the 

miles of open motorized routes by 430 miles (approximately 23%). Under this alternative, the spread of 

noxious weeds to areas physically accessible to rubber tired vehicles of all kinds from areas open to crosscountry motorized travel would be lessened, because no cross-country motorized travel would be allowed. 

This alternative has the lowest risk of travel and travel routes spreading noxious weeds. 

Alternative Five 

Alternative Five has 1,740 miles of designated routes and manages motorized travel on designated routes 

forest-wide during the snow-free season. Compared to existing condition, Alternative Five reduces the miles 

of open motorized routes by 120 miles (approximately 6%). A reduction in the miles of open motorized 

routes has the potential to: 1) reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced into un-infested areas or 2) 

reducing the risk of noxious weeds being continually spread within an area already infested. Under this 

alternative, the spread of noxious weeds to areas physically accessible to rubber tired vehicles of all kinds 

from areas open to cross-country motorized travel would be lessened, because no cross-country motorized 

travel would be allowed. 

Conclusions 

Under Alternatives One, Two and Three, user-created routes would continue to be made in areas open to 

cross-country motorized travel (29,400 acres of Rx. 5.2c) on the Soda Springs Ranger District. Localized 

areas experiencing some degree of noxious weed spread and/or detrimental impacts to upland non-forested 

vegetation would be further impacted. 

Alternative One has the highest potential to impact other resources from noxious weeds, because it has the 

greatest amount of miles open to motorized travel; plus has 29,400 acres open to cross country motorized 

travel. It is likely that this alternative would continue to have the risks to other resources and/or uses such as 

soil and water values and overall watershed health and function; because it has the highest potential for 

noxious weed expansion from motorized travel routes. Overall; Alternative Four would have the least risk 

of spreading noxious weeds, followed next by Alternative Three, then Alternative Five, then Alternative 

Two. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is Southeast Idaho because noxious weeds are a regional issue and 

weed infestations occur on adjacent lands. Increases in noxious weed invasion and spread can occur as a 

result of increase roads, ground disturbance, or fire. It is anticipated that new weeds will continue to invade 

public lands and other lands from various sources. Existing infestations will continue to be treated 

aggressively until they are controlled, contained, and eradicated. None of the alternatives would appreciably 

accelerate the spread of noxious weeds over the existing trend. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Areas of the forest that contain infestations of noxious weeds would be irretrievably lost to other uses until 

noxious weed abatement is successful. In some cases, these infestations, if left uncontrolled, could reduce 

biodiversity. No irretrievable effects have been identified for noxious weeds. 

170
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Forested Vegetation and Access____________________

Introduction 

The effects indicators for forested vegetation are the change in: 1) opportunity for management of forested 

vegetation on suited lands and 2) public opportunity to collect firewood and other forest products. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

In most areas of the Caribou NF, the suitable timber base has existing arterial and collector road access to 

the general forest area. Reconstruction of these roads or construction of temporary roads is often then 

needed to provide adequate access to the immediate area needing silvicultural or other treatment. 

Management actions can often be readily and cost effectively implemented from a well-designed 

transportation system. As management opportunities arise, additional temporary roads may be needed to 

facilitate vegetation management activities. Road access adds value to any timber that might be harvested in 

the future, i.e. accessible timber has more value than timber without access. 

To assess the condition and health of forested vegetation, ongoing monitoring must be conducted across the 

Forest. Existing motorized travel routes contribute to access for monitoring and management of forest 

stands. Without road access, many of these activities would be much more expensive or impossible to 

accomplish. 

Public travel route restrictions vary among action alternatives. In all cases, opportunities to access portions 

of the Forest, including the suitable timber base, would continue. The effect of each alternative is dependent 

on the amount of road access that is eliminated through road decommissioning. Some travel routes are 

closed and managed as non-motorized, but they have been retained as system roads for administrative and 

project work. 

Alternative One 

All acres determined suitable for timber harvest are accessible through the existing transportation system, 

although the need for temporary road construction or existing system road reconstruction continues for most 

future commercial timber sale projects and forest product gathering. Approximately 56 miles of existing 

system roads, within suitable lands, prohibit motorized public access yearlong, using a combination of gates 

and signs. These roads remain available for long-term management of suitable lands. 

No miles of existing system roads will be obliterated with road prisms returned to contour. 

Forestwide, the remaining 1,010 miles of existing system roads permit motorized access to accommodate 

commercial timber operations and allow for forest product gathering within 300 feet of the road, provided 

resource damage can be avoided. 

Alternative Two 

All acres determined suitable for timber harvest are accessible through this transportation system, although 

the need for temporary road construction or existing system road reconstruction continues for most future 

commercial timber sale projects and forest product gathering. Approximately 147 miles of existing system

roads, within suitable lands, prohibit motorized access yearlong, using a combination of gates, signs, rocks 

and berms. These roads would not be drivable; however, they would remain available for long-term

management of suitable timberlands. Prisms would remain in place on these roads; however, re-establishing

a drivable prism may require some work with road maintenance equipment. Vehicle access to gather forest 

products, and to monitor and evaluate timber stands would be reduced. This would increase costs of 

monitoring and evaluating forested vegetation on suitable lands. 

171
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Forestwide, the remaining 970 miles of existing system roads permit motorized access to accommodate 

commercial timber operations and allow for forest product gathering within 300 feet of the road, provided 

resource damage can be avoided. 

Alternative Three 

All acres determined suitable for timber harvest are accessible through this transportation system, although 

the need for temporary road construction or existing system road reconstruction continues for most future 

commercial timber sale projects and forest product gathering. Approximately 70 miles of existing system

roads, within suitable lands, prohibit motorized access yearlong, using a combination of gates, signs, rocks 

and berms. These roads would not be drivable; however, they would remain available for long-term

management of suitable timberlands. Prisms would remain in place on these roads; however, re-establishing

a drivable prism may require some work with road maintenance equipment. Vehicle access to gather forest 

products and to monitor and evaluate timber stands would be reduced more with this alternative than any

other. This would increase costs monitoring and evaluating forested vegetation on suitable lands. 

Unless otherwise posted, the remaining 940 miles of existing system roads permit motorized access to 

accommodate commercial timber operations and allow for forest product gathering within 300 feet of the 

road, provided resource damage can be avoided. 

Alternative Four 

All acres determined suitable for timber harvest are accessible through this transportation system, although 

the need for temporary road construction or existing system road reconstruction continues for most future 

commercial timber sale projects and forest product gathering. Approximately 110 miles of existing system

roads, within suitable lands, prohibit motorized access yearlong, using a combination of gates, signs, rocks 

and beams. These roads would not be drivable; however, they would remain available for long-term

management of suitable timberlands. Prisms would remain in place on these roads; however, re-establishing

a drivable prism may require some work with road maintenance equipment. Vehicle access to gather forest 

products and to monitor and evaluate timber stands would be reduced. This would increase costs monitoring 

and evaluating forested vegetation on suitable lands. 

Forestwide, the remaining 900 miles of existing system roads permit motorized access to accommodate 

commercial timber operations and allow for forest product gathering within 300 feet of the road, provided 

resource damage can be avoided. 

Alternative Five 

All acres determined suitable for timber harvest are accessible through this transportation system, although 

the need for temporary road construction or existing system road reconstruction continues for most future 

commercial timber sale projects and forest product gathering. Approximately 60 miles of existing system

roads, within suitable lands, prohibit motorized access yearlong, using a combination of gates, signs, rocks 

and berms. These roads would not be drivable; however, they would remain available for long-term

management of suitable timberlands. Prisms would remain in place on these roads; however, re-establishing

a drivable prism may require some work with road maintenance equipment. Vehicle access to gather forest 

products and to monitor and evaluate timber stands would be reduced. This would increase costs monitoring 

and evaluating forested vegetation on suitable lands. 

Unless otherwise posted, the remaining 950 miles of existing system roads permit motorized access to 

accommodate commercial timber operations and allow for forest product gathering within 300 feet of the 

road, provided resource damage can be avoided. 

172
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Conclusion 

All alternatives will provide some access to administer and monitor the forest vegetation program and 

resource. Alternatives One provides the most roads left “open” for these purposes. Alternative Two and Five 

also provide open public roads to most forest areas. Alternatives Three and Four provide the least amount of 

open public roads to forest areas, closed roads under these alternatives, might have to be administratively

opened for future forested vegetation management. There are no cumulative, irretrievable or irreversible 

effects to forested vegetation or forested vegetation management from any alternatives for the travel plan. 

Non-Forested Vegetation __________________________

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Non-motorized travel can occur on most travel routes and is not expected to affect the condition of non-forested 

vegetation. 

Effects Common to Alternatives One, Two and Three 

These alternatives allow cross-country motorized travel on 29,400 acres, which has the potential of 

contributing to less than satisfactory condition for upland vegetation. Generally, areas of non-forested 

vegetation have flat terrain and lack of large trees which readily allow cross-country motorized travel. 

Motorized cross-country travel over the same path crushes and bruises vegetation; which affects plant vigor. 

The effects of travel on vegetation depends on the type of vegetation, the season of use (winter vs. summer; 

dry vs. wet, etc.), the number of vehicle passes, and the disturbance and pressure applied to the vegetation 

by vehicles. Under dry soil conditions, a single vehicle pass may do little harm to vegetation. Repeated 

passes over the same path can be detrimental to vegetation. Under certain conditions on some soil types, one 

pass by a vehicle could result in a very noticeable and continuous track void of most vegetation. The level of 

impact is directly related to the frequency and density of off-route use. Loss of vegetation is often the first 

consequence of user-developed trails. 

Conclusion 

Alternatives One, Two and Three do not reduce risks to non-forested vegetation communities by managing 

motorized travel on designated routes during the snow-free season. Alternatives Four and Five reduce the 

risks to non-forested vegetation by managing motorized travel on designated routes. 

Livestock Access ________________________________

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Livestock grazing activities, either to the livestock themselves, or to the permittee; are not expected to be 

affected by implementing any of the alternatives. As previously mentioned, livestock grazing permittees 

may be allowed motorized access to maintain or develop range improvements assigned in their grazing 

permits or for other authorized administrative activities. Livestock grazing will continue on the Forest. 

Grazing permittees often use ATV’s and full size 4x4 vehicles to access range improvements. However, 

some routes used for this activity do not contribute to the motorized or non-motorized recreation 

opportunity. There is no cumulative or additive effect of permitted grazing activities with the alternatives 

being considered. 

173
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Fire Management and Access ______________________

Direct and Indirect Effects for All Alternatives 

All existing travel routes, designated and non-designated, are available for fire suppression and for approved 

fire management projects. Travel routes closed with berms may not be readily available for fire management

or suppression access, these vary by alternative but the differences between alternatives is not significant. 

Designated and non-designated travel routes, under all alternatives would allow access for fire suppression 

activities and approved fire management projects. Less designated routes could mean less human-caused 

fires; however, humans are not the primary cause of fire on the Caribou-Targhee NF. None of the 

alternatives are expected to result in measurable cumulative, irreversible and/or irretrievable effects. 

174
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity _________

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, 

this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a 

manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which 

man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of 

present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). All action alternatives enhance forest 

resources from the existing condition. The long-term productivity of the environment will not be affected 

by any of the alternatives. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects_______________________

Unavoidable adverse effects have not been identified for any of the alternatives. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species 

or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as 

the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rightsof-way or road. 

There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources identified. 

Cumulative Effects _______________________________

Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative 

effects must be evaluated along with direct and indirect effects of each alternative. Generally, cumulative 

effects are considered on a larger scale than the direct and indirect effects. They describe a larger picture 

across a longer time frame. See the cumulative effects section by resource area in Chapter Four. 

Cumulative Effects Analysis 

When analyzing cumulative effects, different temporal and geographic scales are used than for direct and 

indirect effects. These scales of analysis extend only to where effects can actually be measured (EPA 1997). 

Determining the cumulative environmental consequences of an action requires delineating the cause-andeffect relationships between the multiple actions and the resources, ecosystems and human communities of 

concern. These would include not only the present project, but all past and foreseeable future activities. 

General natural activities and processes that have been on going in the Forest and will continue to exert an 

impact in the project area: 

 (Past actions) 

1. Elk have increased in the analysis area. 

175
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

2. Severe rain events have caused flash flooding and down scouring of stream channels and riparian

areas. 

3. Blowdown has occurred in forested stands. 

4. Natural fires have occurred over time within the analysis area. 

5. Vegetation succession and wildfire suppression have shaped plant communities.

6. Insect and disease activity has persisted in forested stands throughout recorded time. 

7. Drought cycles, most notably in the 1930s and early 1990s have occurred. 

8. Timber has been harvested on about 22,000 acres in the past 

9. Drought cycles have influenced vegetation communities. 

10. Wildfires have occurred. 

11. Major arterial roads have been constructed over much of the Forest. 

12. Hunting and fishing has occurred in the area. 

13. Recreation use has increased; use patterns and motorized technology has changed. 

14. Prescribed fire and chemical treatment have affected vegetation. 

15. Subdivisions have been developed adjacent to the Forest, some in big game winter range. 

16. Noxious weed invasion, carried by wind, humans, machinery, and animals has occurred. 

17. Most of the area has been grazed by domestic livestock. 

18. Wildfires have been suppressed over the past ninety years. 

19. Management actions have removed, eroded, and compacted soils, and in localized areas have 

reduced soil productivity, both short- and long-term.

20. Paleontological investigations and research have occurred. 

Present Activities: 

1. Insect and disease activity persists in forested stands. Outbreaks are increasing throughout the 

west. 

2. Severe rain events continue to cause flash flooding and down scouring of stream channels and

riparian areas. 

3. Drought cycles continue to influence vegetation communities. 

4. Wildfire occurs. 

5. Noxious weed invasions continue. Cooperative Weed Management Groups have been established. 

176
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

6. Coordination with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe is continuing to insure land management 

decisions and activities do not affect treaty rights. 

7. Timber harvest is continuing on the Forest but at a reduced level when compared with the last 15 

years. 

8. Road construction in association with timber harvest continues on the Forest, but like harvest, it is 

occurring at reduced levels. 

9. Livestock grazing continues to occur. A total of 258,913 head months currently are permitted for 

sheep and cattle combined. 

10. Mining is occurring on portions of the Forest. Phosphate mining accounts for the majority of the 

mining activity. 

11. Recreation, including ATVs, snowmobiles, hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing, is available 

and will continue to increase as the population grows (Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation). 

12. Hunting and fishing continues to occur in the area. 

13. Access is being restricted to the National Forest by some private landowners. 

14. The Snake River adjudication is ongoing and could restrict future diversions or affect in-stream 

flow needs. 

15. All wildfires are being suppressed because of the risk to resource values, private property, and 

human safety. 

16. Several important archeological sites have been discovered, and archeologists and other interested 

individuals, locally, regionally and nationally, are participating in the Passport-In-Time program

to document and protect these sites. 

17. Water developments and water diversions are in place.

18. Declining populations of some species of fish and wildlife in the West continue to receive 

increased Federal and state agency conservation efforts. 

19. Subdivision development continues adjacent to the Forest, particularly in the Portneuf and Bear 

River Range areas. 

20. Prescribed fire is being used as a vegetation management tool on the Forest. 

21. Small land exchanges are occurring to consolidate land bases and facilitate management. 

22. A shift in management emphasis and implementation of Best Management Practices has reduced 

soil impacts from timber harvest, mining, road construction and livestock grazing. Impacts to

soils have increased from recreational activities and noxious weed spread. Short- and long-term

soil productivity loss continues to occur in localized areas. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

1. Rural communities will continue to grow as the population along the Wasatch front expands north. 

Many adjacent counties are beginning to deal with increased growth in county development plans 

and other planning and zoning efforts. 

177
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

2. Use of prescribed fire and wildland fire is expected to increase. 

3. More water developments will be installed for livestock management. 

4. Recreation use will continue to increase into the future and use patterns will change with changes 

in the population and technology. 

5. An increase in the use of developed recreation sites and campgrounds is likely as the population 

increases. 

6. OHV use is likely to continue to increase due to changes in the population and technological 

advances. 

7. Access to the National Forest is likely to be increasingly restricted by private landowners. 

8. Subdivision development will continue adjacent to the Forest, particularly along the Bear River 

Range and outside of the Pocatello area (Caribou Adjacency Analysis). 

Table 5.1. Foreseeable Projects listed in Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions January – March 2005. 

Disturbance Activity Timber Mining 

Prescribed

Fire 

Roads/ 

Trails Grazing 

Past 22,000 ac. 6,100 ac. To be 

determined

1,862 miles 258,913 head

months sheep 

and cattle 

Foreseeable Future 

Aspen Range 

Smokey Canyon F&G

McCoy Gravel Source 

Three Basin 

Cherry Creek

881 ac. 

110 ac 

590 ac. 

To be 

determined

1,350 ac. 

118 ac. 

 

Curlew & Buist AMP 

South Fork Mink

Creek 

Spring Hills 

 

600 ac. 

600 ac. 

To be determined 

Other Required Disclosures ________________________

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review laws 

and executive orders.” 

Findings and Disclosures 

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in Appendix A require project-specific findings or other 

disclosures. These are included here. They apply to all alternatives considered in detail in this DEIS. 

National Forest Management Act 

All action alternatives comply with the 2003 Revised Caribou Forest Plan. This project incorporates 

applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and management area prescriptions. 

178
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

A minor plan amendment of prescribed motorized route density ceilings may be required. 

Endangered Species Act

An updated BA (biological assessment) is being prepared. Upon conclusion of streamlining consultation 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an updated BA shall be incorporated in the analysis and located in the 

project record. 

Clean Water Act 

It is Forest Service policy to be responsive to the CWA and State water quality goals and standards by

implementing management actions in a manner that protects soil and water resources (USDA FS, 1988). 

The Forest implements best management practices (BMPs) and soil and water conservation practices 

(SWCPs) in order to minimize nonpoint source pollution and protect water quality. BMPs for the project 

include the applicable Wyoming BMPs (WY DEQ, 1997) Revised Forest Plan standard and guidelines 

(USDA FS, 1997) and SWCPs (USDA FS, 1988). 

 

Executive Order on Floodplains (No. 11988/ Wetlands (No. 11990) 

This information is found under Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources of this EIS. 

 

Executive Order on Invasive Species (No. 13112, signed Feb. 3, 1999) 

Implementation of any alternative with mitigation is not anticipated to cause or promote the introduction or 

spread of invasive species. This information is found under Noxious Weeds of this EIS. 

 

Executive Order on Migratory Birds (No. 13186 signed January 11, 2001) 

Management objectives from The Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (Version 1.0, January 2000, prepared by

Idaho Partners in Flight) would be met on all alternatives. This is the comprehensive planning effort that 

will be used in the interim until the Memorandum of Understanding with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

is developed to promote the conservation of migratory bird population. 

 

Executive Order on Environmental Justice (No. 12898) 

Federal actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority population and low-income populations, and 

Departmental Regulations 5600-2 direct Federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations 

into Federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are 

rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health 

or the environment. Public involvement activities in Chapter 2 documents the efforts made to provide the 

opportunity to comment. Implementation of any project alternative is not anticipated to cause 

disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. 

179
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Preparers and Contributors ________________________

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and nonForest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: 

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Shawna Anderson, Project Records 

Lynn Ballard, Public Affairs Specialist 

Joanna Bennett, Public Affairs Specialist

Mike Birch, Law Enforcement 

James Capurso, Fisheries Biologist 

Catherine Foos, Soils Scientist 

Walt Grows, Range Specialist 

Doug Heyrend, Recreation Forester 

Ann Keysor, Wildlife Biologist 

James Lapravote, Hydrologist 

Rose Lehman, Botanist 

Anita Lusty, Mining Engineer 

Eric Mattson, District Timber Specialist

Martha Mousel, GIS Specialist 

Bruce Padian, Forester 

David Sleight, Recreation Forester 

David Strahl, Transportation Engineer 

Randall Tate, Forest Engineer 

Randy Thompson, Archeologist 

Debrah Tiller, Landscape Architect and Team Leader 

Maury Young, District Recreation Specialist 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Jim Mende, Fisheries Biologist 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Region Five 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES: 

Hunter Osborn, Fisheries Biologist, Wetlands Manager 

Leander Watson, Big Game Biologist, Project Manager 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ___

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy 

of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized 

tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views regarding the 

Caribou NF Travel Plan. 

Director, Planning and Review 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 809

Washington, DC 20004 

180
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Deputy Director 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

4700 River Rd. Unit 149 

Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

National Environmental Coordinator 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 2890, Room 6158-S 

Washington, D.C. 20013-2890 

USDA, National Agriculture Library

Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch 

10301 Baltimore Blvd., Rm. 002 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat Conservationists Division 

Northwest Region 

525 NE Oregon 

Suite 500 

Portland, OR 97232 

U.S. Army Engr. Northwestern Division 

220 N. W. 8th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97209-3589 

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10 

EIS Review Coordinator 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Main Interior Bldg., MS-2340 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

851 S. W. 6th Avenue 

Suite 1100 

Portland, OR 97204-1348 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Environmental Impact Branch 

Marine Environmental and Protection and Division 

G-MEP 

2100 2nd Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20593 

181
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Northwest Mountain Region 

Regional Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, WA 98055-4056 

U.S. Department of Energy

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

1000 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Mail Code EH-42, Room 3E094 

Washington, DC 20585 

Glossary of Terms _______________________________

Access Management. Management of the ingress and egress of people on National Forest System lands. 

Generally used to describe motorized use allowed. 

Adaptive Management. A type of natural resource management that implies making decisions as part of 

an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions will provide flow of information that may indicate the 

need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to 

adapt resource management to new information. 

Administrative Use. Authorized vehicle use of otherwise closed roads and/or areas to carry out forest 

management activities. Including but not limited to access for prescribed burning, fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement, timber sales, personal use firewood. Also includes use by permittees to conduct authorized 

activities. 

Affected Environment. The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being 

analyzed. 

Air Shed. A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air. 

Allotment (Range Allotment). The area designated for use by a prescribed number of livestock for a 

prescribed period of time. Though an entire Ranger District may be divided into allotments, all land will not 

be grazed, because other uses, such as recreation or tree plantings, may be more important at a given time.

Alternative. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision-making. 

Analysis Area. See "Regional Analysis Area."

Animal Unit Month (AUM). The amount of forage required by one calf and her cow or 1 horse or 5

sheep for one month. 

Aquatic Ecosystem. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities and the habitat 

features that occur therein. 

Aquatic Habitat Types. The classification of instream habitat based on location within channel, patterns 

of water flow, and nature of flow controlling structures. Riffles are divided into three habitat types: low 

gradient riffles, rapids, and cascades. Pools are divided into seven types: secondary channel pools, backward 

pools, trench pools, plunge pools, lateral scour pools, dammed pools, and beaver ponds. Glides possess 

attributes of both riffles and pools and are characterized by moderately shallow water with an even flow that 

lacks pronounced turbulence.

182
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Aquatic Influence Zone. Used in the context of a land management prescription, the area encompassing

aquatic and riparian ecosystems and adjacent lands which directly affect the hydrologic, geomorphic, and 

ecological processes, controlling aquatic and riparian ecosystem health and function. 

Assessment. The Renewable Resource Assessment required by the Resources Planning act (RPA). 

Big Game. Those species of large mammals normally managed for sport hunting.

Bio-accumulation. The process whereby living plants or animals incorporate a substance into their 

tissues, thus introducing the substance into the food chain. Often refers to hazardous substances. 

Biological Control. The use of natural means to control unwanted pests. Examples include introduced or 

naturally occurring predators such as wasps, or hormones that inhibit the reproduction of pests. Biological 

controls can sometimes be alternatives to mechanical or chemical means. 

Biological Diversity. The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems and ecological processes that connect everything in a 

common environment. 

Biological Growth-Potential. The average net growth attainable in a fully stocked natural forest stand. 

Biological Potential. The maximum possible resource output limited only by inherent physical and 

biological characteristics. 

Biota. The plant and animal life of a particular region.

BMP (Best Management Practices). Practices designed to prevent or reduce water pollution. Also 

referred to as Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs). 

Borrow Source. An area from which sand, gravel, or stone is taken for use in another area.

Buffer. A land area that is designated to block or absorb unwanted impacts to the area beyond the buffer. 

Buffer strips along a trail could block views that may be undesirable. Buffers may be set aside next to 

wildlife habitat to reduce abrupt change to habitat. 

Capability. The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management intensity. 

Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils and 

geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, 

insects and disease. 

Capture (input). One of the ways functions are described; resources (organisms, materials, and energy) 

brought into the system (i.e., photosynthesis, migration, onto summer range, pollution brought in by wind or

water). 

Channel Depth. The average depth of channel from mean high water mark to mean high water mark used 

to define stream type, instream flow calculations and riparian management. 

Channel Gradient. The slope of the stream channel expressed on a percent of rise per unit length. A 

measure of the drop in water surface elevation per unit length of channel. The difference in water surface or 

streambed elevation of two study sites on a stream divided by the distance between the study sites. 

Channel Roughness. A measurement used to determine energy losses and velocities of natural stream

channels by using water energy slope (channel slope), velocity and hydraulic radius. 

Channel Stability Rating. A rating of stream channels resistance capacity to the detachment of bed and 

bank materials. 

Chemical Control. The use of pesticides and herbicides to control pests and undesirable plant species. 

183
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Clean Air Act. (42 U.S.C. 7609) Section 309 provides authority for the Environmental Protection Agency 

to review other agency environmental impact statements. 

Collector Roads. These roads serve small land areas and are usually connected to a Forest System Road, a 

county road, or a state highway. 

Concern. (Also management concern.) An issue, problem or condition which constrains the range of 

management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process. 

Connectivity (of habitats). The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors 

or "stepping stones" of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which similar habitats are 

linked. 

Consistency. All resource plans and permits, contracts and other instruments for the use and occupancy of 

National Forest System land must be consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Corridor. Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation may create a 

corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed. 

Cost-efficiency. The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits). In 

measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, economic, or social impacts, are not 

assigned monetary values but are achieved at specified levels in the least cost manner. Cost efficiency is 

usually measured using present net value, although use of benefit-cost ratios and rates-of return may be 

appropriate. 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Council issues regulations binding on all federal 

agencies, to implement the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Quality Act. The 

regulations address the administration of the NEPA process, including preparation of Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS) for major federal actions which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

Cover. Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or 

undercut streambanks. Animals use cover to escape from predators, rest or feed. 

Critical Habitat. Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. 

Cross-country Travel. Travel over terrain not on designated roads and/or trails. 

Cultural Resource. The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past -- historical or 

archaeological.

Cultural Sensitivity. Refers to the likelihood of encountering significant cultural volumes (quantity

and/or quality) that may affect and may be affected by ground-disturbing activities. 

Cumulative Actions. Actions which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively

significant impacts. 

Cumulative Effects or Impacts. The impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of

what agency or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative effects or impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Decommissioning. Various levels of treatment leading to stabilization and restoration of transportation 

facilities that are no longer needed. 

DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement). The draft version of the Environmental Impact 

Statement that is released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. 

184
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Desired Future Condition (DFC). Land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. The DFC provides the framework to select appropriate standards and 

guidelines. 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance. The condition where established threshold values for soil properties are 

exceeded and result in significant change. 

Developed Recreation. Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of the 

area. For example, skiing requires ski lifts, parking lots, buildings and roads. Campgrounds require roads, 

picnic tables and toilet facilities. 

Dispersed Recreation. Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such as hunting, 

backpacking and scenic driving. 

Disturbance. Any event, such as a forest fire or insect infestation that alters the structure, composition, or 

function of an ecosystem

Diversity. The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within 

the area covered by a land and resource management plan. See also "Edge," "Horizontal Diversity," and 

"Vertical Diversity." 

Ecological Type (Habitat Type). A category of land having a unique combination of potential natural 

community; soil, landscape, features, climate and differing from other ecological types in its ability to 

produce vegetation and respond to management. Used to define land capability.

Ecology. The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or the study of 

these interrelationships. 

Ecosystem. An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move among them. Living 

things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and minerals. Weather and 

wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems. 

Ecosystem Management. The use of an ecological approach to achieve productive resource management 

by blending social, physical, economic and biological needs and values to provide healthy ecosystems. 

Effects. Environmental consequences as a result of a proposed action. Included are direct effects, which are 

caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused by the 

action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems. 

Effects and impacts as used in this statement are synonymous. Effects include ecological (such as the 

effects on natural resources and on the components, structures and functioning of affected ecosystems), 

aesthetic quality, historic, cultural, economic, social or health whether direct, indirect or cumulative. Effects 

may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and detrimental effects; even if 

on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8). 

Endangered Species. Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior and 

endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 

Endangered Species Act. The Act which requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if 

practices on National Forest System lands may impact a threatened or endangered species (plant or animal).

Environmental Analysis. An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long and short-term

environmental effects. Environmental Analyses include physical, biological, social and economic factors. 

185
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Environmental Assessment. A brief version of an Environmental Impact Statement. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A statement of the environmental effects of a proposed 

action and alternatives to it. It is required for major Federal actions under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. 

It is a formal document that must follow the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) guidelines, and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal. 

Ephemeral Streams. Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. They have no 

permanent flow. 

Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by wind or water. 

Escape Cover. Vegetation of sufficient size and density to hide an animal, or an area used by animals to 

escape from predators. 

Evaluation Criteria. Standards developed for appraising alternatives. (See decision 

Facilities. Transportation planning, road management and operation, fleet equipment, and engineering 

services (for example, administrative buildings, water and sanitation systems, sanitary landfills, dams, 

bridges and communication systems. 

Fauna. The animal life of an area. 

Fire Management. All activities required for the protection of resources from fire and the use of fire to 

meet land management goals and objectives. 

Fisheries Classification. Water bodies and streams classed as either having a cold water or warm water 

fishery. Designation is dependent upon the dominate species of fish occupying the water.

Fisheries Habitat. Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish, or have the potential to support fish. 

Flood Plain. A lowland adjoining a watercourse. At a minimum, the area is subject to a 1% or greater 

chance of flooding in a given year. 

Flora. The plant life of an area.

Forage. All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife or livestock. 

Forb. A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it. 

Forest Roads and Trails. A legal term for Forest roads or trails that are under the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service. 

Forest Supervisor. The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on an administrative 

unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester. 

Forage Utilization. The proportion of current year's forage production that is consumed or destroyed by

grazing animals. Forage is all browse and herbage that is available and acceptable to grazing animals. 

Fragmentation. The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat, typically forest cover, but 

including other types of habitat. Habitat can be fragmented naturally or from forest management activities, 

such as clearcut logging. 

Fuels. Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of burning. 

Fuel Management. The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire management

or control. Fore instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor 

before the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildfire in the area would be explosive and impossible to 

control. 

186
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Fuel Treatment. Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or lessen 

potential damage and resistance to control (e.g. lopping, chipping, crushing, piling, and burning). 

Fuelwood. Wood cut into short lengths for burning.

Function. All the processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such as succession, 

the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle. 

Game Species. Any species of wildlife or fish that is harvested according to prescribed limits and seasons. 

GIS (geographic information systems). GIS is both a database designed to handle geographic data as well 

as a set of computer operations that can be used to analyze the data. In a sense, GIS can be thought of as a 

higher order map. 

Goal. A concise statement that articulates a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is 

normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be 

completed. Goal statement form the principal basis from which objectives are developed. 

Grazing Period. The period of time livestock use a specific pasture or unit within a grazing allotment. 

Guidelines. An indication or outline (as by a government) of policy or conduct. 

Habitat. The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions. 

Habitat Capability. The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species of wildlife. 

Habitat Diversity. A number of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area. 

Habitat Diversity Index. A measure of improvement in habitat diversity.

Habitat Type. A way to classify land area. A habitat can support certain climax vegetation, both trees and 

undergrowth species. Habitat typing can indicate the biological potential of a site. 

Hard Snag. See Snag.

Heritage Resources. The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past: historical or 

archaeological. 

Hiding Cover. The vegetation that will hide ninety percent of an elk from the view of a human at a 

distance of 200 feet or less. The distance which the animal is essentially hidden is called a sight distance. 

Hydrologically Disturbed. Changes in natural canopy cover (vegetation removal) or a change in surface 

soil characteristics (such as compaction) that may alter natural streamflow quantities and character. Acres of 

vegetation within a watershed that are in a non-stocked, seedling, sapling, or first entry category; acres in 

roads; acres from other types of mechanical treatments and burned acres are included in the calculation of 

hydrologically disturbed area. 

Hydrology. The science dealing with the study of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and 

underlying rocks and in the atmosphere. 

Indicator Species. A plant or animal species related to a particular kind of environment. Its presence

indicates that specific habitat conditions are also present. 

Indigenous (species). Any species of wildlife native to a given land or water area by natural occurrence.

Initial Attack. The wildfire control efforts taken by resources that are first to arrive at a wildfire. 

Instream Flow. The quantity of water necessary to meet seasonal stream flow requirements to accomplish 

the purposes of the National Forests, including, but not limited to fisheries, visual quality, and recreational

opportunities.

187
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Integrated Pest Management. A process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in which all 

aspects of a pest-host system are studies and weighed. The information considered in selecting appropriate 

strategies includes the impact of the unregulated pest population on various resource values, alternative 

regulatory tactics and strategies, and benefit/cost estimates for these alternative strategies. Regulatory

strategies are based on sound silvicultural practices and ecology of the pest/host system and consist of a 

combination of tactics such as timber stand improvement plus selective use of pesticides. A basic principle 

in the choice of strategy is that it be ecologically compatible or acceptable. 

Interdisciplinary Team. A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses on the 

same task or project. 

Intermittent Stream. A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from

streams or from some surface source, such as melting snow. 

Intermountain Region. The portion of the USDA Forest Service, also referred to as Region Four, that 

includes National Forests in Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho and southwestern Wyoming.

Inventoried Roadless Area. (West of the 100th meridian) An area which meets the statutory definition 

of wilderness, does not contain improved roads maintained for travel by standard passenger-type vehicles, 

and meets one or more of the following criteria: 

1. Contains 5,000 acres or more. 

2. Contains less than 5,000 acres, but: 

• Due to physiography or vegetation, is manageable in a natural condition. 

• Is a self-contained ecosystem such as an island. 

• Is contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive area, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or roadless area 

in other Federal ownership, regardless of size. 

Invasive Species. A plant species moving into areas outside of its former range. 

Irretrievable. Applies to losses of production, harvest or commitment of renewable natural resources. For 

example, some or all of the timber production from an area is irretrievably lost during the time an area is 

used as a winter sports site. If the use is changed, timber production can be resumed. The production lost is 

irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible. Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural 

resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity.

Irreversible also includes loss of future options. 

Issue. A point, matter or question of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided through the 

planning process. Preliminary issue is an issue identified early in the scoping phase and is sometimes 

referred to as a tentative issue. Significant issue is an issue within the scope of the proposed action which is 

used to formulate alternatives in an Environmental Analysis (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Legal Notice. A notice of a decision which can be appealed that is published in the Federal Register or in 

the legal notice section of a newspaper of general circulation. 

Lek. An area used habitually by grouse species where the males display for the females each spring. 

Number of males are counted on the lek each spring to establish general population trends. 

Leasable Minerals. Minerals, including phosphate, coal, oil and gas, that are administered under the 1920

Mineral Leasing Act. The Bureau of Land Management is the leasing agency; the Forest Service can 

provide input for leasing actions. 

Locatable Minerals. These are generally precious metals, such as gold, silver, and copper, that are 

administered under the 1872 Mining laws. 

188
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Management Concern. An issue, problem or a condition which constrains the range of management 

practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process. 

Management Direction. A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated 

management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. 

Management Prescription. Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application 

on a specific area to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives. 

Mass Movement/Wasting. The down-slope movement of large masses of earth material by the force of 

gravity. Also called a landslide. 

Mass Stability. The existing condition of the soil mantel related to the potential for land mass failure such 

as landslides, mud flows and debris slides. 

Matrix. The least fragmented, most continuous pattern element of a landscape; the vegetation type that is 

most continuous over a landscape. 

Mineral Soil. Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, rather than organic 

matter. 

MIS (management indicator species). A wildlife species whose population indicate the health of the 

ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management activities to that ecosystem. 

MIS are selected by land management agencies. (See indicator species.) 

Mitigate/mitigation. To lessen the severity. Actions taken to avoid, minimize or rectify the impact of a 

land management practice.

Monitoring. The determination of how well project or plan objectives have been met and how closely

management practices should be adjusted. (See adaptive management.) 

Mountain Brush. Vegetation characterized by woody species usually found between 

sagebrush/grasslands and coniferous forests at upper elevations. Prominent species include mountain 

mahogany, mountain maple, chokecherry, serviceberry, etc. 

Multiple-Use. The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest 

System lands for a variety of purposes such as recreation, range, timber, wildlife and fish habitat, and 

watershed. 

Municipal Watershed. A watershed that serves a public water system as defined in Public Law 93-523 

(Safe Drinking Water Act); or as defined in State safe drinking water regulations. The definition does not

include communities served by a well or confined ground water unaffected by Forest Service activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is the basic national charter for protection of the 

environment. It establishes policy, sets goals and provides means for carrying out the policy.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). These are rules that require an integration of planning for 

National Forests and Grasslands, including the planning for timber, range, fish and wildlife, water, 

wilderness, recreation resources, together with resource protection activities, such as fire management, and 

the use of other resources, such as minerals.

National Forest System (NFS) Land. Federal lands that have been designated by Executive Order or 

statute as National Forests, National Grasslands, Purchase Units, and other lands under the administration of 

the Forest Service, including Experimental Areas and Bankhead-Jones Title III lands. 

Native Species. A species of flora or fauna occurring naturally in the United States and that not introduced

by humans. 

189
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Natural Resource. A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs. 

Nest Survey. A way to estimate the size of a bird population by counting the number of nests in a given 

area. 

No Action Alternative. The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if management practices 

continue unchanged. 

Nongame. Species of animals not managed for sport hunting.

Nonnative Species. A species introduced into an ecosystem through human activities.

Nonpoint Source Pollution. Pollution whose source is not specific in location. The sources of discharge 

are dispersed, not well-defined, or constant. Rain storms and snow melt often make this type of pollution 

worse. Examples include sediments from logging activities, and runoff from agricultural chemicals. 

Non-renewable Resource. A resource whose total quantity does not increase measurably over time, so 

that each use of the resource diminishes the supply.

Notice of Intent. A notice printed in the Federal Register announcing that an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) will be prepared. 

Noxious Weeds. A plant recognized by law as being especially undesirable, troublesome, and difficult to

control. 

Objective. A clear and quantifiable statement of planned results to be achieved within a stated time period. 

Something aimed at or striven for within a predetermined time period. An objective must be achievable, be 

measurable, have a stated time period for completion, be quantifiable, be clear and its results must be 

described. 

Off-Road Vehicles (ORV's). Vehicles such as motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, four-wheel drive 

vehicles and snowmobiles. 

Open Motorized Route Density (OMRD). Includes all open roads and open motorized trails. Density 

may be displayed in miles per square mile for a specified analysis area. 

Opportunities. Ways to address or resolve public issues or management concerns in the land and resource 

management planning process. 

Output. One of the ways functions are described; resources which leave a system, i.e., animals migrating 

out of an area, mass erosion, removal of commercial timber from an area. 

Perennial Stream. A stream that flows throughout the year and from source to mouth. 

Perlite. A volcanic glass containing water that expands or “pops” when heated to form a lightweight 

aggregate. 

Permitted Grazing. Grazing on a National Forest range allotment under the terms of a grazing permit. 

Permittee. A person or persons who utilize the National Forest System lands under a permit, usually a 

Special Use Permit or livestock grazing permit. 

Personal Use. Normally used to describe the type of permit issued for removal of wood products 

(firewood, posts, poles, and Christmas trees) from National Forest land when the product is for home use 

and not to be resold for profit.

Plant Community. A group of one or more populations of plants in a common spatial arrangement. 

Plant Species. The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus of a plant being described or measured. 

190
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Potential Natural Vegetation. The vegetation that would exist today if man were removed from the 

scene and if the plant succession after his removal were telescoped into a single moment. The time

compression eliminates the effects of future climatic fluctuations, while the effects of man's earlier activities 

are permitted to stand. 

Prescription. Management practices selected to accomplish specific land and resource management 

objectives. 

Primitive ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum). A classification of wilderness and recreation 

opportunity. It is characterized by an essentially unmodified environment, where trails mail be present but 

structures are rare, and where it is highly probable to be isolated from the sights and sounds of people. (See 

ROS.) 

Programmatic Direction. Sideboards for management which are usually general in nature and designed 

to be applied over a large area. In the Forest Service, generally referring to Forest Plan direction. 

Proposal. Exists at the stage in the development of an action when an agency is actively preparing to make 

a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing a goal and the effects can be meaningfully

evaluated. 

Proposed Action. A proposal by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend or implement an action. 

Protocol. A specific way of conducting monitoring or analysis. 

Public Access. An indication if the property is posted or restricted from public use. 

Public Issue. A subject or questions of widespread public interest relating to management of the National 

Forest System. 

Public Land. Land for which title and control rests with a government - federal, state, regional, county or 

municipal. 

Public Participation. Meeting, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments, responses to 

survey questionnaires, and similar activities designed and held to obtain comments from the public about 

Forest Service planning and decision making. 

Pumice. A light-colored, lightweight volcanic rock consisting mostly of volcanic glass. 

Purpose and Need. A statement which briefly specifies the underlying purpose and need to which the 

agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.

Range (Rangeland). Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs that area available as forage for big game and livestock.

Range Development. An activity or structure used to improve livestock distribution, rangeland 

conditions, or otherwise improve range management. Can be structural (fence, water development, etc.) or 

nonstructural (seeding, vegetation manipulation, etc.). 

Range Management. The art and science of planning and directing range use intended to yield the 

sustained maximum animal production and perpetuation of the natural resources.

Ranger District. The administrative sub-unit of a National Forest that is supervised by a District Ranger

who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor. 

Raptor. A bird of prey, such as an eagle or hawk.

RARE II. Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless and undeveloped 

areas within the National Forests and Grasslands. 

191
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Reclamation. The process of restoring disturbed areas, usually consisting of reshaping, replacing topsoil, 

and seeding the area. 

Recreation Capacity. The number of people that can take advantage of any supply of recreation 

opportunity at any one time without substantially diminishing the quality of the experience. 

Recreation Opportunity Class. An assessment of the general potential of the site for outdoor recreation. 

The following minimum number of classes are recognized: 

Primitive - Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment with a high probability of 

experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of man. 

Semi-primitive - Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment with a 

moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of man. Semi-primitive can be 

motorized or non-motorized. 

Roaded Natural - Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment with a 

low probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of man. 

Rural - Area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment with a low probability of 

experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of man. Urban - Area is characterized by a substantially

urbanized environment, although the background may have natural-appearing elements, i.e. ski resorts. 

Recreation Types: 

Developed Recreation. The type of recreation that occurs where modifications (improvements) enhance 

recreation opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities in a defined area. 

Dispersed Recreation. That type of recreation use that requires few, if any, improvements and may occur 

over a wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to roads and trails. The activities do not 

necessarily take place on or adjacent to a road or trail, only in conjunction with it. Activities tend to be dayuse oriented and include hunting, fishing, berry picking, off-road vehicle use, hiking, horseback riding, 

picnicking, camping, viewing scenery, snowmobiling, and many others. 

Regional Forester. The official of the USDA Forest Service responsible for administering an entire 

region of the Forest Service. 

Regulations. Generally refers to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter II, which covers 

management of the Forest Service. 

Research Natural Area (RNA). Designated areas of land, usually more than 300 acres in size having 

characteristics concerning ecological processes that are of scientific or educational interest. These areas are 

valuable for conducting observation and research activities on plant and animal succession, habitat 

requirements of species, insect and fungus depredations, soil microbiology, phenology, and other related 

subjects. 

Responsible Official. The Forest Service employee who has been delegated the authority to carry out a 

specific planning action. 

Riffle. A shallow rapids where the water flows swiftly over completely or partially submerged obstructions

to produce surface agitation, but standing waves are absent. 

Right-of-Way. An accurately located strip of land with defined width, point of beginning, and point of 

ending. It is the area within which the user has authority to conduct operations approved or granted by the 

landowner in an authorizing document, such as a permit, easement, lease, license, or Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). 

Riparian Area. They are along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. 

192
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Riparian Ecosystem. The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support unique vegetation and 

animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Risk (Fire). The probability that potential harm or undesirable consequences will be realized. 

Road Density. The miles of road per square mile. 

Road System. An alpha code indicating primary systems designation where primary indicates the system

under which principle funding and management criteria for operation and maintenance of a road is derived. 

ROD. Record of Decision. An official document in which a deciding official states the alternative that will 

be implemented from a prepared EIS. 

ROS. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. The land classification system that categorizes land by its setting 

and the probable recreation experiences and activities it affords. (See Recreation Opportunity Class.) 

RPA. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Also refers to the National 

Assessment and Recommended Program developed to fulfill the requirements of this Act. 

R.S. 2477. Revised Statute 2477; legislation that allows counties to assert that they have access rights on 

roads and/or trails that existed prior to the establishment of the Forest.

Run-off. The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels. 

Scale. In ecosystem management, scale refers to the degree of resolution at which ecosystems are observed 

and measured.

Scoping. The on-going process to determine public opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and 

determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve public meetings, telephone 

conversations or letters. 

Sediment. Solid material, both mineral and organic, transported from its site of origin by air, water, 

gravity, or ice. 

Sensitive Species. Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts from

activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the Region level and is not part of 

the designation of Threatened or Endangered Species made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Similar Actions. Actions, which when viewed with other reasonable foreseeable or proposed agency

actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such 

as timing or geography. 

Slash. The residue left on the ground after timber cutting and/or accumulating there as a result of storm,

fire, or other damage. It includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, twigs, 

leaves, bark and chips. 

Slump. A landslide where the underlying rock masses tilt back as they slide from a cliff or escarpment. 

Small Game. Birds and small mammals typically hunted or trapped. 

Smoke Management. Application of fire intensities and meteorological processes to minimize 

degradation of air quality during prescribed fires. 

Snag. A standing dead tree important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species and their prey.

Soil Compaction. A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and increase in

soil bulk density and soil strength. 

Soil Cover. The type of cover on the soil surface, i.e. live vegetation, litter, rock, pavement, exposed. 

193
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Soil Displacement. The movement of the forest floor (litter, duff, and humus layers) and surface soil from

one place to another by mechanical forests such as a blade used in piling or windrowing. Mining of surface 

soil layers by chopping, or bedding operation are not considered displacement. 

Soil Erosion Type. A classification system that further defines erosion by running water, wind or 

gravitational creep that is used to determine watershed condition. 

Soil Quality. Long term soil productivity and soil hydrologic function. 

Soil Map Unit. A named portion of a landscape shown by a closed delineation and symbol on a soil map. 

Generally used to assess or monitor watershed condition, site productivity, and site capability. 

Soil Puddling. A physical change in soil properties due to shearing forces that alters soil structure and 

porosity. Puddling occurs when the soil is at or near liquid limit. 

Soil Structure. Structure is described by grade, class and type. Terms are used to describe the natural 

aggregates in the soil called peds in contrast to clods caused by disturbance, fragments by rupture of peds, 

and concentrations by local concentrations of compounds that irreversibly cement the soil grains together. 

The six structures, each with its own distinctive shape and arrangement, are: granular, platy, prismatic, 

columnar, angular blocky, subangular blocky, and structureless. 

Soil Texture. Texture refers to the relative proportions of clay, silt and sand (less than 2mm in diameter). 

Clay particles are the smallest, silt particles are intermediate and sand particles are the largest. Loams 

contain various mixtures of the three basic particle sizes.

Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs). See BMP. 

Soil Compaction. The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on soils can 

compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as its ability to absorb water. 

Soil Productivity. The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends on adequate 

moisture and soil nutrients, as well as favorable climate. 

Special Forest Products. Nontimber renewable plant products such as mushrooms, berries, flowers, etc.

Special Use Permit. A permit issued to an individual or group by the USDA Forest Service for use of 

National Forest land for a special purpose. Examples might be a Boy Scout Jamboree or a mountain bike 

race. 

Species at Risk. Species which demonstrate a potential for loss of resilience or sustainability if disturbed. 

Standards and Guidelines. Requirements found in a Forest Plan which impose limits on natural resource 

management activities, generally for environmental protection. 

State Air Quality Regulations. The legal base for control of air pollution sources in that State. 

Prescribed burning is generally covered under these regulations. 

State Implementation Plan. A State plan that covers implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

primary and secondary standards in each air quality control Region, pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act.

Stewardship. Caring for land and associated resources and passing healthy ecosystems to future 

generations. 

Stream Channel. The defined bed and bank of a watercourse down which water travels. 

Stream Order. A numbering scheme used to characterize the relative position of stream channels within a 

drainage. First-order streams are those which have no tributaries. Second-order streams are those which 

have as tributaries only first-order channels. Third-order streams are formed when two second-order 

channels come together. Stream order is used to analyze hydrologic response and fisheries.

194
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Stream Type. Alpha-numeric identification given to reoccurring stream channel types based on 

measurable morphological features such as channel gradient, width/depth ratio, dominant particle size of 

bed and bank materials, entrenchment of channel and confinement of channel in valley, and landform

features, soil erodibility, and stability.

Stream Width. The width of streams or rivers. Generally used to determine stream type, flood hazard, 

instream flows, and riparian management. 

Streamflow. A measure of the volume of water passing a given point in a stream channel at a given point 

in time. 

Subwatershed. A drainage delineated for one of the streams within a National Forest System (NFS) 

watershed, often to analyze the effects of a proposed action. The subwatershed chosen for analysis may

depend on the size and anticipated effects of a proposal. 

Succession. The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions of the 

prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of 

the next stage. 

Successional Stage. A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground to

climax. The grass-forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage and so on. 

Surface Resources. Renewable resources that are on the surface of the earth, such as timber and forage, in 

contrast to ground water and minerals which are located beneath the surface. 

Suspended Sediment. Sediment which remains in suspension in the water for a considerable period of 

time without contact with the bottom of the water source and is generally recorded in parts per million or 

milligrams per liter. 

Sustainability. The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biological 

diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustainable. The yield that a renewable resource can produce continuously at a given intensity of 

management is said to be sustainable. 

Tall Forb Community. A vegetation community made up of tall broad-leaved plants, rated as “at risk” in 

the Intermountain Region due to conifer encroachment and historic overgrazing. Common plants include 

anise, mountain bluebell, and coneflower. 

Target. A National Forest's annual goal for accomplishment for natural resource programs. Targets 

represent the commitment of the Forest Service has with Congress to accomplish the work Congress has 

funded, and are often used as a measure of the agency's performance. 

Terrestrial. Pertaining to the land. 

Thermal Cover. Cover used by animals to ameliorate effects of weather; for elk, a stand of coniferous 

trees 40 feet or more tall with an average crown closure of 70 percent or more.

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat. Those areas currently or potentially occupied or 

utilized by threatened and endangered species. T&E Species habitat generally falls into one of several 

categories: critical habitat, proposed critical habitat, occupied habitat, or potential habitat.

Threatened Species. Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all or 

a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Transportation System. All existing and proposed roads, trails, airfields, and other transportation 

facilities wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forests and other areas 

administered by the Forest Service or intermingled private lands. 

195
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Treatment Area. The site-specific location of a resource improvement activity. 

Trend. The direction of change in ecological status of a plant community usually expressed as moving 

"toward", "away from", or "not apparent". 

Upland Habitat. Habitat located outside of riparian areas or wetlands. Soils are not saturated throughout 

the growing season. 

Utility and Transportation Corridors. A strip of land, up to approximately 600 feet in width, 

designated for the transportation of energy, commodities, and communications by railroad, State highway,

electrical power transmission (66 KV and above), oil and gas and coal slurry pipelines 10 inches in diameter 

or larger, and telecommunication cable and electronic sites for interstate use. Transportation of minor 

amounts of power for short distances, such as short feeder lines from small power projects including 

geothermal or wind, or to serve customer service substations along the line, are not to be treated within the 

Forest Plan effort. 

Vegetation Management or Manipulation. Activities designed primarily to promote the health of 

forest vegetation for multiple-use purposes. 

Vegetation Type. A plant community with distinguishable characteristics. 

Vertebrate. Species having a backbone or spinal column. 

Viable Population. A number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-term existence of 

the species in natural, self-sustaining populations adequately distributed throughout their region. 

Viability. The ability of a population or species to exist over the long-term in natural, self-sustaining 

populations distributed throughout their region. 

Watershed. The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More specifically, a 

watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the stream flow at that 

point. 

Water Quality Limited Segment (WQLS). A stream or segment of a stream which has been listed by

the State as water quality limited for one or more parameters such as temperature, sediment, contaminants, 

etc. Required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

Water Table. The upper surface of groundwater. Below it, the soil is saturated with water. 

Water Uses. The status of water uses subject to State water laws that is used to determine the water uses 

and legal status of waters on the National Forests. 

Water Yield. The run-off from a watershed, including groundwater outflow. 

Wet Areas. Often referred to as "moist sites," they are very important components of elk summer range. 

These sites, often occurring at the heads of drainages, may be wet sedge meadows, bogs, or seeps. 

Wetlands. Areas that are permanently wet or are intermittently covered with water. 

Wilderness (Wilderness Area). Undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character, without 

permanent human habitation or improvements; It is protected and managed to preserve its natural condition. 

Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress. 

Wildland Fire. Any non-structure fire, other than agency- ignited Prescribed Fire, which occurs in the 

wildland. This includes Wildland Fire Use and Unwanted Wildland Fire. 

Wildland Fire Use. The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific, prestated

resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

196
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Wildland/Urban Interface. The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet 

or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The area where humans and their 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

Wildlife and Fish User Days (WFUD). A 12-hour day in which a person participates in a wildlife or 

fish-related recreation activity that used to determine the annual use of wildlife and fish resources by

recreationists on the National Forests. 

Wildlife Habitat Diversity. The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within a specific area. 

Windthrow. Trees that have been uprooted by the wind. 

Literature Cited __________________________________

Tribal Treaty Concerns 

Smoak 2004, from a presentation at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty Rights Seminar: April 12-

13, 2004. 

Treaty with the Shoshoni-Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863 

“Shoshone-Bannock Tribes” published by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Cultural Committee and Tribal Elders. 

Riparian Areas and Aquatic Resources References 

Belt, G.H, J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water 

Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. Report No. 8. 

FSH (Forest Service Handbook). Date varies. Available on the Internet at: www.fs.fed.us/im/dirindexhome/ 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance, pgs 297-309, in Influences of

Forest and Rangeland Management. W.R. Meehan, Editor. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 

Bethesda, MD. 

IDAPA (Idaho Administrative Procedures Act). State legal code by section, Boise, Idaho. 

IDEQ 1994-2003. Project Field Forms (unpublished). Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Project (BURP). Southeast 

Regional Field Office, Pocatello and Idaho Falls, ID. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 1998. Idaho’s 1998 303(d) list. Boise, ID. 

Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, No. 97-35339, 137 F.3d 1146, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 1998. B Lynn

Winmill Presiding, Opinion by Betty B. Fletcher. Seattle, WA. 

NRCS. 1975. National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 4 – Hydrology. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(Formerly Soil Conservation Service). Beltsville, MD. 

Pfankuch, D.J. 1975. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. USDA, Forest Service Northern 

region; Missoula, MT. 26 pages. 

Philbin, M. 2003. Hydrology Specialist Report for North Bear AMP EIS (unpublished). Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest, Idaho Falls, ID. 

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources Research, v20, no. 

11, pgs 1753-1761. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2294, 63 p. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

Stednick, J.D. 2000. Ch 10, Timber Management. Pgs 103-119 in Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A

synthesis of the Scientific Literature. USDA-FS Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. GTR-SRS-39. 

USDA FS. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. 

Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p. 

USDA-FS. 2003. Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest. Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Idaho Falls, 

ID. 

197
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

USDA-FS. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest. 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Idaho Falls, ID. 

USDA-FS. 2002. Caribou National Forest Roads Analysis (Report). Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls. 

USDA FS. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. 

Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p. 

USDI-FWS. National Wetlands Inventory Data. Data and descriptions available for download at

http://www.nwi.fws.gov

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources References 

American Fisheries Society. 2000. Fishes of Idaho. Idaho Chapter American Fisheries Society Website. 

Anonymous. 2000. Memorandum of agreement for conservation and management of Yellowstone cutthroat trout

among Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, U.S. Forest Service, Yellowstone National Park, and Grand 

Teton National Park. 5pp. 

Belk, M.C. 2001. Personal Communication. Fisheries Biologist at BYU.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society 

Special Publication 19:298-300. 

Hendricks, P. 1997. Status, distribution, and biology of sculpins (Cottidae) in Montana. Montana Natural Heritage

Program. Helena. 29pp. 

Irving, J.S. and T.C. Bjornn. 1984. Effects of substrate size composition on survival of kokanee salmon and cutthroat

and rainbow trout embryos. University of Idaho, Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Technical Report 84-6, 

Moscow. 

Kaufman, J. Boone, and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management

implications. Journal of Range Management 37(5): 430-438. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2000. Draft Fisheries Management Plan 2001-2005. Boise, Idaho. 294pp. 

Lentsch, L.D., C.A. Toline, J. Kershner, J.M. Hudson, and J. Mizzi. 2000. Range-wide conservation agreement and

strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). Publication number 00-19. Salt Like City. 

90pp. 

Marcus, M.D., M.K. Young, L.E. Noel, B.A. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid-habitat relationships in the Western United

States: a review and indexed bibliography. Fort Collins, p12. 

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society special publication 19:389-423. 

Simpson, J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, Idaho. 238 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. Ogden, Utah. 120pp. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. An Assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume III. 

Utah Natural Resources. 2000. Division of Wildlife Resources. Utah Conservation Data Center Webpage. 

Wilson, K.W. and M.C. Belk. 1996. Current distribution and habitat use of Leatherside chub (Gila copei) in portions of

the Snake River drainage of Southern Idaho. Brigham Young University. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants References 

ICDC (Idaho Conservation Data Center). 2004. web Astragalus jejunus (starveling milkvetch) Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Boise. Available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/tech/CDC/spp_accounts_plants/astjej.cfm

Mancuso, Michael. 2003. Occurrence Updates, Field Surveys, and Monitoriing for Sensitive Plant Species in the Bear 

River Range, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Boise. ID. 

Moseley, Robert K. 1996. Report on the Conservation Status of Lesquerella paysonii in Idaho. Conservation Data 

Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise. ID. 

Wildlife References 

MRD. 2005. Montpelier Ranger District Wildlife Project Record Documents and White Papers 

Atkinson, Eric C. and Melonie L. Atkinson, 1990, Distribution and status of harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus)

on the Targhee National Forest, October 1990, IDFG. 

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

population and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4):967-985. 

198
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Gillies, K. E. 2004. Idaho Bat Conservation Plan. DRAFT (December 04). R. Dixon and C. Harris, eds. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. (12-01-04)

Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group. 1996. Greater Yellowstone bald eagle management plan: 1995 

update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group, Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., Lander, WY 82520. 

47pp. 

Hayward, G.D. Tech Ed. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical 

Conservation Assessment. USDA-FS GTR RM-253 

IDFG. 2004a. Sage-grouse lek Database. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Unpublished document. 

IDFG. 2004b. Sharp-tailed grouse lek Database. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Unpublished document. 

IDFG. 2005a. fish and game works for more sage-grouse. Headquarters News Release 02-01-05. Idaho Dept. of Fish

and Game. Boise, ID. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/news/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=2474

Inman, Robert M. Rachel R. Wigglesworth, Kristine H. Inman, Michael K. Schwarts, Brent L. Brock, Jon D. Rieck. 

2004. Wolverine Makes Extensive Movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northwest Science 78(3) 

261-266. 

Pierson, E. D., M. C. Wackenhut, J.C. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. L. Genter, C. E. Harris, B. L. Keller, B. 

Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo, J. M. Perkings, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation

assessment and conservation strategy for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Idaho State 

Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Id. 

Reynolds, R.T. et al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States, 

USDA FS Southeastern Region (R3) GTR RM 217 

Ritter, Sharon. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (IBCP), Version 1.0, January 2000, prepared by: Idaho Partners in 

Flight. 156p. 

Roberts, Hadley B. 2003. Status Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Idaho. Technical Bulletin No. 03-6. Idaho

Bureau of Land management April 2003. http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/03_06/index.htm

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony

Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Ann Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and All Williamson. 2000. Canada

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 

142 pp. (2nd Edition) 

Thomas, J.W. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest - the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDAFS. Ag Hb 553. 

Trec, Inc. 2004. A survey for yellow-billed cuckoo in recorded historic and other likely locations in Idaho. Rigby, Id

Trec, Inc. 2005 [in preparation] 2004 Caribou NF Goshawk Survey (final available March 2005)

Ulliman, M.J., A.Sands and T.Hemker. 1998. Conservation Plan for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse and Its Habitats in

Idaho – Draft

USDA. 2003a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the

Caribou National Forest, Forest Service. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

USDA. 2003b. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest, Forest Service. 

USFWS. 1994a. The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho - Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Helena, MT. 

USFWS. 1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental 

Population of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone national Park in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana; Central Idaho and

Southwestern Montana; Final Rules. Federal Register, 59(224):60252 to 60281. (November 22 1994) 

USFWS. 1999c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final rule to remove the American Peregrine Falcon

from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to Remove the Similarity of Appearance Provision 

for Free-Flying Peregrines in the Conterminous United States; Final Rule. Federal Register, 64(164):46542-46558

(August 25, 1999). 

USFWS. 2003a2. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding for a Petition to List the Tri-State 

Area Flock of Trumpeter Swans as Threatened. Federal Register, 68(18):4221-4228 (January 28, 2003). 

USFWS, 2005b. 90-Day Species List Updates of Threatened and Endangered Species found on the Montpelier RD and

Soda Springs RD, from the US Fish and Wildlife Service enclosed with letter to the Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest (File #116.0000)

Wisdom, M.J., et al. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broadscale trends and management implications. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. 156 pp. 

199
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Economic Environment References 

English, Donald B.K., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, John C., and Cordell, H. Ken. 1995. “Estimating the Economic

Impacts of Recreation Response to Resource Management Alternatives”, USDA FS General Technical Report SE91, Southern Research Station. 

References cited in USDA 2003a Appendix D-26 – 34: 

Frederick, G.P. Effects of Forest Roads on Grizzly Bears, Elk and Gray Wolves: A Literature Review. USDA, Forest 

Service, Kootnai National Forest, Libby, MT. 

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for

Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Maxell, B. and G. Hokit. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles. In Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A

Review for Montana. Joslin and Youmans eds. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter 

of the Wildlife Society. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk Distribution and Modeling in Relation to Roads. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 2000. p 672-684.

Thomas, T. 2000. Elk Radio Telemetry Study Tex Creek Wildlife Management Area, January 1998 to December 2000. 

Idaho Department Fish and Game, Idaho Falls ID. 61 pp. 

USFS. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System. 

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, FS-643. 

Wisdom, M.J., et al. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broadscale trends and management implications. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. 156 pp. 

200
Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Index___________________________________________ 

A 

Air Quality

Alternative One 

Alternative Two 

Alternative Three 

Alternative Four 

Alternative Five (preferred)

Aquatic habitat 

B 

Big Game

Big Game Winter Range 

C 

Canada Lynx

Caribou Mountain 

Clean Water Act 

Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse 

Contributors 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas 

Cross-Country Motorized 

Cumulative Effects 

D 

Deer, Mule 

E 

Economics 

Elk 

Endangered Species 

F 

Fire 

Forested Vegetation 

G 

Gibson Jack RNA 

Goshawk 

Gray wolf 

Great Gray Owl 

H 

Heritage Resources 

Hunting 

I 

Indicators 

Interdisciplinary Team

Irretrievable/Irreversible Effects 

201
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Issues 

L 

Livestock Grazing 

M 

Management Direction 

Management Indicator Species 

Marten 

Meade Peak 

Microbiotic Crusts 

Minerals 

Mining 

Mt. Naomi 

Mule deer 

N 

No Action Alternative 

Non-forested Vegetation 

Notice of Intent 

Noxious Weeds 

O 

OHVs 

P 

Peregrine Falcon 

Phosphate 

Public Involvement 

Purpose and Need 

Pygmy Rabbit 

R 

Recommended Wilderness 

Recreation 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Riparian 

Roads 

Roadless Areas 

RS 2477 Roads 

S 

Sage Grouse 

Security Areas 

Sensitive Species 

Shoshone Bannock Tribe 

Snowmobiles 

Soils 

Spotted Bat 

202
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

T 

Tall Forbs 

The Lander Trail 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Tribal Trust 

W 

Water Quality

Watersheds 

Watershed Assessments 

Watershed Integrity

Wetlands 

Wilderness Potential 

Wildfire 

Winter Range 

Y 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 

203
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

204
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

APPENDIX A 

Direction Relevant to Land and Resource Management

Forest Service Directives __________________________

Agency policy articulated in the Forest Service directives system (Forest Service Manual and Handbook) is

hereby incorporated in its entirety as direction in this Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou Zone of the 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Some of the more commonly referenced objectives are found at the 

following locations: 

FSM/FSH Reference Location Description 

1500 American Indians 

1900 

1920 Land Management Planning

1909.12 Land and Resource Management Planning

1909.15 Environmental Policy and Procedures

2000 

2080 Noxious Weed Management 

2100 

2130.2 Solid Waste Management 

2150.2 Pesticide Management

2170.2 Energy Management 

2200 

2202.1 Range Management 

2230.2 Grazing and Livestock Use Permit System

2240.2 Range Improvements 

2242.02 Structural Range Improvement 

2244.02 Maintenance of Improvement 

2246.02 Range Improvement Investment 

2300 

2302 Recreation

2320.2 National Wilderness Preservation System

2323.11 Recreation in Wilderness

2323.31 Range in Wilderness 

2323.34b Stocking Methods

2323.34c Stocking Policy 

2323.41 Soil and Water in Wilderness

2323.51 Forest Cover in Wilderness 

2323.61 Air Resource in Wilderness 

2323.72 Minerals in Wilderness

2324.11 Insects and Disease in Wilderness 

2324.21 Fire Management in Wilderness 

205
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

FSM/FSH Reference Location Description 

2324.31 Structures and Improvements in Wilderness

2324.41 Research in Wilderness

2326.02 Motorized Equipment in Wilderness 

2330.2 Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities 

2340.2 Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities 

2343.02 Concession Uses Involving Privately Developed

Facilities 

2345.02 Group Use By Institutions or other Entities

2350.2 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities 

2353.02 Forest Development Trails

2353.41 Scenic and Historic Trails

2354.02 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

2355.02 Off-Road Vehicle Management 

2356.02 Cave Management 

2360.3 Special Interest Areas

2361.02 Cultural Resources 

2373.02 National Registry of National Landmarks 

2380 Landscape Management 

2390.2 Interpretive Services/Visitor Information 

2400 

2402 Timber Management 

2430.2 Commercial Timber Sales 

2435.02 Salvage Sales 

2470.02 Reforestation

2470.2 Silvicultural Practices 

2470.02 Harvest Cutting

2476.02 Timber Stand Improvement 

2500 

2502 Watershed Management 

2509.18 Soil Management; specifically Intermountain Region 

Supplement 

2520.2 Watershed Protection and Management 

2522.02 Watershed Improvement 

2523.02 Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation 

2526.02 Riparian Areas 

2527.02 Floodplain Management Wetland Protection

2532.02 Water Quality Management 

2542.02 Municipal Supply Watersheds

2553.02 Soil Resource Improvement

2580.2 Air Quality 

2600 

2602 Fish and Wildlife 

2650.2 Animal Damage Management 

2670.21 Threatened and Endangered Species 

206
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

FSM/FSH Reference Location Description 

2670.22 Sensitive Species 

2700 

2702 Special Uses

2710.2 Special Use Authorization 

2716 Special Use Administration 

2730.2 Special Use Management 

2761.02 Special Use Management 

2770.2 Federal Power Act Projects

2800 

2802 Minerals and Geology 

2830.2 Minerals Reservations Outstanding Mineral Rights

2840.2 Reclamation 

2850.2 Mineral Materials 

3600 

3602 Rural Development

3610.2 Rural Development 

3620.2 Resource Conservation and Development Program 

4000 

4063.02 Research Natural Areas 

5100 

5102 Fire Management 

5130.2 Fire Suppression

5140.2 Prescribed Fire 

5150.2 Fuel Management 

5400 

5402 Landownership Adjustment 

5420.2 Land Purchases and Donations 

5430.2 Land Exchanges 

5440.2 Partial Interest Acquisition 

5450.2 National Forest System Modification

5460.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition 

5470.2 Reservations and Outstanding Rights 

5480.2 Condemnation 

7100 

7151.02 Land Surveying 

7152.02 Landline Location Program 

7160.2 Sign and Poster Program 

7400 

7420.2 Potable Water Supply

7430.2 Wastewater Collection Systems and Treatment 

Works 

7700 

7702 Transportation System 

7710.2 Transportation Planning 

207
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

FSM/FSH Reference Location Description 

7720.2 Development

7730 Operation and Maintenance 

7733.02 Highway Safety Program 

7740 Federal Lands Highway Program 

Statutes_________________________________________

Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (August 11, 1978) 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act (October 11, 1949) 

Antiquities Act (June 8, 1906) 

Archeological Resources Protection Act (October 31, 1979, as amended 1988) 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (July 22, 1937) 

Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 (June 7, 1924) 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (August 7, 1977)

Clean Water Act of 1977 

Clean Water Amendments (Federal Water Pollutions Control Act Amendments of 1972) 

Color of Title Act (December 22, 1928)

Common Varieties of Mineral Materials Act (July 31, 1947) 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (December 11, 

1980) 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (July 1, 1978) 

Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (May 22, 2974) 

Easter Wilderness Act (January 3, 1975)

Economy Act of 1932 (June 30, 1932) 

Emergency Flood Prevention (Agricultural Credit Act of 1978) (August 4, 1978)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (December 28, 1973)

Energy Security Act (June 30, 1980) 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (October 6, 1972) 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (November 18, 1988) 

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975 (August 4, 1976) 

Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (October 21, 1972) 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (October 21, 1976) 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (January 3, 1975)

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (December 22, 1944)

Federal Power Act of 1920 (June 10, 1920) 

Federal-State Cooperation for Soil Conservation Act (December 22, 1944) 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, as amended (Water Quality Act of 1965, Clean Water 

Restoration Act of 1966) (July 9, 1965) 

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (July 9, 1965) 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (September 15, 1960) 

Forest Highways Act (August 27, 1958)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (August 17, 1974) 

208
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (June 30, 1978) 

Freedom of Information Act (November 21, 1974) 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (December 24, 1970) 

Granger-Thye Act (April 24, 1950) 

Historic Preservation Act (October 15, 1966) 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (December 19, 1991) 

Joint Surveys of Watershed Areas Act of 1962 (September 5, 1962) 

Knutson-Vandenberg Act (June 9, 1930)

Land Acquisition Act (March 30, 1925) 

Land Acquisition-Declaration of Taking Act (February 26, 1931) 

Land Acquisition – Title Adjustment Act (July 8, 1943) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (September 3, 1964) 

Law Enforcement Authority Act (March 3, 1905) 

Leases Around Reservoirs Act (March 3, 1962) 

Mineral Leasing Act (February 25, 1920) 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Act (August 7, 1947) 

Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands Act (March 4, 1917) 

Mineral Springs Leasing Act (February 28, 1899) 

Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of 1955 (August 11, 1955)

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (December 31, 1970) 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (June 12, 1960) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (January 1, 1970) 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (October 22, 1976) 

National Forest Roads and Trails Act (October 13, 1964) 

National Historic Preservation Act (October 15, 1966)

National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and 1992 (December 12, 1980) 

National Trails System Act (October 2, 1968) 

Occupancy Permits Act (March 4, 1915) 

Organic Administration Act (June 4, 1897) 

Petrified Wood Act (September 28, 1962) 

Pipelines Act (February 25, 1920) 

Preservation of Historical and Archeological Data Act (May 25, 1974) 

Public Land Surveys Act (March 3, 1899) 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (October 25, 1978) 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (June 30, 1978) 

Research Grants Act (September 6, 1958) 

Right of Eminent Domain Act (August 1, 1888) 

Rural Development Act of 1972 (August 30, 1972) 

Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1977 (November 16, 1977) 

Sikes Act (October 19, 1974) 

Small Tracts Act (January 22, 1983) 

Smokey Bear Act (May 23, 1952) 

209
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (November 18, 1977) 

Solid Waste Disposal (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (October 21, 1976)

Supplemental National Forest Reforestation Fund Act (September 18, 1972) 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (August 3, 1977) 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act (March 29, 1944) 

Timber Export Act (March 4, 1917) 

Timber Exportation Act (April 12, 1926) 

Title Adjustment Act (April 28, 1930) 

Toxic Substances Control Act (October 11, 1976) 

Transfer Act (February 1, 1905) 

Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act (May 23, 1908) 

Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (in accordance with the Architectural Act of 1968) 

U.S. Criminal Code (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 91 – Public Lands) (June 25, 1948)

U.S. Mining Laws (Public Domain Lands ) May 10, 1872 

Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (May 18, 1972) 

Water Quality Improvement Act of 1965 (April 3, 1965) 

Water Resources Planning Act (July 22, 1965) 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (August 4, 1954) 

Weeks Act Status for Certain Lands Act (September 2, 1958) 

Weeks Act of 1911 (March 1, 1911) 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (October 2, 1968) 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (September 3, 1964) 

Wildlife Game Refuges Act (August 11, 1916) 

Wood Residue Utilization Act of 1980 (December 19, 1980) 

Woodsy Owl/Smokey Bear Act (June 22, 1974) 

Youth Conservation Corps Act (August 13, 1970 

Regulations _____________________________________

36 CFR 60 National Register of Historic Places 

36 CFR 212 Forest Development transportation System

36 CFR 213 Administration Under Bankhead-Jones Act 

36 CFR 215 Notice, Comment and Appeal Procedures for Projects and Activities 

36 CFR 219 Planning 

36 CFR 221 Timber Management Planning 

36 CFR 222 Range Management 

36 CFR 223 Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber 

36 CFR 228 Minerals 

36 CFR 241 Fish and Wildlife 

36 CFR 251 Land Uses 

36 CFR 254 Landownership Adjustments 

36 CFR 261 Prohibitions 

36 CFR 291 Occupancy and Use of Developed Sites and Areas of Concentrated Public 

 Use 

36 CFR 292 National Recreation Areas 

210
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

36 CFR 293 Wilderness-Primitive Areas 

36 CFR 294 Special Areas

36 CFR 295 Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Development Roads 

36 CFR 296 Protection of Archeological Resources 

36 CFR 297 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

36 CFR 800 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

40 CFR 1500-1508 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the 

 NEPA 

National Electrical Code 

National Fire Code 

Uniform Building Code 

Uniform Mechanical Code 

Uniform Plumbing Code 

Executive Orders_________________________________

E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment 

E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands 

E.O. 11644-11989 Use of Off-Road Vehicles 

E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management 

E.O. 12113 Independent Water Project Review 

E.O. of 01/12/01 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species 

E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice 

Other___________________________________________

USDA Handbook #701, Scenery Management 

Best Management Practices 

Idaho 

The Administrative Rules of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Water Quality and 

Wastewater Treatment (IDAPA 16, Title 01, Chapter 02, February 20, 1996) lists documents that 

contain approved Best Management Practice. On page 71 (IDAPA 16.01.01335.03) these documents 

are listed and include: 

Idaho Forest Practices rules as adopted by Board of Land Commissioners 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) Rules, Title 1, Chapter 6, “Rules Governing Solid

Waste Management.” 

IDHW Rules, Title 1, Chapter 3, “Rules Governing subsurface and Individual Sewage Disposal

Systems.” 

211
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

“Rules and Minimum Standards for Stream Channel Alternations” as adopted by the Board of Water 

Resources. 

“Rules Governing Exploration and Surface Mining Operations in Idaho” as adopted by the Board of 

Land Commissioners 

“Rules Governing Placer and Dredge Mining in Idaho” as adopted by the Board of Land 

Commissioners 

Wyoming 

Grazing: Draft BMPS have been developed (dated February, 1996), but the State is currently working 

on a responsiveness summary, so the BMP’s have not been certified yet (personal communication with 

Beth Pratt, Wyoming DEQ, November 26, 1996) 

Hydrologic Modification: These BMP’s have been certified by DEQ and the governor of Wyoming. 

Silviculture: These measures include BMP’s for roads. They have been certified by DEQ and the 

governor of Wyoming. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Mineral Extraction, Highway Construction, Underground

Storage Tanks: These activities are covered by site regulatory programs, so BMP’s will not be 

developed from them. 

Methods of Road and Trail Closures _________________

Methods to Restrict or Close System or User-created Travel Routes: 

Some routes may need physical alterations to restrict some uses, or to “close” the route to motorized and/or 

mechanized vehicles. A variety or combination of the following methods will be used to close selected 

routes for all action alternatives. If a route is to be closed, the method of closure described for the route will 

be the same for all alternatives. Example: If the Smokey Bear Trail is to be closed in Alternatives 10 and 11, 

the method of closure would be a combination of vegetative debris and rocks and would be the same closure 

method for both alternatives. The following paragraphs contain a description of route closure methods and a 

discussion of the effectiveness of each method and the relative degree of ground disturbance. No closure 

method can ensure total compliance. 

The degree to which users will comply with a specific route restriction is related to the effectiveness of the

closure method. If a person cannot physically use the route, or find the route the ‘closure” is more effective. 

 

Signs – A route can be closed by installing a sign at the travel route’s entry or entries, indicating the 

permitted use and the seasons of permitted use. Generally the sign is a thin plastic strip with an “allowed 

use” or “restricted use” sticker. In most cases, the sign is installed in the middle of the trail tread. Signs can 

be effective on routes that receive low use, and if the route is perceived to be patrolled by law enforcement, 

and the reason for closure is understood and accepted. Sign installation involves little ground disturbance, 

and it is limited to the road or trail tread, which has already been disturbed. 

Gates- A gate installed at the travel route’s entry or entries, along with a sign indicating the permitted use 

and the seasons of permitted use may be used to close a route. Gates are generally more effective than signs 

alone, as they present an actual barrier to vehicles. If steep terrain or thick vegetation inhibits the ability to 

go around a gate the closure is more effective. Gates work well for seasonal closures. Effectiveness depends 

on the amount of use, and if the route is perceived to be patrolled by law enforcement, and the reason for 

212
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision

213

closure is understood and accepted. Gate installation involves some ground disturbance, usually limited to 

the road or trail tread or just adjacent to the tread, which has already been disturbed. 

 

Vegetative Debris- Routes can be closed using downed trees, stumps, and/or brush to obscure and 

physically prohibit vehicle use of a route at any entry, a sign explaining the closure may or may not be used. 

If steep terrain or thick vegetation inhibits the ability to go around the debris the closure is more effective. 

Effectiveness of this type of closure depends on the amount of use, and if the route is perceived to be 

patrolled by law enforcement, and the reason for closure is understood and accepted. This type of closure 

works best for long-term closure. Vegetative debris closures involve little ground disturbance. 

 

Barrier Rocks- Routes can be closed using large rocks to obscure and/or physically prohibit actual vehicle 

use of a travel route at any entry. A sign explaining the closure may or may not be used. Effectiveness 

depends on the amount of use, and if the route is perceived to be patrolled by law enforcement, and the 

reason for closure is understood and accepted. If steep terrain or thick vegetation inhibits the ability to go 

around barrier rocks the closure is more effective. Barrier rock installation involves some ground 

disturbance, depending on the source area for the rocks. 

Earthen Berms- Routes can be closed using raised berms of soil to obscure and physically prohibit actual 

vehicle use of a travel route at any entry. A sign explaining the closure may or may not be used. 

Decommission of Roads and Trails 

Some roads and trails will not be needed in the future, and may not be desirable. These routes will be closed 

and decommissioned. In this analysis, decommission refers to ripping up the travel route template with 

heavy equipment, and recontouring the soil to a natural repose and reseeding if necessary. 

Effectiveness of route closures is closely related to enforcement and education measures. 

Effectiveness of route closures depends in part on the user not being able to physically access the route with 

a motorized or mechanized vehicle. This depends on the surrounding vegetation and area topography. Signs 

alone can be effective if the route was not heavily used to begin with, and the user feels a high risk of being 

caught, or if most users respect the reason for closure. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Caribou Travel Plan Revision 

214