Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 1

SUMMARY

Of The

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

For The

BOISE NATIONAL FOREST,

PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, 

And

SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST PLAN REVISION

Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia, Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, 

Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley, and Washington Counties, 

Idaho; Malheur County, Oregon; and Box Elder County, Utah

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service:

Boise National Forest

1249 South Vinnell Way, 

Suite 200

Boise, ID 83709

208-373-4100

Payette National Forest

800 W. Lakeside Avenue

P.O. Box 1026

McCall, ID 83638

208-634-0700

Sawtooth National Forest

2647 Kimberly Road East

Twin Falls, ID 83301

208-737-3200

Responsible Official:

Jack Troyer, Regional Forester

Intermountain Region

USDA Forest Service

324 25th Street

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5605

For Further Information Contact:

Richard Smith, Forest Supervisor

Boise National Forest

1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200

Boise, ID 83709

208-373-4100

Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor

Payette National Forest

800 W. Lakeside Avenue

P.O. Box 1026

McCall, ID 83638

208-634-0700

Ruth Monahan, 

Forest Supervisor

Sawtooth National Forest

2647 Kimberly Road East

Twin Falls, ID 83301

208-737-3200
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 2

ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary documents the analysis of 

seven alternatives, which were developed for possible management of the 2.2 million acres 

administered by the Boise National Forest in Idaho; 2.3 million acres administered by the Payette 

National Forest in Idaho; and 2.1 million acres administered by the Sawtooth National Forest in 

Idaho and Utah. 

Alternatives developed in detail are identified as 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Alternative 1B (the No 

Action Alternative) continues management direction from the current Forest Plans as amended 

by Pacfish and Infish and as adjusted to include the terms of the Biological Opinions for fish 

species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative 2 

(modified Proposed Action) provides for a mix of uses and restoration activities. Alternative 3 

emphasizes watershed and vegetation restoration to achieve or approach historical range of 

variation for the biophysical resources. Alternative 4 reduces risks to species viability and 

ecological integrity by minimizing human-caused disturbance over the short term. Alternative 5 

emphasizes production of goods and services within the sustainable limits of the ecosystem. 

Alternative 6 reduces human-caused risks to the ecological values of Inventoried Roadless Areas 

and unroaded areas by minimizing management activities and eliminating incompatible uses. 

Alternative 7 was developed between the Draft and Final EIS to address a number of comments 

on the Draft EIS that identified key issues and concerns, including listed species protection, 

watershed and aquatic restoration priority, roadless area conservation, National Fire Plan and 

Healthy Forests Initiative, and timber commodity production. 

The Selected Alternative will guide all natural resource management activities on the Forests; 

address changed conditions and direction that have occurred since the original plans were 

released; and meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and policies. The Selected 

Alternative is identified and described in the Records of Decision for this Final EIS.

The policy of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, or disability, familial 

status, or political affiliation. Persons believing they have been discriminated against in any 

Forest Service related activity should write to: 

Chief, Forest Service 

USDA, P.O. Box 96090 

Washington, DC 20090-6090
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

The Proposed Action....................................................................................................................S-3

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.................................................................................S-3

 Purpose of the Proposed Action..............................................................................................S-3

 Need for the Proposed Action.................................................................................................S-3

 Changes from DEIS to FEIS...................................................................................................S-8

 The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup ..............................................................................................S-9

Decisions To Be Made ...............................................................................................................S-10

Issues..........................................................................................................................................S-11

 Issue Identification................................................................................................................S-11

 Significant Issues ..................................................................................................................S-12

 Preliminary Issues Not Addressed in Detail .........................................................................S-25

 National and Regional Issues................................................................................................S-27

Development of the Reasonable Range of Alternatives ............................................................S-31

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..................................................S-32

 Group 1: Alternatives Refined To Better Reflect Alternative Emphasis..............................S-32

 Group 2: Alternatives That Did Not Meet Purpose and Need For Change and/or

 Did Not Address A Significant Issue to Drive Alternative Development ............................S-34

 Group 3: Alternatives Already Represented within the Range of Alternatives 

 Considered in Detail..............................................................................................................S-38

Alternatives Considered in Detail..............................................................................................S-39

 Elements Common to All Alternatives.................................................................................S-39

 Alternative 1B.......................................................................................................................S-45

 Alternative 2..........................................................................................................................S-47

 Alternative 3..........................................................................................................................S-51

 Alternative 4..........................................................................................................................S-53

 Alternative 5..........................................................................................................................S-56

 Alternative 6..........................................................................................................................S-58

 Alternative 7..........................................................................................................................S-61

Comparison of Alternatives.......................................................................................................S-65

 Selected Outcomes and Activities by Alternative ................................................................S-65

 Comparison of Alternative Effects on Resource Issues and Indicators................................S-67

The Preferred Alternative Identified in the DEIS ....................................................................S-128
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 4

THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Forest Service proposes to revise the Land and Resource Management Plans (hereafter 

referred to as “Forest Plans”) for the Sawtooth, Payette, and Boise National Forests. These 

revisions are proposed to meet legal and regulatory requirements, and to address changes, issues, 

and concerns that have arisen since the Forest Plans were originally released for the Sawtooth 

National Forest (1987), Payette National Forest (1988), and the Boise National Forest (1990). 

The area covered under this revision includes the National Forests in the Southwest Idaho 

Ecogroup, shown in Figure 1-1.

The Notice of Intent to revise the Boise and Payette Forest Plans, and amend the Sawtooth Forest 

Plan was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1998. A revised Notice of Intent to 

revise all three Forest Plans was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 1999. The Federal 

Register was also used to announce the release of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statements and the Records of Decision.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

Purpose of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide revised Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth Forest 

Plans that will: (1) guide all natural resource management activities on the Forests, (2) address 

changed conditions and direction that have occurred since the original plans were released, and 

(3) meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and policies. This purpose will be met by 

selecting a management strategy that best achieves a combination of the following goals:

• Maintain or restore long-term ecosystem health and integrity.

• Contribute to the economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities.

• Provide sustainable and predictable levels of products and services from National Forest 

System lands on the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests.

• Emphasize adaptive management over the long term.

• Provide consistent direction at the Forest level that will assist managers in making project 

decisions at a local level in the context of broader ecological considerations.

• Replace interim direction (Pacfish/Infish and listed fish species Biological Opinions) with an 

ecosystem-based, long-term Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

Need for the Proposed Action

The three Ecogroup Forest Supervisors initiated revisions of their respective Forest Plans based 

on a number of factors, including legal requirements, changed conditions, and Need For Change.

Legal Requirements

Regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 require the 

Regional Forester to revise forest plans and provide the basis for revision. In 1982, instructions 

to revise forest plans were formulated in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219. The 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 5

Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map for the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 6

regulations are currently being revised, but will not be finalized before the release of the Revised 

Forest Plans. The final revised Plans will therefore be subject to direction provided by the 1982 

regulations. Specific instructions found at 36 CFR 219.10(g) state:

“A forest plan shall ordinarily be revised on a 10-year cycle or at least every 15 years. 

It also may be revised whenever the Forest Supervisor determines that conditions or 

demands in the area covered by the plan have changed significantly, or when changes in 

RPA policies, goals, or objectives would have a significant effect on forest level 

programs.”

The Forest Supervisors determined that revision was warranted because it was within the 10 to 

15 year time period allotted for revision, and significant changes had occurred in conditions and 

demands. Legal challenges, described below, also contributed to the decision to initiate the 

Forest Plan revision process. 

In 1994, the Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation League, Sierra Club, and Idaho 

Sportsmen’s Coalition filed a lawsuit against the Payette National Forest, challenging the Forest 

Plan’s management of timber, roadless areas, fish and wildlife, and other items. As a result of 

negotiations with the plaintiffs, a settlement agreement was signed in 1995 that stated the Forest 

Service complete a revised Forest Plan for the Payette National Forest by December 31, 2000. 

That date was extended to July 31, 2003 due to additional changes and delays, and subsequent 

negotiations between the Forest and the plaintiffs.

In 1995, the Idaho Sporting Congress filed a complaint against the Boise and Payette National 

Forests for failing to supplement their Forest Plan EISs to reflect changes caused by large 

wildfires in 1994. Idaho District Court Judge Winmill upheld the Forest Service on all grounds 

in his September 25, 1996 decision. In August 1997, a three-judge panel of the Court upheld 

Judge Winmill’s decision due to the fact that the Boise and Payette Forests were already 

addressing changes needed to the Forest Plans, including changed conditions created by the 1994 

fires, through their Forest Plan revision process. 

Changed Conditions

National Forests monitor and evaluate management activities to determine how well forest plan 

management direction has been met and applied. Periodically the Forests document the results 

in a public report. The Ecogroup Forests completed Forest-wide monitoring reports in 1996 that 

highlighted changed conditions since the original Forest Plans were released. Some of the more 

significant changes are summarized below:

• Wildfires have affected an estimated 14 percent of the land base on the Boise National Forest 

and 13 percent on the Payette National Forest since their original Plans were released. (Since 

1996 an additional 6 percent of the Boise Forest, and 19 percent of the Payette Forest have 

been affected by wildfire, for totals of 20 and 32 percent, respectively, since the original 

Plans were released.)

• Substantial increases in noxious weeds and tree mortality have occurred in localized areas.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 7

• Impacts to water quality from human-caused sediment have increased in some areas, and the 

State of Idaho has listed a number of water bodies in the Ecogroup area as Water Quality 

Limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

• Damage to riparian areas has increased in some areas, primarily as a result of livestock and 

recreation uses.

• Interim direction from Pacfish and Infish forest plan amendments and terms and conditions 

resulting from Biological Opinions generated through consultation for species recently listed 

under the ESA, have required resource mitigation that is beyond original Forest Plan 

estimates for protection. This, in turn, has affected estimated outputs on the Forests. 

• New awareness, approaches, and management policies have emerged to promote the 

sustainability of ecosystems.

• Improved information gathering and organizing techniques (Geographic Information 

Systems, LANDSAT imagery, new resource inventories) have expanded our knowledge 

about the Forests.

• Species listed under the ESA have changed, with additions of chinook salmon, steelhead, and 

bull trout. Since 1996, additional species have been listed (e.g., Canada lynx, northern Idaho 

ground squirrel), while other species have been de-listed (peregrine falcon), or are proposed 

for de-listing (bald eagle). In addition, new plant species are proposed for the Region 4 

Sensitive Species List.

Need For Change

In 1997, the Forests documented the need to establish or change Forest Plan management 

direction or emphasis in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) 

Summary. Four primary sources for determining Need for Change topics were used:

• Results of the three Forest Plan monitoring reports.

• Comparison of the latest regulatory and policy requirements with existing Forest Plan 

direction.

• Comments from Forest employees who have been implementing the Forest Plans.

• New information, such as research studies and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project scientific assessments.

Upon review of the existing documentation, the following eight Need for Change topics for 

Forest Plan revision were identified:

Topic 1 - Biological Diversity. This topic includes rare and unique species and habitats; 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species (aquatic, terrestrial, and botanical); successional 

stages; snags and coarse woody debris; vegetation composition and structure; landscape 

linkages; habitat edge; and horizontal and vertical diversity. 

Topic 2 - Fire and Smoke Management. This topic includes fire as an ecological process and 

management tool, wildland/urban interface, smoke management, and air quality.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 8

Topic 3 - Habitat Fragmentation and Disruption. This topic focuses on fragmentation and 

disruption to habitats caused by human activities—such as road building and improved access, 

timber harvest, and utility corridors—or through natural processes such as fire, insects, and 

disease.

Topic 4 - Non-native Plants. This topic addresses management of non-native plants, including 

noxious weeds and exotics, and their influence on vegetative diversity, fire regimes, and 

hydrologic function.

Topic 5 - Rangelands/Grazing Resources. This topic includes determination of rangeland 

capability, rangeland suitability, range management prescriptions for suitable lands, and wildlife 

and recreation interactions with livestock management.

Topic 6 - Riparian and Aquatic. This topic addresses riparian area and aquatic resource 

management, including rangeland and recreation influences.

Topic 7 - Timber Suitability. This topic includes identification of lands not suited and suited 

for timber management.

Topic 8 - Management Emphasis Areas. This topic addresses areas with special management 

emphasis, including Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

Research Natural Areas (RNA), and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

The Need for Change topics were used to formulate the Proposed Action, and in some cases 

were significant issues that were analyzed in the FEIS. Other topics resulted in management 

direction changes that are found in the revised Forest Plans. More detailed descriptions of the 

Need for Change Topics can be found in Chapter II of the revised Forest Plans.

Changes from DEIS to FEIS

The Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) appeared in the 

Federal Register on November 24, 2000. The comment period on the DEIS, as published in the 

Notice, ended on March 16, 2001. In response to public request, the Regional Forester extended 

the comment period to June 15, 2001. The Ecogroup received over 3,600 responses, including 

transcripts from formal public hearings, letters, electronic-mailings, and faxes on the Draft 

documents. The responses were analyzed using the content analysis process by a specialized 

Forest Service unit, the Content Analysis Team. Appendix A of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) summarizes who commented, what the comments were, and the Agency’s 

response to those comments.

Refinements to some management prescription categories (MPCs) were made in response to 

internal concerns, as well as external comments concerning restrictions in MPCs portrayed by 

the User Guide issued with the DEIS. These concerns were reviewed, and adjustments in the 

type and intensity of activities allowed in some MPCs were made (see revised Forest Plans, 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 9

Management Area Description and Direction section). Also, MPCs were assigned for 

Inventoried Roadless Area boundaries rather than for the subwatershed boundaries that surround 

the IRAs, as they were in the DEIS.

Based on comments received, the significant issues section of this Chapter has been reformatted 

to include information as to how each issue was used in the revision process. While no new 

significant issues were identified from public comments, additional information and concerns 

related to the existing issues were received, and they have been incorporated into the issue 

descriptions and indicators. 

Alternative 7 was generated in response to comments on the DEIS (see Appendix A to the FEIS, 

and the project record). This alternative combines many elements of alternatives (particularly 3, 

5, and 6) that were presented in the DEIS. Alternative 7 is an ecosystem-based management 

alternative that attempts to balance and integrate the wide range of management emphasis by: 

• Maintaining the overall unroaded character of Inventoried Roadless Areas,

• Moving toward desired future conditions through restoration for aquatics, riparian, 

terrestrial, and vegetative conditions,

• Increasing emphasis on treatments within wildland-urban interface watersheds to reduce 

hazardous fuel conditions, and 

• Providing for sustainable levels of goods and services, focusing on the roaded portions of 

National Forest System lands within the Ecogroup Forests’ administrative boundaries.

A detailed description of Alternative 7 can be found in this Summary. In addition to generation 

of Alternative 7, other alternatives suggested by comments on the DEIS were considered but 

eliminated from detailed study for reasons discussed in this Summary (see project record for 

additional information). Finally, a number of changes were made to resource analyses in the 

FEIS in response to concerns raised in comments on the DEIS. 

The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup

The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is composed of an estimated 6,600,000 acres of National Forest 

System lands on the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests, primarily in southwestern 

Idaho. The Ecogroup administrative boundaries stretch west to the Oregon border, east to the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest, north to the Nez Perce National Forest, and south to Box Elder 

County in Utah. 

The geology of the area features steep mountain ranges and deep river canyons, with elevations 

ranging from 1,600 to 12,000 feet. Temperatures can range from over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in 

summer to 40 below zero in winter. Annual precipitation can vary from under 10 inches (mostly 

as rain) in the low canyons to over 70 inches (mostly as snow) in the high mountains. There are 

an estimated 14,400 stream miles and 62,520 acres of lakes on the Ecogroup. Major rivers in the 

Ecogroup area include the Snake, Salmon, South Fork Salmon, Middle Fork Salmon, East Fork 

Salmon, North Fork Payette, Middle Fork Payette, South Fork Payette, North Fork Boise, Middle 

Fork Boise, South Fork Boise, Weiser, Big Wood, and Raft. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 10

The Ecogroup area of social and economic influence takes in more than 20 counties with a 

combined population of over 1 million people. The largest communities located near the 

Ecogroup area are Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, Twin Falls, Mountain Home, Weiser, Burley, 

Rupert, Jerome, Hailey, Ketchum, Sun Valley, McCall, and Cascade.

There are an estimated 5,000 miles of road and 1,200 miles of trails on the Boise National Forest 

that provide access to public lands. The Payette has approximately 3,000 miles of road and 

2,000 miles of trail. The Sawtooth has an estimated 2,000 miles of road and 1,600 miles of trail. 

There are about 1 million acres of designated wilderness in the Ecogroup area, and over 3 

million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas. Nearly 27,000 acres of Research Natural Areas 

have been established. 

The wide variety of ecological conditions in the Ecogroup area provides habitat for over 50 fish 

species and 300 terrestrial vertebrate species (mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians), 

including deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, pronghorn antelope, cougar, and black 

bear. Habitat occurs for the following fish and wildlife species currently listed under the 

Endangered Species Act: sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, bald eagle, 

gray wolf, Canada lynx, and northern Idaho ground squirrel. Habitat for a number of listed, 

proposed, or candidate plant species also exists in the Ecogroup area.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The revision planning process involves an environmental analysis (an EIS) with three separate 

Records of Decision, and three revised Forest Plans. The FEIS analyzes a range of alternatives 

for addressing the six key decisions to be made in Forest Plan revision: 

• Establishment of Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, including a description of 

the desired future condition of the Forest (36 CFR 219.11[b]).

• Establishment of Forest-wide standards and guidelines to fulfill the requirements of 16 USC 

1604 (NFMA) applying to future activities (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27). 

• Establishment of management areas and direction applying to future activities in those 

management areas (36 CFR 219.11[C]).

• Identification of lands not suited for timber production (16 USC 1604[k] and 36 CFR 219.14) 

and the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) determination for timber that may be sold from the 

suited timber base during each decade (36 CFR 219.16(a)).

• Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements that will provide a basis for a 

periodic determination of the effects of management practices (36 CFR 219.11[d]).

• Recommendation to Congress of areas for wilderness classification where 36 CFR 219.17(a) 

applies. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 11

The Responsible Official for this analysis and its decisions is the Regional Forester. Based on 

the analysis in the DEIS, comments received, and the FEIS, the Responsible Official will select 

an alternative to revise the three Forest Plans. Documentation and rationale for this selection 

will be included in the Records of Decision accompanying the FEIS. The alternative selected 

will include the six key Forest Plan decisions listed above.

The Records of Decision will set a course of action for managing the Ecogroup Forests for the 

next 10 to 15 years. However, project-level environmental analysis will continue for specific 

proposals implementing the revised Forest Plans. For example, the Forest Plans contain general 

direction to close or obliterate roads to help achieve management goals for biophysical resources 

and to increase management efficiency, but a subsequent site-specific NEPA analysis and 

decision will have to be made before a proposal can be implemented to close or obliterate any 

specific road. This process is referred to as "staged decision-making" because a series of 

decisions are necessary to carry out projects relative to specific needs, priorities, locations, 

conditions, and stakeholder concerns. 

ISSUES

Issue Identification

To identify significant issues for Forest Plan revision, comments were solicited from a number of 

sources, which fall into three categories:

• Need For Change from the Preliminary AMS Summary, which was derived from Forest 

monitoring reports, regulatory requirements, employee comments, and new information.

• Consultation with federally recognized tribes and federal representatives, including federal 

regulatory agencies, Congressional delegations, and Forest Service employees at the 

Regional, Forest, and District levels.

• Public involvement, including open houses, scoping letters, conversations, and meetings with 

special interest groups to discuss scoping comments. 

The Revision Team compiled comments and concerns from all of these sources, then identified 

preliminary issues that would: (1) help develop alternatives, (2) influence Forest Plan direction, 

or (3) be used to track potential effects from the alternatives. The Revision Team presented 

these preliminary issues to the Responsible Official for review and selection of significant issues 

to be carried forward into analysis. The comments and concerns, and the process used for 

identifying issues, are presented in detail in Appendix A to the FEIS, Public Involvement. The 

significant issues are described below, followed by the issues that were not addressed in detail, 

and National and Regional issues.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 12

Significant Issues

Significant issues are unresolved issues used in environmental analysis to formulate alternatives, 

prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. At the forest planning level, 

mitigation measures are incorporated into management direction (goals, objectives, standards, 

and guidelines) or management prescriptions that influence the type, amount, and intensity of 

management actions that may be implemented under the Forest Plan. The Responsible Official 

selected significant issues for revision based on one or more of the following criteria:

• Would these issues be used to help develop management alternatives or management 

direction, or would they be used in the allocation of management prescriptions? 

• Would the management alternatives, direction, or prescriptions have discernable effects on 

the issues or their related resources?

• Would effects to the issues be sufficiently different by alternative to provide the Responsible 

Official with rationale for choosing a preferred or selected alternative?

Significant issues are grouped by resource and are described below using an issue statement and 

a brief background explanation that includes how the issue was considered in the revision 

process. More detailed information concerning the issues and indicators can be found in the 

various resource sections of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

In the background statements, most issues are described as to how Forest Plan management 

strategies may affect specific resources or conditions. The term “management strategies” 

generally refers to Forest Plan management direction (i.e., goals, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines) and the allocation of management prescriptions (MPCs) that differ by alternative. 

The MPCs provide a broad range of management emphasis that would allow for a different mix 

of management activities and intensities to potentially occur under each alternative. The Forest 

Plans, however, do not authorize the implementation of any management activities. 

Air Quality and Smoke Management 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect air quality based on the amount 

of smoke produced by fire use and wildfire.

Background to Issue: The public’s desire for clean air and good visibility presents a challenge 

for fire management within the Ecogroup area. Wildfires can have significant impacts on air 

quality, especially when they burn in areas with uncharacteristically high fuel loadings. Fire use 

affects air quality as well; however, the timing, location, and intensity of prescribed and wildland 

fire use can be controlled to a certain extent. 

This issue was used to develop specific management direction and to address potential effects to 

air quality from the different management strategies of the alternatives. 

Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources 

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the loss of soil-hydrologic 

function and long-term soil productivity from uncharacteristically lethal wildfire within highly 

vulnerable subwatersheds. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 13

Background to Issue 1: New information and research have linked accelerated soil erosion, 

loss of nutrient base, and triggering of floods, landslides, and debris flows uncharacteristic of 

their normal pattern and frequency, to uncharacteristically large and lethal stand replacing 

wildfires. This is especially a concern in subwatersheds that have high to extreme 

uncharacteristic vegetation hazards and high inherent vulnerability ratings. Management 

strategies that reduce extreme or high vegetation hazards, thus lowering risk to uncharacteristic 

or lethal wildfires, he lp reduce the potential for accelerated soil erosion, loss of nutrient base, and 

triggering of floods, landslides, and debris torrents.

The assumption is—the lower the risk, the lower the fire-related potential for soil erosion and 

landslides to affect human life or property over the long term. Thus, management strategies that 

place more subwatersheds that have potential post-wildfire risks to human life and property, high 

subwatershed vulnerability, and high or extreme uncharacteristic forest vegetation hazard into 

MPCs that would likely have limited or no vegetation restoration treatments to reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristically lethal wildfire (1.1, 1.2, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 a, 4.1b) will result in greater 

negative effects. 

This issue was primarily used to analyze potential affects to soil resources associated with effects 

from Fire Issue 2, which vary by alternative. 

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the number of subwatersheds 

considered at risk to post-wildfire floods and debris flows with potential effects to human life 

and property following uncharacteristically lethal wildfire. 

Background to Issue 2: There is a need to reduce potential negative effects to human life, 

property, and municipal watersheds in subwatersheds that have been identified as a potential 

post-wildfire risk to human life and property from post-wildfire floods, landslides, and debris 

flows. These subwatersheds would likely require Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) if 

an uncharacteristically lethal wildfire were to occur within them. One of the main objectives in 

implementing BAER measures is to initiate action promptly for immediate rehabilitation 

following wildfires to minimize “Threats to Human Life and Property” (Forest Service 

Handbook 2509.13). 

New information and research continues to identify the potential for post-wildfire accelerated 

soil erosion, flooding and triggering of landslides uncharacteristic of their normal pattern and 

frequency following large uncharacteristic wildfire. This is especially a concern in 

subwatersheds that have high to extreme uncharacteristic vegetation hazards and high inherent 

vulnerability ratings. Management strategies (prescribed fire or mechanical vegetation 

treatment) that reduce these risks help reduce the post-wildfire threats and associated 

rehabilitation costs to these subwatersheds. The potential for using these types of strategies can 

be inferred from the MPCs that have been assigned to these subwatersheds by alternative. 

This issue was primarily used to analyze potential affects to soil and water resources associated 

with effects from Fire Issue 2, which vary by alternative. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 14

Issue Statement 3: Forest Plan management strategies may have potential effects on soil 

productivity, accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, water quality, riparian function, Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water bodies, and listed Section 303(d) Water Quality Limited 

(WQL) water bodies.

Background to Issue 3: Since the development of the existing plans, numerous WQL water 

bodies have become listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act, and new assessments have 

been and are being developed to help determine appropriate water quality restoration plans. 

Watershed restoration is applied at various intensities under the Forest Plan alternatives to 

improve soil, water, and riparian conditions and help de-list subwatersheds with TMDLs or 

303(d) WQL water bodies. There are approximately 50 subwatersheds within TMDL plans and 

approximately 200 subwatersheds identified as 303(d) WQL water bodies within the Ecogroup 

area. De-listing of subwatersheds that have TMDLs or 303(d) WQL water bodies should be 

more likely to occur when management direction is applied that emphasizes the appropriate 

watershed and aquatic restoration or conservation strategies. The analysis examines how 

management strategies considered would affect de-listing the TMDLs, 303(d) WQL water bodies 

by improving soil productivity, water quality, and beneficial uses. 

This issue was used to develop alternatives through restoration/conservation strategies to address 

soil productivity, erosion, landslides/mass movements, sedimentation, water quality, riparian 

function, and Section 303(d)/TMDL concerns. This issue was also used to develop management

direction and to track potential effects of the various alternative management strategies related to 

the concerns listed above. 

Issue Statement 4: Forest Plan management strategies may have potential effects on aquatic 

habitat and species, including species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), Region 4 sensitive species, species at risk, and Forest Management Indicator 

Species. 

 

Background to Issue 4: Since the development of the existing plans, several fish species have 

become listed under ESA, and interim land management strategies protecting anadromous 

(Pacfish) and resident (Infish) fish species have been amended into existing plans. Subsequent 

biological opinions (BOs) for bull trout, steelhead, and chinook have also amended the plans. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also developed draft recovery plans and proposed critical 

habitat for bull trout. Existing plans do not consistently support these new events and mandates. 

Long-term watershed and aquatic restoration strategies were never developed as part of interim 

or BO strategies and, this deficiency is recognized as a significant shortcoming to the 

conservation and recovery of listed species. 

Four species of native fish have been listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. There 

are also two fish species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Improvement of TES 

and other native fish habitat should occur when management direction is applied that emphasizes 

the appropriate watershed and aquatic restoration or conservation strategies. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 15

This issue was used in development of alternative restoration/conservation strategies to assist in 

the recovery or conservation of ESA listed species and Region 4 sensitive species. Strategies 

were developed through adjustments in MPC allocations in watersheds that have ESA listed 

species and/or Region 4 sensitive species. The issue was also used in developing management 

direction and for tracking potential effects of the alternatives to aquatic species and their habitats. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species 

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect habitat for terrestrial wildlife 

species, including species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, Region 4 sensitive species, species of special interest, species at risk, and Forest 

Management Indicator Species. 

Background to Issue 1: Forest Plan management strategies that do not provide any substantial 

restrictions on activities such as road construction, timber harvest, livestock grazing, recreation, 

mining, and fire use could increase habitat alteration and fragmentation, as well as disturbance to 

species. These impacts, in turn, could negatively affect species viability. Viability is a concern 

for all terrestrial species, but particularly for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive 

species for which habitat and/or populations may be currently in decline. 

This issue was used in development of alternative habitat restoration strategies to assist in the 

recovery or conservation of ESA listed species and Region 4 sensitive species. Adjustments in 

MPC allocations provided for alternative approaches in achieving habitat and viability needs. 

This issue was also used in the development of management direction relative to habitat 

alteration and fragmentation, and for tracking potential effects of the alternatives to terrestrial 

species and their habitats. 

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect disruption, vulnerability, and 

disease risk to terrestrial wildlife species. 

Background to Issue 2: Some species of wildlife are sensitive to human activities in close 

proximity during the breeding, nesting and wintering portions of their life cycles. Human 

activities, whether intentional or unintentional, can increase stress to some species and may 

reduce their reproductive success. Wide-ranging carnivores—such as the gray wolf and the 

wolverine—are habitat generalists that are more susceptible to population disruption than habitat 

change. Elk are also habitat generalists and are of great social and economic importance in 

Idaho and Utah. Of particular concern is elk vulnerability during hunting season. Bighorn sheep 

populations have declined in the Ecogroup area during the last 100-150 years. Although these 

species have no status under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about 

their population status and viability. One threat is the risk of disease transmission from domestic 

sheep to bighorn sheep, where their grazing overlaps and the potential for direct contact exists.

This issue was used in alternative development through rangeland suitability variations to 

address the risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep. This issue was also used for 

developing management direction and tracking potential effects of the alternatives to terrestrial 

species and their habitats relative to the potential for disruption and disease transmission.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 16

Botanical Resources 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive (TEPCS) and watch plant species populations and habitats. 

Background to Issue: Many vascular plant species are endemic to the Ecogroup area, and some 

of these are considered rare by conservation organizations or federal agencies. Four of these rare 

endemics are found only on National Forest System lands within the Ecogroup area, and many of 

the rare endemics have a large portion of their global distribution on National Forest lands. In 

contrast, several plant species have wide global distributions but are rare within the Ecogroup 

area. The potential effects of Forest Plan management strategies on the most rare plant species 

within the Ecogroup area will be assessed. 

This issue was used to develop specific management direction to provide protection for botanical 

resources. It also was used to track potential effects on TEPCS and watch plants from grounddisturbing activities associated with the management strategies of the alternatives.

Vegetation Diversity 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect vegetative biodiversity by 

changing size class, species composition, density, structure, snags, and coarse woody debris. 

Background To Issue: Comments received about vegetation were varied with regard to how 

vegetation should look and function. This analysis focuses on changes in vegetation structure 

and composition that may occur under the management alternatives. The analysis forms the 

foundation for how vegetation may function for other resources such as timber, range, wildlife 

habitat, fire, and scenic environment. Current conditions and effects are described for forested 

vegetation, including forestlands, riverine riparian areas, snags, and coarse woody debris, and for 

non-forested vegetation, including shrublands, grasslands, woodlands, and deciduous riparian 

areas. 

This issue was used to develop alternative desired conditions for vegetative diversity, using 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) as reference conditions for components such as size class, 

species composition, density, structure, snags, and coarse woody debris. Desired conditions 

varied based on MPC emphasis, and MPC allocations provided for alternative approaches in 

achieving the desired conditions. This issue was also used in the development of management 

direction and in tracking potential effects of the alternatives to biodiversity components.

Vegetation Hazard 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of vegetation at risk 

to uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect disturbances. 

Background to Issue: Concerns were expressed internally and externally about the risk of large 

uncharacteristic disturbances, such as wildfires, that have occurred since the mid-1980s. In 

many cases, these events affect a host of resources—including fisheries, wildlife habitat, timber, 

visual quality, and soils—and cost millions of dollars to suppress and mitigate. The long-term 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 17

impacts of these disturbances prompted comments about the likelihood of such events occurring 

in the future, and the potential to reduce the risks. Fire and insect hazard indices are directly 

related to changes in vegetative conditions including size class and/or density that would vary by 

the type and amount of vegetation treatment associated with each alternative. 

This issue was used in alternative development through identification of areas at risk for large, 

uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect outbreaks, and alternative MPC allocations to 

address the risks. This issue was also used to analyze the effectiveness of the alternatives in 

reducing the risk for large, uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect outbreaks. 

Non-native Plants 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies have the potential to influence non-native 

plant establishment, spread, detection, and control. 

Background To Issue: Non-native plants are species that do not have their origin in a local 

area, and include exotic plants and noxious weeds. Noxious weed and exotic plant species are 

spreading rapidly locally, regionally, and nationally. Noxious weeds classified as invaders pose 

the greatest threat. Infestations can substantially change the biological diversity of an area by 

affecting the amount and distribution of native plants and animals. They can also have negative 

impacts on recreation, regeneration, wildlife and livestock forage, soil productivity, fire cycles, 

nitrogen cycling, riparian and hydrologic function, and water quality. Primary concerns related 

to Forest noxious weed management are: (1) effectively identifying and managing sources of 

weed establishment and spread, (2) the need to coordinate weed management across 

jurisdictional boundaries and adjacent land ownerships, and (3) the ability to implement weed 

management over the long-term based upon budgets, management direction, priorities, and 

resource integration. These variables will likely change by alternative. 

This issue was used to develop management direction relative to controlling the establishment 

and spread of non-native plants, and more specifically, noxious weeds. It was also used to 

analyze how the alternatives address the susceptibility to noxious weed invasion and spread. 

Fire Management 

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the restoration and 

maintenance of the ecological role of fire in ecosystems. 

Background to Issue 1: Forest Service fire personnel expressed concerns about meeting the 

intent of the changes articulated initially in the 1995 Fire Management Policy and Program 

Review and subsequently in the National Fire Plan. Issues raised to date have included how past 

land management activities and decisions have affected the role of fire as an ecosystem process, 

as well as the potential for large wildfires. Generally the public agrees that there is a need to 

address the risk of large wildfires. However, there is strong disagreement as to what are the 

appropriate methods to address this concern. Research has shown that fire plays important 

ecological roles in ecosystem processes and functions such as landscape dynamics, nutrient 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 18

cycling, and germination or regeneration of many graminoid, forb, or shrub species. Some 

members of the public felt that using fire rather than timber harvest destroyed valuable timber 

resulting in lost economic opportunities, reduced wildlife habitat, and increased sedimentation. 

Others felt that use of timber harvest rather than fire resulted in similar resource effects. 

This issue was used in alternative development through identification of areas at risk for large, 

uncharacteristic wildfire and alternative management approaches through MPC allocations to 

address the risks. The differences in management approach were by MPCs that use fire versus 

fire/mechanical treatments for vegetation management. This issue was also used to analyze the 

effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the risk for large, uncharacteristic wildfire. 

 

Issue Statement for Issue 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of 

vegetation at risk to wildfire, and at what rate hazardous conditions are reduced in areas where 

there are threats to life and private property (wildland-urban interface). 

Background to Issue 2: Concerns regarding interface were raised initially during the 1995 Fire 

Management Policy and Program Review. The review noted that, while fire protection and 

prevention in wildland-urban interface were not new problems, fuel build-ups and population 

growth had increased risks. Resources available to suppress wildfires were often spread thin, 

jeopardizing property, natural resources, firefighter, and public safety. Property losses and 

expenditures to suppress wildfires were increasing. These concerns were highlighted during the 

2000 fire season when over 8,000,000 acres burned nationally. During this fire season 2.3 times 

more acres burned than the annual average from 1990 through 1999. During the 2000 fire 

season, 861 structures were lost to wildfire. In 2001, while the acres burned nationally were 

similar to the 10-year average, 731 structures burned. These wildfires provided poignant 

examples of wildfire risks in wildland-urban interface, and they have generated considerable 

public concern. 

The 2000 fire season resulted in the National Fire Plan, which was developed in part to address 

the increasing concern about the risks and impacts of wildfires on wildland-urban interface. The 

National Fire Plan provides a strategic framework for addressing these risks, including 

identifying the roles of federal, tribal, state, and private land managers and owners in risk 

management. The plan also provides funding for a variety of actions. These actions include 

fuels reductions designed to increase the chances of suppressing wildfires while they are still 

small and of low intensity in areas where large wildfires are a concern. Such reduction will in 

turn increase firefighter and public safety and decrease threats to communities.

This issue was used to develop alternatives through MPC allocations to address treatment to 

reduce wildfire risks. This issue is closely related to the Vegetation Hazard issue but focuses on 

wildland-urban interface areas at risk for large, uncharacteristic wildfire. The differences in 

management approach can be described in terms of MPCs that use fire versus fire/mechanical 

treatments for vegetation management. This issue was also used for analyzing the effectiveness 

of the alternatives in reducing the risk for large, uncharacteristic wildfire, and for developing 

specific management objectives to reduce wildfire risks in wildland-urban interface. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 19

Rangeland Resources 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect rangeland resources, including 

lands considered suitable for livestock grazing and the form of livestock grazing management

authorized under permit for the Forests.

Background to Issue: Re-evaluation of rangeland capability and suitability during forest plan 

revision effects where livestock may be grazed under a specific alternative (i.e. on suited 

rangelands). The forest plan also defines the desired outcomes and prescriptive measures (i.e. 

standards and guidelines under each resource section related to grazing) that are then used during 

the more site-specific AMP analysis and decision process. During the AMP process alternative 

grazing practices are considered that are needed to meet the desired outcomes and prescriptive 

measures found in the forest plan. This may or may not result in a reduction in AUMs or Head 

Months. Each AMP process will tailor a suite of grazing practices for each allotment, as needed, 

to meet desired outcomes and prescriptive direction found in the revised plans. 

This was considered as one of the factors in Socio-economic Issue 1, which was used to develop 

alternatives. This issue was also used to develop specific management direction associated with 

livestock grazing, to indicate influences on (recreation conflicts, risk of disease transmission, 

noxious weeds, etc.) and changes in suitable rangelands by alternative, and to address the effects 

of alternative management strategies on the rangeland program. 

Timberland Resources 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of suited 

timberlands and sustainable timber managed by the Forests. 

Background to Issue: Comments received on timber suitability and management revealed a 

wide range of opinions, including opposing points of view on how and how much timber should 

be managed. These comments were compiled and used to develop issues that address two 

primary areas of interest; how much land and which lands are included as suited timberlands; 

and what is the sustainable level of timber harvest. Concerns related to timber management 

included costs and values of implementation, supply and demand for timber, and effects on 

community stability. These concerns are addressed in the Socio-economic Environment section 

of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. 

Timberlands previously identified as not suited for timber production are required by law to be 

reassessed every 10 years. Other factors that warrant a timber reassessment include changes in 

land ownership, allocation of some land to specific uses, and new technology available for 

assessing land status. 

This issue was considered as one of the factors in Socio-economic Issue 1, which was used to 

develop alternatives. This issue was used in developing direction specific to sustainable timber 

management objectives and mitigation for harvest-related practices. The issue was also used to 

track effects on suited timberlands and potential yields of timber and other wood products by 

alternative.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 20

Recreation 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect recreation resources, 

experiences, and opportunities. 

Background to Issue - Many comments were received related to recreation management and 

experiences on the Ecogroup Forests. These comments included diverse topics such as 

motorized and non-motorized travel, trail protection, ski area expansion, recreation residence 

management, resource protection from recreation activities, and the need to make recreation a 

Need For Change topic. 

MPCs and their related direction (i.e., goals, objectives, standards and guidelines) vary in their 

potential effect on recreation settings, resources and experiences. For example, management 

prescriptions and direction for aquatic, riparian, watershed and wildlife resources can result in a 

variety of effects to recreation facilities, opportunities, and potential development. Recreation 

facilities and activities can cause impacts, such as sedimentation and wildlife disturbance, that 

need to be mitigated or eliminated. Potential mitigation ranges from facility modifications and 

seasonal restrictions to facility decommissioning and removal. Some of these mitigations are 

mandatory, arising from compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and some depend on a 

combination of management emphasis and watershed priority. Although mitigation impacts to 

developed recreation facilities may occur at any location, facilities in watersheds that have been 

classified as high priority for restoration with an assigned MPC of 3.1 or 3.2, are the most likely 

to be affected.

Management direction for vegetation restoration and commodity production may also affect 

recreation opportunities and experiences. The most common vegetation restoration activities 

would involve timber harvest and/or prescribed fire, to achieve desired vegetative conditions. 

Timber commodity production would also include timber harvest. All of these actions have the 

potential to alter recreation settings and experiences. Landscapes classified with a high or 

extreme uncharacteristic wildfire hazard and are assigned to MPCs 5.1, 5.2 or 6.1 have a greater 

potential to change recreation settings and result in user conflicts. 

This issue was used to develop management direction and prescription allocations, and to track 

potential effects to recreation resources from different management strategies of the alternatives. 

Scenic Environment 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the scenic environment. 

Background to Issue: The scenic environment is the general appearance of a place or 

landscape, or the features of a landscape. The visual condition varies by location and is 

dependent on human developments and natural features such as geology, vegetation, and 

landforms. The Sawtooth, Payette, and Boise National Forests provide some of the highest 

quality scenery in the Intermountain West. Enjoyment of these scenic resources is an integral 

part of many recreation experiences, and scenic attractions have contributed to making these 

Forests nationally recognized recreation destinations. Although no specific scenic resource 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 21

issues were identified during public comment periods, many Forest management activities have 

the potential for affecting scenic resources. These effects could be significant and may vary 

considerably by alternative. Therefore, potential effects on scenic resources are analyzed by 

assessing potential changes in Visual Quality Objective class by alternative. 

This issue was used to develop management direction and to analyze potential effects to scenic 

resources from the different management strategies of the alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect cultural resources. 

Background to Issue: Forest management activities have the potential for directly, indirectly, 

or cumulatively affecting cultural resources through management activities that influence site 

disturbance or discovery, or that improve or restrict access to sites, or that provide the 

opportunity and funding for conducting site surveys and recordation. These activities are related 

to many of the Need for Change topics, and would be implemented under any of the alternatives. 

Compliance with federal laws governing cultural resources is an important management concern. 

This issue was used to develop management direction to reflect changes in law and policy. It 

was also used to analyze potential affects to cultural resources from the different management 

strategies of the alternatives.

Tribal Rights and Interests 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the availability of resources 

and the use of traditional places important to American Indian rights and interests. 

Background to Issue: A primary issue for the tribes within the Ecogroup is the availability and 

protection of treaty and cultural resources, including use and access to traditional places. The 

issue is the availability of resources in sufficient quantities to support the continued exercise of 

treaty rights and cultural practices. Adequate availability would allow harvest or utilization of 

resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribes, while 

still providing for the conservation needs of the species. Adequate access would not compromise 

cultural practices at traditional, cultural, or spiritual places. Resources need to be inventoried for 

impacts from non-Indian commercial harvest, and watershed conditions need to be assessed in 

terms of habitat conditions and restoration needs. 

This issue was used to develop specific management direction, and to address potential effects to 

tribal rights and interests from the different management strategies of the alternatives. 

Roads 

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the road transportation system 

and how these roads are maintained. 

Background to Issue: Management of national forest roads is an issue of national concern. 

Critical issues linked to the forest road systems include public access, resource damage, habitat 

loss, maintenance capabilities, and economics. Although roads are known to have impacts on 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 22

other resources, some level of road development is needed to produce the goods and services that 

Americans expect from their national forests. The agency’s Roads Management Policy 

highlighted roads as a national emphasis area for Forest management. Internal and external 

comments revealed two primary concerns about the potential effects of Forest Plan revision on 

roads: the amount of roads that are available for access and how these roads are maintained. 

This issue was used to develop management direction and to analyze potential effects of the 

alternatives on road availability and maintenance. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the capability for 

development or wilderness potential of existing Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Background to Issue 1: Areas that are roadless and undeveloped can be assigned one of three 

basic management prescriptions by the Forest Plan: (1) development, (2) prescriptions that 

maintain the undeveloped character, or (3) recommended wilderness. Comments on how to 

manage the Ecogroup roadless areas were highly polarized between developing the areas to 

leaving them in an undeveloped or potential wilderness condition. 

This issue was used in alternative development, management direction and prescriptions, and 

analysis of how the Forest Service proposes to manage the current Inventoried Roadless Areas 

within the Ecogroup area for each alternative. 

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies for existing Inventoried Roadless Areas 

may affect the capability to treat forest health problems. 

Background to Issue 2: A national issue that has risen to prominence since the DEIS has 

centered on the condition of much of the nation’s National Forests relative to susceptibility for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. The Forest Service’s National Fire Plan was developed in response to 

this growing issue. Although forest health problems occur within developed and undeveloped 

areas in National Forests, much of the debate has focused on IRAs where the agency’s ability to 

treat problem areas may be hampered by reduced access and treatment options. Given the large 

proportion of National Forest System lands comprised by IRAs, concern exists that the overall 

effectiveness in addressing forest health problems would be greatly limited unless areas within 

IRAs can also be effectively treated. The ability to address forest health provides involves two 

elements that in turn affect IRAs: the treatments and access that are available to managers in 

areas in need of treatment.

This issue was used in development of alternatives through identification of IRA acres at risk for 

large, uncharacteristic wildfire and development of alternative management approaches through 

MPC allocation to address the risks. The differences in management approach can be described 

in terms of MPCs that provide for a full range of vegetation treatments and access in IRAs versus 

those that limit access and/or treatment options. This issue was also used to analyze how 

effective the alternatives are in reducing the risk for large, uncharacteristic wildfire within IRAs. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 23

Issue Statement 3: Forest Plan management strategies for Inventoried Roadless Areas may or 

may not be consistent with the direction established under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

Background to Issue 3: A large number of public comments supported the adoption of 

management direction to protect IRAs that would be consistent with the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. Conversely, other comments were strongly opposed to the adoption of the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

This issue was used to allocate management prescriptions by alternative and provide 

management direction for those prescriptions. It was also used to measure consistency with the 

Roadless Conservation Rule by alternative.

Issue Statement 4: Management strategies for recommended wilderness may affect recreation 

opportunities and experiences within recommended wilderness areas as well as the potential for 

wilderness designation of those areas. 

Background to Issue 4: Public comments indicate that some people believe that allowing 

motorized uses within recommended wilderness is inconsistent with Forest Service stated 

management direction to maintain wilderness values, including opportunities for solitude and 

primitive experiences. Some feel that the noises created by motorized use as well as the use of 

mechanized equipment itself eliminates these opportunities and is thereby inconsistent with the 

management direction. Others also feel that allowing any form of mechanical transport 

including motorized uses, as well as mountain bicycling, creates the potential to establish a 

pattern of non-conforming use that builds a constituency for mechanized use of these areas, 

thereby threatening the chances for Wilderness designation. On the other side of this issue, some 

suggest that areas that are not designated as Wilderness should not be managed as Wilderness, 

while others voiced concern that there were already too many restrictions regulating motorized 

use of the Forests.

This issue was used in alternative development to address allowable uses within recommended 

wilderness areas related to mechanized uses. Alternatives 4 and 6 have a standard that prohibits 

mechanized use, while the other alternatives do not. The issue was also used to analyze effects 

from management strategies on mechanized use opportunities in recommended wilderness areas.

Wilderness

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect wilderness resources. 

Background to Issue: No issues directly related to wilderness resources were identified during 

public comment periods or the Need for Change analysis process. Significant effects to 

wilderness areas are not expected under any alternative nor are effects expected to differ by 

alternative. However, compliance with federal laws governing wilderness is an important 

management concern. As a result, this issue was used solely to track general potential effects to 

the wilderness resource common to all alternatives. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 24

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Issue Statement: Eligible rivers and their corridors may affect the Forest’s ability to implement 

management activities. 

Background to Issue: There was a need to conduct a new Wild and Scenic River eligibility 

study in order to incorporate changed conditions and new information since the previous plans 

were written. These changes included the listing of new species, changed watershed conditions, 

and new information from the ICBEMP Scientific Assessment. Forest personnel recognized that 

these changed conditions could influence whether a previously ineligible segment might now be 

considered potentially eligible, and vise versa. There was also a need to use an updated and 

consistent protocol for determining eligibility. In addition, suitability studies needed to be 

completed for the Secesh River, French, Big and Monumental Creeks on the Payette National 

Forest, and the South Fork Salmon River on the Boise and Payette National Forests. The need to 

conduct these suitability studies was generated as part of a litigation settlement between 

American Rivers, Inc. and the Payette National Forest. 

Once river segments are determined eligible, they are managed to protect their free-flowing 

status and any identified Outstanding Remarkable Values. In some instances, this change in 

designation can restrict management activities. The restrictions vary according to how the river 

segment is designated: Wild, Scenic, or Recreational. The primary activities that can be affected 

are vegetation management, rangeland management, recreation development, hydroelectric 

development, mining, and road construction. In contrast, if the rivers are not determined to be 

eligible, their values could be affected by these activities in the future. 

The Forest Plan Revision Record of Decision may recommend river segments as eligible or 

suitable for Wild and Scenic designation. While this issue did not drive alternative development, 

it was used to develop management direction and to analyze potential affects of Wild and Scenic 

River recommendations. This analysis displays the potential amount of river segments and river 

corridor area that could be affected by each recommendation, and describes the potential effects 

those recommendations could have on the river segments and other Forest resources. 

Socio-Economic Environment 

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may have social and economic effects on 

local counties and communities. 

Background to Issue 1: The socio-economic environment is not directly linked to any of the 

Need For Change topics for Forest Plan revision. However, nearly all Forest management 

activities have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the socio-economic environment 

(chiefly counties and communities). These activities are related to, or could be implemented 

under all alternatives. This analysis addresses county populations, lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs 

and values, social organization, land-use patterns, civil rights, community employment and 

income, and present net value. 

This issue was used in development of alternatives in relation to economic stability and sustained 

yield concerns. This issue was also used to address the effects of management alternatives on 

community stability and lifestyles.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 25

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the financial efficiency of 

operating the three National Forests in the Ecogroup. 

Background to Issue 2: The financial efficiency of operating national forests is of great 

concern to the Forest Service and the public. There have been controversies recently that involve 

“below-cost” timber sales, “subsidized” grazing, and recreation facilities that are deteriorating 

due to lack of maintenance or replacement funding. Financial efficiency is measured by 

comparing estimated revenues or receipts to actual or estimated costs. 

This issue was used to analyze the financial efficiency of the alternatives over a 50-year period. 

Preliminary Issues Not Addressed in Detail

Biological Diversity

A number of concerns related to biological diversity were identified in the Preliminary AMS 

Summary. Because biodiversity generally encompasses all of life and its inter-connections, the 

Forests chose not to address this topic as a separate resource or issue in this EIS; however, 

information and analysis concerning key components of biodiversity are included in the resource 

sections of Chapter 3. The Air Quality and Smoke Management and Soil, Water, Riparian, and 

Aquatic Resources sections address the physical components of air, soil, and water. The 

Vegetation Diversity section describes biological components of forested and non-forested 

ecosystems; the Botanical Resources section addresses Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, 

Candidate, and Sensitive plant species; the Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources section 

discusses effects to soil and hydrologic processes, water quality, riparian areas, and aquatic 

habitat and species of concern; the Terrestrial Habitat and Species section describes effects on 

wildlife habitat species of concern, habitat fragmentation, and disruption; the Vegetation Hazard 

and Fire Management sections address disturbance processes; and human dimension components 

of the ecosystem are analyzed in the Socio-economic Environment, Rangeland Resources, 

Timberland Resources, Recreation, Scenic Environment, Cultural Resources, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, Roads, and Wilderness Areas sections. Changes in management direction for 

these resources have been included in the appropriate sections of the revised Forest Plans. 

These key biological diversity components represent a range of resources considered under the 

Ecosystem Management framework of this document, and most resources represent some 

combination of biophysical and human dimension components. For example, the timber 

resource manages tree vegetation (biological) to provide goods and jobs (economic) to support 

local community values and lifestyles (social). The tree vegetation, in turn, depends on 

productive soils, oxygen, and water (physical) to grow and provide habitat for elk (biological) for 

people to view or hunt (social and economic). Indeed, most social and economic resources 

related to forest management are heavily dependent on the biophysical resources for long-term 

sustainability. In other words, sustainable goods and services are the product of healthy, 

properly functioning ecosystems. Thus, forest management focuses on maintaining or restoring 

the biophysical components of ecosystems in order to sustain biological diversity, provide 

economic opportunities, and support social and cultural values. 

 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 26

Facilities

The Forest Service operates and maintains administrative sites and facilities to manage the three 

Ecogroup Forests. No comments or issues were received on facilities during public comment 

periods. The Revision Team reviewed Forest Plan direction for facilities and made minor 

adjustments to ensure consistency across the Ecogroup; however, much of the direction was 

working and was therefore carried forward from the existing Plans. Management of these 

facilities under the different Forest Plan alternatives is not expected to change as a result of the 

Forest Plan revision process. Options for owning, leasing, acquiring, and disposing of facilities 

will be considered regardless of which Forest Plan alternative is selected for implementation.

Lands

The Preliminary AMS Summary identified a need to update land acquisition priorities based on 

changes in management emphasis since the original Plans were released. The updated priorities 

can be found in the Lands and Special Uses section of Chapter III in the revised Forest Plans. 

Minerals

There was a concern raised over certain land allocations that could affect the amount of land 

available for mineral exploration and development, including oil and gas leasing. Areas such as 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and recommended wilderness could be withdrawn from mineral entry, 

and these areas could vary by alternative. However, withdrawal would not occur until after 

official designation, and there is no way to predict how much area Congress would officially 

designate, and therefore no way to accurately predict subsequent effects on the minerals 

programs. Updated management direction for Minerals and Geology Resources can be found in 

Chapter III of the revised Forest Plans.

Research Natural Areas

All but one of the RNAs proposed in the last round of Forest Planning have been established. 

The revised Forest Plans propose two small RNAs of around 1,100 acres each. Because of 

regulations governing RNAs, and because the majority of the RNAs do not have high 

commodity value or potential, effects to these areas are not expected to be significant or vary 

substantially by alternative. Updated information on RNAs can be found in Appendix I, and new 

management direction for RNAs can be found in Chapter III of the revised Forest Plans.

Special Uses

Effects to special uses are not expected to be significant or vary by alternative. The Preliminary 

AMS Summary identified a need to strengthen special uses criteria in the Plans for making 

permit decisions, and provided communication and electronic site and utility corridor direction. 

This and other updated management direction can be found in the Lands and Special Uses 

section of Chapter III in the revised Forest Plans. 

Cave Management

The Preliminary AMS Summary identified a need to include language in the Plans regarding 

cave management and the protection of cave resources. This language can be found in the 

Recreation Resources section of Chapter III in the revised Forest Plans. With this protection in 

place, the Forest Plan alternatives are not expected to have significant effects on cave resources. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 27

Winter Recreation

Public comments expressed concern over the rising level of winter recreation conflicts in a 

number of areas within the Ecogroup Forests. In most cases, these conflicts are between 

snowmobilers and skiers in developed ski areas and backcountry areas. Most of these conflicts 

can only be resolved by site-specific access determinations. Because the Forest Plan revision 

process analyzes and adjusts management direction at the programmatic level, resolution of these 

conflicts is beyond the scope of this revision. Site-specific winter access management will be 

addressed in separate travel management planning processes that will follow this revision. 

However, Forest-wide direction has been reviewed and updated in the Recreation section in 

Chapter III of the revised Forest Plans to provide a foundation for subsequent analysis and access 

management determinations. In some cases, specific management direction has also been 

included for appropriate management areas.

Travel Management

Travel management and allocation of travel “use” zones are not addressed through this Forest 

Plan revision process. Travel management and Forest travel maps will be revised in a separate 

planning process. The Responsible Official elected not to address travel management in this 

revision process due to the broad array of localized issues with travel management that occurs at 

scales below a Forest Planning unit. Attempting to address specific travel management issues at 

the scale of this revision effort would not allow for the localized modifications needed to 

effectively meet resource, social, and economic issues known to exist. Forest Plan direction has 

been developed to provide a framework to address broader-scale issues requiring consistency 

across the planning unit, State or Regional scales for different types of allocations (MPCs).

Predator Control

The Preliminary AMS Summary identified a need to update direction in the revised Plans in 

response to a shift in predator control responsibilities. This updated direction can be found in the 

Wildlife Habitat section of Chapter III in the revised Forest Plans. Direction is the same for all 

action alternatives, and the alternatives would not have any significant effects on predator 

control.

South Fork Salmon River

The South Fork Salmon River is identified in the original Boise and Payette Forest Plans as an 

area of special concern and management emphasis because of its important habitat for 

anadromous fish. Although this drainage is no less important today, the revised Plans do not 

have separate sections for the South Fork Salmon River for the following reasons: First, many of 

the South Fork habitat protection and improvement measures prescribed by the original Plans 

have now been accomplished; second, fish habitat protection in general has increased across the 

Ecogroup to respond to the recent listing of species; third, taking a more holistic approach, the 

revised Plans recognize that the South Fork Salmon River is one of several aquatic strongholds 

that merit special protection methods, and these areas have been afforded a high level of 

protection and restoration emphasis at the Forest-wide and management area levels. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 28

Management Area Boundaries and Direction

The Preliminary AMS Summary identified a need to define management area boundaries based 

on ecosystem components that tie to geographic features such as watersheds. This was 

accomplished during the revision process, and the results are provided in the new management 

areas of the revised Plans. Most management areas outside of designated areas such as 

wilderness or RNAs now follow watershed boundaries and can be better integrated into 

ecosystem-based planning. 

National or Regional Issues

The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy

In January of 2003 a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) was entered into by and between 

the:

ß USDA Forest Service, Regions 1, 4 and 6

ß USDA Research, PNW and Rocky Mountain Stations 

ß USDI Bureau of Land Management, State Offices of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and 

Montana

ß USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 and 6 

ß Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 

ß DOC (NOAA) National Marine Service NW Region. 

The purpose of this MOU is to cooperatively implement the The Interior Columbia Basin 

Strategy of 2003 to guide the amendment and revision of forest (FS) and resource management 

(BLM) plans and project implementation on public lands administered by the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management throughout the Interior Columbia Basin. This strategy incorporates 

the scientific assessment information in, An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, the analyses supporting or 

developed as part of the ICBEMP, the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem 

Management developed by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) as guidance for implementation, and all reports generated by the ICBEMP project.

The Implementation Strategy document was developed around the key science findings and 

basin-wide issues developed in the ICBEMP FEIS. Key findings contained in this strategy were 

considered and used in the development of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) for Forest Plan 

revision, as well as other action alternative management strategies outlined in the FEIS (Chapter 

2), including strategies for:

ß Terrestrial Species Habitat

ß Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

ß Social and Economics

ß Tribal Governments 

ß Coordination with Other Management Efforts

ß Adaptive Management

Chapter 3 of this FEIS contains more information under the biological and physical resource 

sections, as well as the Socio-Economic Environment and Tribal Rights and Interests sections. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 29

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

Effects on Inventoried Roadless Areas are described in the Inventoried Roadless Areas section of 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. This section has an Issue and Indicator designed to show potential 

consistency with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule by alternative. The range of alternatives 

described in Chapter 2 incorporates the range of alternatives and outcomes considered under the 

Roadless Area Conservation Final EIS in 2000. A detailed roadless area re-evaluation is 

presented in Appendix C to the FEIS, and a description of characteristics for the Inventoried 

Roadless Areas within the Ecogroup Forests is presented in Appendix H.

2001 Road Management Final Rule and Administrative Policy

The final rule and administrative policy is referred to as the “Road Management Policy”. The 

Road Management Policy was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (Federal 

Register Vol. 66, No. 9, 2001). It applies to existing and future roads on National Forest System 

lands. It emphasizes local, science-based decisions designed to maintain a road system that is 

safe, responsive to public needs, environmentally sound and affordable to manage. It also 

established official definitions regarding roads management terms.

The policy requires responsible officials to conduct a science-based roads analysis to help make 

better decisions on all new construction, reconstruction and decommissioning activities made 

after July 12, 2001. Currently, the August 1999 process entitled, Roads Analysis: Informing 

Decision About Managing the National Forest Transportation System, is the only approved 

analysis process.

FSM 7712.15 requires that “units that have begun revision or amendment of their forest plans but 

will not adopt the final revision or final amendment by July 12, 2001, must complete a roads 

analysis prior to adoption of the final plan or amendment”. The Ecogroup Forests completed a 

Forest-scale Roads Analysis as part of the revision effort (see the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup 

Roads Analysis contained in the project record). The information generated was used by the 

Responsible Official to make informed programmatic decisions needed to ensure that the road 

systems on the forest planning units were safe, responsive to public needs, environmentally 

sound, and affordable to manage. 

Species Viability 

Effects on rare plant species are described in the Botanical Resources section of Chapter 3. 

Effects on wildlife and fish species of concern are disclosed in the Terrestrial Habitat and 

Species section, and the Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources section, respectively. In 

addition, the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluations completed in support of Forest 

Plan revision contain more detailed assessments for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate 

and Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species (see the project record for the Biological 

Assessments and Biological Evaluations for Botanical, Aquatic, and Terrestrial species).

Management direction has been strengthened to address botanical, aquatic, and terrestrial species 

viability in the revised Forest Plans. This direction takes a coarse filter and a fine filter 

approach. Vegetation and watershed restoration goals and objectives are emphasized at the 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 30

coarse filter scale to provide diverse, connected, and sustainable habitats across the landscape. 

At the fine filter scale, standards and guidelines are designed to protect federally threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate species, or Forest Service Intermountain Region 4 sensitive 

species. 

In order to estimate the effects of each alternative management strategy presented in this FEIS on 

fish and wildlife populations, certain species present in the planning area were selected as 

Management Indicator Species (MIS). The reasons for selection of each selected species are 

described in detail in Appendix F. This appendix also includes the rationale for why species 

selected as MIS in the original Plans have not been carried into the revised Forest Plans. Chapter 

IV of the revised Forest Plans contains monitoring elements for population and habitat trends of 

MIS in cooperation with state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies. 

The integration of habitat restoration and maintenance goals and objectives for species discussed 

above with management standards and guidelines for protection will contribute to the viability of 

native and desired non-native species on the Forests over the short and long term. 

National Fire Plan, Cohesive and Comprehensive Strategies, Healthy Forests Initiative -

The Departments of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Interior (NPS, USFWS, BLM) developed 

the National Fire Plan in 2000 in response to a Presidential request on how best to respond to the 

severe fire season of that year. The plan is a long-term, multi-faceted strategy designed to 

manage the impacts of wildland fire to communities and ecosystems, and to reduce wildfire risk. 

It focuses on improving fire preparedness, restoring and rehabilitating burned areas, reducing 

hazardous fuels, assisting communities, and research needs.

Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire -Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive 

Strategy – The Forest Service developed this strategy in 2000 to reduce fuel build-up in the 

West. The strategy establishes a framework to restore and maintain conditions in fire-adapted 

ecosystems where lower-intensity ground fires were a powerful force in shaping the make-up 

and structure of vegetative communities. The strategy identified Condition Class categories for 

these ecosystems, and prioritized areas for hazardous fuel treatments called for in the National 

Fire Plan. These priority areas include:

• Wildland Urban interface

• Municipal watersheds

• Threatened and endangered species habitat

• Maintenance of low risk Condition Class I areas.

10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, A Collaborative Approach for 

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment – Developed during 

2001 in collaboration with governors and a broad range of stakeholders, this is a 10-year strategy 

to comprehensively manage wildfire, hazardous fuels, and ecosystem restoration on federal, 

state, tribal, and private lands. The strategy was designed to extend the concepts of the National 

Fire Plan and Cohesive Strategy into a broader and more collaborative effort. In 2002, the 

Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy was released. The plan identifies 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 31

22 specific tasks to achieve the four goals of the 10-year strategy; and specific performance 

measures for achievement. The plan emphasizes a collaborative, community-based approach to 

address wildfire-related issues, and translates the conceptual framework of the 10-year 

Comprehensive Strategy into specific actions.

Healthy Forests - An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities –

Released in 2002, this Presidential initiative is designed to facilitate projects that reduce wildfire 

hazard and risk by making decisions in a more timely and efficient manner. In facilitating fuels 

reduction projects, the initiative would speed implementation of projects, improving 

implementation of the National Fire Plan and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. It 

emphasizes using collaborative processes in identifying projects and priorities. This 

administrative proposal seeks to: 

• Increase the use of Categorical Exclusions for fuel reduction projects, 

• Streamline the appeals process within the existing appeals framework, and 

• Streamline the Environmental Assessment documentation process.

The Revised Forest Plans - The revised Forest Plans address the wildfire hazard plans, 

strategies, and initiative described above by:

• Analyzing potential effects from wildfire and hazardous fuel conditions in the Vegetation 

Hazard and Fire Management sections of Chapter 3 in the FEIS,

• Revising Forest-wide Fire Management direction in Chapter III of the Forest Plan to 

incorporate national fire and fuel management objectives,

• Identifying National Fire Plan communities and wildland-urban interface areas within each 

appropriate Management Area in Chapter III of the Forest Plan, and

• Developing specific Management Area direction to prioritize treatment, suppression, 

prevention, and coordination efforts within and around National Fire Plan communities and 

wildland-urban interface areas.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

Public comments received in response to the Notice of Intent resulted in significant issues to the 

Proposed Action (Alternative 2). Some of those issues were used to generate a preliminary set of 

alternatives. These preliminary alternatives were then broken into “Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study” and “Alternatives Considered in Detail”; both sets of 

alternatives are included in the reasonable range of alternatives considered for plan revisions. 

All reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action must meet two conditions:
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 32

1) Fulfill the Purpose and Need for Change. A reasonable alternative is one that meets the 

purpose and need for change for revision of these Forest Plans. The Proposed Action is one 

way to meet the purpose and need; however, based on how one interprets what is necessary 

to respond to a need for change, other strategies may also meet that need. For example, some 

respondents felt the best way to address wildfire risk was to allow for more active 

management to reduce uncharacteristic fuels. Others felt the best approach was to not 

suppress fires and let “nature” run its course, thus reducing fuels naturally.

2) Address the Significant Issues. The range of alternatives must also address the significant 

issues identified in Chapter 1 as important to alternative development. These are alternatives 

to the Proposed Action based on the underlying dispute or unresolved conflict (issue) with 

the Proposed Action identified from comments on the NOI, scoping letters, and DEIS. 

Alternatives are designed to resolve, or attempt to resolve, one or more of these issues.

Only those alternatives that met the purpose and need for change, and addressed one or more of 

the significant issues were considered for detailed study. However, not all possible alternatives 

that met these criteria were carried into detailed study, as the list of options would have been 

prohibitively large for detailed study. Instead, the Responsible Official identified those 

alternatives that both met the criteria and created a reasonable range of outputs, direction, costs, 

management requirements, and effects from which to consider implementation options. 

The alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study are discussed below, followed by 

those alternatives considered for detailed study.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

Federal agencies are required by the NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a 

reasonable range of alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). 

Below the “preliminary alternatives” considered but eliminated from detailed study are 

described, including a brief discussion of the reason(s) for elimination from detailed study. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study have been broken into three groups below:

1) Alternatives proposed initially that were refined to better reflect alternative emphasis

2) Alternatives that did not meet purpose and need for change and/or did not address a 

significant issue identified in Chapter 1 in a way that would drive alternative development

3) Alternatives that were already represented within the range of alternatives considered in 

detail and therefore were not necessary to carry into detailed study.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 33

Group 1: Alternatives Refined To Better Reflect Alternative Emphasis

The Original Proposed Action 

The original Proposed Action was the alternative that served as the basis for public comment 

during scoping in the spring of 1998. This alternative was developed by the Forest Service based 

on experience gained from implementing the initial plans, which included evaluation of 

monitoring results. Public comments from scoping and internal review demonstrated a need to 

refine the Proposed Action to provide for consistent application of management prescriptions 

across the three National Forests. The primary changes needed in the original Proposed Action 

are described below.

• Some MPC 5.1 assignments were changed on the west side of the Payette National Forest 

to 5.2, to be consistent with the theme of the alternative.

• Some MPC 6.2 assignments on the southern portion of the Sawtooth National Forest 

were changed to 6.1, to be consistent with the theme of the alternative.

• MPC 7.0, Intermingled Public and Private Lands, was removed. This direction is better 

addressed at the management area level.

• MPC 3.0 was divided into two prescriptions. This was necessary to resolve what many 

felt were mutually exclusive objectives of protection and restoration of aquatic, 

terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources. The two new prescriptions developed were 3.1 

(Passive Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources 

and 3.2 (Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic 

Resources). The new prescriptions 3.1 and 3.2 were applied to the Proposed Action, and 

to other alternatives considered in detail, where appropriate.

These changes were consistent with the original theme of the Proposed Action shared with the 

public during scoping and led to a more understandable and implementable alternative.

No Action, Without Direction from Biological Opinions (Alternative 1A)

The original No Action Alternative shared with the public during scoping in the spring of 1998 

represented a crosswalk of current Forest Plan direction as amended by Pacfish and Infish. This 

alternative did not make any adjustments in management direction from the current Forest Plans 

to account for changes resulting from Biological Opinions for species (chinook, sockeye salmon, 

steelhead trout, and bull trout) listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. 

Following public scoping, the Revision Team and Forest Supervisors re-evaluated the No Action 

Alternative. In August 1999, the Regional Forester agreed with the Forest Supervisor’s 

recommendation to modify this alternative to include adjustments from the Biological Opinions 

for the affected management areas. Management prescription assignments were reassigned in 

some areas to lessen the potential impacts from management actions. The primary reason for 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 34

this adjustment was that the Biological Opinions established minimum protection standards 

under the Endangered Species Act, and these standards were designed to guide implementation 

of the original Forest Plans. To consider a No Action Alternative that is outside of the scope of 

the Biological Opinions would result in an alternative that cannot be implemented.

Alternative 6, Refinement In Size Of Unroaded Areas

Preliminary design of Alternative 6 prior to release of the DEIS considered varying minimum 

acreage size limits for “unroaded” areas, from 1 to 500 acres. Similar to Inventoried Roadless 

Areas assigned to MPC 4.1a, unroaded areas assigned to MPC 4.1b included management 

direction eliminating or restricting certain activities, including: 

• No new road construction within Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded areas on all 

National Forest System lands;

• No scheduled timber harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded areas on 

National Forest System lands;

• Elimination of activities that do not contribute to maintaining or enhancing ecological 

values of unroaded areas.

Unlike Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs; areas generally greater than 5000 acres) where both 

ecological and social values drove direction development, unroaded area size criteria was 

primarily based on what was needed to address aquatic habitat values. Other social and 

ecological values were important in these unroaded areas; however, information was lacking to 

help define a size criterion.

In the 1998 Biological Opinions for Bull Trout and Salmon/Steelhead, land management 

agencies were required to develop an assessment of road construction and management, 

including the identification of unroaded and low road density areas and their value to these listed 

fish species. In 1998 a Road Density Analysis Task (RDAT) Team was created to complete this 

assessment. This team assessed 3 classes of low road density areas:

1) Congressionally designated wilderness.

2) Rare II and Wilderness Study areas (e.g., IRAs) generally greater than 5000 acres.

3) Other undesignated Low Road Density Areas 1000 acres to 5000 acres.

Thus, the minimum acreage for unroaded areas was increased to 1,000 acres and greater, in 

blocks at least 0.5 mile in width, in Alternative 6 to more closely align with the size of analysis 

areas considered by the RDAT Team. The Team issued its Final Report on January 30, 2002 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 35

Group 2: Alternatives That Did Not Meet Purpose and Need For Change 

and/or Did Not Address A Significant Issue to Drive Alternative Development

No New Roads, No Timber Harvest 

Some respondents to the NOI proposed that an alternative be considered that included direction 

for no new road construction and no timber harvest. Alternatives studied in detailed look at 

varying degrees of eliminating or substantially restricting new road construction and scheduled 

timber harvest (i.e., harvest from suitable timber lands) compared to the Proposed Action. 

However, an alternative was not carried into detailed study that completely eliminated new road 

construction and timber harvest from all National Forest System lands in the Ecogroup area. 

Appropriate use of timber harvest and new road construction is needed in order to address a 

number of Need for Change topics (e.g., Topic 1: Biological Diversity and moving vegetative 

conditions toward desired conditions; Topic 2: Fire Management and reduction of fuels in 

wildland-urban interface), and to meet Forest Service multiple-use mandates to provide products 

and services. In addition, elimination of new road construction and timber harvest was not 

needed to meet other needs for change (e.g., Topic 6: Riparian and Aquatic resources and 

recovery of listed fish species). Thus, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.

No Management Prescription Categories

During public scoping and review of the DEIS, concerns about the use of MPCs were raised, and 

requests were made to eliminate them. The concern expressed as to why they should be 

eliminated was that by mapping MPCs, the mandate of multiple use would be violated and 

opportunities for conflict resolution among competing uses would be reduced. However, this is 

not the case. As stated in Chapter 3 of each Forest Plan:

“Management prescriptions are defined as, ‘Management practices and intensity selected 

and scheduled for application on a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and 

objectives’ (36 CFR 219.3). MPCs are broad categories of management prescriptions that 

indicate the general management emphasis prescribed for a given area... 

MPCs were assigned by subwatershed where possible. Although they are intended to show 

general management emphasis within a subwatershed, they do not necessarily define 

emphasis for every single acre within that subwatershed. As with most rule sets, there are 

exceptions within MPCs. For example, some administrative areas—such as Wilderness, 

Wild and Scenic River corridors, Research Natural Areas, and National Recreation Areas—

cut across subwatershed boundaries, and these areas are managed according to the laws or 

policies governing their establishment. Also, there are many distinctive areas that may have 

different management requirements than the overall MPC emphasis/direction for the 

subwatershed. Examples include administrative and recreation sites, designated 

communications sites or utility corridors, mining sites, plantations, Riparian Conservation 

Areas, and cultural or historic sites. 

MPC management emphasis is further defined by Forest-wide and Management Area 

direction. For instance, almost all MPCs could feature vegetation management to some 

degree. The type and intensity of vegetation management that may occur in a given MPC 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 36

area is reflected in its common set of standards and guidelines (described below by MPC), 

and may be further refined within an individual area to reflect that unique Management Area 

needs or concerns.”

Elimination of MPCs is not needed to address Need for Change topics or issues identified in 

Chapter 1 that drove alternative development. Therefore, this alternative was considered but 

eliminated from detailed study.

Travel Management

There were a large number of comments and suggestions related to Travel Management, 

including comments that the Revision effort should include revising the Forests’ Travel 

Management Plans. However, travel management and allocation of travel “use” zones is not 

addressed through this forest plan revision process. Travel management and Forest travel maps 

will be revised in a separate, more localized, planning process. 

The Responsible Official elected not to fully address travel management in this revision process 

due to the broad array of localized issues with travel management that occurs at scales below a 

Forest Planning unit. Attempting to address specific travel management issues at the scale of 

this revision effort would not allow for the localized modifications needed to effectively meet 

resource, social, and economic issues. However, the Responsible Official did believe that a 

consistent broad-scale framework for conducting localized travel management planning should 

be developed in forest plan revision. 

Forest Plan direction for travel management necessary to address Need for Change topics (e.g., 

Topic 3: Habitat Fragmentation and Disruption) was developed to provide a framework to 

address broader-scale issues requiring consistency across the planning unit, State, or Regional 

scales for different types of allocations (MPCs). However, this framework is common to all 

action alternatives considered in detailed study (i.e., Forest-wide management direction), 

including the Proposed Action. This common broad-scale framework in all action alternatives 

was carried into detailed study and provided what was needed at this scale of analysis to address 

related needs for change, as well as significant issues. Therefore, alternative localized travel 

management strategies were not incorporated into the alternatives considered for detailed study.

Recommend All Inventoried Roadless Areas for Wilderness

Some people that commented on the Proposed Action and alternatives presented in the DEIS 

stated that the Forest Service should develop an alternative that would maximize protection of 

roadless areas through federal designation of wilderness. 

Alternatives carried into detailed study provide a wide variety of protection to IRA values. 

MPCs 1.2 (recommended wilderness), 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c all provide protection of IRA 

undeveloped and/or unroaded character. The Responsible Official did not identify a need to 

assign all IRAs to MPC 1.2 in order to address needs for change or issues identified in Chapter 1 

of the FEIS that drove alternative development. In fact, some needs for change could not be 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 37

addressed if all IRAs were assigned to a MPC 1.2 (e.g., Riparian and Aquatic restoration). In 

addition, assigning all IRA acres to a recommended wilderness prescription would not meet the 

multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service to provide for a sustainable variety of products and 

services. Therefore, this alternative was considered but dropped from detailed study. 

 

Allow Timber Harvest Within All Inventoried Roadless Areas

Some people commented that timber harvest should be allowed within inventoried roadless areas 

to address forest health concerns and to provide for higher levels of commodity production. 

With the exception of Alternatives 4 and 6, all alternatives provided for some level of timber 

harvest within IRAs. Alternative 5 allows for harvest within most IRAs. 

The Responsible Official did not identify a need to assign all IRAs acres to MPCs within the 

suitable timber base and/or allow timber harvest on all IRA acres in order to address needs for 

change or issues identified in Chapter 1 of the FEIS that drove alternative development. In fact, 

some needs for change could not be addressed if timber harvest were allowed on all IRAs acres 

(e.g., Topic 8: Management of Emphasis areas such as IRAs). In addition, allowing harvest on 

all IRA acres would not meet the multiple-use mandates of the Forest Service to provide for a 

variety of products and services, including those associated with undisturbed IRA values. 

Therefore, this alternative was considered but dropped from detailed study. 

No Livestock Grazing or Reduced Livestock Grazing

Adjusting use (i.e., AUMs) authorized under the term grazing permit system is outside the scope 

of decisions made through Forest Plan revision and therefore is not needed, or appropriate, to 

address needs for change. Rangeland capability and suitability determinations are re-evaluated 

in a Forest Plan scale analysis. Rangeland capability is an assessment of the broad-scale physical 

attributes or characteristics of the landscape that determine whether it is conducive to livestock 

grazing. Capable rangelands remain the same for all alternatives and establish a foundation for 

forest plan alternative development and evaluation. 

Suitability determinations were made for each alternative. These determinations represent 

decisions by the Responsible Official on how to address specific resource, social, or economic 

needs for change, and direction to accomplish this varies by alternative. Suitability is established 

either to provide prescriptive management direction for future project-level analysis and 

subsequent site-specific NEPA decisions, or as a decision to not graze specific designated areas 

requiring resource protection. Both situations occur in the Forest Plan alternatives. Suitable 

rangeland acres vary in some alternatives in the FEIS and generally reflect those decisions to not 

graze specific designated areas (e.g., close areas for aquatic resource protection, reduce disease 

transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep, or reduce recreation conflicts). 

However, the re-evaluation of rangeland capability and suitability during Forest Plan revision 

only affects where and, to a certain degree, how livestock may be grazed under a specific 

alternative (i.e., on suited rangelands). It does not make a decision on, or change, livestock 

grazing use or capacity levels under current term grazing permits. Grazing capacities are 

determined at the allotment level. The Forest Plans define the desired outcomes and prescriptive 

measures (i.e., standards and guidelines under each resource section related to grazing) that are 

then used during the more site-specific AMP analysis process. During the AMP process, 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 38

alternative grazing practices are considered that are needed to meet the desired outcomes and 

prescriptive measures found in the Forest Plans, which may or may not result in a reduction in 

AUMs or Head Months. Each AMP process will tailor a suite of grazing practices for each 

allotment, as needed, to meet desired outcomes and prescriptive direction found in the revised 

Forest Plans. Therefore, an alternative to eliminate or reduce livestock permitted numbers was 

eliminated from detailed study.

Maximize Recreation

Some revision participants requested that a “recreation emphasis alternative” be included. The 

alternatives provide for a range of recreation opportunities where recreation uses can be 

accommodated, given the limitations presented by land and resource capabilities. 

Management emphasis and priority are reflected in a number of ways in the revised Forest Plans. 

From a large-scale perspective, MPCs 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c, 4.2, and 4.3 assignments reflect 

recreation emphasis and priority. From this standpoint, Alternative 6 carries a substantial 

recreation emphasis in that an estimated 55 percent of Ecogroup Forest lands are assigned to 

recreation prescriptions. However, we believe that the bulk of recreation use occurs, and will 

continue to occur, within concentrated corridors in locations proximal to population centers, and 

in association with significant recreation attractions such as the Sawtooth mountain range, 

popular lakes, and developed ski areas, rather than across the larger watersheds and 

subwatersheds at which level management prescriptions were assigned. Localized recreation 

priorities for these concentrated use areas are also reflected in specific management area 

direction found in a number of management areas across the Ecogroup Forests.

Total levels of recreation use are not expected to vary substantially by alternative, regardless of 

the emphasis, as use levels are more a function of population levels and demographics rather 

than management alternatives or number of available facilities. Recreation uses can occur under 

all MPCs and the Forest Plans include specific management objectives at both the Forest-wide 

and Management Area levels for improving and/or increasing recreation opportunities. 

Recreation managers have observed that demand for developed camping and picnic sites in 

popular recreation areas and travel corridors is currently at or above capacity during peak 

summer weekends and summer holidays. At the same time, other facilities are much less than 

full during the same periods or prior to Memorial Day and after Labor Day. We recognize that 

development of new recreation facilities may be warranted in the future, however the Forests 

currently lack the resources to adequately maintain many of the existing facilities. Although a 

stated agency priority, the recreation program must compete for funding with other national 

priorities such as ecological restoration and watershed needs. It is unlikely that the Ecogroup 

Forests would see the level of increased funding that would be needed to address maintenance 

backlogs at existing sites, as well as to greatly expand developed recreation facilities. 

Exacerbating the current situation of inadequately maintained facilities is not desired.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 39

Group 3: Alternatives Already Represented within the Range of Alternatives 

Considered in Detail

During the comment period for the DEIS, many people submitted comments suggesting that the 

Responsible Official combine parts of the 6 alternatives to better address issues. These 

suggestions were reviewed by the interdisciplinary revision team and the Responsible Official in 

light of the purpose and needs for change, issues identified through public scoping on the 

Proposed Action, and the themes of alternatives already presented in the DEIS. To the extent the 

suggestions helped meet the purpose and needs for change and address identified issues at the 

forest planning scale of this revision effort, they were used in development of a new alternative 

generated between DEIS and FEIS (see the description of Alternative 7, below).

Some comments simply requested a mixing and matching of components of existing alternatives 

that would still fall within the range of conditions represented in the current set of alternatives 

studied in detail. For example:

The Forest Service should create a new alternative comprised of Alternative 1B for 

rangeland management, Alternative 5 for sustained yield and perpetuation of rangelinked jobs, and Alternative 3 for use of prescribed fire for habitat treatment.

The Responsible Official has the option to mix and match components of different alternatives or 

remove specific elements, in the alternative selected for implementation. It is not necessary to 

develop additional alternatives to address all of these interests when the interests are represented 

within the current range of alternatives considered. Where the Responsible Official determined a 

new alternative was needed in order to address purpose and needs for change, or issues, or 

provide for a reasonable range of alternatives, such as with the development of Alternative 7, 

additional alternatives were developed.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The Revision Team developed and analyzed in detail seven management alternatives for Forest 

Plan revision. In the descriptions of these alternatives that follow, numbers for MPCs, road 

miles, acres of timber harvest, etc. are all best estimates based on the latest available information. 

The modeling and analyses conducted for this FEIS were designed to indicate relative 

differences between the alternatives rather than predict absolute amounts of activities, outputs, or 

effects.

Alternatives are described in terms of their dominant themes, and their descriptions identify the 

issue(s) considered in alternative development and the approach taken by the alternative to 

address those issues. It is important to remember that not all alternatives address all issues or 

resolve all issues, but all action alternatives address the Need for Change topics to various 

degrees. Alternatives are also described by their mix of MPCs, particularly as they relate to:

• Long-term Aquatic Conservation Strategy

• Suitable timberlands

• Vegetation restoration
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 40

• Undeveloped recreation

• Recommended wilderness

• Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The MPCs are described below under Elements Common to All Alternatives. Each alternative 

has a table showing acres and percents of specific MPC allocations for that alternative.

Elements Common to All Alternatives

The alternatives considered in detail all have elements in common. For instance, they meet the 

Purpose and Need of this action, and they address the major issues to various degrees. They 

share the same affected areas within and surrounding the Ecogroup Forest boundaries, and 

comply with federal and state laws and regulations. In addition, these alternatives are comprised 

of various combinations of the MPCs described below.

Management Prescription Categories

MPCs were assigned to National Forest System lands based on category descriptions that the 

Forest Service developed at the national level. The MPCs represent management emphasis 

themes, ranging from Designated Wilderness (1.1) to Concentrated Development (8.0). 

Different combinations of MPCs were assigned to alternatives to reflect the overall management 

themes and relative differences in the management emphasis of those alternatives.

Where possible, the MPCs have been assigned at the subwatershed, or sixth-field hydrologic unit 

scale. The rationale behind using subwatersheds is described below: 

• Subwatersheds can be easily located on a map and on the ground.

• Subwatersheds are small enough to be good ecological indicators; what happens to 

biophysical resources (water, soil, vegetation, habitat) in one portion of the subwatershed 

often affects those resources throughout the subwatershed.

• Effects can be aggregated across subwatersheds to show cumulative impacts at the watershed 

or management area scale. Management areas for revision were largely based on 

combinations of watersheds, or fifth-field hydrologic units.

• Subwatersheds are effective units for both effects analysis and management considerations.

To summarize, subwatersheds are used to show management emphasis by alternative, through 

combinations of dominant MPCs, and to provide a solid foundation for effects analysis. 

It is important to note, however, that not every acre of every subwatershed may reflect the 

dominant MPC of that subwatershed. For instance, some subwatershed boundaries are 

intersected by administrative boundaries that have specific management requirements that may 

or may not match the overall MPC for that subwatershed. Examples of these administrative 

areas include designated and recommended wilderness, Wild and Scenic River corridors, 

Research Natural Areas, National Recreation Areas. In some cases, these areas have been 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 41

separated out from the subwatershed and/or MPC assignment, and in some cases they have not. 

But in all cases these areas would be managed according to the laws, regulations, or policies for 

which they were established. Additionally, Inventoried Roadless Area boundaries have been 

incorporated into MPC mapping for the FEIS and revised Plans, so that MPCs could be more 

flexibly and meaningfully assigned by combinations of watershed and roadless area boundaries.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would 

receive special management consideration, regardless of the surrounding subwatershed MPC. 

RCA management direction is described in Chapter III of the revised Forest Plans. 

Additionally, there are many smaller administrative units with or without official designation, 

which may have management requirements that are somewhat different than the overall 

management emphasis of the MPC for the entire subwatershed. However, these units may still 

be affected by the MPC for that subwatershed. Examples of these units include developed 

administrative sites, recreation sites, designated utility corridors or communication sites, 

plantations, mines, and cultural or historical sites. 

For instance, the location or priority of administrative sites could change over time, relative to 

the management emphasis of the dominant MPC in the area. A campground would be managed 

as a campground, regardless of the MPC for that subwatershed. However, reconstruction or 

relocation of sites within that campground could be affected, in terms of timing or intensity, 

depending on that MPC. 

Similarly, a plantation would not necessarily be abandoned because it is suddenly located in a 

subwatershed with a MPC that discourages timber management. However, the way in which the 

plantation is managed may change over time as the long-term silvicultural objectives for the area 

change. For example, the silvicultural objective might change from growth and yield to restoring 

species composition and size class distribution for a particular vegetation group, or providing 

habitat for wildlife species of concern.

Mining opportunities are determined to a large extent by the 1872 Mining Act and other 

legislation. However, the priority and intensity of mine-site or access road reclamation could be 

influenced by the MPC for the subwatershed where a mine is located.

Special uses are authorized by permit, and thus MPCs may not have much effect on existing 

uses. However, MPCs could influence whether certain permits in some areas are renewed, or 

influence the likelihood of allowing certain types of new special uses in those areas.

Most cultural and historic sites are protected, particularly if they are eligible for or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places, or if they are identified as traditional use areas for 

American Indians. MPC assignments would not affect these sites, but they could affect the 

activities, settings, or access to these sites. 

 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 42

MPCs applied to the alternatives are described below. More detailed descriptions can be found 

in the Forest Plans, Chapter III, Management Area Description and Direction.

1.1 – Existing Wilderness. This prescription applies to areas designated by Congress as 

Wilderness. The main management objective is preserving wilderness attributes, including 

natural appearance, natural integrity, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive 

recreation, and identified special features. The area is managed to allow natural processes to 

prevail, with little or no evidence of human development. Current wilderness management plans 

and approved fire management plans provide specific direction for management activities.

1.2 – Recommended Wilderness. This prescription applies to areas the Forest Service 

recommends for Wilderness designation. The primary management objective is to maintain 

wilderness attributes until Congress decides to designate the areas as wilderness or release them 

to some other form of management. Although these areas do not fall under the authority of the 

Wilderness Act, they are managed to maintain wilderness attributes where feasible, and to 

generally allow natural processes to prevail.

2.1 – Wild and Scenic Rivers. This prescription applies to areas that are Congressionally 

designated 1as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational Rivers and their associated land corridors, which 

extend an average of 0.25 mile from each bank. Wild and Scenic Rivers and their corridors are 

managed to protect their free-flowing waters, outstandingly remarkable values, and their 

classification status. A “Wild” classification is the most primitive or least developed. These 

rivers have essentially undeveloped corridors and are generally inaccessible except by trail. 

“Scenic” river corridors may have some development, and are accessible in places by roads. 

“Recreational” rivers are readily accessible by roads and often have corridor development. 

2.2 – Research Natural Areas. This prescription applies to areas that have been 

administratively established as Research Natural Areas and that provide unique opportunities for 

research. Existing and proposed Research Natural Areas are managed to protect the unique 

values for which they were established. Management plans are developed for each area to 

provide guidance and protection of values. 

2.4 – Boise Basin Experimental Forest. The Boise Basin Experimental Forest (8,740 acres) is 

administered by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, headquartered in 

Fort Collins, Colorado. This forest was originally established in the 1930s to conduct 

silvicultural and other related research in the ponderosa pine type. It includes the Bannock Creek 

Research Natural Area (445 acres), which was set aside to represent mixed conifer vegetation in 

the management area. The RNA has also been identified as a potential National Natural 

Landmark. Activities on the Experimental Forest are typically for research purposes. However, 

other activities may occur if they do not adversely affect past, ongoing, or planned research. The 

Experimental Forest is withdrawn from mineral entry and closed to livestock grazing. 

Timberlands within the Experimental Forest are identified as not suited for timber production.

 

1

 Eligible or suitable rivers are provided similar emphasis as designated rivers, but were not assigned to this MPC. 

Management direction for eligible or suitable rivers, including the MPC guidelines below, is included in the 

Management Area where the rivers are located, and in Forest-wide direction for Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 43

3.1 – Passive Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic 

Resources. This prescription is designed to minimize temporary-term risks and avoid short- and 

long-term risks from management actions to soil/hydrologic conditions and aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats. The objective of 3.1 is to keep management-related impacts from degrading 

existing conditions for TEPCS fish, wildlife, and botanical species, or 303(d) Water Quality 

Limited water bodies. Low levels of management activities occur, and these activities are 

expected to have minimal and temporary degrading effects to soils, water quality, riparian areas, 

and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Other uses and activities, such as salvage harvest or 

Wildland Fire Use, may occur and may have some temporary effects, provided they do not retard 

attainment of short- and long-term objectives for aquatic and terrestrial habitat, or 

soil/hydrologic resources. Tools associated with this prescription—such as special order 

restrictions, operating plan adjustments, and prescribed fire—are typically of low intensity and 

designed to maintain existing conditions, primarily through ecological processes.

3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial and Hydrologic 

Resources. This prescription is designed to minimize temporary and short-term risks and avoid 

long-term risks from management actions to soil/hydrologic conditions and aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats. The objective of this prescription is to actively restore or maintain conditions 

for TEPCS fish, wildlife, and botanical species, or 303(d) Water Quality Limited water bodies 

through a combination of management activities and natural processes. Management activities 

used to achieve this objective include watershed restoration, noxious weed treatments, and 

vegetative treatments that include prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical. Restoration 

is focused on those ecosystem components that are functioning at risk, or are outside the range of 

desired conditions, while maintenance helps preserve components that are functioning properly. 

4.1a – Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Inventoried Roadless Areas. This prescription 

applies to lands where dispersed and undeveloped recreation uses are the primary emphasis. 

Providing dispersed recreation opportunities in an inventoried roadless area is the primary 

objective. Both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities may be provided. Other 

resource uses are allowed to the extent that they do not compromise the roadless and 

undeveloped character of the IRA. The area has a predominantly natural-appearing environment, 

with slight evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Species habitat and recreational uses are 

generally compatible, although recreation uses may be adjusted to protect TEPCS species. 

4.1b – Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Undeveloped Character with Allowance for 

Salvage Harvest. This prescription applies to undeveloped areas where dispersed recreation 

uses are the primary emphasis. Providing dispersed recreation opportunities in an undeveloped 

landscape is the predominant objective. Both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities may be provided. Salvage harvest is allowed. Other resource uses are allowed to 

the extent that they do not compromise the undeveloped character of the area. The area has a 

predominantly natural-appearing environment, with slight evidence of the sights and sounds of 

people. Species habitat and recreational uses are generally compatible, although recreation uses 

may be adjusted to protect TEPCS species. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 44

4.1c – Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Unroaded Character with Allowance for 

Restoration Activities. This prescription applies to lands where dispersed recreation uses are 

the primary emphasis. Providing dispersed recreation opportunities in an unroaded landscape is 

the predominant objective. Both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities may be 

provided. Other resource uses are allowed to the extent that they do not compromise ROS 

settings. The area has a predominantly natural-appearing environment, with slight evidence of 

the sights and sounds of people. Species habitat and recreational uses are generally compatible, 

although recreation uses may be adjusted to protect TEPCS species. 

4.2 – Roaded Recreation Emphasis. This prescription applies to lands where dispersed and 

developed recreation uses are the primary emphasis. A wide range of recreational activities and 

developments occurs. Facilities are maintained, and both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities may be provided. Multiple uses such as timber harvest and grazing are 

allowed to the extent that they do not compromise recreation resource objectives. Human use 

and presence are generally obvious. The area has a predominantly natural-appearing 

environment, with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Generally, a mix of 

mechanical and fire activities are used to treat vegetation to achieve desired conditions for 

recreation settings and developments, and to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic vegetative 

damage or loss from insects, diseases, and fire. 

4.3 – Concentrated Recreation Emphasis. This prescription applies to lands where developed 

recreation uses are the primary emphasis. These lands are typically characterized by substantial 

recreation-related infrastructure and capital investment. Facilities are maintained, and both 

motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities may be provided. Multiple uses such as 

timber harvest and grazing are allowed to the extent that they do not compromise recreation 

resource values. Human use and presence are obvious. The area may have a substantially 

modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices largely serve 

specific recreation activities and needs while maintaining vegetation cover and soil productivity. 

Generally mechanical activities are used to treat vegetation to achieve desired conditions and to 

reduce risk of impacts from insects, diseases, and fire on recreation settings and developments. 

5.1 – Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes. This 

prescription applies to lands that are predominantly (greater than 50 percent) forested. Emphasis

is on restoring or maintaining vegetation within desired conditions in order to provide a diversity 

of habitats, reduced risk from disturbance events, and sustainable resources for human use. 

Commodity production is an outcome of restoring or maintaining the resilience of forested 

vegetation to disturbance events; achievement of timber growth and yield is not the primary 

purpose. The full range of treatment activities may be used. Restoration occurs through 

management activities and ecological processes. Combinations of mechanical and fire 

treatments are used to restore forested areas while maintaining or improving resources such as 

soils, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation settings. The risk of temporary and 

short-term degradation to the environment is minimized, but impacts may occur within 

acceptable limits as resources are managed to achieve long-term goals and objectives. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 45

5.2 – Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes. This prescription 

applies to lands that are predominantly forested. Emphasis is on achieving sustainable resource 

conditions that support commodity outputs, particularly timber production in forested settings, 

and forage production in non-forested settings. Management activities are also designed to 

maintain and restore forest ecosystem health to reduce potential for long-term impacts from 

uncharacteristic disturbance events. Goods and services are provided within the productive 

capacity of the land, and may or may not fully meet demand. Mitigation activities are an 

important element of project design. Forested landscapes range in appearance from near natural 

to altered where management activities are evident. 

6.1 – Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland 

Landscapes. This prescription applies to lands that are predominantly (greater than 50 percent) 

shrubland and grassland. Emphasis is on restoring and maintaining. Vegetation within desired 

conditions in order to provide a diversity of habitats, reduced risk from disturbance events, and 

sustainable resources for human use. The full range of treatment activities may be used. 

Restoration occurs through management activities and ecological processes. Combinations of 

mechanical and fire treatments are used to restore shrubland and grassland areas while 

maintaining or improving resources such as soils, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and 

recreation settings. The risks of temporary and short-term degrading effects to the environment 

are minimized, but impacts may occur within acceptable limits as resources are managed to 

achieve long-term goals and objectives. 

 

6.2 – Commodity Production Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes. This 

prescription applies to lands that are predominantly shrubland and grassland. Emphasis is on 

achieving sustainable resource conditions that support commodity outputs, particularly forage 

production in non-forested settings, and timber production in forested settings. Management 

activities are also designed to maintain and restore ecosystem health to reduce potential for longterm impacts from uncharacteristic disturbance events. Suitable grazing lands are managed for 

forage production and livestock grazing. Goods and services are provided within the productive 

capacity of the land, and may or may not fully meet demand. Mitigation activities are an 

important element of project analysis and design. Landscapes range in appearance from near 

natural to altered where management activities are evident. 

8.0 – Concentrated Development. This prescription applies to lands managed for concentrated 

development and use. Lands within MPC 8.0 are identified as not suited for timber production. 

Uses and facility development dominate the landscape and often require extensive site 

alterations. Emphasis is on a high level of commodity production, mitigation of associated 

resource impacts, and rehabilitation of discontinued or abandoned sites.

Recommended Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Any recommendation for Wilderness or Wild and Scenic River designation under any alternative 

is a preliminary administrative recommendation only. Any recommendation would receive 

further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved any final decisions to 

designate wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System or rivers to the National 

Wild and Scenic River System.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 46

Alternative 1B (No Action)

This is the No Action Alternative that provides the baseline for the effects analysis in this EIS. 

“No Action” for this alternative means continuing current management of the Forests, while 

updating Forest Plan direction from Pacfish/Infish and Biological Opinions for fish species 

(steelhead, bull trout) listed under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 1B, direction 

and prescriptions are applied from the original Forest Plans, with the following changes: (1) 

substantial management direction has been added for the protection of listed fish species and 

their habitats, and (2) management prescriptions have been converted to reflect a system of 

prescription categories that are now being used nationwide in the Forest Service. 

The management direction from Pacfish/Infish and Biological Opinions for listed fish species 

affords substantial protection to listed fish and their habitats. However, the Pacfish and Infish 

EAs were designed as interim documents to provide maximum short-term protection for fishery 

resources until long-term strategies were developed through new national or regional planning 

efforts or Forest Plan revision. The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Plan revision developed a longterm Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) for the Proposed Action, and that strategy is applied 

to all the action alternatives (2-7). This long-term strategy does not apply to Alternative 1B.

Under Alternative 1B, it is assumed that management activities are at relatively low levels in 

watersheds with listed fish species, and activities are primarily related to maintaining quality 

habitat where it currently exists and reducing risks to habitat and species over the short term. 

Watershed restoration activities can occur in areas with degraded habitat, but vegetation and 

other restoration activities may be limited due to potential short-term effects to watershed 

resources. 

In areas outside of watersheds with listed fish species, forested vegetation is managed for growth 

and yield on suited timberlands, and suited rangelands are managed primarily for livestock 

forage. Management activities are at moderate to high levels, and are designed to reduce longterm risks of tree mortality from insects, disease, and stand-replacing fire. 

Alternative 1B does not attempt to address Need for Change topics described in the Preliminary 

AMS Summary. 

Management Prescriptions 

Management prescriptions appear in the original Forest Plans, represented by Alternative 1B, but 

they are typically not the same as the MPCs that have since been developed by the Forest Service 

at the national level, and are being used in Forest Plan revision. Therefore, the Revision Team 

created a crosswalk to convert the original Plan prescriptions to the new MPCs for purposes of 

equivalent analysis and effects comparison in the revision EIS. For example, the “General 

Forest Management” prescription used in the original Forest Plans was converted to a 5.2 MPC 

in forested areas, and a 6.2 MPC in non-forested areas, because the intent and objectives behind 

all of these prescriptions seemed to be much the same. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 47

Recommended wilderness in the original plans was converted to a 1.2 MPC. Undeveloped 

roadless area prescriptions were converted to one of the 4.1 MPCs, depending on how much 

management activity was expected. Conversely, there were some new MPCs, like 3.1 or 3.2, 

(restoration and maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and watershed resources) which really had no 

comparable prescription in the original plans, so they are not represented below. 

Based on MPC conversion, Designated and Recommended Wilderness Areas (1.1, 1.2) comprise 

an estimated 25 percent of the Ecogroup area. The other major management prescriptions under 

Alternative 1B are: 

5.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 20%

4.1b – Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Undeveloped Character, Allow Salvage - 18% 

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 14% 

6.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 11%

4.2 – Roaded Recreation Emphasis - 11% 

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise an 

estimated 55 percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where 

localized harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period. Volume 

outputs based on suitability, however, may well be overestimated for this alternative because 

substantial portions of that volume are predicted to come from Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

which are now covered by a Roadless Rule that restricts harvest and road-building activities, and 

from areas that have special direction to protect listed fish species, which would also restrict 

harvest and road-building activities. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise an estimated 14 percent of the Ecogroup area. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 19 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 96 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1b, which 

would maintain undeveloped character but allow salvage harvest activities. 

There are no management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aqua tic, 

terrestrial, and watershed conditions. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.2) is allocated to an estimated 10 percent of the Ecogroup 

area. This number represents those areas that are recommended in the original Forest Plans.

Existing Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Research Natural Areas, and National 

Recreation Areas are managed to protect the values for which they were established.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are not recommended to Congress for National Wild and Scenic River designation. None of the 

five river segments would be recommended for designation at this time, but they would remain 

eligible for future designation. Their free-flowing status and visual quality would be managed 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 48

and protected under a Wild classification until a suitability study determined they were no longer 

eligible, or they were recommended to Congress for designation. At present, not all segments 

meet Wild standards. 

 

See Alternative 1B Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action that was presented to the public prior to the DEIS in order 

to generate issues. The main intent of Alternative 2 is to address Need for Change topics that are 

identified in the Preliminary AMS Summary that initiated Forest Plan revision for the Southwest 

Idaho Ecogroup in 1997. As such, the Proposed Action represents a significant departure in 

management from the No Action Alternative (1B). A basic assumption under the Proposed 

Action is that management emphasis and direction across the Ecogroup area should be adjusted 

to address Need for Change topics. The Need for Change topics are described below, along with 

how the Proposed Action addresses them. For a more complete description of how Need for 

Change was addressed, see Chapter II of the revised Forest Plans.

Other features of the Proposed Action represent much less of a change or maintain the status 

quo. For example, recreation uses and opportunities stay much the same, as do rangelands 

considered suitable for livestock grazing. For a more detailed description and comparison of 

changes from No Action to Proposed Action, see the Comparison of Alternatives section, later in 

this chapter, and the effects analyses of the alternatives in Chapter 3 

Need For Change Topics

Biodiversity – The Pre-AMS Summary identified many components related to biodiversity, and 

the over-riding concern related to these components was that biodiversity was changing across 

the Ecogroup due to past management practices. Intensive management in some areas, and fire 

exclusion in other areas, have had the overall effect of decreasing diversity of vegetation and 

habitat conditions, as well as species richness. The Proposed Action adopted an ecosystem 

management approach to this concern, using both coarse filter and fine filter strategies. At the 

coarse-filter scale, a wider variety of management prescriptions were used to broaden the scope 

of management emphasis across the Ecogroup area. At the fine-filter scale, management 

direction and matrices were developed to help maintain or restore specific ecosystem 

components—such as large trees, snags, and coarse woody debris—and specific habitat 

components for species of concern. This management direction was applied to all action 

alternatives equally. The new MPCs were applied to all the action alternatives as well, but in 

differing amounts and areas to indicate different management emphasis by alternative. 

Fire and Smoke Management - The original Forest Plans, represented by Alternative 1B, 

focused primarily on fire suppression and meeting federal and state air quality requirements for 

managing smoke from prescribed burning. The Proposed Action retains and expands upon 

direction for suppression and air quality requirements, but also adds direction for restoring and 

maintaining the role of fire as an ecological process where desirable. Additionally, the Proposed 

Action incorporates recent national efforts (e.g., National Fire Plan and Cohesive Strategy) for 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 49

reducing fire hazard across the landscapes and provides direction to focus fuel reduction 

activities around specific communities and within wildland-urban interface areas. Coordination 

and education efforts with adjacent landowners have also been added to Forest-wide and 

Management Area direction. For smoke management, the Proposed Action incorporates air 

quality standards and management strategies. MPC direction gives additional cla rification as to 

how fire may be used, emphasized, or suppressed within the various management prescriptions. 

This new management direction has been applied to all action alternatives. Variations in 

assigned MPCs by alternative affect the degree of fire management emphasis.

Terrestrial Habitats - The original Forest Plans typically contain a large amount of information 

and direction for big-game species, some information and direction for listed, proposed, 

sensitive, or management indicator species, and very little if any information or direction for 

other species. For the Proposed Action, Forest-wide wildlife management direction and desired 

vegetation conditions were designed to provide well-distributed habitats suitable for native and 

desired non-native species found on the three Forests. Additional direction was provided for 

species of concern, in response to input from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game, American Indian Tribes, and other interested organizations. This direction 

applies to all action alternatives. In addition, new management prescriptions (3.1, 3.2, 5.1, and 

6.1) were developed and used to emphasize restoration and maintenance of terrestrial habitat, 

watershed, and vegetation conditions. These MPCs were also applied to all action alternatives, 

but in differing amounts and areas to indicate different management emphasis by alternative. 

Non-native Plants - There is very little direction or strategy for managing non-native plants or 

noxious weeds in the original Forest Plans, represented by the No Action alternative. The 

Proposed Action developed direction at both the Forest-wide and Management Area scales to 

create an Integrated Weed Management approach to reducing non-native plants in priority areas. 

This direction is applied to all of the action alternatives (2-7). 

Rangeland Resources - Rangeland capability and suitability were reassessed for Forest Plan 

revision. The Proposed Action improves upon the original Forest Plans by adding direction and 

emphasis to maintain or restore non-forested vegetation that provides forage for livestock, and by 

adding direction that reduces impacts from grazing on other resources. This direction is applied 

to all of the action alternatives (2-7).

Riparian and Aquatic - The original plans were amended by Pacfish/Infish and Biological 

Opinions for listed fish species to provide additional protection for those species and their 

habitats. These documents provided protection for fish in the short term, but did not provide a 

long-term aquatic conservation strategy for fish populations and subpopulations, or habitat 

restoration. Indeed, activities designed for long-term watershed or fish habitat restoration have 

been at times difficult to implement under this direction due to the short-term impacts that they 

might produce. For the Proposed Action, Forest-wide and Management Area direction was 

revised to incorporate soil, water, riparian, and aquatic habitat protection, while additional 

direction was developed to incorporate a long-term ACS for restoration and maintenance of these 

resources. This direction was applied to all action alternatives. In addition, new management 

prescriptions (3.1, 3.2) were developed and used to emphasize restoration and maintenance of 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 50

aquatic habitat and watershed conditions in priority areas. These prescriptions were applied to 

all the action alternatives as well, but in differing amounts and areas to indicate different 

management emphasis by alternative 

Timberland Suitability - Timberland capability and suitability were reassessed for Forest Plan 

revision. This assessment applies to action alternatives, however suitability was further refined 

in the action alternatives through the allocation of MPCs. Specific MPCs (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 

6.2) are collectively considered the suited timber base, although each MPC has a somewhat 

different emphasis for vegetation management. This variety broadens the options for timberrelated management objectives and outcomes. “Suited” MPCs are applied to all action 

alternatives, but by differing amounts and locations. 

Management Emphasis Areas – Existing Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Research 

Natural Areas, and National Recreation Areas are managed to protect the values for which they 

were established. Recommended wilderness is carried forward from the original Forest Plans. 

Although these areas do not change from the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action does 

add specific Forest Plan management direction to provide for their protection. This direction is 

applied equally for all action alternatives. 

In the original Forest Plans, Inventoried Roadless Areas were generally assigned management 

prescriptions that either allowed vegetation management and road construction to occur, or

restricted both of these activities. A wider variety of prescriptions was developed for the 

Proposed Action, and these prescriptions were applied to different degrees across all action 

alternatives and cross-walked where appropriate to the No Action Alternative. Some MPCs 

would prohibit timber harvest and limit road development to meet specific legal obligations. 

Other MPCs would allow a low level of vegetation management to occur to meet objectives such 

as habitat improvement, fuels hazard reduction, or salvage, but road building would be restricted 

(see MPC descriptions in Elements Common to All Alternatives section). It is assumed that this 

type of management would not have a significant effect on the areas’ roadless character. Still 

other prescriptions that have suited timberlands would allow activities that would likely alter the 

roadless or undeveloped character of Inventoried Roadless Areas over time. MPCs were applied 

in differing amounts and areas to provide different management emphasis by alternative.

Management Prescriptions 

Designated and Recommended Wilderness Areas comprise about 25 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, the same proportion as in the No Action Alternative. The other major management 

prescriptions under Alternative 2 are: 

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 19%

4.1b - Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Undeveloped Character, Allow Salvage - 17% 

3.2 - Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Hydrologic Resources - 11% 

6.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 8% 

5.2 – Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 6%

4.2 – Roaded Recreation Emphasis – 5%

6.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 4%
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 51

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise an 

estimated 41 percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where 

localized harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise an estimated 27 percent of the Ecogroup area.

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 21 percent of the Ecogroup area, although less than 1 percent of that total is in MPC 

4.1a, which would prohibit vegetation management activities.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and 

watershed conditions comprise an estimated 12 percent of the Ecogroup area. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.2) is allocated to an estimated 10 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, the same as in the original Forest Plans.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers 

represent a total of 247 miles. The Secesh River recommended classifications are Recreational 

for Segments 1 and 3, and Wild for Segment 2. The South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, and 

Monumental Creek recommended classifications are Recreational for Segment 1 and wild for 

Segment 2. The French Creek recommended classifications are Wild for Segments 1, 2, and 3.

See Alternative 2 Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 maximizes restoration opportunities across the Forests. This alternative draws 

heavily from the scientific assessments completed as part of the ICBEMP FEIS, and was 

developed in response to comments that Alternative 2 did not go far enough in addressing 

restoration of vegetation, soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resources. A number of key issues 

were considered in development of this alternative, including the need to address the risks of 

uncharacteristic lethal wildfire, both within and outside of IRAs, and the associated effects on 

soil-hydrologic function, listed species habitat, and water quality. Other issues concerned the 

need to actively restore degraded soil, water, and riparian conditions, aquatic and terrestrial 

species habitats, and vegetative diversity across the landscape. 

Alternative 3 uses the same ecosystem management principles as the Proposed Action, but 

provides more emphasis for watershed and vegetation restoration to achieve or approach 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) for biophysical resources. An underlying assumption 

behind this alternative, as with the ICBEMP, is that biophysical resources functioning within 

their HRV will be able to provide for diverse and sustainable ecological conditions and 

processes, which will in turn provide for social and economic benefits over the long term. 

Management emphasis is on restoring resources with low or decreasing resiliency and integrity, 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 52

and maintaining resources that are currently functioning properly. This alternative emphasizes 

active restoration and is not short-term risk adverse. Some temporary or short-term effects to 

resources are accepted in order to produce long-term benefits, particularly for terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats, and watershed resources. 

Issues Used to Develop this Alternative

Soil, Water, Riparian and Aquatic (SWRA) Issues 3 and 4: Compared to the Proposed 

Action, Alternative 3 provides more emphasis on the conservation and restoration of soil, water, 

riparian and aquatic (SWRA) resources by increasing the number of acres in MPCs 3.1 and 3.2 

by more than 700,000 acres across the Ecogroup area. 

In addition, greater emphasis is placed on the importance of protecting landslide-prone areas. 

Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 assumes all high-risk landslide-prone areas within 

suited timberland MPCs will be managed as if they were in MPC 3.2. Low and Moderate 

landslide-prone areas are assumed to have increased emphasis for restoration compared to the 

Proposed Action.

Finally, Alternative 3 increases the number of acres in MPCs with more restrictions on grazing 

practices by nearly 75,000 acres compared to the Proposed Action. It is assumed that more acres 

in MPCs with greater restrictions on grazing practices will reduce the potential for temporary and 

short-term impacts to SWRA resources.

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 provides 

more emphasis and maintenance of terrestrial wildlife habitat through reassignment of 

commodity emphasis MPCs (5.2, 6.2) to active vegetation and habitat restoration emphasis 

MPCs (3.2, 5.1, 6.1). There is an increase of over 1 million acres in MPCs 3.2, 5.1 and 6.1 

compared to the Proposed Action across the Ecogroup area.

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, which does not 

directly address disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep, Alternative 3 

removes over 80,000 acres from the suitable rangelands on the Payette and Sawtooth National 

Forests that have been identified as areas where bighorn are at risk for disease transmission.

Vegetation Diversity Issue: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 reassigns over 1 

million acres from MPCs (5.2 and 6.2) that promote commodity production, to active restoration 

MPCs designed to move vegetative conditions toward their HRV. It is assumed that ecosystems 

operating within their HRV have evolved within the influences of disturbances such as insects, 

disease, and fire, and are therefore more likely to be resilient and diverse due to these influences.

Vegetation Hazard Issue: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 substantially 

increases acres in active vegetative restoration emphasis MPCs (3.2, 5.1, 6.1) both inside and 

outside of Inventoried Roadless Areas. Similar to the assumption under the Vegetative Diversity 

Issue, it is assumed that ecosystems operating within their HRV have evolved within the 

influences of disturbances, such as insects, disease, and fire, and are therefore more likely to be 

resilient to uncharacteristic disturbance events.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 53

Fire Management Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 reassigns nearly 1 

million acres from fire only MPCs (1.2, 3.1, 4.1a, and 4.1b) to MPCs that allow a mix of fire and 

mechanical treatments. This shift responds to the concern that in watersheds with 

uncharacteristically high and extreme levels of fuels, both mechanical and fire treatment options 

will be needed to effectively (in time and area scales) reduce fuels in a manner that is safe and 

minimizes impacts to air quality and other biophysical resources. 

Fire Management Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 increases the 

percent of total interface subwatershed area in MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical options 

for fuel reduction from 79 to 93 percent in the Ecogroup. The assumption is the greater the area 

in MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical treatments, as opposed to just fire, the greater the 

opportunity is to reduce hazardous vegetative conditions. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 

reassigns a substantial number of acres having high or extreme ratings to uncharacteristic 

wildfire or resistance to control within IRAs from MPCs that limit both treatments and access, to 

MPCs that allow either “treatments available, but access limited” or “treatments and access 

available”. Conversely, Alternative 3 decreases the number of acres in MPCs where “treatments 

and access are limited” from nearly 660,000 acres under the Proposed Action to less than 

300,000 acres. The assumption is that the greater the area in IRAs that do not limit treatments 

and/or access, the greater the opportunity to reduce wildfire hazards.

Management Prescriptions 

Designated and Recommended Wilderness Areas comprise about 25 percent of the Ecogroup, 

the same proportion as in Alternatives 1B and 2. The other major management prescriptions 

under Alternative 3 are: 

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 25% 

3.2 - Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Hydrologic Resources - 20% 

6.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 10% 

4.1c – Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Undeveloped Character, Allow Restoration - 9%

4.2 – Roaded Recreation Emphasis – 5%

 

Management prescriptions associa ted with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise an 

estimated 42 percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where 

localized harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period. Timber 

management emphasizes forested vegetation restoration rather than growth and yield objectives, 

and there are no acres allocated to MPC 5.2.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise an estimated 35 percent of the Ecogroup area.

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 9 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 97 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1c, which 

would allow vegetation restoration activities.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 54

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and 

watershed conditions comprise an estimated 23 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 86 percent of 

that total is in MPC 3.2, which emphasizes active restoration. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.1) is allocated to an estimated 10 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, the same as in the original Forest Plans.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers 

represent a total of 247 miles. The Secesh River recommended classifications are Recreational 

for Segments 1 and 3, and Wild for Segment 2. The South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, and 

Monumental Creek recommended classifications are Recreational for Segment 1 and wild for 

Segment 2. The French Creek recommended classifications are Wild for Segments 1, 2, and 3.

See Alternative 3 Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 was developed to address issues that fire should be allowed to play its natural role 

in the environment and that ecological processes should dominate the landscape. Under 

Alternative 4, management actions are reduced to minimal levels, and biophysical conditions are 

primarily influenced by ecological processes. This alternative was designed to reduce short-term 

risks to species viability and ecological integrity by minimizing human-caused disturbance over 

the planning period. The overall management emphasis in Alternative 4 is to maintain 

conditions as they are in the short term, allowing ecological processes to determine conditions 

over the long term. Vegetation management activities are at very low levels throughout the 

Ecogroup area, and are primarily related to fire use or mechanical treatments for objectives other 

than growth and yield. This alternative addresses issues concerning the effects of past and 

current management activities on fragmentation of terrestrial species habitat, and species 

disruption from human activities. The full range of recreation experiences is available, but the 

emphasis is on primitive or semi-primitive settings and opportunities. This alternative 

maximizes wilderness potential, as most Inventoried Roadless Areas are recommended for 

wilderness designation, and mechanical transport is prohibited in recommended wilderness areas. 

Need For Change topics are addressed by this alternative through changes in management 

direction, and active restoration opportunities exist, but the primary emphasis for addressing 

many topics is through a passive approach in many areas. 

Issues Used to Develop this Alternative

SWRA Issues 4: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 reassigns more than 1.8 

million acres within Inventoried Roadless Areas from MPCs that allow full or low levels of 

development to MPC 1.2, Recommended Wilderness. This reassignment addresses concerns 

about the importance of retaining large blocks of undisturbed areas (i.e., Inventoried Roadless 

Areas) for ESA listed and native fish, as discussed in 1998 Biological Opinions for Bull Trout 

and Salmon/Steelhead and the RDAT Team assessment. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 55

In addition, greater emphasis is placed on the importance of protecting RCAs and landslideprone areas. Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 assumes that all RCAs and moderateand high-risk landslide-prone areas within suited timberland MPCs, as well as MPCs 4.1c, 2.4, 

3.2, 4.3, and 8.0, will be managed as if they were MPC 3.1. Low-risk landslide-prone areas are 

assumed to have increased emphasis for watershed and aquatic restoration compared to the 

Proposed Action.

Finally, Alternative 4 increases the number of acres in MPCs with more restrictions on grazing 

practices by more than 500,000 acres compared to the Proposed Action. It is assumed that MPCs 

with greater restrictions on grazing practices will reduce the potential for temporary and shortterm impacts to SWRA resources.

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 

reassigns more than 1.8 million acres within Inventoried Roadless Areas from MPCs that allow 

full or low levels of development to MPC 1.2, Recommended Wilderness. This reassignment 

addresses concerns about the importance of retaining large blocks of undisturbed habitat with 

little or no road-related fragmentation for species such as gray wolf and lynx. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 

addresses habitat disruption and vulnerability by minimizing human activity through reassigning 

nearly all acres within IRAs to MPCs that allow little to no development (MPCs 1.2 and 4.1a) 

and eliminating MPCs 5.2 and 6.2, which have the greatest potential to result in road- and 

habitat- related disturbance. 

Compared to the Proposed Action, which does not directly address disease transmission from 

domestic sheep to bighorn sheep, Alternative 4 removes over 80,000 acres from the suitable 

rangelands on the Payette and Sawtooth National Forests that have been identified as areas where 

bighorn are at risk for disease transmission.

Vegetation Diversity Issue: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 reassigns acres 

from MPCs (5.2 and 6.2) that promote commodity production, to active restoration MPCs 

designed to move vegetative conditions toward their HRV. It is assumed that ecosystems 

operating within their HRV have evolved with the influences of disturbances, such as insects, 

disease, and fire, and are therefore more likely to be resilient and diverse due to these influences. 

Fire Management Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 reassigns nearly 

1.4 million acres from MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical treatments, to fire-only MPCs 

(1.2, 3.1, 4.1a, and 4.1b). This shift responds to the concern that “natural” processes (i.e., fire) 

should be the primary treatment option for responding to this Need for Change. Essentially, 

respondents believe mechanical treatments cannot be used to mimic natural processes.

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 

reassigns more than 1.8 million acres within Inventoried Roadless Areas from MPCs that allow 

full or low levels of development to MPC 1.2, Recommended Wilderness. This reassignment 

provides the greatest assurance that acres within IRAs will retain characteristics important for 

future consideration of Congressional wilderness designation. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 56

Of the estimated 3.24 million IRA acres within the Ecogroup area, no acres remain in MPCs that 

allow full development and only 15 percent (approximately 475,000 acres) remain in MPCs that 

allow for potential low levels of development (MPCs 3.1, 3.2, 4.1b, and 4.1c).

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 4: Alternative 4 addresses the issue of mechanized use 

within recommended wilderness areas by including a standard prohibiting the use of mechanized 

equipment within recommended wilderness. This standard is not applied to the Proposed Action.

Management Prescriptions 

Designated and recommended Wilderness Areas comprise an estimated 53 percent of the 

Ecogroup, more than twice as much as in any other alternative. The other major management 

prescriptions under Alternative 4 are:

3.2 - Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Hydrologic Resources - 17% 

3.1 - Passive Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Hydrologic Resources -10%

6.1 – Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 6%

4.1c – Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Undeveloped Character, Allow Restoration - 6%

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 5% 

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise 

less than 13 percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where 

localized harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise a little over 10 percent of the Ecogroup area. There are 

no lands with growth and yield (5.2, 6.2) prescriptions.

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 7 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 85 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1c, which 

would allow vegetation restoration activities.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and 

watershed conditions comprise an estimated 27 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 38 percent of 

that total is in MPC 3.1, which emphasizes passive restoration. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.2) is allocated to an estimated 38 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, by far the highest amount of all alternatives.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. An estimated 

total of 247 miles are recommended. The Secesh River recommended classifications are 

Recreational for Segments 1 and 3, and Wild for Segment 2. The South Fork Salmon River, Big 

Creek, and Monumental Creek classifications are Recreational for Segment 1 and wild for 

Segment 2. The French Creek classifications are Wild for Segments 1, 2, and 3.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 57

See Alternative 4 Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 was developed in response to issues that higher levels of commodity could be 

produced within sustainable limits than those provided in Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 5 emphasizes production of goods and services within sustainable limits of the 

ecosystem. Forested vegetation is managed primarily for growth and yield on suited 

timberlands; suited rangelands are managed primarily for livestock forage. The high level of 

management activities produce short-term risks to the environment, but are designed to reduce 

the long-term risks of tree mortality and other negative impacts from uncharacteristic disturbance 

events. The full range of recreation experiences is available, but the emphasis is on roaded 

modified or roaded natural settings and opportunities. 

Need For Change topics are addressed by this alternative through changes in management 

direction, and active restoration opportunities exist, but the primary emphasis is providing timber 

and range outputs through active management on suited and suitable lands. 

Issues Used to Develop this Alternative

Fire Management Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 5 reassigns more 

than 1.6 million acres from fire-only MPCs (1.2, 3.1, 4.1a, and 4.1b) to MPCs that allow a mix of 

fire and mechanical treatments. This shift responds to the concern that in watersheds with 

uncharacteristically high and extreme levels of fuels, both mechanical and fire treatment options 

will be needed to effectively (in time and area) reduce fuels in a manner that is safe, minimizes 

impacts to air quality and to biophysical resources. 

Fire Management Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action that leaves 21 percent of the total 

interface areas with MPCs that allow fire-only treatments, Alternative 5 assigns 100 percent of 

interface areas to MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical options for fuel reduction. The 

assumption is the greater the percent of area in MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical 

treatments compared to those MPCs that allow only fire treatments; the greater the opportunity is 

to reduce hazardous vegetative conditions. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 5 

reassigns a substantial number of acres having high or extreme ratings to uncharacteristic 

wildfire or resistance to control within IRAs from MPCs that limit vegetation and/or access to 

MPCs where both “treatments and access available”; a net increase of over 600,000 acres. It 

substantially decreases the number of acres in MPCs where both “treatments and access are 

limited” from the nearly 660,000 acres under the Proposed Action to less than 100,000 acres in 

Alternative 5. The assumption is that the greater the percentage of acres in IRAs that do not 

limit treatments and/or access, the greater the opportunity to reduce wildfire hazards
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 58

Socio-Economic Environment Issue 1: To promote jobs and income related to timber 

resources, Alternative 5 increases suited timberland acres from 1.3 million under the Proposed 

Action to nearly 2.8 million acres; increases ASQ from 802.5 million board feet to 2,896 million 

board feet; and increases the number of acres in forest commodity emphasis MPC 5.2 from an 

estimated 372,300 acres to 2,061,500 acres.

To promote jobs and income related to livestock grazing, Alternative 5 does not eliminate any 

acres from the suitable rangelands, and reduces MPCs with more restrictions on grazing practices 

from nearly 142,000 acres under the Proposed Action to 34,900 acres. 

Management Prescriptions 

The major management prescriptions in Alternative 5 are: 

5.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 31% 

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 18% 

1.1 – Designated Wilderness - 15%

6.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 11%

4.2 – Roaded Recreation Emphasis – 8%

4.1c - Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Inventoried Roadless Areas, Allow Restoration - 8% 

6.1 – Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes – 4%

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise an 

estimated 71 percent of the Ecogroup area, by far the highest of any alternative. These MPCs 

represent the most likely areas where localized harvest and road-related activities would occur 

during the planning period. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise 22 percent of the Ecogroup area. Prescriptions that 

emphasize commodity production (5.2, 6.2) comprise 59 percent of the suited timberlands. The 

desired condition for large tree size class is the lowest in Alternative 5 because of the amount of 

area assigned to MPC 5.2. To allow for more economical harvest practices and outputs, the 

desired condition for MPC 5.2 is one ha lf the low end of HRV, but not less than 20 percent. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 12 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 72 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1c, which 

would allow vegetation restoration activities. These undeveloped areas are primarily comprised 

of lands that were recommended as wilderness in other alternatives.

There are no areas recommended for wilderness under Alternative 5.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are not recommended to Congress for National Wild and Scenic River designation. The rivers 

are managed under the 2002 revised Boise and Payette National Forest LRMP management 

direction and emphasis for the management areas in which the rivers are located. 

 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 59

See Alternative 5 Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 6 

Alternative 6 was developed in response to issues concerning the Roadless Rule and protection 

of unroaded areas of 1,000 acres or greater. Alternative 6 is designed to reduce the risks of 

human-caused impacts to the ecological values of Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded 

areas (1,000 acres and greater) by minimizing management activities and eliminating 

incompatible uses within those areas. This alternative was developed as a conservative approach 

to meeting the intent of the President’s Roadless Initiative in 1999, which later became the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001. 

Outside Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded areas, Alternative 6 was designed to emulate 

the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), which addresses Need for Change topics from the Pre-AMS 

Summary. Outside roadless and unroaded areas (1,000 acres and greater), this alternative 

addresses Need for Change items by providing for a combination of uses and restoration 

activities. Resources with low resiliency and integrity are restored within a range of desired 

conditions to reduce risks associated with disturbance events. Resources resilient or resistant to 

disturbance receive custodial maintenance or no treatment over the short term. The full range of 

recreation experiences is available, but the emphasis is on primitive or semi-primitive settings 

and opportunities within roadless, wilderness, and recommended wilderness areas. Mechanical 

transport is prohibited in recommended wilderness areas. 

Outside roadless and unroaded areas, this alternative addresses Need for Change similar to the 

Proposed Action. Resources with low resiliency and integrity are restored within a range of 

desired conditions to reduce risks associated with disturbance events. Resources resilient or 

resistant to disturbance receive custodial maintenance or no treatment over the short term.

Issues Used to Develop this Alternative

SWRA Issue 4: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 reassigns all acres within 

Inventoried Roadless Areas from MPCs that allow full or low levels of development to MPCs 

that retain undeveloped and unroaded character (MPCs 1.2, 2.1-Wild, 2.2, and 4.1a). This 

reassignment fully addresses concerns pertaining to importance of retaining the remaining large 

blocks of undisturbed areas (i.e., IRAs) for ESA listed fish, as well as other native fish, as 

discussed in 1998 Biological Opinions for Bull Trout and Salmon/Steelhead and the RDAT 

Team assessment. In addition, unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres discussed in the RDAT 

Team assessment as having value to ESA listed fish species and other native species were 

assigned to MPC 4.1b. This assignment reduces the potential for development, and generally 

prohibits new road construction.

Under this alternative, greater emphasis is placed on the importance of protecting RCAs and 

landslide-prone areas. Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 assumes all RCAs and highrisk landslide-prone areas within suited timberland MPCs, as well as MPCs 4.1c, 2.4, 3.2, 4.3 

and 8.0, will be managed as if they were MPC 3.1. Moderate landslide-prone areas are also 

assumed to have increased emphasis for watershed and aquatic resource restoration compared to 

the Proposed Action. Finally, Alternative 6 increases the number of acres in MPCs with more 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 60

restrictions on grazing practices by more than 220,000 acres compared to the Proposed Action. 

It is assumed that more acres in MPCs with greater restrictions on grazing practices will reduce 

the potential for temporary and short-term impacts to SWRA resources.

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 

reassigns all acres within Inventoried Roadless Areas from MPCs that allow full or low levels of 

development to MPCs that retain undeveloped character. In addition, Alternative 6 minimizes 

development on unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres. These MPC reassignments address 

concerns about the importance of retaining large blocks of undisturbed habitat with little or no 

road-related fragmentation for species such as gray wolf and lynx. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 2: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 

addresses habitat disruption and vulnerability by minimizing human activity through reassigning 

all acres within IRAs to MPCs (MPC 1.2 and 4.1a) that allow little or no development, 

minimizing development on unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres, and reducing acres of 

MPCs 5.2 and 6.2 by nearly 290,000 acres. It is assumed that MPCs 5.2 and 6.2 have the 

greatest potential to result in road-related habitat disturbance. 

Compared to the Proposed Action, which does not directly address disease transmission from 

domestic sheep to bighorn sheep, Alternative 6 removes over 80,000 acres from the suitable 

rangeland on the Payette and Sawtooth National Forests that have been identified as areas where 

bighorn sheep are at risk for disease transmission.

Vegetation Diversity Issue: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 reassigns acres 

from MPCs (5.2 and 6.2) that promote commodity production, to active restoration MPCs 

designed to move vegetative conditions toward their HRV. It is assumed that ecosystems 

operating within their HRV have evolved with the influences of disturbances, such as insects, 

disease, and fire, and are therefore more likely to be resilient and diverse due to these influences. 

Fire Management Issue 1: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 reassigns nearly 

2.3 million acres from MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical treatments to fire-only MPCs 

(1.2, 3.1, 4.1a, 4.1b). This shift responds to the concern that natural processes should be the 

primary treatment option for responding to this Need for Change, especially within IRAs. 

Essentially, some respondents believe mechanical treatments cannot be used to mimic natural 

processes.

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 1: Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative 6 assigns all 

acres (an estimated 3.4 million acres) within Inventoried Roadless Areas to MPCs that retain 

undeveloped and unroaded character. This reassignment provides the greatest assurance that 

these acres within IRAs will retain their roadless characteristics over the planning period. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 4: Alternative 4 addresses the issue of mechanized use 

within recommended wilderness areas by including a standard prohibiting the use of mechanized 

equipment within recommended wilderness. This standard is not applied to the Proposed Action.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 61

Management Prescriptions 

Designated and Recommended Wilderness Areas comprise an estimated 25 percent of Ecogroup 

area. The other major management prescriptions under Alternative 6 are: 

4.1a - Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Inventoried Roadless Areas - 39% 

4.1b – Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Undeveloped Character, Allow Salvage - 14%

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 9% 

5.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 4%

3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Watershed Resources - 4%

 

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise 17 

percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where localized 

harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise about 11 percent of the Ecogroup area Prescriptions that 

emphasize commodity production (5.2, 6.2) comprise about 5 percent of the area.

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 53 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 73 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1a, which 

emphasizes maintaining Inventoried Roadless Areas in an unroaded, undeveloped condition.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and 

watershed conditions comprise an estimated 4 percent of the Ecogroup area. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.2) is allocated to an estimated 10 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, the same as in the original Forest Plans.

The Secesh River, South Fork Salmon River, Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek 

are recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. An estimated 

total of 247 miles are recommended. The Secesh River recommended classifications are 

Recreational for Segments 1 and 3, and Wild for Segment 2. The South Fork Salmon River, Big 

Creek, and Monumental Creek classifications are Recreational for Segment 1 and wild for 

Segment 2. The French Creek classifications are Wild for Segments 1, 2, and 3.

See Alternative 6 Map, in the map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

Alternative 7

Alternative 7 was developed between the Draft and Final EIS to address comments from a 

number of competing interests that favored, as well as disliked, various components of 

alternatives presented in the DEIS. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 62

Their comments included:

• Alternative 3 has a strong emphasis for restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitat, but it 

does not provide adequate protection for Inventoried Roadless Areas. This alternative also 

unnecessarily restricts opportunities to support commodity interests for timber and 

rangelands, especially in already developed areas outside Inventoried Roadless Areas.

• Alternative 5 provides for commodity interests and hazardous fuel reductions, especially 

within interface areas, but does not balance this with the interest and need to restore aquatic 

and terrestrial habitat and vegetative diversity, nor does it provide a high level of protection 

to Inventoried Roadless Areas.

• Alternative 6 provides a high level of protection for Inventoried Roadless Areas (nearly 50 

percent of the acres within the Ecogroup fall within IRAs), but does not balance this with the 

need to reduce fuel hazards, especially within interface areas. It also provides little 

opportunity for active restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitats where degraded 

conditions require management intervention in order to be restored. 

In addition to providing a high level of protection within IRAs, Alternative 6 also provides a 

high degree of protection on nearly 1 million acres of unroaded areas 1,000 to 5000 acres 

(i.e., MPC 4.1b). Adding these million acres to the acres within IRAs, recommended 

wilderness and designated wilderness results in nearly 77 percent, or 5.1 million acres, of the 

Ecogroup being managed in an unroaded and/or undeveloped condition. This level of 

unroaded/undeveloped management does not balance the needs of other interests and uses, 

such as timber production, fuels and wildfire hazard reduction, active watershed and habitat 

restoration, developed recreation, and some forms of recreational access. 

Finally, similar to concerns raised about Alternative 3, Alternative 6 also unnecessarily 

restricts opportunities to support commodity interests for timber and rangelands, especially in 

developed areas outside Inventoried Roadless Areas.

To address these concerns, adjustments were made in how the Responsible Official responded to 

the issues that drove alternative development.

Issues Used to Develop this Alternative

SWRA Issues 3 and 4: Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 7 provides more 

emphasis on the conservation and restoration of soil, water, riparian and aquatic resources by 

increasing the number of acres across the Ecogroup in MPCs 3.1 and 3.2 by more than 680,000 

acres. This is similar to the acre increase found in Alternative 3. 

In addition, greater emphasis is placed on protecting RCAs and high-risk landslide-prone areas 

than the Proposed Action and Alternatives 3 or 5, but less than was provided in Alternative 6. 

Alternative 7 assumes all RCAs and high-risk landslide-prone areas within suited timberland 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 63

MPCs will be managed as if they were MPC 3.2; and MPCs 2.4, 4.1c, 3.2, 4.3 will be managed 

as if they were MPC 3.1. Moderate landslide-prone areas are also assumed to have increased 

emphasis for restoration compared to the Proposed Action or Alternative 5. This emphasis on 

moderate landslide-prone areas is similar to the emphasis under Alternative 3.

Finally, the number of acres (210,000) in MPCs with more restrictions on grazing practices is 

similar to that provided under Alternative 3, which is more than provided under the Proposed 

Action or Alternative 5, but substantially less than provided in Alternative 6. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 1: Alternative 7 assigns most acres within Inventoried 

Roadless Areas to MPCs that allow low levels of development that would maintain the unroaded 

character. Compared to Alternative 6 MPC assignments, Alternative 7 minimizes the potential 

for development in much less of the unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres; however, 

Alternative 7 does address this issue better than Alternative 5. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Issue 2: Alternative 7 reduces the potential for habitat disruption 

and vulnerability by minimizing human activity through reassigning most acres within 

Inventoried Roadless Areas to MPCs that allow low development compared to the Proposed 

Action or Alternatives 3 or 5. However, more acres are assigned to MPC 5.2 outside Inventoried 

Roadless Areas than the Proposed Action, Alternative 3, or Alternative 6. 

Alternative 7, like Alternatives 3 and 6, directly addresses disease transmission from domestic 

sheep to bighorn sheep by removing nearly 66,000 acres from suitable rangelands on the 

Sawtooth National Forest that have been identified as areas where bighorn sheep are at risk for 

disease transmission.

Vegetation Diversity Issue: Alternative 7 reassigns nearly 650,000 acres from MPCs (5.2 and

6.2) that promote commodity production, to MPCs designed to move vegetative conditions 

toward their HRV. This is more acres than for the Proposed Action or Alternatives 3 or 6, but 

less than assigned under Alternative 5. It is assumed that ecosystems operating within their HRV 

have evolved within the influences of disturbances, such as insects, disease, and fire, and are 

therefore more likely to be resilient and diverse because of these influences. 

Vegetation Hazard Issue: Alternative 7 substantially increases acres in active vegetative 

restoration emphasis MPCs (3.2, 5.1, 6.1) compared to Alternatives 5 or 6, though the amount is 

less than in the Proposed Action or Alternative 3. It is assumed that ecosystems operating within 

their HRV have evolved within the influences of disturbances, such as insects, disease, and fire, 

and are therefore more likely to be resilient and diverse because of these influences.

Fire Management Issue 1: Alternative 7 assigns fewer acres to fire-only MPCs (1.2, 3.1, 4.1a,

4.1b) compared to the Proposed Action or Alternative 6, but more acres than assigned in 

Alternatives 3 or 5. Alternative 7 attempts to balance the concerns of competing interests who 

believe either that fire should be allowed play its natural role, or that both mechanical and fire 

treatment options will be needed to effectively (in time and area) reduce fuels in a manner that is 

safe and minimizes impacts to air quality and other biophysical resources. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 64

Fire Management Issue 2: Alternative 7 increases the percent of total interface subwatersheds 

with MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical options for fuel reduction over that found in the 

Proposed Action or Alternative 6, but reduces the percent compared to Alternatives 3 or 5; only 

11 percent of the acres fall within fire-only MPCs. The assumption is the greater the percent of 

area in MPCs that allow both fire and mechanical treatments compared to those MPCs that allow 

only fire treatments; the greater the opportunity is to reduce hazardous vegetative conditions. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 1: Alternative 7 substantially reduces the number of acres 

within Inventoried Roadless Areas assigned to MPCs that allow full development compared to 

the Proposed Action, Alternative 3, or Alternative 5. Total roadless acres on each Forest that 

have full development MPCs (2.4, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8.0) range from 1 to 9 percent. 

However, unlike Alternative 6—where all acres within Inventoried Roadless Areas have MPCs 

that retain undeveloped or unroaded character—Alternative 7 roadless acres have MPCs that 

allow low levels of development (MPCs 3.1, 3.2, 4.1b, 4.1c). Except 3.2, these MPCs prohibit or 

severely restrict new road construction. Although these MPCs do not remove all potential for 

development from vegetation treatments, they do provide a high level of protection for IRAs. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue 2: In Inventoried Roadless Areas having high or extreme 

ratings to uncharacteristic wildfire or resistance to control, Alternative 7 reduces the total acres 

of MPCs where both “treatments and access are limited” from the acres in the Proposed Action 

or Alternative 6. Generally, Alternative 7 provides for opportunities to reduce fuel hazards 

within Inventoried Roadless Areas where access is already available or not needed.

Socio-economic Environment Issue 1: To promote jobs and income related to timber 

resources, Alternative 7 assigned many high timber productivity areas outside IRAs to MPC 5.2. 

Though total suited timberlands are less than in the Proposed Action, Alternative 3, or 

Alternative 5, there are substantially more acres (up to 650,000) in MPC 5.2 that either the 

Proposed Action or Alternatives 3 and 6. Similarly, ASQ for Alternative 7 is more than for the 

Proposed Action, Alternative 3, or Alternative 6, but less than for Alternative 5. 

To promote jobs and income related to livestock grazing, Alternative 7 attempts to balance 

competing interests by reducing the number of acres in MPCs with more restrictions on grazing 

practices compared to the Alternatives 3 or 6, but increasing them above the numbers for the 

Proposed Action or Alternative 5. 

Management Prescriptions

Designated and Recommended Wilderness Areas comprise an estimated 25 percent of Ecogroup 

area. The other major management prescriptions under Alternative 7 are: 

4.1c - Undeveloped Recreation, Maintain Inventoried Roadless Areas, Allow Restoration - 18% 

3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Watershed Resources - 13%

5.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 12%

5.2 - Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes - 10%

3.1 – Passive Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Watershed Resources - 10% 

6.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes - 8% 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 65

Management prescriptions associated with suited timberlands (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) comprise 33 

percent of the Ecogroup area. These MPCs represent the most likely areas where localized 

harvest and road-related activities would occur during the planning period. 

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration and maintenance of forested and nonforested vegetation (5.1, 6.1) comprise about 20 percent of the Ecogroup area Prescriptions that 

emphasize commodity production (5.2, 6.2) comprise about 10 percent of the area.

Management prescriptions that emphasize undeveloped recreation (4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) comprise an 

estimated 19 percent of the Ecogroup area, and 93 percent of that total is in MPC 4.1c, which 

would allow low levels of vegetation management activities.

Management prescriptions that emphasize restoration or maintenance of aquatic, terrestrial, and 

watershed conditions comprise an estimated 23 percent of the Ecogroup area, and these areas are 

fairly well distributed between active and passive management emphasis. 

Recommended wilderness (MPC 1.2) is allocated to an estimated 10 percent of the Ecogroup 

area, the same as in the original Forest Plans.

The Secesh River and South Fork Salmon River are recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The total recommended number of miles for both rivers is 138. 

The Secesh River recommended classifications are Recreational for Segments 1 and 3, and Wild 

for Segment 2. The South Fork Salmon River recommended classifications are Recreational for 

Segment 1 and Wild for Segment 2. Big Creek, Monumental Creek, and French Creek are not 

suitable for recommendation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers are 

managed under the 2003 revised Payette and Boise National Forest LRMP management direction 

and emphasis for the management areas in which they are located.

See Alternative 7 Map, in the EIS map packet, for MPC spatial distribution for this alternative. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section compares the alternatives described in detail in this chapter. Comparisons are made 

for management outcomes and activities, as well as for effects on issues and resources. See 

Chapters 1 and 3 in the FEIS for background on the issues and resources. See Chapter 3 in the 

FEIS for a complete description of effects and the scientific basis for these results.

Selected Outcomes and Activities by Alternative

Tables S-1 through S-4 compare selected (primarily vegetation management and road-related) 

activities and outcomes of the alternatives for the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests, 

and for all three Ecogroup Forests combined. Numbers shown are annual estimates for the next 

decade. No outputs or activities are listed for mineral cases (locatable, leasable, common 

variety), land adjustments, special use permits, communication sites, or administrative facilities 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 66

because these resources are determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on demand and need, 

and they would not vary by alternative. Similarly, Recreation Visitor Days and developed 

recreation sites are not expected to vary measurably by alternative. Capable rangeland and 

tentatively suited timberland acres are also not displayed because they do not vary by alternative. 

Table S-1. Summary of Selected Annual Estimated Outcomes and Activities by 

Alternative, Boise National Forest

Outcome or Activity Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Acres reserve tree clear cut 2,140 700 0 0 920 0 410

Acres reserve tree regeneration 1,570 0 0 0 620 0 850

Acres shelterwood 550 0 0 0 1,540 0 640

Acres irregular shelterwood 570 0 0 0 0 0 120

Acres selection cut 380 80 0 80 2,760 0 2,430

Acres commercial thinning 3,400 12,860 18,160 2,680 8,740 4,740 7,220

Total acres harvested 8,610 13,640 18,160 2,760 14,580 4,740 11,670

ASQ Volume (MMBF) 72.0 51.2 38.1 0.4 130.0 25.0 45.0

TSPQ Volume (MMBF) 72.3 70.0 61.3 16.0 130.0 27.6 66.3

Acres planted/site preparation 4,490 0 0 0 3,080 0 1,800

Acres precommercial thinning 330 720 810 0 1,010 440 590

Acres of fire use 9,090 16,870 12,700 28,280 4,970 27,440 14,150

Miles road construction 9.7 12.8 13.5 2.0 15.5 4.6 11.3

Miles road improvement 45.1 60.2 68.1 9.2 74.5 21.5 55.2

Miles road decommissioning 25.8 69.1 98.3 20.3 43.8 18.5 49.5

PNV at current budget level over 

50 years (in millions $$) $2,077 $1,399 $1,506 $40 $2,400 $201 $1,583
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 67

Table S-2. Summary of Selected Annual Estimated Outcomes and Activities by 

Alternative, Payette National Forest

Outcome or Activity Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Acres reserve tree clear cut 380 90 130 0 830 0 200

Acres reserve tree regeneration 1,210 0 0 0 920 70 450

Acres shelterwood 980 0 0 0 930 0 550

Acres irregular shelterwood 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acres selection cut 480 530 20 0 1,200 690 1,720

Acres commercial thinning 1,910 5,800 9,970 2,060 3,580 1,960 2,870

Total acres harvested 4,990 6,420 10,120 2,060 7,460 2,720 5,790

ASQ Volume (MMBF) 60.0 19.3 23.8 0 111.3 16.1 32.5

TSPQ Volume (MMBF) 61.9 36.3 48.2 9.4 112.6 18.0 40.3

Acres planted/site preparation 2,340 330 0 0 2,370 70 760

Acres precommercial thinning 270 150 50 0 480 140 60

Acres of fire use 14,490 17,480 14,780 27,940 11,400 25,180 16,720

Miles road construction 11.4 13.0 15.0 2.9 16.7 0.4 12.0

Miles road improvement 40.4 46.4 55.6 10.2 58.5 13.2 42.7

Miles road decommissioning 14.0 30.1 59.1 15.5 22.4 9.8 22.7

PNV at current budget level over 

50 years (in millions $$) $1,988 $1,261 $1,713 $219 $2,556 $473 $1,684

Table S-3. Summary of Selected Annual Estimated Outcomes and Activities by 

Alternative, Sawtooth National Forest

Outcome or Activity Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Acres reserve tree clear cut 500 190 0 0 0 0 480

Acres reserve tree regeneration 0 0 0 0 100 0 0

Acres shelterwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acres irregular shelterwood 0 0 0 0 320 0 0

Acres selection cut 20 40 20 0 0 40 0

Acres commercial thinning 240 2,220 2,620 530 800 230 1,790

Total acres harvested 760 2,450 2,640 530 1,220 270 2,270

ASQ Volume (MMBF) 15.8 9.8 6.1 0 48.3 0.4 11.7

TSPQ Volume (MMBF) 16.4 18.1 18.3 4.5 50.5 1.1 29.4

Acres planted/site preparation 560 0 0 0 220 0 0

Acres precommercial thinning 0 10 10 0 0 0 0

Acres of fire use 14,050 20,000 18,890 18,640 16,100 18,450 20,900

Miles road construction 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.5

Miles road improvement 2.6 4.8 5.1 1.3 5.5 0.6 4.6

Miles road decommissioning 2.2 10.4 11.3 2.6 4.3 1.1 5.8

PNV at current budget level over 

50 years (in millions $$) $187 $125 $137 -$98 $300 -$132 $225
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 68

Table S-4. Summary of Selected Annual Estimated Outcomes and Activities by 

Alternative, All Three Ecogroup Forests Combined

Outcome or Activity Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Acres reserve tree clear cut 3,020 980 130 0 1,750 0 1,090

Acres reserve tree regen cut 2,780 0 0 0 1,640 70 1,300

Acres shelterwood 1,530 0 0 0 2,470 0 1,190

Acres irregular shelterwood 600 0 0 0 320 0 120

Acres selection cut 880 650 40 80 3,960 730 4,150

Acres commercial thinning 5,550 20,880 30,750 5,270 13,120 6,930 11,880

Total acres harvested 14,360 22,510 30,920 5,350 23,260 7,730 20,720

ASQ Volume (MMBF) 147.8 80.3 68.1 0.4 289.6 41.5 89.2

TSPQ Volume (MMBF) 150.6 124.4 127.8 29.9 293.1 46.7 136.0

Acres planted/site preparation 7,390 330 0 0 5,670 70 2,560

Acres precommercial thinning 600 880 870 0 1,490 580 650

Acres of fire use 38,430 54,350 46,370 74,860 32,470 71,070 51,770

Miles road construction 21.8 26.6 29.3 5.1 33.8 5.1 23.8

Miles road improvement 88.1 111.4 128.8 20.7 138.5 35.3 102.5

Miles road decommissioning 42.0 109.6 168.7 38.4 70.5 29.4 78.0

PNV at current budget level 

over 50 years (in millions $$) $4,253 $2,786 $3,356 $162 $5,257 $542 $3,492

Comparison of Alternative Effects on Resource Issue and Indicators

The sections below summarize effects from the alternatives on the issue-related resources, in the 

same order they are presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. See Chapter 3 for a more detailed and 

comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 

The summaries are generally presented in three parts: (1) an issue statement, (2) indicators for 

each issue that were used to measure effects, and (3) a summary of the primary effects analysis 

that was completed for Chapter 3 by issue and indicator. Several resources have more than one 

issue, and one of the resources (Wilderness) does not have any indicators. 

Air Quality and Smoke Management

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect air quality based on the amount 

of smoke produced by fire use and wildfire. 

Issue Indicators: The indicators for this issue are estimated smoke emissions (i.e., PM 2.5) that 

could result from implementation of alternative management strategies, compared to historical 

(pre-settlement) emissions by Forest or administrative unit. This includes estimated emissions 

generated from fire use or wildfire in forested and non-forested vegetative communities. 

Effects from Forested Vegetation Emissions: Tons per decade of historical PM 2.5 smoke 

emissions by Forest were estimated, and the average tons over the first 5 decades estimated for 

fire use by Forest, and by alternative. The levels for the Payette and Sawtooth included decadal 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 69

projections of emissions from the Frank Church – River of No Return and Sawtooth 

Wildernesses based on their current Management Plans. Overall for the Ecogroup, no alternative 

produced even a quarter of the emissions that may have occurred historically. The closest was 

Alternative 6, which based on acres treated, burned about 20 percent of the historical acreage. 

For all three Forests, Alternative 5 produced the least emissions. Alternative 6 produced the 

most on the Boise and Payette, and Alternative 7 produced the highest levels on the Sawtooth. 

The order of alternatives, from most to least emissions produced, on the Boise and Payette 

Forests are the same: 6, 4, 7, 2, 1B, 3, and 5. The Sawtooth exhibits a different most-to-least 

ranking due to the amount of area in non-forested communities: 7, 2, 4, 3, 6, 1B, and 5. 

 

Effects from Emissions Stored in Hazardous Vegetative Conditions: Emissions produced 

historically are estimated to be less than the amount stored in hazardous vegetative conditions in 

forested communities. Currently, vegetative conditions are such that uncharacteristic wildfires 

could produce more than twice the PM 2.5 emissions produced historically. The uncharacteristic 

conditions on the Boise have the potential to produce smoke emissions that are about 2 times 

greater than historical levels. Potential emissions on the Payette and Sawtooth are about 2.3 and 

2.7 times greater than historical, respectively. 

Over the first five decades, all alternatives except 1B on all three Forests reduced the potential 

wildfire emissions from current levels. Reducing hazardous vegetative conditions was a 

modeling goal of all alternatives, except 1B, to represent National Fire Plan objectives. On the 

Boise, Alternative 3, followed by 4 and 6, reduced potential emissions the most compared to the 

current condition. For the Payette, Alternatives 4, 6, and 3 were the lowest compared to the 

current condition. On the Sawtooth, Alternative 7 produced the lowest potential wildfire 

emissions followed by 4. Alternatives 3 and 6, which were next lowest, were the same.

Effects from Non-forested Vegetation Emissions – Background and uncharacteristic wildfire 

were both represented in the VDDT modeling for the non-forested vegetation. There were not 

enough acres on the Payette to model so only the Boise and Sawtooth were included. Like the 

modeling done for the forested communities, the VDDT model was used to show how different 

combinations of vegetative treatments influence vegetative conditions, including hazard, and the 

potential affects these changes have on wildfire events. Based on recent historic (since 1950) 

wildfire data, probabilities were developed and interjected to represent background and largescale wildfires. These events were used for alternative comparison only; they do not represent a 

“best guess” of when future wildfires will occur. Rather they were used to display how changes 

in vegetative conditions produced by the different alternatives may influence wildfires.

Current potential emissions for the Boise are about the same as the estimated historical level; but 

they are about two times the estimated level on the Sawtooth. Alternative 5 followed by 7 had 

the lowest modeled wildfire emissions over the 5-decade time period. Alternatives 4 and 6 were 

the highest. Alternatives 5, followed by 7, reduced the number of acres in the most hazardous 

vegetative conditions, while Alternatives 4 and 6 retained the most acres in hazardous vegetative 

conditions.

Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 70

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the loss of soil-hydrologic 

function and long-term soil productivity from uncharacteristically lethal wildfire within highly 

vulnerable subwatersheds. 

Indicators for Issue 1: Alternative MPCs were overlaid on subwatersheds having both high or 

extreme uncharacteristic forest vegetation hazard and high vulnerability to compare how the 

alternatives may potentially affect the risk of uncharacteristically lethal wildfire in these areas. 

Effects for Issue 1: There are 82 highly vulnerable subwatersheds in the Ecogroup area with the 

potential for uncharacteristically lethal wildfire (high or extreme uncharacteristic wildfire 

hazard). The alternatives have varying amounts of MPCs with management emphasis for 

restoring uncharacteristic forest vegetation hazard toward the non-lethal forest vegetation 

conditions that historically occurred. Alternative 5 would have the most potential benefit in 

reducing uncharacteristic wildfire negative effects by emphasizing vegetation restoration 

treatments on 88 percent of these subwatersheds. This restoration would help reduce the size, 

severity, and intensity of uncharacteristic wildfires, and associated risks and impacts to soil, 

water, and riparian resources. Alternatives 3, 7, 1B, and 2 would emphasize long-term risk 

reduction on well over half (71, 67, 62, and 61 percent, respectively) the subwatersheds with 

uncharacteristically lethal wildfire hazard. Alternatives 4 and 6 would emphasize vegetation 

restoration treatment on a much smaller percentage (34 and 11 percent, respectively) of the 

subwatersheds.

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the number of subwatersheds 

considered at risk to post-wildfire floods and debris flows with potential effects to human life 

and property following uncharacteristically lethal wildfire. 

Indicators for Issue 2: MPCs were overlaid on subwatersheds having a combination of high to 

extreme uncharacteristic vegetation hazards, high inhe rent vulnerability ratings, and potential 

risk to human life, property, and/or municipal supply watersheds from post-wildfire floods, 

landslides, and debris flows to compare how the alternatives may potentially affect the risk of 

uncharacteristically letha l wildfire in these areas. 

Effects for Issue 2: Within the Ecogroup area, there are 27 highly vulnerable subwatersheds 

identified with the potential for post-wildfire floods and debris flows that could affect human 

life, property, and/or municipal supply watersheds. Alternative 5 has MPCs that would 

emphasize vegetation restoration on all (100 percent) of these subwatersheds, thereby reducing 

the post-wildfire risks to human life, property, and/or municipal watersheds in these 

subwatersheds. Alternatives, 7, 3, 2, and 1B have MPCs that would emphasize vegetation 

treatments on a relatively high amount of these subwatersheds (85, 85, 81, and 78 percent, 

respectively). Alternative 4 has MPCs that would emphasize vegetation restoration treatments in 

a moderate amount (52 percent) of these subwatersheds. Alternative 6 has MPCs that would 

emphasize vegetation restoration treatments on a small amount (19 percent) of these 

subwatersheds, resulting in a fairly large number of subwatersheds that would remain at risk to 

post-wildfire floods and debris flows. Under Alternative 6, over 80 percent of the subwatersheds 

at risk would continue to pose a threat to human life, property, and/or municipal watersheds from 

uncharacteristically lethal wildfire. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 71

Issue Statement 3: Forest Plan management strategies may have potential effects on soil 

productivity, accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, water quality, riparian function, Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water bodies, and listed Section 303(d) Water Quality Limited 

(WQL) water bodies.

Issue Indicators for Issue 3: The indicators for this issue are:

• Potential Effects from Vegetation Treatments, Roads and Fire Use. The amount of suited 

timberland acres within subbasins, and the percentage of Equivalent Repla cement Treatment 

(ERT) acres relative to threshold of concern (TOC) in subbasins are compared by alternative. 

• Potential Effects from Livestock Grazing. The amount of suitable rangeland acres by 

subbasin, and the percents of MPC acres that would result in less restrictive and more 

restrictive grazing management strategies in subbasins are compared by alternative.

• Comparison of subwatersheds that have 303(d) WQL water bodies, and MPCs that 

emphasize the appropriate restoration/conservation strategies to assist in the de-listing of 

those water bodies.

• Comparison of subwatersheds that have TMDLs assigned, and MPCs that emphasize the 

appropriate restoration/conservation strategies to meet the intent of the TMDL plans.

• Potential Effects from Motorized Trail Use in Recommended Wilderness Areas.

Issue 3 Effects from Vegetation Treatments, Roads, and Fire Use: This issue is addressed in 

two parts, below: (1) suited timberland acres, and (2) ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs.

Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited timberland acres assigned by MPC within Ecogroup 

area subbasins, Alternative 5 (2,801,563 acres) has the greatest potential for impacts from 

commercial timber harvest and associated road activities. This alternative is followed in 

descending order by Alternatives 1B (1,750,267 acres), 2 (1,307,149 acres), 3 (1,250,522 acres), 

7 (1,001,290 acres), 6 (617,210 acres) and 4 (32,940 acres). Alternatives that have more acres 

available for commercial harvest and associated road activities have a higher potential for 

temporary and short-term impacts to soil productivity, watershed condition, water quality and 

aquatic habitat. Alternative 5 proposes a substantial increase above the current condition, 

represented by Alternative 1B. All other alternatives are substantially below Alternative 1B. 

ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- After both 20 and 50 years, most alternatives would 

have ERT acres substantially below the TOC for each of the 29 subbasins within the Ecogroup 

area,. Only the Hells Canyon, Upper Middle Fork Salmon, Upper Salmon and Goose Creek 

subbasins would have ERT acres above the 100 percent TOC in selected alternatives. Actual 

treatment acres would depend on site-specific proposals, analysis, consultation, and mitigation, 

which would no doubt modify the modeled results. Relatively speaking, though, the potential 

effects to soil, water, and riparian resources could be relatively high in the short term for Hells 

Canyon in Alternatives 1B and 6, Upper Middle Fork Salmon in Alternative 1B, Upper Salmon 

in Alternatives 2 and 7, and Goose Creek in Alternative 7, because modeled ERT values exceed 

the threshold of concern (100 percent). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 72

Issue 3 Effects From Livestock Grazing: This issue is addressed in two parts, below: (1) 

suitable rangeland acres, and (2) Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management.

Suitable Rangeland Acres – The percents of suitable rangeland acres are slightly less under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 across the Ecogroup area, as compared to the current forest plans, 

represented by Alternative 1B. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 1B. For all alternatives, 

suitable rangeland acres are less than 20 percent of the total subbasin within 15 of the 29 

subbasins. The Goose Creek, Little Wood River, Northern Great Salt Lake, Salmon Falls Creek, 

Raft River, and Upper Snake-Rock subbasins have the highest percentages of suitable rangelands 

for all alternatives. 

Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - Those alternatives and subbasins 

with less restrictive MPCs for grazing management have a greater potential for temporary and 

short-term impacts to the soil and water quality matrix pathways. In particular, the Brownlee 

Reservoir, Boise-Mores, Middle Fork Payette, North Fork and Middle Fork Boise, Payette, 

South Fork Boise, Weiser, Little Salmon, Lower Salmon, Raft River, Goose Creek, Upper 

Snake-Rock, Salmon Falls Creek, and Camas Creek subbasins could have more grazing impacts 

due to a higher percentage of the suited rangeland acres having less restrictive MPCs. 

Issue 3 Effects From Appropriate Restoration for 303(d) WQL Water Bodies: Alternative 3 

has MPCs that emphasize the most appropriate restoration and conservation in 45 percent of the 

high priority subwatersheds identified by the Watershed and Aquatic Restoration Strategy 

(WARS) developed for Forest Plan revision. Alternative 3 is followed in descending order by 

Alternatives 7 (43 percent), 2 (42 percent), 6 (30 percent), 4 (27 percent), 1B (12 percent), and 5 

(7 percent). Regardless of the restoration/conservation MPCs and how they were applied, all 

subwatersheds with listed 303(d) water bodies would receive special emphasis to improve 

watershed conditions through Forest-wide and Management Area direction in the revised Forest 

Plans, which applies to all action alternatives. This emphasis, coupled with Forest-wide, 

Management Area, and MPC standards and guidelines designed to protect SWRA resources, 

should make great strides in improving water quality conditions. Potential impacts from roads, 

degraded riparian conditions, poor habitat access, and unstable stream channels should decrease 

as restoration is implemented. Restoration would assist in de-listing these water bodies and 

achieving measures needed for these watersheds to fully support their beneficial uses. 

Issue 3 Effects From Appropriate Restoration for TMDLs - Currently there are six subbasins 

partially or wholly within the Ecogroup with TMDLs approved or waiting approval by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative 3 has MPCs that emphasize the most appropriate 

restoration or conservation in 32 percent of the high priority subwatersheds identified by the 

WARS for the Ecogroup area. Alternative 3 is followed in descending order by Alternatives 7 

(25 percent), 2 and 4 (21 percent), 6 (19 percent), and 1B and 5 (7 percent). Regardless of the 

restoration/conservation MPCs and how they were applied, all subbasins with a TMDL assigned 

would receive special emphasis to implement the TMDL plans through Forest-wide and

Management Area direction in the revised Forest Plans, which applies to all action alternatives. 

This emphasis, coupled with Forest-wide, Management Area, and MPC standards and guidelines 

designed to protect SWRA resources, should make great strides in improving water quality 

conditions. Potential impacts from roads, degraded riparian conditions, poor habitat access, and 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 73

unstable stream channels should decrease as restoration is implemented. Restoration would 

assist in achieving the measures identified in the TMDLs and moving these watersheds to fully 

support their beneficial uses. 

Issue 3 Effects From Motorized Trail Use - Trails currently open to motorized use would be 

prohibited within recommended wildernesses under Alternatives 4 and 6. Under Alt ernative 4, 

an estimated 1,316 miles of motorized trail could be affected. The South Fork Salmon and South 

Fork Boise subbasins both have over 200 miles of motorized trails in recommended wilderness 

areas. The Big Wood, Little Salmon, Middle Fork Payette, South Fork Payette, and Upper 

Salmon subbasins have between 80-120 miles of motorized trails. The Brownlee Reservoir, 

Lower Salmon, North and Middle Fork Boise, North Fork Payette, and Weiser subbasins have 

between 40-70 miles. Nine other subbasins have minor amounts of motorized trails in 

recommended wilderness under Alternative 4. Under Alternative 6, an estimated 216 miles of 

motorized trail in recommended wilderness could be affected. The South Fork Salmon, Upper 

Salmon, and the South Fork Payette subbasins have between 40-70 miles of motorized trails. 

Five other subbasins have minor amounts of motorized trails. Where these trails are within 

RCAs in the subbasins noted above, prohibited motorized use is likely to reduce sediment 

delivery and improve stream bank stability. These effects would assist in improving soilhydrologic function, water quality, and riparian functions and ecological processes. Similar 

benefits would likely occur, although to a slighter extent, in subbasins with lesser amounts of 

prohibited motorized trail use. 

All current motorized trails would remain open under Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Effects to 

aquatic species and SWRA resources would be similar under these Alternatives. Trail use would 

not be concentrated, but localized impacts to riparian vegetation and stream channels near 

crossings would be anticipated. Management direction would help to minimize most potential 

impacts under all alternatives. However, impacts to riparian vegetation and stream banks from 

authorized and unauthorized ATV use may still occur from increased trail use. 

Issue Statement 4: Forest Plan management strategies may have potential effects on aquatic 

habitat and species, including species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act, Region 4 sensitive species, species at risk, and Forest Management Indicator 

Species.

Issue Indicators for Issue 4: The indicators for this issue are:

• Potential Effects from Vegetation Treatments, Roads, and Fire Use. The amount of suited 

timberland acres within subbasins, and the percentage of ERT acres relative to thresholds of 

concern (TOC) in subbasins for selected fish species are compared by alternative. 

• Potential Effects from Livestock Grazing. The amount of suitable rangeland acres by 

subbasin, and the percents of MPC acres that would result in less restrictive and more 

restrictive grazing management strategies in subbasins for selected fish species are compared.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 74

• Potential Effects from Wildfire vs. Treatments to Reduce Wildfire Hazard. Potential effects 

to listed, sensitive, and special concern fish species were analyzed by comparing amount of 

area in MPCs that have a high emphasis and more tools available to treat subwatersheds with 

high and extreme risks to uncharacteristic wildfire to those with fewer tools available. This 

information is overlaid with fish species population status to examine risk to populations of 

treating vs. not treating vegetation.

• Potential Effects from Aquatic Restoration.

• Potential Effects from Motorized Trail Use in Recommended Wilderness Areas.

Effects are presented by fish species, below.

Effects to Sockeye Salmon:

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited acres assigned by MPCs within the 

Sockeye Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), Alternatives 5 (178, 545 acres) and 1B 

(113,446 acres) have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial timber harvest and 

associated road activities. These alternatives have a higher potential for temporary and shortterm impacts to identified matrix pathways (water quality, habitat condition, etc.) and to sockeye 

salmon. The remaining alternatives have no more than 1,018 suited acres (less than 1 percent of 

the subbasin) within the Sockeye ESU, which means they have a very low potential for timber 

and road-related impacts. 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- Alternatives that would have the highest 

ERT percentages over the short term (20 years) in the ESU subbasin are, in descending order: 7, 

2, 3, 4, 6, 5 and 1B, and Alternatives 2 and 7 could exceed the 100 percent TOC. Over the long 

term (50 years), the highest percentages would occur, in descending order, for Alternatives 7, 2, 

4, 3, 6, 5, and 1B; however no alternative would exceed the subbasin TOC.

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Within the ESU subbasin, suitable rangeland acres are 

the same for all alternatives, 41,367 acres, or 8 percent of the Ecogroup area.

Effects from Less Restrictive Vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management – For the ESU subbasin, 

Alternatives 3 and 7 have the highest (99) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, followed in 

descending order by Alternatives 2, 4, 6, 1B, and 5. 

Effects from Wildfire Vs. Treatments to Reduce Wildfire Hazard - There are no subwatersheds 

identified at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfires in the Ecogroup portion of the Upper 

Salmon subbasin. Migratory corridors along the Salmon River are also not at high risk because 

only a few subwatersheds, far upstream of the Salmon River, are at high risk.

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternatives 3, 2, 7, and 6 have MPCs that emphasize the 

most appropriate restoration and conservation in 85, 78, 73, and 58 percent of the high priority 

subwatersheds, respectively, identified by the WARS for the ESU subbasin. Alternatives 1B, 4, 

and 5 have MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration and conservation in only 18, 18, and 

13 percent of the high priority subwatersheds, respectively, 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 75

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations -

There are no stronghold sockeye subpopulations in the Upper Salmon subbasin, so there would 

be no potential effects to this indicator under any alternative. Four subwatersheds in the Upper 

Salmon subbasin are occupied for spawning and rearing by depressed sockeye subpopulations. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7 have MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration recommended 

by the WARS in all the subwatersheds containing depressed sockeye subpopulations.

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - The affected area would have the least potential impacts from 

motorized trail use under Alternatives 4 and 6, which prohibit this use in recommended 

wilderness. Motorized trails would be open under the remaining alternatives, and effects to 

aquatic species would be similar. Trail use would not be concentrated, but localized impacts to 

riparian vegetation and stream channels near crossings would be anticipated.

Effects to Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon: 

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited timberland acres assigned by MPCs, 

Alternatives 5 (932,119 acres) and 1B (496,731) have the greatest potential for impacts from 

commercial timber harvest and associated road activities. Alternatives 3 (135,885 acres), 2, 

(108,445 acres), and 7 (98,642 acres) would have a moderate potential, and Alternative 6 (51, 

443 acres) would have a low potential for impacts. Alternative 4 (0 acres) would have no 

potential for impacts from timber harvest and associated road activities. 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs – No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

five out of eight ESU subbasins. Hells Canyon subbasin could exceed the 100 percent TOC in 

Alternative 1B (20 and 50 years), and Alternative 6 (20 years). Hells Canyon lands managed by 

the Ecogroup comprise only 3 percent of the subbasin; therefore, any impacts would be localized 

and pose little risk to chinook. Upper Middle Fork Salmon subbasin could exceed the TOC in 

Alternative 1B after 20 years. Upper Salmon subbasin could exceed TOC in Alternative 2 after 

20 years, and in Alternative 7 after 20 years. Potential effects to chinook salmon and critical 

habitat could be high in the short term in these subbasins under these alternatives. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres are slightly less under 

Alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the spring/summer chinook ESU from the current forest plans, 

represented by Alternative 1B. Alternatives 2 and 5 are the same as 1B, or 6 percent suitable 

rangeland acres across the ESU. Potential impacts to the ESU from grazing would generally be 

very low at these levels.

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For the entire ESU, 

Alternative 4 has the highest (88) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, followed in descending 

order by Alternatives 3, 7, 2, 6, 1B, and 5. 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 75 

percent of all subwatersheds with depressed chinook populations in the ESU under Alternative 5. 

Alternative 5 would be followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (53 percent), 7 and 1B 

(45 percent), 2 (38 percent), 6 (13 percent), and 4 (5 percent). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 76

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds -

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks would occur in all 

(100 percent) of the chinook strongholds in the ESU under Alternative 7. Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, 

and 5 would have MPCs that would emphasize treatments in two thirds of the strongholds. 

Alternative 6 would emphasize treatment in one third of the strongholds, and Alternative 4 

would not emphasize treatment in any strongholds.

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternatives 2, 3, 7, and 6 have MPCs that emphasize the 

appropriate restoration or conservation in 71, 70, 68, and 58 percent, respectively, of the high 

priority subwatersheds identified by the WARS. Alternatives 4, 1B, and 5 have MPCs that 

emphasize the appropriate restoration and conservation in 47, 44, and 34 percent, respectively, of 

the high priority subwatersheds.

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations – For 

chinook strongholds, Alternative 3 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or 

conservation recommended by the WARS in the highest percent (90) of subwatersheds, followed 

in descending order by Alternatives 2 (80 percent), 6 and 7 (70 percent), 4 (50 percent), 1B (40 

percent), and 5 (0 percent). Alternative 2 has the highest percentage (71) of subwatersheds with 

depressed chinook populations and MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or 

conservation strategies, followed in descending order by Alterna tives 3 and 7 (69 percent), 6 (59 

percent), 4 (47 percent), 1B (43 percent), and 5 (37 percent). 

Effects from Motorized Trail Use – Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Fall Chinook Salmon: 

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited acres assigned by MPCs, Alternative 5 

(71,873 acres) would have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial timber harvest and 

road-related activities, followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (15,650 acres), 1B (14,885 

acres), 7 (8,529 acres), 2 (4,040 acres), 6 (3,705 acres), and 4 (0 acres). 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs – No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

five of the seven alternatives. Hells Canyon subbasin could exceed the 100 percent TOC in 

Alternative 1B (20 and 50 years), and Alternative 6 (20 years). Hells Canyon lands managed by 

the Ecogroup comprise only 3 percent of the subbasin; therefore, any impacts would be localized 

and pose little risk to chinook. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres are slightly less under 

Alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the fall chinook ESU from the current forest plans, represented by 

Alternative 1B. Alternatives 2 and 5 are the same as 1B, or 18 percent suitable rangeland acres 

across the ESU. Potential impacts to the ESU would generally be low at these levels.

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For the entire ESU, 

Alternative 4 has the highest (93) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, followed in descending 

order by Alternatives 7 (83 percent), 3 (77 percent), 2 (24 percent), 6 (5 percent), 1B and 5 (3 

percent). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 77

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 100 

percent of all subwatersheds with depressed chinook populations in the ESU under Alternatives 

2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Alternatives 1B and 6 have MPCs that would not emphasize treatment in any (0 

percent) of the subwatersheds. 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds - There 

are no stronghold fall chinook subpopulations within lands administered by the Ecogroup. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternative 2 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate 

restoration or conservation in 56 percent of the high priority subwatersheds identified by the 

WARS for the entire ESU. Alternatives 1B, 3, 4, 6, and 7 would have the appropriate emphasis 

in 33 percent of the high priority subwatersheds. Alternative 5 would not emphasize restoration 

in any of the subwatersheds. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations –

There are no stronghold fall chinook subpopulations within lands administered by the Ecogroup. 

No alternative would emphasize restoration in any of the subwatersheds with depressed 

populations of fall chinook.

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Steelhead:

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Effects to steelhead are the same as those described for 

spring/summer chinook salmon. 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- Effects to steelhead are the same as those 

described for spring/summer chinook salmon. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Effects to steelhead are the same as those described for 

spring/summer chinook salmon.

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - Effects to steelhead are 

the same as those described for spring/summer chinook salmon.

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 75 

percent of all subwatersheds with depressed steelhead populations in the ESU under Alternative 

5. Alternative 5 would be followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (49 percent), 7 and 1B 

(47 percent), 2 (40 percent), 6 (13 percent), and 4 (4 percent). 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds -

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks would occur in all 

(100 percent) of the steelhead strongholds in the ESU under Alternatives 3 and 5. Alternatives 2 

and 6 would have MPCs that would emphasize treatments in one third of the strongholds. 

Alternatives 1B, 4, and 7 would not emphasize treatments in any strongholds.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 78

Effects from Aquatic Restoration – Effects to steelhead trout are the same as those described for 

spring/summer chinook salmon. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations – For 

steelhead strongholds, Alternative 3 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or 

conservation recommended by the WARS in the highest percent (100) of subwatersheds, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 2 and 6 (75 percent), 1B, 4, and 7 (50 percent), and 

5 (0 percent). Alternative 2 has the highest percentage (71) of subwatersheds with depressed 

populations and MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation strategies, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 and 7 (69 percent), 6 (59 percent), 4 (47 percent), 

1B (43 percent), and 5 (35 percent). 

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Bull Trout:

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited acres assigned by MPCs, Alternative 5 

(2,510,948 acres) would have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial timber harvest 

and road-related activities, followed in descending order by Alternatives 1B (1,545,630 acres), 2 

(1,178,797 acres), 3 (1,093,122 acres), 7 (895,813 acres), 6 (590,296 acres), and 4 (9,115 acres). 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

two out of the four recovery units (Brownlee and Southwest Idaho). Hells Canyon recovery unit 

could exceed the 100 percent TOC in Alternative 1B (20 and 50 years), and Alternative 6 (20 

years). Hells Canyon lands managed by the Ecogroup comprise only 3 percent of the unit; 

therefore, any impacts would be localized and pose little risk to bull trout. In the Salmon River 

recovery unit, Upper Middle Fork Salmon subbasin could exceed the TOC in Alternative 1B 

after 20 years. The Upper Salmon subbasin could exceed TOC in Alternative 2 after 20 years, 

and in Alternative 7 after 20 years. Potential effects to bull trout and critical habitat could be 

high in the short term in these subbasins under these alternatives. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres are slightly less under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in all recovery units from the current forest plans, represented by 

Alternative 1B. Alternative 5 is the same as 1B, or 13 percent suitable rangeland acres across all 

recovery units. Potential impacts to the units would generally be low at these levels.

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For all recovery units, 

Alternative 4 has the highest (69) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, followed in descending 

order by Alternatives 3 (24 percent), 7 (23 percent), 2 (14 percent), 1B (10 percent), 6 (9 

percent), and 5 (3 percent). 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 80 

percent of subwatersheds with depressed populations across all recovery units under Alternative 

5. Alternative 5 is followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (62 percent), 7 (58 percent), 

1B (54 percent), 2 (50 percent), 4 (22 percent), and 6 (16 percent). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 79

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds -

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks would occur in all 

(100 percent) of the strongholds in the ESU under Alternatives 3, 5, and 7. Alternative 4 would 

have MPCs that would emphasize treatments in one third of the strongholds, while Alternatives 

1B, 2, and 6 would not emphasize treatments in any strongholds.

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternative 3 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate 

restoration or conservation in 61 percent of the high priority subwatersheds identified by the 

WARS across all recovery units. Alternatives 2 and 7 follow with 59 percent of the high priority 

subwatersheds, then Alternative 6 with 50 percent, Alternative 4 with 48 percent, Alternative 1B 

with 37 percent, and Alternative 5 with 29 percent of the high priority subwatersheds. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations – For 

strongholds, Alternative 7 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation 

recommended by the WARS in the highest percent (65) of subwatersheds across all recovery 

units, followed in descending order by Alternatives 2 (62 percent), 3 and 4 (59 percent), 6 (53 

percent), 1B (41 percent), and 5 (35 percent). Alternative 2 has the highest percentage (63) of 

subwatersheds with depressed populations and MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration 

or conservation strategies. Alternative 2 is followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (62 

percent), 7 (60 percent), 6 (51 percent), 4 (50 percent), 1B (39 percent), and 5 (30 percent). 

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Native Westslope Cutthroat Trout: 

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited timberland acres assigned by MPCs, 

Alternative 5 (926,154 acres) would have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial 

timber harvest and road-related activities across all westslope subbasins in the Ecogroup area, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 1B (496,164 acres), 3 (135,885 acres), 2 (108,445 

acres), 7 (98,078 acres), 6 (51,443 acres), and 4 (0 acres). 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

five of the seven westslope subbasins. Upper Middle Fork Salmon subbasin could exceed the 

TOC in Alternative 1B after 20 years. Upper Salmon subbasin could exceed TOC in Alternative 

2 after 20 years, and in Alternative 7 after 20 years. Potential effects to chinook salmon and 

critical habitat could be high in the short term in these subbasins under these alternatives. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres for Alternatives 1B, 4, and 7 

comprise an estimated 4 percent of all the westslope subbasins. For Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6 

they comprise an estimated 5 percent of all the subbasins. Potential impacts to the subbasins 

from grazing would generally be very low at these levels.

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For all the westslope 

subbasins combined, Alternative 4 has the highest (88) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (83 percent), 7 (77 percent), 2 (53 percent), 6 (34 

percent), 1B (15 percent), and 5 (7 percent).
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 80

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 69 

percent of subwatersheds with depressed populations across all subbasins under Alternative 5. 

Alternative 5 is followed in descending order by Alternatives 1B (46 percent), 3 and 7 (40 

percent), 2 (34 percent), 6 (17 percent), and 4 (3 percent). 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds - There 

are currently no stronghold subwatersheds with westslope cutthroat populations that are at high 

risk from uncharacteristic wildfires within the Ecogroup, so there would be no potential effects 

to this indicator under any alternative. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternative 2 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate 

restoration or conservation in 71 percent of the high priority subwatersheds identified by the 

WARS across all westslope subbasins. Alternative 3 follows with 70 percent of the high priority 

subwatersheds, then Alternative 7 with 68 percent, Alternative 6 with 59 percent, Alternative 4 

with 48 percent, Alternative 1B with 43 percent, and Alternative 5 with 34 percent. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations – All 

alternatives would have MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation 

recommended by the WARS in two of the three stronghold subwatersheds that occur within the 

Ecogroup area. Alternative 2 has the highest percentage (70) of subwatersheds with depressed 

populations and MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation strategies, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 (69 percent), 7 (68 percent), 6 (57 percent), 4 (45 

percent), 1B (40 percent), and 5 (34 percent). 

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Native Wood River Sculpin:

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited timberland acres assigned by MPCs, 

Alternative 5 (193,146 acres) would have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial 

timber harvest and road-related activities across in the Wood River sculpin subbasins in the 

Ecogroup area, followed in descending order by Alternatives 1B (126,998 acres), 3 (82,880 

acres), 2 (53,034 acres), 7 (42,689 acres), 6 (6,989 acres), and 4 (451 acres). 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

any of the Wood River sculpin subbasins after 20 or 50 years. Potential effects from ERT acres 

would be relatively low in all subbasins.

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres are the same for all 

alternatives (23 percent of all subbasins), with the exception of Alternative 6, which is only 11 

percent. Suitable rangeland acres range from 20 to 37 percent in many of subbasins and thus 

have a higher potential for grazing impacts than the acres for the listed species analyzed above. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 81

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For all the westslope 

subbasins combined, Alternative 4 has the highest (73) percent of More Restrictive MPCs, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 2 and 3 (29 percent), 7 (26 percent), 6 (21 percent), 

1B (20 percent), and 5 (0 percent).

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

Based on MPC emphasis, treatments to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risks could occur in 100 

percent of subwatersheds with depressed populations in two Wood River sculpin subbasins under 

Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would be followed in descending order by Alternatives 3 and 7 (57 

percent), 2 (50 percent), 1B (36 percent), 6 (14 percent), and 4 (7 percent). 

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds - There 

are currently no subwatersheds with strong sculpin populations within the Ecogroup, so there 

would be no potential effects to this indicator under any alternative. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - No alternative has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate 

restoration or conservation strategy to high priority subwatersheds identified by the WARS in 

subbasins that contain Wood River sculpin. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations –

There are currently no subwatersheds with strong sculpin populations within the Ecogroup, so 

there would be no potential effects to this indicator under any alternative. No alternative has 

MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation strategy to high priority 

subwatersheds identified by the WARS in subbasins that contain Wood River sculpin. 

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Effects to Native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout: 

Effects from Suited Timberland Acres – Based on suited timberland acres assigned by MPCs, 

Alternative 5 (69,915 acres) would have the greatest potential for impacts from commercial 

timber harvest and road-related activities across all Yellowstone cutthroat subbasins in the 

Ecogroup area, followed in descending order by Alternatives 1B (54,185 acres), 2 (51,914 acres), 

3 (51,696 acres), 7 (45,345 acres), 4 (15,259 acres), and 6 (12,226 acres). 

Effects from ERT Acres Compared to Subbasin TOCs- No exceedence of TOC would occur in 

two of the three Yellowstone cutthroat subbasins. The Goose Creek subbasin could exceed TOC 

in Alternative 7 after 20 years. Potential effects to Yellowstone cutthroat and critical habitat 

could be high in the short term in this subbasin under this alternative. 

Effects from Suitable Rangeland Acres – Suitable rangeland acres for Alternatives 1B, 2, and 5 

comprise an estimated 57 percent of all the Yellowstone cutthroat subbasins. For Alternatives 3, 

4, and 7 they comprise an estimated 43 percent of all the subbasins, and suitable acres comprise 

an estimated 42 percent of the subbasins under Alternative 6. Potential impacts from grazing 

could be relatively high at these levels, compared to the fish species analyzed above.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 82

Effects from Less Restrictive vs. More Restrictive Grazing Management - For all the Yellowstone 

cutthroat subbasins combined, Alternative 4 has the highest (46) percent of More Restrictive 

MPCs, followed in descending order by Alternatives 7 (10 percent), 2 and 6 (3 percent), 3 (2 

percent), and 1B and 5 (0 percent).

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Depressed Population Subwatersheds –

All alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 6, have the potential to aggressively treat all 

subwatersheds where depressed Yellowstone cutthroat populations occur within the Ecogroup. 

Alternatives 6 potentially could treat 29 percent of the subwatersheds with depressed 

Yellowstone cutthroat populations.

Effects from Wildfire vs. Managing Wildfire Hazard in Strong Population Subwatersheds -

All alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 6, have the potential to aggressively treat all 

subwatersheds where strong Yellowstone cutthroat populations occur within the Ecogroup. 

Alternative 6 has MPCs that would not emphasize treatment in any of the subwatersheds.

Effects from Aquatic Restoration - Alternative 7 has MPCs that emphasize the appropriate 

restoration or conservation in 17 percent of the high priority subwatersheds identified by the 

WARS across all Yellowstone cutthroat subbasins. Alternative 4 follows with 9 percent of the 

high priority subwatersheds, then Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 with 4 percent, and then Alternatives 

1B and 5 with 0 percent. 

Effects from Aquatic Restoration in Subwatersheds with Strong and Depressed Populations – For 

subwatersheds with strong populations, Alternative 7 has the highest percentage (27) with MPCs 

that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation strategies, followed in descending 

order by Alternatives 4 (18 percent), 2, 3, and 6 (9 percent), and 1B and 5 (0 percent). 

Alternative 7 has the highest percentage (67) of subwatersheds with depressed populations and 

MPCs that emphasize the appropriate restoration or conservation strategies, followed in 

descending order by Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 (17 percent), and then 1B, 4, and 5 (0 percent).

Effects from Motorized Trail Use - Effects are the same as described for Sockeye Salmon above. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may affect habitat for terrestrial wildlife 

species, including species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, Region 4 sensitive species, species of special interest, species at risk, and Forest 

Management Indicator Species. 

Indicators for Issue 1: Effects to most species in this analysis are measured by changes to 

habitat components (size class, density, composition, snags, coarse woody debris) and trends. 

Effects to Bald Eagle Habitat: Bald eagle nesting, perching, roosting, and wintering sites tend 

to be in riparian areas near large bodies of water. Riparian area protection would be provided by 

management direction under all alternatives. This direction would include a general reduction in 

vegetation-disturbance activities from past levels, along with goals to maintain or restore large 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 83

trees where possible for other resource needs, such as shade, bank stabilization, and pool habitat 

recruitment. These large trees would also provide nesting, perching, and roosting habitat for 

bald eagles over the short and long term, in both existing and potential eagle territories. 

Improved riparian and aquatic resource management direction under all alternatives should also 

help maintain or restore fish populations for bald eagles over the short and long term.

Effects to Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel Habitat: All alternatives would follow the 

direction and intent of the conservation strategy or recovery plan. All action alternatives have 

Forest-wide and management area direction to restore ground squirrel habitat over the short and 

long term. Based on MPC allocations, the alternatives that would have the most effective 

prescriptions to help restore and maintain ground squirrel habitat are, in descending order, 

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, 5, 6, 2, and 1B. 

Effects to Canada Lynx Habitat: All alternatives would need to meet the intent of the 

standards specified in the 2000 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy developed to help 

recover this species. Alternative 4 would have the best mix of management prescriptions to 

maintain lynx habitat over the long term, followed in order by Alternatives 6, 3, 7, 2, 5, and 1B. 

Overall, MPCs 3.2 and 5.1 would likely provide the best mix of emphasis and tools for actively 

restoring or maintaining lynx and snowshoe hare foraging habitat over the short term. Overall, 

Alternative 3 would provide these MPCs across the largest extent of the Ecogroup area, followed 

in descending order by Alternatives 2, 7, 5, 4, 1B, and 6. 

Effects to Yellow-billed Cuckoo Habitat: The key component for yellow-billed cuckoo habitat 

is extensive riparian cottonwood forest areas. Riparian area protection within RCAs/RHCAs 

would be provided by management direction under all alternatives. This direction would likely 

result in a general reduction in vegetation-disturbance activities from past levels, and include 

goals and objectives to maintain or restore cottonwood riparian systems where possible for 

resource needs, such as shade, bank stabilization, and pool habitat. 

Effects to Peregrine Falcon Habitat: Most potential management activities would do little if 

anything to affect nesting habitat, which consists typically of cliffs in natural environments. 

Open stands created through fire or vegetation management would likely increase foraging areas 

for peregrines, a positive effect for this species. Alternatives 5, 1B, 2, 7, and 3 would actively 

create more openings over the short term than Alternatives 6 and 4. At the present stage of 

recovery; however, effects to the peregrine from habitat changes for prey species within the 

Ecogroup area would likely be insignificant. 

Effects to White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat: This species habitat would benefit from 

increasing the extent of large ponderosa pine and reducing tree densities. Alternatives that have 

a restoration and fire use emphasis, such as Alternative 3, benefit this species, because thinning 

and non-lethal fire use reduces tree densities. Over the next five decades, the most white-headed 

woodpecker habitat occurs under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 4, 2, 6, 7, 5, and 1B.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 84

Effects to Fisher Habitat: Key components for fisher habitat are forested riparian areas, mature 

to old forests (PVGs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) with moderate moisture conditions, and snags 

and coarse woody debris. All alternatives show an improving trend in habitat for this species. 

Over the next five decades, the most fisher habitat would occur under Alternative 4, followed in 

descending order by Alternatives 6 and 3, 2, 5, 7, and 1B.

Effects to Boreal Owl Habitat: Boreal owls inhabit mid- to higher-elevation forests that are 

capable of growing large-diameter trees. Snags and down logs are also necessary habitat 

attributes. All alternatives show an improving trend in habitat for this species after the first 

decade. Over the next five decades, the most boreal owl habitat would occur under Alternative 

4, followed in descending order by Alternatives 6, 2, 7, 5, 3, and 1B.

Effects to Great Gray Owl Habitat: The habitat components considered most important for 

this species are: a) mature or older open forest habitat to provide suitable nesting sites; and b) 

suitable foraging habitat that includes non-stocked and seedling forests, meadows, and open 

riparian habitats adjacent to forested vegetation in PVGs 9, 10, and 11. All alternatives show an 

improving trend in habitat for this species after the first decade. Over the next five decades, the 

most great gray owl habitat would occur under Alternative 4, followed in descending order by 

Alternatives 6, 7, 2, 3, 5, and 1B.

 

Effects to Flammulated Owl Habitat: Flammulated owls use lower-elevation forested areas 

that contain large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and aspen trees of moderate densities, along with 

large snags for nesting. Over the next five decades, the most flammulated owl habitat would 

occur under Alternative 3, and Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7 would have similar but somewhat 

lesser amounts than 3. Alternatives 1B and 5 display the slowest rate of improvement, with 1B 

showing a decrease in habitat after the third decade.

Effects to Northern Three-toed Woodpecker Habitat: These woodpeckers take advantage of 

areas with extensive tree mortality and can be thought of as opportunists when these conditions 

occur. All alternatives show an improving trend in habitat for this species after the first decade. 

Over the next five decades, the most northern three-toed woodpecker habitat would occur under 

Alternative 4, followed in descending order by Alternatives 6 and 3, 7, 2, and 5 and 1B.

Effects to Northern Goshawk Habitat: Goshawks use all forest types within the Ecogroup 

area, and they select nesting sites that usually have larger trees available compared to 

surrounding areas, and an abundant prey base. All alternatives show an improving long-term 

trend in habitat for this species as a result of increasing the amount of large tree structure. 

Differences in the amounts of habitat over the next five decades for all alternatives are minor.

Effects to Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat: In the past some mountain shrub 

communities were converted and seeded to non-native grasses to increase forage for livestock. 

Due to the importance of these habitats to sharp-tailed grouse and other species, these types of 

actions would no longer occur due to revised management direction under the action alternatives. 

The continued emphasis of Alternative 1B on production of livestock forage could result in 

additional areas being converted to non-native grasses and the maintenance of non-native 

seedings in areas already converted.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 85

Effects to Mountain Quail Habitat: It is estimated that very little if any development or 

management activities would occur in mountain quail habitat under any alternative. Riparian 

areas would be protected from overgrazing and other management-related disturbances under all 

alternatives through Forest Plan RCA/RHCA direction. Therefore, all alternatives would have 

little or no adverse impacts on mountain quail habitat, and would likely improve habitat 

conditions over the short and long term. 

Effects to Harlequin Duck Habitat: Riparian area protection for RCAs/RHCAs provided by 

Forest Plan direction would maintain or restore riparian habitat conditions under all alternatives. 

Therefore, all alternatives would have a beneficial effect on this species, and provide for 

continued migration to and from nesting areas.

Effects to Spotted Bat: Spotted bats roost in crevices of high cliffs and forage in sagebrush 

shrub and low-elevation forest. No potential management actions under any alternative would 

modify high cliff roosting areas for this species. The action alternatives have revised 

management direction to maintain or restore native shrublands to desired conditions. The 

emphasis of Alternative 1B on production of livestock forage would not emphasize maintenance 

or restoration of native shrublands.

Effects to Spotted Frog Habitat: Habitat conditions are expected to improve under all 

alternatives. The Forest Service will follow legal direction (Executive Order 11190) that 

mandates that wetlands not be destroyed or negatively affected. For all alternatives, riparian area 

management direction provides additional protection to habitat for this species. 

Effects to Common Loon Habitat: No alternative would influence the birds ability to pass 

through the area to their nesting and wintering areas elsewhere. Riparian area protection 

provided by Forest-wide direction would maintain or restore riparian habitat conditions under all 

alternatives. Therefore, all alternatives would have a beneficial effect on this species, and 

provide for continued migration opportunities. 

Effects to Snowshoe Hare Habitat: Snowshoe hares inhabit boreal forest (high elevation) and 

dense riparian willow areas, and are important to management because they are the primary 

winter prey for Canada lynx. See effects to Canada lynx, above. 

Effects to Sage Grouse Habitat: The desired conditions for sagebrush provided in the revised 

Forest Plans for the action alternatives should contribute to habitat maintenance or improvement 

for this sagebrush-obligate species. The revised Plans also provide Management Area direction 

to address situations where wildfire has created a concern for this species. Because of the 

emphasis on production of livestock forage, sagebrush communities may continue to decline 

under Alternative 1B. 

Effects to Pileated Woodpecker Habitat: This species uses mature forests with moderate to 

high tree densities and canopy closures, and well-developed understories with snags and down 

wood for nesting and feeding sites. Over the next five decades, habitat extent decreases with all 

alternatives after the third decade, then increases after the fourth decade. Alternative 1B has a 

lower management requirement for the extent of desired large tree structure than the other 

alternatives; thus this alternative produces the least amount of habitat. The reduction in habitat 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 86

for the third decade is likely a result of the conversion of multi-storied stands to single-storied

stands. This reduction is not a concern in the Ecogroup area because it is estimated that extent of 

source habitat for this species in Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) 13 has increased from historic 

times by 21 percent.

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan alternatives and direction may affect disruption, vulnerability, 

and disease risk to terrestrial wildlife species.

Indicator 1 for Issue 2: The risk of human-related disruption to wide-ranging carnivores and 

other species.

Effects to Gray Wolf: Wolves are most vulnerable to disturbance when denning and rearing 

pups. Forest-wide management direction has been designed to allow wolf pairs to establish dens 

and packs on the Forest if they choose to do so, under the protection of the Experimental/Nonessential population rule developed by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994. Activities that 

disrupt wolves during denning and pup rearing are prohibited during the spring denning and 

rearing period under all alternatives until six breeding pairs are obtained.

Wolf interaction with humans is perhaps most influenced by human accessibility to remote 

habitats. Under all alternatives, the amount of roads across the Ecogroup is expected to decrease 

over the short term (10-15 years), although small amounts of new road construction would also 

occur. Based on proposed vegetation management opportunities, Alternative 3 reduces roads the 

most, followed by Alternatives 2, 7, 4, 5, 1B, and 6. 

Another way to assess inaccessibility is to calculate the amount of acres that would be generally 

regarded as roadless under each alternative. Alternative 6 has the most areas without roads, 

followed by Alternatives 4, 7, 1B, 2, 3, and 5. For all alternatives, areas without roads represent 

a substantial percentage of the Ecogroup area; however, Alternative 6 would have four times as 

much roadless area as Alternative 5. 

Effects to Bald Eagle: Forest-wide direction has been specifically developed to protect bald 

eagle nesting and wintering areas from disturbance on National Forest System lands under all 

action alternatives. This direction would help reduce disturbance to bald eagles during critical 

periods and therefore have beneficial effects to eagle populations over the short and long term. 

Effects to Peregrine Falcon: All alternatives prohibit activities within occupied peregrine 

nesting zones that adversely affect use and productivity of nest sites during the nesting period. 

Potential management activities under all alternatives would do little if anything to disturb 

nesting habitat, which consists typically of cliffs in natural environments. 

Effects to Wolverine: Specific habitat needs are not as important to this species as reducing 

human disturbance, particularly in natal den sites during the denning period. Management 

direction proposed under the action alternatives prohibits activities within occupied wolverine 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 87

denning areas that disturb or harass wolverines during denning periods, generally from February 

1 to May 15. For reducing road-related disturbance, Alternative 6 provides the largest amount of 

area without roads, followed by Alternatives 4, 7, 1B, 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 3 would reduce 

the greatest amount of existing roads, followed by Alternatives 2, 7, 4, 5, 1B, and 6. 

 

Effects to Spotted and Townsend’s Big-eared Bats: Forest-wide direction under the action 

alternatives has been added for surveying and protecting bat hibernacula. If bats were detected, 

actions would be taken to protect these sites from disturbance. Alternative 1B does not address 

identification or protection of bat hibernacula and therefore could pose a greater risk to spotted 

and Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Indicator 2 for Issue 2: Road densities related to road construction and decommissioning, and 

roadless areas.

Effects to Rocky Mountain Elk and Population Objectives: Access management in selected 

locations to restrict motorized travel during the hunting season is occurring on all three Forests to 

help meet state elk objectives. Access management is currently conducted through agreements 

with state agencies, and these are expected to continue. 

It is assumed that alternatives with the least road development or that maintain the current access 

management, would provide the security to allow elk to stay at current population levels within 

game management units. As discussed under the Gray Wolf and Wolverine above, all 

alternatives show an overall reduction in road miles over the short term. The most reduction 

occurs under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 7, 4, 5, 1B, and 6. Additionally, 

Alternative 6 provides the most areas without roads, followed by Alternatives 4, 7, 1B, 2, 3, and 

5. These roadless areas would provide large undisturbed security areas for elk, and make 

hunting elk in those areas more challenging. 

Indicator 3 for Issue 2: Acres of suitable domestic sheep range within bighorn sheep habitat. 

Effects to Bighorn Sheep: Alternatives that reduce suitability for domestic sheep grazing in the 

disease risk areas would be most beneficial to bighorn sheep. Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 reduce 

domestic sheep suitability in two areas totaling 81,835 acres (see Rangeland Resources section, 

Acres Deducted Due to Bighorn Sheep Habitat), and Alternative 7 would reduce suitability in 

one area (66,506 acres). Alternative 1B and 5 would not reduce any acres of suitability. 

Botanical Resources

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive (TEPCS) and watch plant species populations and habitats. 

Indicators: The indicators used to measure potential effects to TEPCS plants and their habitats 

include the following activities or conditions that would occur to some extent under all 

management alternatives: (1) fire (wildfire and prescribed burning), (2) livestock grazing 

(herbivory, trampling, and associated impacts), (3) recreation, (4) mechanical treatments

associated with vegetation management, and (5) noxious weed establishment and spread. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 88

General Effects: Potential effects from the indicators would be largely reduced by site-specific 

inventory, analysis, and mitigation, as well as by improved Forest Plan management direction 

and monitoring programs. Therefore, it is unlikely that proposed activities under any alternative 

would adversely affect Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate species, or contribute to 

the listing of Sensitive or watch species. However, potential impacts to species’ habitats do vary 

by alternative and are summarized below for the different categories of species analyzed. 

 

Effects to Macfarlane’s Four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei): This species is not known to 

occur within the Ecogroup area, and potential habitat for this species exists only along the Snake 

River on the Payette National Forest. The potential for moderate to high impacts to all grassland 

species exists for all alternatives. Alternative 5 poses the highest risk to the potential habitat for 

this species due to a high proportion of the potential habitat area assigned to MPCs 5.2 and 6.1. 

Alternative 4 would have the least potential impact to its potential habitat, and Alternatives 6 and 

7 would have low potential. The remaining alternatives would have moderate potential impacts 

to the potential habitat of this species.

Effects to Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Water Howellia (Howellia 

aquatilis): These species are not known to occur within the Ecogroup area, but potential habitat 

for them exists on all three National Forests. For all alternatives, there is potential for moderate 

to high levels of impact to potential habitat of this species, with Alternative 5 posing the highest 

risk and Alternative 6 the lowest risk. However, habitat occurs in riparian areas within 

RCAs/RHCAs. Within these areas, management emphasis for any Proposed Action is to achieve 

riparian and aquatic objectives. Therefore, only those actions that would benefit riparian 

resources over the long term are permitted, and impacts to habitat may be minimal. 

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii): This species is not known to occur within 

the Ecogroup area, and potential habitat for this species only exists along the Snake River and in 

Salmon River canyon grasslands on the Payette National Forest. While all alternatives pose 

moderate to high level impacts to the potential habitat of this species, Alternative 5 poses the 

greatest potential impacts based on the high proportion of the potential habitat area assigned to 

MPCs 5.2, 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2. These MPCs have high potential risks from noxious weed and 

exotic species invasion, mechanical effects, and livestock use.

Effects to Slick Spot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) - No occupied habitat for this 

species has been located on National Forest System lands, but potential habitat may exist on the 

Mountain Home Ranger District, Boise National Forest. The MPCs that would allow the type 

and intensity of management activities that could potentially threaten habitat or populations of 

this species are 5.1, 5.2, and 6.2. Alterna tive 5 poses the greatest potential impacts based on the 

high proportion of the potential habitat area assigned to MPCs 6.2 and 5.2. Alternative 5 would 

be followed in descending order of potential effects by Alternatives 2, 3, 1B, 6, 4, and 7. 

Effects to Christ’s Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja christii): Only one population is known 

globally, and it occurs on the Sawtooth National Forest. Off-road vehicles are currently the 

greatest threat to this species, followed by trampling from hikers and cattle and incidental cattle 

grazing. Of the total population, 23 percent (90 acres) occurs in the Mount Harrison Research 

Natural Area, which falls under MPC 2.2. The management emphasis for RNAs does not change 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 89

by alternative. Timber harvesting, road building, grazing, and mining are restricted under this 

MPC, thus reducing the overall potential impacts to this portion of the population. The 

remaining population (77 percent), however, may be adversely affected by management 

activities that vary by alternative. Alternatives 1B and 5 would pose the greatest potential 

impacts to this population due to MPCs 4.1, 4.2, and 6.2. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would pose 

moderate potential impacts, and Alternatives 4 and 6 would pose the least potential impacts. 

Effects to Slender Moonwort (Botrychium lineare): Only one population is known within the 

Ecogroup area, and it occurs on the Sawtooth National Forest. Alternative 1B poses the highest 

potential impacts to this population, followed in descending order by Alternatives 5, 2, 3, 6, 7, 

and 4. Potential effects to potential habitat for this species vary somewhat by habitat type, but 

generally speaking, Alternatives 1B and 5 have the highest potential for impacts.

Effects to Sensitive, Proposed Sensitive, and Watch Species - Alternative 5 has the most 

potential for overall impacts to the 86 TEPC, current or proposed sensitive or watch plant 

species. It was rated as one of the highest alternatives for effects for 7 of 8 habitat groups (Table 

S-5). Alternative 1B closely follows, then Alternative 3, due to the short-term risks associated 

with these alternatives. The alternative that appears to have the least potential impact to the 86 

species is Alternative 4, which rated as one of the lowest alternatives for effects in 8 of the 8 

habitat groups. Alternative 6 closely followed this (7 of 8 habitat groups). Many of the impacts 

in Alternatives 3 or 7 are considered short-term risks to improve habitat conditions in the longterm through restoration and maintenance of vegetative communities. Conversely, Alternative 6 

and 4 were rated as lower in immediate short-term impacts, but the longer-term outlook is less 

predictable, particularly regarding increased susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire events. 

Table S-5. Summary of Potential Impacts of Alternatives for Identified Habitat Groups

Habitat Group

Alternatives with the 

MOST Potential 

Impacts

Alternatives with 

INTERMEDIATE 

Potential Impacts

Alternatives with the 

LEAST Potential 

Impacts

Alpine 5, 1B 2, 7, 3 6, 4

Subalpine Forest/Non-forest 5, 3 2, 1B, 7 6, 4

Montane Forest 5, 1B 2, 3 = 7 6, 4

Woodland 1B = 5 2, 3, 7 4, 6

Shrubland 5, 1B 3, 2, 7 6, 4

Grassland 5, 1B 3, 2, 6 7, 4

Riparian 5, 3 2, 7, 1B 4, 6

Rock 5, 1B 2, 3, 6 7, 4

Vegetation Diversity

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect vegetative biodiversity by 

changing size class, species composition, density, snags, and coarse woody debris.

The analysis of this issue is divided into three separate sections: (1) forested vegetation, (2) nonforested vegetation, and (3) riparian vegetation. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 90

Indicators for Forested Vegetation: Indicators for potential effects on forested vegetation are:

• Size class changes toward desired and historical size classes by Forest and Potential 

Vegetation Group (PVG)

• Canopy closure changes toward desired and historical canopy closures by Forest and PVG

• Species composition changes toward desired condition and historical seral status by Forest 

and PVG 

• Summary of all the components from desired and historic conditions by Forest

• Percentage of large trees by alternative in the second and fifth decades

Effects to Forested Vegetation Size Class, Canopy Closure, and Species Composition: In 

order to summarize information about these three components of forested vegetation, all three 

components are examined together, for each decade. Individual rankings were reviewed and 

then considered as to which alternatives best meet their desired condition (DC) and come within 

the mean of HRV. These would be the alternatives that are designed with the right mix of MPCs 

to meet the DCs, and have a lesser degree of risk in terms of meeting HRVs. Alternatives that 

best meet the DC are also identified, regardless of HRV, because some alternatives were not 

designed solely to meet HRV, but to consider social and economic concerns as well. These 

alternatives generally fall within the full range of HRV, but do not meet the mean of the range. 

In this synthesis of indicators, PVGs that comprise less than 5 percent of the total Forest are not 

included in the rankings, to better understand the landscape level effects across a Forest, by 

alternative. PVGs that comprise less than 5 percent of the total Forest acres include 1, 3, and 4 

on the Payette, 5 and 11 on the Boise, and 1, 2, and 3 on the Sawtooth National Forest. This 

analysis does not mean to imply that these PVGs are not important ecologically, despite the 

small amount of acreage they incorporate. However, they do not play a large role in landscape 

level change compared across the different alternatives.

Fifth Decade - This is the decade that probably holds the most weight, in terms of how an 

alternative would affect the forested vegetation landscape. This is the decade where substantive 

differences between the alternatives are first detected, and it is not so far out on a time-scale that 

model reliability goes down appreciably. Overall on the Payette National Forest, the best 

alternative for meeting both the DC and the HRV would be Alternative 3, followed by 

Alternatives 4 and 7. Alternative 2 comes next, and Alternatives 1B, 5, and 6 are all ranked last. 

For only meeting the DC, since all alternatives are not designed to be within the mean of HRV, 

Alternative 3 would rank first, followed by Alterna tive 7. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be third, 

Alternative 2 would be fourth, and lastly would be Alternatives 1B and 6. Collectively, 

Alternative 3 is the best overall alternative for vegetation diversity on the Payette National 

Forest; Alternative 7 would be second, and Alternative 4 would be third.

Overall on the Boise National Forest for meeting both the DC and HRV, Alternative 3 would 

rank first, followed by Alternative 4, then Alternatives 2 and 7. Alternatives 5 and 6 would be 

next, and 1B would be last. For meeting only the DC, Alternative 3 would be first, then 

Alternative 7, followed by Alternatives 4, 2, and 5, and Alternatives 1B and 6. Collectively, 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 7 would be the best overall alternatives on the Boise National Forest.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 91

Overall on the Sawtooth National Forest, Alternative 3 would be the best for meeting both the 

DC and the HRV (it is ranked highly in all components), followed by Alternative 7, then 

Alternative 4, then Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternatives 1B and 2 would be ranked last. For 

meeting only the DC, Alternative 7 would be the best, followed by Alternative 3, then 

Alternative 6, then Alternative 5, and then Alternatives 1B, 2, and 4. Collectively, Alternatives 3 

and 7 would be the best overall alternatives on the Sawtooth National Forest.

Tenth Decade - On the Payette National Forest, Alternative 4 would be the best for meeting both 

the DC and the HRV, followed by Alternative 2, then Alternative 3. For meeting only the DC, 

Alternative 4 would be the best alt ernative, followed by Alternative 2, then Alternatives 3 and 7. 

Overall at the end of ten decades, Alternative 4 would be the best alternative for meeting 

vegetation diversity needs. 

On the Boise National Forest, Alternative 3 would be the best for meeting both the DC and the 

HRV, followed by Alternative 4, then Alternatives 6 and 7. For meeting only the DC, 

Alternative 7 would be the best, followed by Alternatives 3, 6, and 7. Overall at the end of ten 

decades, Alternatives 3 and 7 appear to be the best. 

For the Sawtooth National Forest, Alternative 6 would be the best for meeting both the DC and 

the HRV, followed by Alternatives 4 and 7. For meeting only the DC, Alternative 6 would also 

be the best, followed by Alternative 7, then Alternative 4. Overall at the end of ten decades, 

Alternative 6 would be the best alternative, followed by Alternatives 4 and 7. 

Fifteenth Decade - Model results are considered much less reliable in this decade, but it is 

interesting to note if any alternatives continue on a particular trend. Many of the constraints in 

the model are released this far out in the projection.

For the Payette National Forest, Alternative 2 would be the best for meeting the DC and HRV, 

followed by Alternative 4, then Alternatives 3 and 7. For meeting the DC only, Alternative 2 

would be the best, followed by Alternatives 4 and 7, then Alternative 2. Overall, Alternative 2 

would be the best Alternative. 

On the Boise National Forest, Alternative 3 would be the best for meeting the DC and HRV, 

followed by Alternative 4. For meeting the DC only, Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the best, 

followed by Alternatives 6 and 7. Overall, Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the best. The trend of 

consistently seeing Alternative 3 as a good alternative continues. 

For the Sawtooth National Forest, Alternative 7 would be the best for meeting the DC and HRV, 

followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 6. For meeting the DC only, Alternative 7 would be the best, 

followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 6. Overall, Alternative 7 appears to be the best after fifteen 

decades. The trend of consistently seeing Alternative 7 as a good alternative continues.

The ranking of alternatives is due to a variety of factors including specific desired conditions, 

inherent vegetative development, management prescription categories, management objectives, 

and budgets. All these interact to determine the amount of vegetative management and/or 

disturbances that occurs. There are different DCs between alternatives. For example, not as 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 92

many large trees are needed to meet the DCs for Alternatives 1B and 5. In some PVGs, the 

current conditions are so far from the DCs, that it would take more than five decades to grow 

enough trees into the large size class to meet the DC. For Alternatives 1B and 5, less acreage in 

the large tree size class is desired, hence it may be easier to meet the DCs in a shorter time 

period.

Those landscapes operating within or close to historical conditions are expected to be more 

resistant and resilient to endemic levels of insects, disease, and fire, and to produce characteristic 

responses. That does not mean that epidemic insect outbreaks or lethal fire won’t occur, but 

rather that these disturbance agents would operate and function within ecosystems in an expected 

or predictable manner. In turn, ecosystem elements, processes, and functions that revolve around 

vegetation would operate as expected. The timing of disturbances will also affect the trend an 

alternative takes. 

Different alternatives display differences in the numbers of PVGs or forested acres that are 

within DC. What differs between them are the relative amounts by which the alternatives meet 

their desired conditions (numbers of PVGs and/or amount of acres of forested vegetation) and 

the rates at which the alternatives may achieve desired conditions. In the case of the Sawtooth 

Wilderness, the small total size of the area makes it difficult to implement management that is 

compatible with the wilderness desired condition. 

Effects to Forested Vegetation Snags and Coarse Woody Debris: In this analysis, each 

alternative is evaluated as to its capacity to produce large- and medium-sized trees as the 

recruitment pool of snags and coarse woody debris. The alternatives differ by their capacity to 

produce large and medium size trees, given the mix of MPCs and the activities in those MPCs 

for each alternative. The second, fifth, and tenth decades are examined to see how the 

recruitment pool of snags and coarse woody debris differs by alternative.

Table S-6. Percentage of Total Forested Acres of Large Trees by Alternative in

Second Decade 

 National 

Forest Current Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Wilderness

Payette 14.6 13.7 16.9 17.0 16.6 13.9 15.1 15.5 15.6

Boise 10.7 9.5 13.3 14.5 14.3 13.3 12.9 11.7 N/A

Sawtooth 12.9 13.2 14.1 18.2 16.5 16.0 14.6 13.7 4.4

Table S-7. Percentage of Total Forested Acres of Large Trees by Alternatives in

Fifth Decade 

National Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Wilderness

Payette 28.1 33.5 33.4 31.8 27.7 29.5 31.4 27.5

Boise 21.8 24.6 25.5 23.6 20.1 23.4 24.1 N/A

Sawtooth 23.2 26.1 27.4 23.5 24.6 23.5 24.6 10.3
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 93

Table S-8. Percentage of Total Forested Acres of Large Trees by

Alternative in Tenth Decade

National Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Wilderness

Payette 44.9 51.4 55.3 53.7 42.3 51.4 46.2 54.8

Boise 36.7 46.2 50.2 51.6 40.2 50.5 38.5 N/A

Sawtooth 34.5 37.4 42.2 42.1 43.1 37.9 30.2 44.8

Considering all the above factors, across the Ecogroup area, Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely 

provide the most snags and coarse wood in the medium and large size classes. Alternative 3 

dominates more in the earlier decades, and further out Alternative 4 becomes the dominant 

alternative for the future recruitment pool. A variety of decay classes should also prevail under 

these alternatives over the long term with improvements in ecosystem processes and functions. 

Indicators for Non-forested Vegetation: Indicators for potential effects on non-forested 

vegetation are:

• Acres of big sagebrush and low sagebrush in low, medium, or high canopy cover classes, as 

compared to the desired conditions for each alternative and historical estimates 

• Acres of climax aspen in a range of size and canopy cover classes, as compared to the desired 

conditions for each alternative and historical estimates 

• Acres of pinyon-juniper in a range of size and canopy cover classes, as compared to the 

desired conditions for each alternative and historical estimates 

• Acres of grassland cover types in moderate or high risk condition that occur within low, 

medium, or high vegetative restoration MPCs 

Effects to Non-forested Vegetation, Sagebrush Canopy Cover: It appears that Alternative 7 

is the best alternative for meeting its desired condition for all vegetation types and in the shortest 

amount of time on the Boise National Forest. Alternative 2 closely follows. The remaining 

alternatives would be ranked in the following manner for meeting the desired conditions for the 

most vegetation types in the shortest amount of time: Alternative 1B, 3, and 5 all group together, 

followed by Alternatives 4 and 6. For falling the closest to HRV, Alternative 4 does the best in 

the earlier decades (thus meeting its DC also). However, it is not sustainable as canopy covers 

continue to increase until a large wildfire event occurs, thus increasing the amount in the low 

canopy cover class. Alternative 3 is the overall best for meeting HRV, which is what this 

alternative is designed to do, followed by Alternative 7. It should be noted that the variations 

between alternatives, when considering HRV, were usually quite small. 

For the Sawtooth National Forest, it appears Alternative 7 is the best alternative for meeting the 

DC for the most vegetation types in the shortest timeframes. Alternative 7 is followed in order 

by Alternatives 2, 6, 3, 5, 1B, and 4. 

Effects to Non-forested Vegetation, Pinyon-Juniper: One thing to note is that Alternatives 5 

and 1B appear to be the best alternatives for meeting the DCs for pinyon-juniper. However, the 

DCs for these alternatives required less acreage in the larger size classes than the DCs for other 

alternatives. Pinyon-juniper was modeled alone (when canopy cover is greater than 10 percent), 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 94

and together with mountain big sagebrush or Wyoming big sagebrush that contained pinyonjuniper, but with less than 10 percent canopy cover of the pinyon-juniper. It was assumed that 

these were stands in the process of conversion to pinyon-juniper. The alternatives that appeared 

to minimize the conversion of either one of the sagebrush types to pinyon-juniper (or maximized 

the conversion back to sagebrush from pinyon-juniper) were ranked in the following order: 7, 3, 

4, 2, 5, 1B, and 6. Although Alternative 7 was the best alternative for minimizing conversion, it 

was not the best alternative for moving the pinyon-juniper to its DC. There is almost an inherent 

conflict in the DC; it is difficult to increase size classes of juniper at the same time that it is being

thinned through various treatments to allow for more sagebrush, grasses, and forbs. This 

modeling points out the importance of the habitat types at the project level and the need to design 

treatments that are appropriate for the habitat type. If the habitat type is pinyon-juniper, then 

having a more even distribution of tree size classes may be more appropriate. If the habitat type 

is sagebrush and it is early enough in the conversion process, then trying to get more sagebrush 

into the system, at the expense of pinyon-juniper, may be the appropriate course of action. 

Effects to Non-forested Vegetation, Climax Aspen: The current condition of climax aspen has 

only 3.9 percent of acres in the medium/large size class, and all of these acres are in the <70 

percent canopy cover class. Therefore, current condition reflects a paucity of acres in the 

medium/large size class, particularly in the >70 percent class. All alternatives show significant 

increases of acres in this class. Alternative 1B puts the most amount of acres into this class (50 

percent), followed in order by Alternatives 6, 5, 4, 2, 3, and 7. All alternatives exceed the 30 

percent amount of this size class considered to be appropriate for the HRV. The HRV analysis 

shows that Alternatives 7, 3, 2, and 4 best meet the HRV for climax aspen, and they are the 

alternatives that put lesser amounts of aspen in this class. Alternative 7 meets the DC in all 

decades beyond the third, except for the fifteenth. Alternative 3 and 4 meet the DC for decades 

three through fifteen; Alternative 2 meets it for decades three through fifteen, except for the fifth. 

Conversely, Alternatives 1B and 5 do not meet the DCs. These alternatives have DCs that 

require lesser amounts in this class to meet other alternative objectives. Alternative 6 meets the 

DC for decades three through fifteen, but has a DC that requires more acres in this class. 

Effects to Non-forested Vegetation, Grasslands: MPCs are grouped according to the types of 

activities expected to occur, similar to groupings used in VDDT modeling for other non-forested 

vegetation types. They are categorized into low, medium, or high groups, based on their 

perceived ability to maintain or restore vegetative conditions in grasslands. The high group 

would be expected to maintain current vegetative conditions and restore areas where needed over 

the long term. The medium group would have the best ability to restore vegetative conditions 

where needed, but could have short-term negative effects. The low group is not especially strong 

in either maintenance or restoration, although some restoration will occur. Conversely, there 

could be some continued degradation, particularly in localized areas. The acreage of MPCs 

groups in the selected management areas is displayed by alternative in Table S-9. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 95

Table S-9. Grassland Vegetative Response by MPC Groupings (Acres)

MPC Groupings Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt.5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

High (1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 4.1a, 4.1b) 168,769 159,035 22,615 209,669 4,202 587,595 31,718

Medium (2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1c, 5.1, 8.0) 160,656 389,721 766,908 665,246 157,529 184,582 542,012

Low (4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2) 694,069 474,717 233,962 148,571 861,577 251,308 449,756

Overall, Alternative 6, and to a lesser degree, Alternative 4, are expected to maintain grassland 

vegetation conditions, provided that they are currently in a state to maintain. At the very least, 

these alternatives would see the least amount of continuing degradation. However, where areas 

are in need of restoration, the time frames for restoration could be very long. Alternative 3, then 

Alternative 4, followed by Alternative 7 would have the best potential for restoring vegetation 

conditions where necessary in grassland ecosystems. Alternative 5, then 1B, would have the 

least likelihood of maintaining or restoring grassland ecosystems, and could have increased 

potential for additional degradation, based on the numbers of acres in the low MPC group. 

Considering both the high and medium groups together, Alternative 4 would have the most 

potential beneficial effects, followed in descending order by Alternatives 3, 6, 7, 2 1B, and 5. 

Indicators for Riparian Vegetation: Indicators for potential effects on riparian vegetation are:

• Percentage of large trees by alternative with in the second and fifth decades for forested 

(riverine) riparian areas 

• Overall synthesis of forested PVGs for meeting desired conditions and historical conditions 

• Acres of deciduous riparian cover types in moderate or high risk condition that occur within 

low, medium, or high vegetative restoration MPCs 

Effects to Forested Riparian Vegetation - The alternatives differ by their capacity to produce 

large size trees, given the mix of MPCs and the activities in those PVGs for each alternative. 

Therefore, each alternative is evaluated as to its capacity to produce large trees, hence large 

woody debris, and to maintain or restore forested riparian vegetation. Although this analysis 

cannot be applied directly to forested RCAs/RHCAs, it is the closest approximation of what 

would happen in these areas. Generally, management in the RCAs/RHCAs would be more 

restrictive than in the uplands. As discussed for the forested PVGs, the best overall alternatives 

after five decades would be Alternatives 3 and 7 on the Payette National Forest. For the Boise 

National Forest, Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 are best, and on the Sawtooth National Forest, 

Alternatives 3 and 7 ranked the highest after 5 decades. As shown in the analysis, Alternative 4 

elevates its rank in the later decades. This ranking applies to all three components; size class, 

canopy closure class, and species composition. 

Effects to Deciduous Riparian Vegetation - Groupings of MPCs are based on the potential to 

maintain or restore vegetative conditions. MPC groups were formed, primarily based on 

livestock grazing, noxious weeds, recreation, roads, mechanical treatments, and fire use, more or 

less in that order. This approach is based on a combination of effects that would occur directly 

in riparian areas, or those that would occur in the uplands and influence riparian areas. This 

analysis is done for the entire Ecogroup area since the relationships between uplands and riparian 

zones, and between riparian zones with each other, reflects connectivity regardless of 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 96

boundaries. This connectivity is displayed by such attributes as watershed geomorphic integrity, 

habitat patches, and plant dispersal. This analysis would also apply to the forested vegetation in 

the Ecogroup, since it covers the entire Ecogroup area. Table S-10 displays the numbers of acres 

in each MPC group by alternative.

Table S-10. Riparian Area Vegetative Response by MPC Groupings

(Millions of Acres)

Non-forested Riparian MPC Groupings Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt.5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

High (1.1, 1.2, 2.2) 1.67 1.67 1.67 3.55 1.02 1.67 1.67

Medium (2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c) 1.27 2.22 2.14 2.23 0.87 3.79 2.78

Low (4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8.0) 3.68 2.72 2.80 0.83 4.73 1.14 2.16

The high MPC groupings would be most effective where riparian conditions should be 

maintained. In general, that would be the condition of many riparian areas in these MPCs. The 

medium MPC groups are most effective where conditions need maintenance and/or restoration. 

Natural recovery of native riparian vegetation may be extremely slow, even with reductions in 

livestock grazing, because of deterioration in the physical conditions of streams during the last 

150 years, dominance of exotic annuals within the riparian area, and loss of native seed sources. 

All alternatives except 4 and 5 have equivalent amounts in the high MPC group. Alternative 4, 

followed by Alternative 6, would have the highest probability to maintain riparian vegetation 

where it is most likely to need maintenance, and to restore riparian vegetation that would be in 

need of restoration. These alternatives are followed by Alternative 7, then Alternatives 2 and 3, 

Alternative 1B, and lastly Alternative 5. Alternative 5 also has the greatest acreage of MPCs that 

could add some further degradation due to activities in the uplands, although protective measures 

are provided by RCA/RHCA management direction. 

Vegetation Hazard

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of vegetation at risk 

to uncharacteristic wildfire and insect epidemic disturbances.

Issue Indicators: The indicators for this issue are:

• Insect hazard index for forested vegetation

• Uncharacteristic wildfire hazard index for forested and non-forested vegetation

Effects from Insect Hazard: Insect hazard for the Ecogroup area increases over time for each 

alternative, from the current average index rating of 1.38, to 1.72 in Alternative 7, 1.75 in 

Alternative 2, 1.77 in Alternative 5, 1.78 in Alternative 4, 1.79 in Alternative 3, 1,80 in 

Alternative 6, and 1.82 in Alternative 1B. The increase in hazard is primarily due to an increase 

in the average tree size class, or in other words, because of the greater percentage of area 

occupied by large-sized trees.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 97

Current conditions show an estimated 49 percent of the Ecogroup area’s forest vegetation in a 

moderate or high insect hazard condition. Across the Ecogroup area, the area in a moderate or 

high insect hazard increases over time in each alternative, to 62 percent in Alternative 7, 63 

percent in Alternative 2, 64 percent in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6, and 67 percent in Alternative 

1B, No Action. 

Effects from Uncharacteristic Wildfire Hazard, Forested Vegetation: Uncharacteristic 

wildfire hazard for forested vegetation declined after five decades from the current index for all 

alternatives except the No Action Alternative (1B) on all three Forests, and Alternative 5 on the 

Sawtooth and Payette Forests (Table S-11). The most substantial declines were in Alternative 4,

followed in order by Alternatives 3 and 6, 2, 7, 5, and 1B.

Table S-11. Forest-wide Uncharacteristic Wildfire Hazard Indexes for the Current 

Condition and the Fifth Decade for Alternatives by Forest

Index for Fifth Decade Forest Current

Index Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 0.65 0.81 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.57 0.41 0.57

Payette 0.50 0.62 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.38 0.49

Sawtooth 0.36 0.46 0.36 0.35 0.30 0.42 0.35 0.31

Effects from Uncharacteristic Wildfire Hazard, Non-forested Vegetation: Non-forested 

vegetation was not analyzed on the Payette Forest, as there were not enough acres to represent in 

the modeling. For the Boise and Sawtooth, uncharacteristic wildfire hazard for non-forested 

vegetation was greater after five decades than current hazard for all alternatives. However, all 

increases were relatively minor. Hazard increases from a current index of 0.11 on the Boise 

Forest to 0.17 in Alternative 5, 0.18 in Alternative 3, 0.19 in Alternatives 1B and 7, 0.20 in 

Alternative 2, 0.23 in Alternative 4, and 0.24 in Alternative 6. For the Sawtooth, the hazard 

increases from a current index of 0.12 to 0.16 in Alternative 5, 0.18 in Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, and 

7, 0.21 in Alternative 4, and 0.24 in Alternative 6. 

Non-native Plants

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies have the potential to influence non-native 

plant establishment, spread, detection, and control.

Indicators: The indicators for this issue are:

• Estimated total acres of high susceptibility to noxious weed invasion within MPCs that have 

a high exposure to invasion risk, moderate to high detection, and high ability to treat 

• Estimated total acres of high susceptibility to noxious weed invasion within MPCs that have 

low to moderate exposure to invasion risk, low detection, and low to moderate ability to treat 

• Estimated total noxious weed acres by Forest during the short term

• Effects within fire regimes/PVGs that have most departed from historical conditions.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 98

Estimated Acres of High Susceptibility to Noxious Weed Invasion: Alternatives 4 and 6 

show the least potential for short-term weed exposure and spread. However, due to new 

infestation expansion without detection, difficult treatment logistics, the proximity of existing 

weed infestations, and the potential for more extensive and hotter wildfires, the potential for 

long-term expansion and invasion is very high. The containment and control aspects of 

integrated weed management will likely be greater under Alternatives 5 and 1B. These 

alternatives also have higher short-term risks from the levels of commodity production and its 

associated disturbance. However, treatment of new infestations is likely to be more effective due 

to improved detection, monitoring, and logistics of treatment. The population densities of weed 

infestations are expected to be less under Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, 5, and 7 due to larger treatment 

programs, thereby reducing seed production potential (Table S-12).

Table S-12. Acres Susceptible to Invasion in Various Exposure Risk, Detection, and 

Treatment Groupings of MPCs

MPC Grouping Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 120,263 124,554 35,029 300,168 9,503 574,995 45,626

Payette 302,549 309,524 251,278 384,975 219,041 396,851 303,468

Sawtooth 63,288 58,702 20,014 123,253 9,726 268,379 24,262

Low to moderate 

risk, low 

detection, low 

ability to treat Total 486,100 492,780 306,321 808,396 238,270 1,240,225 373,356

Boise 818,417 814,126 903,651 638,512 929,177 363,685 893,054

Payette 178,930 171,955 230,200 96,504 262,432 84,628 178,011

Sawtooth 298,972 303,558 342,246 239,007 352,534 93,880 337,998

High risk, 

moderate to high 

detection, high 

ability to treat Total 1,296,319 1,289,639 1,476,097 974,023 1,544, 143 542,193 1,409,063

Estimated Noxious Weed Acres in the Short Term: The combined estimated acres were 

estimated for five key noxious weed species within the Ecogroup area after ten years. Overall, 

the alternatives are most influenced by the spread of knapweeds and rush skeletonweed. 

Alternatives 1B, 3, 5, and 7 would likely have the largest acreage (96,051 – 243-387 acres) after 

ten years, due primarily to the higher risks of seed dispersal associated with activities and 

practices. Alternative 2 follows closely with an estimated 92,035 – 221,510 acres. Alternatives 

4 and 6 would have an estimated 66,765 – 171,886 acres.

Effects from Fire Regime Departure - The risk of exotic plant infestations occurring within 

wildfire areas will be a concern under all the alternatives, and this risk is taken partially into 

consideration in determining areas of high susceptibility. Where stands are replaced with an 

early successional stage with large proportions of exposed soil, there is an increased potential for

exotic plant invasion. Forested PVGs 1, 2, 4, and 5 present the greatest risk, as these groups 

typically occur adjacent to or in conjunction with areas of high susceptibility to key noxious 

weed species invasion, and have fire regimes that are currently most departed from historical 

conditions. These PVGs occur more frequently on the Boise and Payette National Forests. 

Therefore, this analysis is confined to those two Forests. For the Boise National Forest, 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 reduce the overall hazard below the current condition in the long 

term. Because of more hazardous desired conditions, Alternatives 1B and 5 would increase the 

overall hazard above the current levels in the long term. For the Payette, overall hazard increases 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 99

for all alternatives. This is different from the Boise because the Forest starts out with a far less 

hazardous condition, particularly in PVG 5. Alternatives 1B and 5 produce the greatest hazard 

for weed establishment and expansion in these departed regime areas over the long term. 

 

Fire Management

Issue 1 Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the restoration and 

maintenance of the ecological role of fire on the Forests.

Indicator for Issue 1: The percentage of acres treated using fire compared to estimated 

historical acres burned, by Forest.

Effects for Issue 1: Estimated percentages of acres treated within historical fire regimes are 

displayed in Table 2-41 by Forest and by alternative. For the Ecogroup, the percent of acres 

treated with fire use over the next five decades is highest in Alternative 4, followed by 

Alternatives 6, 3, 7, 2, 1B, and 5 (Table S-13). 

Table S-13. Percent of the Historical Forested Fire Regimes Treated with Fire Use 

Averaged Over the First Five Decades, by Alternative and by Forest

Fire Regime Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 27 100 110 165 30 142 79

Non-lethal Payette 49 92 95 159 35 128 76

Sawtooth 3 145 147 171 77 169 152

Boise 7 12 9 36 0 34 10

Mixed 1 Payette 19 23 29 43 5 49 26

Sawtooth 5 16 15 43 0 61 15

Boise 26 16 12 13 7 14 25

Mixed 2 Payette 24 16 11 11 12 9 20

Sawtooth 5 16 12 16 3 15 21

Boise 11 20 14 13 6 19 23

Lethal Payette 6 6 4 9 2 11 7

Sawtooth 0 29 22 28 0 18 23

Estimated percentages of non-forested acres treated do not show as much difference by 

alternative as forested percentages, but the trends are somewhat reversed, with Alternative 5 

treating the highest percentage on the Boise (113 percent) and Sawtooth (103 percent) Forests,

and Alternative 6 treating the lowest (83 percent and 70 percent, respectively). Thus, all 

alternatives would treat a fairly high percentage of the non-forested vegetation, and would use 

fire liberally as a restoration and maintenance tool.

Issue 2 Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of vegetation at 

risk to wildfire, and at what rate hazardous conditions are reduced in areas where there are 

threats to life and private property (wildland-urban interface). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 100

Indicator for Issue 2: MPCs assigned to wildland-urban interface subwatersheds for each 

alternative and how they address the risk of wildfire (uncharacteristic and those that may result 

from high resistance-to-control) in forested vegetation, by Forest.

Effects for Issue 2: Alternative 5 on all three Forests would provide the greatest opportunity to 

alter hazardous vegetative conditions in interface subwatersheds in the short term, and to 

maintain them in the long term, because all interface subwatershed areas are in MPCs that allow 

fire and mechanical to treat vegetation (Table S-14). The majority of interface subwatershed 

area in Alternatives 3 and 7, followed by 1B and 2, are also in MPCs that use both tools. 

Alternatives 4 and 6 have the least amount of area in MPCs that provide fire and mechanical 

tools. In these alternatives the majority of interface subwatershed area occurs in MPCs where 

fire is the only management tool. In this case, more time would be required to alter vegetative 

conditions, and therefore the short-term risks of wildfire would remain high. Over the long term, 

hazard may be reduced in areas where fire is a viable vegetation management tool, given 

appropriate conditions. However, where hazardous conditions exist, burning that reduces the 

hazard would likely be conducted under a tight prescription staged over a number of years. In 

some areas, conditions may be such that fire alone would not be a viable management option. In 

these areas, wildfire hazard would continue to increase. 

Table S-14. Percent of Total Interface Subwatershed Area in MPCs that Allow Fire Only 

Versus Fire/Mechanical Vegetation Management

Forest Treatments Allowed Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise Fire Only 11 12 2 29 0 63 1

Fire/Mechanical Mix 89 88 98 71 100 37 99

Payette Fire Only 39 40 11 68 0 62 22

Fire/Mechanical Mix 61 60 89 32 100 38 78

Sawtooth Fire Only 27 26 11 75 0 80 18

Fire/Mechanical Mix 73 74 89 25 100 20 82

Total for Fire Only 21 21 7 52 0 69 11

Ecogroup Fire/Mechanical Mix 79 79 93 48 100 31 89

Rangeland Resources

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect rangeland resources, including 

lands considered suitable for livestock grazing and the form of livestock grazing management

authorized under permit for the Forests.

Indicator 1: Estimated suitable rangeland acres by Forest. 

Effects for Indicator 1: Suitable rangeland acres for each Forest change due to different 

factors. On the Boise Forest, Alterna tives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 have minor reductions (8 percent) in 

suitable lands over time as vacant allotments are closed (Table S-15). There would be no 

allotment closures under Alternatives 5 and 1B. Minor deductions (1.4 percent) would also 

occur under Alternatives 1, 4, and 7 due to allotment adjustments made to protect anadromous 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 101

fish habitat. On the Payette Forest, Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 have minor reductions (6.7 percent) 

in suitable lands due to withdrawals of domestic sheep from bighorn sheep habitat to reduce the 

risk of disease transmission. Alternatives 5, 2, 7, and 1B have no reductions. On the Sawtooth, 

reductions would occur from various sources, depending on the alternative. Alternatives 4 and 6 

have the most reductions (13.7 percent), followed by Alternative 7 (13.2 percent), Alternative 3 

(12.6 percent), and Alternative 2 (0.2 percent). Alternatives 5 and 1B have no reductions. 

Table S-15. Rangeland Suitability Acres by Alternative and Forest

Forest Criteria Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Capable Acres 398,400 398,400 398,400 398,400 398,400 398,400 398,400

- Vacant allotment acres 0 32,041 32,041 32,041 0 32,041 32,041

- Anadromous 5,575 0 0 5,575 0 0 5,575

- Total deductions 0 32,041 32,041 37,616 0 32,041 37,616

Boise

Total Suitable Acres 398,400 366,359 366,359 360,784 398,400 366,359 360,784

Capable Acres 227,080 227,080 227,080 227,080 227,080 227,080 227,080

- Bighorn habitat acres 0 0 15,329 15,329 0 15,329 0

- Total deductions 0 0 15,329 15,329 0 15,329 0

Payette

Total Suitable Acres 227,080 227,080 211,751 211,751 227,080 211,751 227,080

Capable Acres 535,010 535,010 535,010 535,010 535,010 535,010 535,010

- Rec. conflict acres 0 1,253 1,253 1,253 0 1,253 1,253

- Bighorn habitat acres 0 0 66,506 66,506 0 66,506 66,506

- Noxious weed acres 0 0 0 5,711 0 5,711 3,213

- Total deductions 0 1,253 67,759 73,470 0 73,470 70,972

Sawtooth

Total Suitable Acres 535,010 533,757 467,251 461,540 535,010 461,540 464,038

Indicator 2: Estimated suitable rangeland acreage that occurs within Less Restrictive and More 

Restrictive Management Prescription Categories. 

Effects for Indicator 2: Alternative variations directly affect the number of allotments where 

more or less restrictive management is implemented. Indirect effects translate into possible 

changes to livestock herd management, increased range improvement costs, allotment 

management costs, changes in seasons of use, and numbers of livestock. The greatest potential 

changes are associated with Alternative 4 (Table S-16). Alternative 6 reflects the next greatest 

change, although it is significantly less than Alternative 4. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 have 

dominantly less restrictive MPCs, but have significant amounts in the more restrictive category. 

Alternatives 1B and 5 are relatively comparable in their outcomes and would produce the least 

amount of potential change over time. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 102

Table S-16. Suitable Rangeland Acres with Less Restrictive and More Restrictive MPCs

Forest MPC Grouping Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

More restrictive 26,000 40,020 62,180 232,180 11,250 113,380 32,430 Boise

Less restrictive 372,390 326,340 304,180 128,600 387,140 252,980 328,360

More restrictive 11,360 19,120 59,630 206,120 16,560 79,590 62,080 Payette

Less restrictive 215,720 207,960 152,120 5,640 210,520 132,160 165,000

More restrictive 36,950 82,850 94,680 255,560 7,090 271,580 116,370 Sawtooth

Less restrictive 498,060 450,910 372,570 205,980 527,920 189,960 347,670

Ecogroup More restrictive 74,310 141,990 216,490 693,860 34,900 364,550 210,880

Totals Less restrictive 1,086,170 985,210 828,870 340,220 1,125,580 575,100 841,030

*Bold lettering indicates if largest amount of acres occurs in More Restrictive or Less Restrictive category.

Timberland Resources

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of suited 

timberlands and sustainable timber managed by the Forests. 

Indicators: The amount of suited timberlands, Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ), and Total Sale 

Program Quantity (TSPQ) by alternative. All numbers are for the first planning period decade.

Effects on Suited Timberlands: Alternative 5 has the most suited timberland acres, followed in 

descending order by Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, 7, 6, and 4 (Table S-17).

Table S-17. Suited Timberland Acres by Alternative

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 922,000 746,000 649,400 9,300 1,309,800 330,300 527,500

Payette 438,100 358,600 373,900 0 895,100 240,000 330,000

Sawtooth 390,100 201,500 227,000 23,100 595,300 45,130 141,500

Totals 1,750,200 1,306,100 1,250,300 32,400 2,800,200 615,430 999,000

Effects on ASQ: Alternative 5 has the highest level of ASQ, followed in descending order by 

Alternatives 1B, 7, 2, 3, 6, and 4 (Table S-18).

Table S-18. ASQ by Alternative (in Millions of Board Feet)

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 720.0 511.5 381.3 3.8 1,300.0 250.1 450.0

Payette 600.0 193.0 238.2 0.0 1,113.0 161.1 325.0

Sawtooth 157.9 98.0 61.4 0.0 483.0 3.8 117.0

Totals 1,477.9 802.5 680.9 3.8 2,896.0 415.0 892.0
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 103

Effects on TSPQ: Alternative 5 has the highest level of TSPQ, followed by Alternatives 1B, 2, 

3, 6, and 4 (Table S19).

Table S-19. TSPQ by Alternative (in Millions of Board Feet)

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 723.0 704.4 613.3 160.0 1,300.0 275.7 662.7

Payette 618.7 362.9 481.7 93.9 1,126.2 180.0 402.7

Sawtooth 164.3 180.8 183.2 44.6 505.0 10.9 294.3

Totals 1,506.0 1,244.1 1,278.2 298.5 2,931.2 466.6 1,359.7

Recreation

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect recreation resources, 

experiences, and opportunities.

Indicators: The following indicators are used to measure the effects of management activities 

on recreation resources, experiences, and opportunities on the three Forests by alternative:

1) Estimated changes in acres of each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class.

2) Acres having high or extreme ratings for either uncharacteristic wildfire hazard or resistance 

to control that are assigned a 5.1 or 6.1 MPC.

3) Number of developed recreation sites located within high priority subwatersheds assigned to 

MPC 3.2.

4) Total acres of MPCs 3.1 and 3.2 within high priority restoration subwatersheds. 

5) Projected total miles of Forest Classified Roads in 2015. 

6) Projected miles of unclassified roads decommissioned by 2015. 

Effects on Indicator 1: Management activities associated with each alternative would have 

varying effects on recreation opportunities by influencing the settings. The potential for change 

in summer and winter recreation opportunities and experiences is reflected in the estimated 

changes in ROS classes associated with each alternative (Tables S-20 and S-21). 

Table S-20. Estimated Acres of Summer ROS Class Change by Alternative for

Each Forest by 20181

ROS Summer ROS Acres

Class2

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise National Forest

P 0 0 0 +66,000 0 +11,000 0

SPNM -56,000 -60,000 -66,000 +44,000 -66,000 +4,000 -56,000

SPM +42,000 +40,000 +37,000 -110,000 +37,000 -15,000 +42,000

RN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RM +14,000 +19,000 +28,000 0 +29,000 0 +14,000

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 104

Payette National Forest

P 0 0 0 +79,000 0 +17,000 0

SPNM -3,000 0 -5,000 +140,000 -6,000 +11,000 0

SPM -3,000 0 -4,000 -219,000 -5,000 -28,000 0

RN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RM +6,000 0 +10,000 0 +12,000 0 0

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sawtooth National Forest

P 0 0 0 +46,000 0 +13,000 0

SPNM -1,000 0 -2,000 +584,000 0 +42,000 0

SPM -17,000 0 -19,000 -630,000 0 -55,000 0

RN +2,000 0 +2,000 0 0 0 0

RM +12,000 0 +15,000 0 0 0 0

R +4,000 0 +4,000 0 0 0 0

1

Acreages are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres. Positive values represent increases in acreages; 

negative values represent decreases. Forest changes totals may not equal 0 due to rounding.

2ROS Class Abbreviations: P = Primitive; SPNM = Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized; SPM = Semi-Primitive 

Motorized; RN = Roaded Natural; RM = Roaded Modified; R = Rural.

Table S-21. Estimated Acres of Winter ROS Class Change by Alternative for Each

Forest by 20181

ROS Winter ROS Acres

Class2

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise National Forest

P 0 0 0 +66,000 0 +11,000 0

SPNM 0 -2,000 -4,000 +492,000 -5,000 +141,000 0

SPM 0 -9,000 -24,000 -558,000 -26,000 -152,000 0

RN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RM 0 +10,000 +28,000 0 +30,000 0 0

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Payette National Forest

P -8,000 -8,000 -8,000 +70,000 -8,000 +13,000 -8,000

SPNM +6,000 +8,000 +5,000 +316,000 +5,000 +165,000 +8,000

SPM -7,000 0 -12,000 -386,000 -14,000 -178,000 0

RN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RM +9,000 0 +14,000 0 +17,000 0 0

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sawtooth National Forest

P -61,000 0 -61,000 +37,000 0 +24,000 0

SPNM +67,000 0 +66,000 +658,000 0 +187,000 0

SPM -5,000 0 -10,000 -695,000 0 -211,000 0

RN -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0

RM -2,000 0 +4,000 0 0 0 0

R +2,000 0 +2,000 0 0 0 0

1

Acreages are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres. Positive values represent increases in acreages; 

negative values represent decreases. Forest changes totals may not equal 0 due to rounding.

2ROS Class Abbreviations: P = Primitive; SPNM = Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized; SPM = Semi-Primitive 

Motorized; RN = Roaded Natural; RM = Roaded Modified; R = Rural.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 105

The most dramatic shifts in ROS occur in Alternatives 4 for all three Forests, because motorized 

use is prohibited in Recommended Wilderness areas under this alternative, which has by far 

more Recommended Wilderness than any other alternative. ROS shifts associated with 

development are relatively small but are considerably larger on the Boise and Payette National 

Forests than on the Sawtooth National Forest. This is consistent with the fact that a good portion 

of the Sawtooth National Forest lies within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA), in 

which development is limited by legislation. Overall, Alternative 7 would have the fewest 

changes in ROS classes from current conditions.

Effects on Indicator 2: Treatments to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or to reduce 

fuel loadings could include mechanical harvest and thinning, fire use, or some combination of 

the above. Recreation opportunities and experiences would likely be temporarily unavailable 

within and adjacent to the treatment areas during mechanical or prescribed fire treatments. The 

treatments would most likely occur in areas assigned to MPC 5.1 or 6.1 that currently have either 

high or extreme ratings for uncharacteristic wildfire hazard or resistance to control (Table S-22).

Table S-22. Approximate Acres Having High or Extreme Ratings for Uncharacteristic 

Wildfire Hazard or Resistance to Control Assigned with MPCs 5.1 or 6.1*

National Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 559,000 769,000 931,000 380,000 473,000 329,000 434,000

Payette 118,000 227,000 391,000 0 232,000 135,000 177,000

Sawtooth 17,000 343,000 489,000 190,000 253,000 70,000 314,000

* Acreages have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres.

For all three Forests, Alternative 3 would likely result in the highest potential levels of recreation

use disturbance and displacement due to vegetation restoration and fuels reduction activities. On 

the Boise, Alternative 2 also presents a high level of potential displacement, while all the other 

alternatives present relatively moderate levels. Alterna tive 6 results in the lowest level on the 

Boise. On the Payette, Alternative 4 presents no areas assigned to MPC 5.1 or 6.1 that currently 

have either high or extreme ratings for uncharacteristic wildfire hazard or resistance to control, 

giving it the lowest potential for recreation use disturbance and displacement. All of the 

remaining alternatives result in moderate levels between Alternatives 3 and 4. On the Sawtooth, 

Alternative 1B results in the lowest level while Alternative 6 is higher but still relatively low. 

All the remaining alternatives on the Sawtooth result in moderate levels of potential disturbance 

and displacement between Alternative 6 and Alternative 3.

Effects on Indicator 3: Aquatic, Riparian, and Watershed management direction in the Forest 

Plans could have potential effects on developed recreation facilities, including reconstruction, 

relocation, closure, or decommissioning. This direction would be used to guide the development 

of new facilities and to mitigate impacts originating from existing facilities. Developed 

recreation facilities within high priority watersheds assigned to MPC 3.2 would likely be the 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 106

most affected. For the Ecogroup area, Alternative 3 has the most developed recreation sites 

(113) in MPC 3.2, followed in descending order Alternatives 2 (95), 7 (94), 6 (84), 4 (28), 5 (4), 

and 1B (0). By Forest, the Sawtooth would have the most sites (59) potentially affected, 

followed by the Boise with 39, and the Payette with only 15.

Effects on Indicator 4: Management direction for soil, watershed, riparian, aquatic, and 

wildlife resources can potentially result in a variety of effects to dispersed recreation 

opportunities and experiences, including use restrictions, or site hardening, relocation, or closure. 

Although potential mitigation impacts to dispersed recreation activities may occur at any 

location, subwatersheds identified as high priorities for restoration, with an assigned MPC of 3.1 

or 3.2 are the most likely to be affected. Comparing the total acres of MPCs 3.1 and 3.2 within 

high priority restoration subwatersheds can be used to show relative differences between 

alternatives in the potential for changes to dispersed recreation opportunities and experiences as 

a result of aquatic restoration activities (Table S-23). 

Table S-23. Total Acres of High Priority Restoration Subwatersheds

Assigned to MPCs 3.1 or 3.2*

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 0 243,000 316,000 224,000 22,000 72,000 271,000

Payette 0 174,000 448,000 191,000 32,000 71,000 483,000

Sawtooth 0 252,000 314,000 146,000 0 85,000 333,000

* Acreages have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres.

Alternative 3 has the most area in MPC 3.2, followed in descending order by Alternatives 7, 2, 4, 

6, 5, and 1B. The results of this analysis could be somewhat misleading in the case of 

Alternative 1B on all three Forests and Alternative 5 on the Sawtooth, which have no acres in 

these MPCs. This does not necessarily mean that recreation activities would never be restric ted 

or altered under these alternatives because other factors may influence individual situations. 

Effects on Indicators 5 and 6: One of the major roles of the transportation network on National 

Forests is to provide access for recreational use of the Forests. Recreation opportunities are 

greatly influenced by the type and levels of recreation access. As a result, changes to the 

transportation network can also affect recreation opportunities and experiences. A sense of the 

overall relative size of the road networks under each alternative can be gained from the estimates 

in Tables S-30 and S-31 in the Roads section, below. These tables display the projected miles of 

classified roads in 2015 and the estimated miles of unclassified roads decommissioned by 2015 

respectively. 

Because the level of anticipated decommissioning exceeds the level of anticipated new road 

construction on the Boise, the total miles of classified roads on the Forest would decrease under 

all alternatives. Alternative 3 would be likely to result in the highest level of reductions of 

classified road access, and Alternative 6 would result in the least amount of change from the 

current classified road access levels. All the other alternatives would vary slightly in their 

classified road access reductions between those two alternatives.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 107

On the Payette, classified road access would likely be the greatest under Alternative 5, although 

Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, and 7 would also be likely to expand access to varied extents. Alternatives 

4 and 6 would likely result in relatively low levels of change in overall miles from the current 

system, with relatively slight reductions in classified road access.

The scale of change is somewhat less for the Sawtooth than for the Boise and Payette due to its 

smaller road system and lower level of timber sale (i.e., new road construction) opportunities. 

Relatively little change to the classified road system would be expected for the Sawtooth under 

any alternative. The classified road system would be expected to expand slightly under 

Alternatives 5 and 1B, with 5 showing the greatest increase. Conversely, it would be reduced the 

most under Alternative 3. Smaller reductions would be likely to occur under Alternatives 2, 4, 

and 7. Levels of new construction and decommissioning are expected to be about the same 

under Alternative 6, keeping the projected road system about the same as its current level.

Alternative 3 is likely to have the greatest effect on recreational access on unclassified roads on 

all three Forests. The differences between Alternative 3 and the other alternatives are more 

pronounced on the Payette and Sawtooth. Unclassified road decommissioning is expected to be 

highest under that alternative. On the Boise and Payette, Alternatives 1B, 2, 4, 5, and 7 all would 

have moderate levels of decommissioning. Alternative 6 would result in the lowest potential 

decommissioning levels on the Boise and Payette. On the Sawtooth, Alternatives 1B, 2, 5, and 7 

all would likely result in moderate levels of decommissioning, while Alternatives 4 and 6 result 

in relatively low levels of decommissioning. Alternative 6 would likely result in the lowest level 

of unclassified road decommissioning on all three Forests and would therefore be likely to have 

the lowest impacts on recreational access on unclassified roads.

Scenic Environment

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the scenic environment.

Indicators: The following indicators are used to measure effects of management activities on 

the scenic environment on the three Forests by alternative:

1) Acres of each Visual Quality Objective class. 

2) Acres of change in Visual Quality Objective class from current levels. 

3) Levels of landscape-changing management activities. 

4) Uncharacteristic wildfire hazard index for forested vegetation 

5) Insect hazard index for forested vegetation. 

Effects on Indicators 1 and 2: The Visual Management System, which is used to develop 

VQOs, is based on the concept that a natural-appearing landscape character is preferred. As 

such, VQOs reflect the threshold of the greatest acceptable deviation from a natural appearance. 

The acreage totals for each VQO were estimated for each alternative considering the assigned 

management emphasis and are displayed in Tables S-24, S-25, and S-26. The potential for 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 108

change in the scenic environment is reflected in the proportion of the VQO classes associated 

with each alternative. The anticipated VQOs for each action alternative can also be compared 

with those of Alternative 1B to reflect the extent to which each varies from the current VQOs. 

These figures are also displayed in Tables S-24, S-25, and S-26. 

Table S-24. Anticipated Acres* of VQO and Acres of Change for the Boise National 

Forest, by Alternative

Preservation Retention Partial 

Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Alt.

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

1B 200 0 599 0 1,059 0 258 0 87 0

2 200 0 280 -319 1,104 45 501 243 118 31

3 200 0 280 -319 1,104 45 501 243 118 31

4 746 546 254 -345 893 -166 232 -26 78 -9

5 21 -179 264 -335 1,203 144 590 332 125 38

6 200 0 281 -318 1,363 304 282 24 77 -10

7 200 0 239 -360 1,105 46 541 283 118 31

*Measured in thousands of acres 

Table S-25. Anticipated Acres* of VQO and Acres of Change for the Payette National 

Forest, by Alternative

Preservation Retention Partial 

Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Alt.

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

1B 1,013 0 112 0 568 0 607 0 0 0

2 1,028 15 316 204 514 -54 442 -165 0 0

3 1,028 15 316 204 514 -54 442 -165 0 0

4 1,668 655 93 -19 243 -325 296 -311 0 0

5 802 -211 390 278 628 60 480 -127 0 0

6 1,013 0 339 227 690 122 258 -349 0 0

7 1,013 0 338 226 670 102 279 -328 0 0

*Measured in thousands of acres
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 109

Table S-26. Anticipated Acres* of VQO and Acres of Change for the Sawtooth National 

Forest, by Alternative

Preservation Retention Partial 

Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Alt.

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

Acres

Acre 

Change 

From 

Existing

1B 492 0 271 0 596 0 555 0 197 0

2 492 0 271 0 596 0 555 0 197 0

3 492 0 271 0 596 0 555 0 197 0

4 1,147 655 142 -129 293 -303 347 -208 182 -15

5 218 -274 372 101 720 124 604 49 197 0

6 492 0 271 0 989 393 214 -341 145 -52

7 492 0 271 0 596 0 555 0 197 0

*Measured in thousands of acres 

Some effects relationships are consistent across the Ecogroup area. Alternative 4 has the greatest 

shift towards preservation of all the alternatives because of its elevated levels of recommended 

wilderness. Alternative 4 also shows a large net decrease in acres of modification or maximum 

modification on all three Forests. Alternative 6 has a large shift of VQO acres from modification 

to partial retention. This shift is a reflection of the management direction under Alternative 6 

that requires that Inventoried Roadless Areas remain undeveloped and allows very limited 

potential development in unroaded areas. On the Boise and Sawtooth, Alternative 5 would allow 

the highest level of human-caused change to occur to the scenic environment, while maintaining 

the lowest levels of preservation VQOs on all three Forests. 

Effects on Indicator 3: Some of the alternatives present considerable differences in the 

amounts and types of activities that could occur across the landscape. Some activities would 

have relatively minor potential to cause noticeable change in the landscape, while others are 

likely to cause very noticeable changes. Groupings of similar activities for tracking such 

potential changes by alternatives were made in order to simplify and capture those activities that 

have the most potential for affecting change on the landscape (Tables S-27, S-28, S-29). 

Table S-27. Activities by Alternative - Boise National Forest

(Annual averages of acres or miles for the first two decades)

Activity Acres or Miles Activity Group

Alt 1B Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Acres of even-aged harvest 3,790 350 0 0 4,070 20 1,580

Acres of intermediate treatment 6,440 10,595 13,240 4,155 9,500 4,325 8,870

Acres of fire use 6,995 10,880 8,800 16,135 2,780 16,325 9,610

Miles of road construction 10.8 18.3 9.8 3.0 13.6 2.5 10.2

Miles of road reconstruction 50.3 57.9 48.5 13.8 64.9 18.1 49.5

Miles of road decommissioning 31.8 53.4 62.9 30.6 38.1 14.9 38.2
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 110

Table S-28. Activities by Alternative - Payette National Forest

(Annual averages of acres or for the first two decades)

Activity Acres or Miles Activity Group

Alt 1B Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Acres of even-aged harvest 2,010 55 65 0 2,720 35 950

Acres of intermediate treatment 4,685 5,275 6,865 1,510 4,625 2,590 4,740

Acres of fire use 6,995 8,490 7,135 13,370 3,825 12,340 8,100

Miles of road construction 13.8 10.2 10.6 2.2 15.4 0.5 11.5

Miles of road reconstruction 48.4 36.4 38.7 7.5 54.5 14.7 40.6

Miles of road decommissioning 18.8 21.8 35.9 11.4 21.4 8.1 19.4

Table S-29. Activities by Alternative - Sawtooth National Forest

(Annual averages of acres or miles for the first two decades)

Activity Acres or Miles Activity Group

Alt 1B Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Acres of even-aged harvest 660 195 0 0 740 0 480

Acres of intermediate treatment 430 1,570 2,365 410 625 270 1,500

Acres of fire use 700 5,470 4,140 3,765 785 4,755 5,940

Miles of road construction 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.7

Miles of road reconstruction 3.3 3.5 4.6 1.0 5.0 0.6 3.4

Miles of road decommissioning 3.4 7.3 10.7 1.9 4.3 1.2 6.2

Overall ranking of the alternatives relative to potential impacts to scenic resources is complicated 

by the fact that the potential effects are not the same for each activity group. The visual effects 

of intermediate treatments cannot be considered on an equal basis with even-aged regeneration 

harvests and road construction. The visual effects of even-aged regeneration harvests and road 

construction are likely to be obvious and long term. Intermediate treatments are likely to be 

subtler in appearance and more short term in duration. Similarly, the effects of the fire use 

treatments would generally be much shorter in duration than those of even-aged regeneration 

harvests and road construction and cannot be considered on an equal basis for potential effects. 

The alternatives presenting the highest levels of potential visual effects are likely to be the ones 

that present the highest levels of even-aged regeneration harvest and road construction. 

Boise National Forest - With the highest levels of even-aged regeneration harvest, road 

construction, and road reconstruction, Alternative 5 would likely have the greatest long-term 

changes to the landscape on the Boise National Forest. Alternative 1B would have almost as 

high a level of long-term landscape changes as Alternative 5. Alternative 7 would probably 

result in fewer long-term impacts than Alternatives 5 and 1B, although it would have 

substantially more impacts than any of the remaining alternatives. 

Payette National Forest - Alternative 4 would have the least amount of even-aged regeneration 

harvest over the next two decades, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 6, 2, 3, 7, 1B, and 

5. Alternative 4 would also have the least amount of intermediate treatments, followed in 

ascending order by Alternatives 6, 5, 1B, 7, 2, and 3. Alternative 5 would have the least amount 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 111

of fire use acres, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 1B, 3, 7, 2, 6, and 4. Alternative 6 

would have the least amount of road construction, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 4, 

2, 3, 7, 1B, and 5. Alternative 4 would have the least amount of road reconstruction activities, 

followed in ascending order by Alternatives 6, 2, 3, 7, 1B, and 5.

Sawtooth National Forest - Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would have the least amount (none) of evenaged regeneration harvest over the next two decades, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 

2, 7, 1B, and 5. Alternative 6 would have the least amount of intermediate treatments, followed 

in ascending order by Alternatives 4, 1B, 5, 7, 2, and 3. Alternative 1B would have the least 

amount of fire use acres, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 5, 4, 3, 6, 2, and 7. 

Alternatives 4 and 6 would have the least amount of road construction, followed in ascending 

order by Alternatives 2 and 7, 3, 1B, and 5. Alternative 6 would have the least amount of road 

reconstruction activities, followed in ascending order by Alternatives 4, 1B, 7, 2, 3, and 5.

Effects on Indicator 4: Uncharacteristic wildfire events affect scenic quality in the short and 

long term depending on the severity, intensity and scale of the event. The Vegetation Hazard 

section, above, utilizes an uncharacteristic wildfire hazard index to compare alternatives. These 

indices are comparative values that represent a relative measure of the hazards that contribute to 

the rise in uncharacteristic wildfire. A higher value indicates a more hazardous condition 

compared to a lower value. See Table S-11, Uncharacteristic Wildfire Hazard Indices, in the 

Vegetation Hazard section for the current index and the indices calculated at the fifth decade.

Alternative 1B is higher than all other alternatives on each Forest because it is the only 

alternative that did not include reduction of uncharacteristic wildfire hazard as one of the 

modeling goals for emulating the National Fire Plan objectives. For the Boise and Payette 

Forests, Alternative 1B, followed by Alternatives 5 and 7, would have the greatest risk for largescale landscape changes due to uncharacteristic wildfire. Alternative 4, followed by 3 and 6, are 

the lowest, with Alternative 2 occupying a middle position. For the Sawtooth Forest, Alternative 

1B is the highest followed by Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is the only other alterative with a 

higher index rating than the current condition. Alternatives 4 and 7 are the lowest, with 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 occupying the middle range. 

Effects on Indicator 5: Insect hazard is defined as a relative measure of predisposing 

conditions for damage caused by insects. Damage from insects means that tree mortality can be 

expected to be higher than normal. The actual impact to visual resources is highly variable and 

dependent on a wide range of variables such as visual sensitivity of the area observed, as well as 

the magnitude, scale, and intensity of mortality from insect hazard. The Vegetation Hazard 

section utilizes an insect hazard index that displays the relative hazard by alternatives. These 

indices are comparative values that represent a relative measure of the hazards that contribute to 

the rise in insect activity. A higher value indicates a more ha zardous condition compared to a 

lower value. See the Insect Hazard Indices table in the Vegetation Hazard section for the current 

index and the indices calculated at the fifth decade. 

The Vegetation Hazard analysis shows that on each Forest the hazard index calculated for the 

fifth decade indicates an increased hazard for insect infestation in all alternatives compared with 

the current condition. On the Boise Forest, Alternatives 4 and 6 have the highest ratings, while 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 112

Alternatives 2 and 7 are the lowest. On the Payette Forest, Alternatives 1B, 4, and 7 have the 

highest ratings, while Alternative 5 is the lowest. On the Sawtooth Forest, Alternative 1B ranks 

the highest and Alternative 7 is the lowest. Variations between alternatives are still relatively 

small and it is expected that there would be little visual difference between alternatives related to 

insect mortality. 

Cultural Resources

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect cultural resources.

Indicator - The following indicator will be used to measure the potential risk to cultural 

resources from management activities: Acres of vegetation treatments in the first two decades. 

Effects: Vegetation treatments represent a substantial portion of the risk of effects to cultural 

resources associated with management activities that would occur under every alternative. These 

treatments include a combination of management-ignited fire and wildland fire use, as well as all 

scheduled mechanical vegetation treatments such as thinnings, selection harvests, shelterwood 

harvests, and clearcuts. The level of risk varies in proportion to the combined levels of these 

management activities anticipated under each alternative. 

Alternative 2 probably presents the highest risk to cultural resources on the Boise, because it 

represents the highest total level (444,000 acres) of vegetation treatment over the next two 

decades. However, levels under Alternatives 2, 6, 4, and 7 are also relatively high (over 400,000 

acres). Alternative 1B presents a relatively moderate level of risk (345,000 acres), while 

Alternative 5 probably presents the lowest level of risk (227,000 acres). Because Alternative 5 is 

known to have a high level of scheduled mechanical treatments, it is easy to see that potential 

fire treatment acres have the dominant influence in this analysis.

On the Payette, the differences between the alternatives are relatively smaller than they are on 

the Boise. Alternative 6 likely presents the highest level (299,000 acres) of risk and Alternative 

5 presents the lowest level (207,000 acres). All of the other alternatives present risks almost as 

high as Alternative 6. 

Treatment levels are substantially lower on the Sawtooth than either the Boise or Payette. 

Alternative 7 likely presents the highest level (158,000) of risk and Alternative 1B presents the 

lowest level (36,000 acres). Alternative 2 presents almost as high a level (145,000 acres) of risk 

as Alternative 7. Alternatives 3, 6, and 4 present relatively moderate levels, while risks under 

Alternative 5 would likely be only slightly higher (48,000 acres) than Alternative 1B.

For all alternatives, the Heritage Program provides support to all resource projects, as required 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva tion Act (NHPA). This program includes 

inventory, analysis, protection, stabilization, and public interpretation of cultural resources under 

all alternatives. The levels of these individual activities and projects vary to some degree by 

alternative, but the general neutralizing or positive effects of mitigation, protection, and 

education on cultural resources remain the same for all alternatives.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 113

Tribal Rights and Interests

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the availability of resources, 

and the use of traditional places important to American Indian rights and interests.

Indicators: The indicators used to describe effects on the issue are: (1) changes in access to 

traditional cultural properties, (2) the relationship of species viability to tribal harvest ability, and 

(3) trends in watershed conditions. 

Effects to Access: Under all alternatives, the road transportation system would be reduced 

compared to current conditions. Although the amounts and locations of decommissioned roads 

vary somewhat by alternative, the percentage of decommissioned roads is small for all 

alternatives over the short term when compared to the entire road system. Also, it is assumed 

that most decommissioned roads would not be integral to the transportation system, but would 

rather be local spurs to harvest units or mines that are no longer needed for production and are 

causing impacts to other resources. The main arterial and collector system would remain under 

all alternatives, providing access to essentially all areas of the Forests that can now be reached by 

car or truck. 

Effects to Species Viability: Although effects differ by alternative, no alternative would result 

in significant adverse effects to species viability. For chinook salmon and steelhead trout, for 

example, restoration and protection of habitat under all alternatives would contribute positive 

effects to species viability over the short and long term, although cumulative off-Forest effects 

from hydro-electric dams, harvest, and hatchery introduced fish would still pose serious threats. 

Short-term or temporary impacts from restoration activities would be mitigated by Forest Plan 

direction, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and other resource protection methods.

Effects to Harvest Ability: Habitat should be present under all alternatives in sufficient 

amounts and in distribution to provide for viable populations of traditional plants, fish, and 

wildlife. Managing vegetation toward or within HRV should provide diverse and sustainable 

habitat conditions for plant and animal species similar to those that existed for traditional tribal 

hunting and gathering. However, competition for those species has increased substantially with 

increased human population in the area. Management direction has been developed to address 

the gathering of plants in general, and for cultural and traditional purposes in particular.

Effects to Watershed Conditions: Although the amount of watershed restoration activities 

would vary somewhat by alternative, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

watershed conditions from these activities would be positive over the short and long term. 

Improved watershed conditions, in turn, would provide good water quality and sustainable 

aquatic habitat for species such as chinook salmon and steelhead trout, which are of great 

concern to the tribes.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 114

Roads

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the road transportation system 

and how these roads are maintained.

Indicators: The following indicators are used to measure the effects of management strategies 

on Forest Development Roads on the three Forests by alternative. 

1) Projected total miles of Forest Classified Roads in 2015. 

2) Estimated miles of unclassified roads decommissioned by 2015. 

3) Percentage of anticipated 2015 Forest Classified Roads maintained to standard based on 

experienced budget averages. 

Effects on Indicator 1, Total Miles of Classified Roads: All alternatives are projected to 

reduce the overall amount of classified roads on the Boise Forest. Only Alternatives 4 and 6 

would reduce classified roads on the Payette, although the other alternatives would only add 

minor amounts. Alternatives 1B and 5 would increase classified road miles slightly on the 

Sawtooth Forest, and all other alternatives would have very minor reductions (Table S-30). 

Table S-30. Projected Miles of Classified Roads in 2015

National Estimated Road Miles by Alternative

Forest

Current 

Miles Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 5,496 5,285 5,144 4,928 5,197 5,252 5,364 5,206

Payette 3,197 3,326 3,271 3,328 3,195 3,339 3,182 3,294

Sawtooth 2,019 2,024 2,013 2,008 2,018 2,030 2,019 2,016

Effects on Indicator 2, Estimated Miles of Decommissioned Roads: For all three Forests, 

decommissioning of unclassified roads is likely to be the most aggressive under Alternative 3, 

which would likely result in the highest level of unclassified road decommissioning. Alternative 

2 would follow Alternative 3. This is consistent with the emphasis on restoration activities and 

the levels of assignments of restoration prescriptions in Alternative 2. Alternatives 5, 7, and 1B 

present relatively moderate levels of decommissioning for the three Forests. Alternative 4 also 

presents moderate level on the Boise but is relatively lower on the Payette and Sawtooth. 

Alternative 6 offers the lowest levels of decommissioning for all three Forests (Table S-31). 

Table S-31. Estimated Miles of Unclassified Roads Decommissioned by 2015

National Decommissioned Unclassified Road Miles by Alternative

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Boise 62 104 122 60 74 29 74

Payette 194 224 370 117 220 83 200

Sawtooth 37 80 118 21 47 13 68
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 115

Effects on Indicator 3, Road Maintenance Capability: Based on each alternative’s relative 

levels of mechanical vegetation treatments, Alternatives 3 and 5 would probably provide greater 

road maintenance contributions from commercial users. Alternatives 2, 7, and 1B would provide 

similar levels, while Alternatives 4 and 6 would provide the lowest levels. Road maintenance 

cooperator contributions would probably vary little by alternative and would also be relatively 

small. However, the differences between alternatives would be minimal. Given maintenance 

accomplishment levels comparable to those of 2000-2002, anticipated level of road maintenance 

to operational level standards that would be accomplished by the Forest Service alone would 

range from 20 to 21.7 percent on the Boise National Forest, from 19 to 20 percent on the Payette 

National Forest, and from 20.5 to 20.7 percent on the Sawtooth National Forest.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Issue 1 Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the capability for 

development or wilderness potential of existing Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Issue 1 Indicators: The following indicators are used to measure the potential effects of 

management alternatives on roadless areas of the three Forests by alternative:

• Acres of IRAs assigned to management prescriptions (MPCs 2.4, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 

or 8.0) that allow a full range of development opportunities 

• Acres of IRAs assigned to management prescriptions (MPCs 3.1, 3.2, 4.1b, 4.1c) that have 

the potential for low levels of development 

• Acres of IRAs assigned to management prescriptions (MPCs 2.1-Wild, 2.2, 4.1a) that 

maintain their undeveloped roadless character 

• Acres of IRAs assigned to a management prescription (MPC 1.2) that recommends the area 

for wilderness designation 

Effects to Issue 1, IRA Development Potential: For the three Ecogroup Forests, Alternative 5 

has the most area assigned to full range of development prescriptions, followed in descending 

order by Alternatives 1B, 3, 2, 7, 4, and 6. Alternative 7 has the most acres assigned to low 

levels of development prescriptions, followed in descending order by Alternatives 2, 3, 1B, 5, 4, 

and 6. Alternative 6 has the most acres assigned to prescriptions that maintain undeveloped 

character, followed in descending order by Alternatives 5, 7, 4, 3, 2, and 1B. Alternative 4 

recommends the most acres for Wilderness designation by far, Alternatives 2, 3, 6, 7, and 1B all 

recommend similar amounts, and Alternative 5 does not recommend any acres (Table S-32). 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 116

Table S-32. IRA Disposition Acres and Percent of Forest IRAs by Alternative*

Boise NF IRAs Payette NF IRAs Sawtooth NF IRAs Indicator Alternative

Acres % Acres % Acres %

1B 506,000 54% 212,000 21% 631,000 49%

2 335,000 36% 65,000 6% 390,000 30%

3 375,000 40% 142,000 14% 472,000 36%

4 95,000 10% 0 0% 55,000 4%

5 725,000 77% 678,000 68% 976,000 75%

6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Areas assigned to 

management 

prescriptions that 

allow a full range 

of development 

opportunities

7 4,000 <1% 23,000 2% 121,000 9%

1B 269,000 29% 563,000 56% 386,000 30%

2 436,000 46% 707,000 71% 630,000 48%

3 396,000 42% 611,000 61% 547,000 42%

4 170,000 18% 51,000 5% 254,000 20%

5 212,000 22% 95,000 10% 322,000 25%

6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Areas assigned to 

management 

prescriptions that 

have the potential 

for low levels of 

development

7 740,000 79% 696,000 69% 899,000 69%

1B 5,000 1% 16,000 2% 2,000 <1%

2 5,000 1% 19,000 2% 2,000 <1%

3 5,000 1% 37,000 4% 2,000 <1%

4 70,000 7% 16,000 2% 2,000 <1%

5 5,000 1% 228,000 23% 2,000 <1%

6 776,000 82% 791,000 79% 1,022,000 79%

Areas assigned to 

management 

prescriptions that 

maintain 

undeveloped 

character

7 32,000 3% 72,000 7% 2,000 <1%

1B 161,000 17% 210,000 21% 279,000 21%

2 166,000 18% 211,000 21% 277,000 21%

3 166,000 18% 211,000 21% 277,000 21%

4 607,000 64% 935,000 93% 987,000 76%

5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

6 166,000 18% 211,000 21% 277,000 21%

Areas 

recommended for 

wilderness

designation

7 166,000 18% 211,000 21% 277,000 21%

Issue 2 Statement: Forest Plan management strategies for existing Inventoried Roadless Areas 

may affect the capability to treat forest health problems.

Issue 2 Indicators: The following indicators will be used to measure the potential effects of 

IRA management strategies to affect capabilities to address forest health problems by alternative. 

• Acres within IRAs having high or extreme uncharacteristic wildfire hazard ratings, high or 

extreme ratings for resistance to control, or high insect hazard ratings assigned to MPCs 2.4, 

4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, or 8.0) that would allow both a full range of treatments and access 

capabilities 

• Acres within IRAs having high or extreme uncharacteristic wildfire hazard ratings, high or 

extreme ratings for resistance to control, or high insect hazard ratings assigned to MPCs 3.2, 

4.1b, and 4.1c that would limit access capabilities but allow a wide range of treatments 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 117

• Acres within IRAs having high or extreme uncharacteristic wildfire hazard ratings, high or 

extreme ratings for resistance to control, or high insect hazard ratings assigned to MPCs 1.2, 

2.1, 2.2, 3.1, and 4.1a that would limit both the range of treatments and access capabilities 

Effects to Issue 2, Forest Health Treatment Capability: Uncharacteristic wildfire and insect 

infestation are two of the most prominent forest health problems within the Ecogroup area. To 

assess the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire, analyses included in this Forest Plan revision 

process classified all areas within the Ecogroup relative to both uncharacteristic wildfire hazard 

and resistance to fire control. An estimated 45 percent of the acres within Ecogroup IRAs have 

been identified as having high or extreme ratings for uncharacteristic wildfire hazard, while an 

estimated 12 percent of the IRA acreage has been identified as having high ratings for insect 

hazard. Acres are displayed by alternative and Forest in Tables S-33 and S-34. 

Table S-33. IRA Acres of MPCs Assigned to Areas within IRAs Having High or Extreme 

Ratings for Uncharacteristic Wildfire Hazard or Resistance to Control by Alternative*

Forest Forest Health 

Capability Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Treatments and 

Access Limited

188,000 192,000 43,000 430,000 2,000 551,000 44,000

Treatments Available;

Access Limited

0 74,000 214,000 47,000 59,000 0 503,000 Boise

Treatments and 

Access Available

362,000 284,000 294,000 73,000 490,000 0 4,000

Treatments and 

Access Limited

307,000 317,000 175,000 437,000 91,000 437,000 301,000

Treatments Available; 

Access Limited

30,000 102,000 203,000 0 29,000 0 113,000 Payette

Treatments and 

Access Available

100,000 17,000 58,000 0 317,000 0 23,000

Treatments and 

Access Limited

167,000 153,000 74,000 316,000 0 473,000 74,000

Treatments Available; 

Access Limited

0 43,000 99,000 116,000 38,000 0 331,000 Sawtooth

Treatments and 

Access Available

306,000 277,000 301,000 41,000 435,000 0 69,000

* Forest data is compiled on a lead Forest basis and does not include IRA portions located on the 

Salmon-Challis and Nez Perce National Forests. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres. 

Totals by alternative may differ slightly due to rounding.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 118

Table S-34. IRA Acres of MPCs Assigned to Areas Within IRAs Having High

Ratings for Insect Hazard by Alternative*

Forest Forest Health 

Capabilities Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Treatments and 

Access Limited

12,000 12,000 12,000 144,000 1,000 161,000 54,000

Treatments Available; 

Access Limited

25,000 109,000 105,000 15,000 11,000 0 107,000 Boise

Treatments and 

Access Available

124,000 40,000 44,000 2,000 149,000 0 0

Treatments and 

Access Limited

12,000 21,000 39,000 105,000 13,000 105,000 66,000

Treatments Available; 

Access Limited

65,000 77,000 55,000 0 20,000 0 37,000 Payette

Treatments and 

Access Available

28,000 8,000 12,000 0 72,000 0 2,000

Treatments and 

Access Limited

12,000 16,000 16,000 84,000 1,000 110,000 16,000

Treatments Available; 

Access Limited

23,000 42,000 35,000 22,000 14,000 0 64,000 Sawtooth

Treatments and 

Access Available

75,000 52,000 59,000 4,000 94,000 0 30,000

* Forest data is compiled on a lead Forest basis and does not include IRA portions located on the 

Salmon-Challis and Nez Perce National Forests. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres. 

Totals by alternative may differ slightly due to rounding.

Generally, Alternative 6 would provide the highest level of limitations on treatment types and 

access within IRAs for all three Forests. Alternative 4 would provide the second highest level of 

limitations on management activities within IRAs. This is largely because MPCs 1.2 and 4.1a, 

which allow little or no mechanical treatments and no road building, are the predominant 

management prescriptions under those alternatives. All of the other alternatives offer a 

substantially wider range of treatment and access opportunities (Tables 2-59 and 2-60). 

Areas where treatments and access opportunities are both available are the greatest under 

Alternative 5 for all three Forests. Alternative 1B ranks second in providing management 

strategies with the fewest treatment and access limitations. This would be expected since 

commodity production and active vegetation management themes are prominent under these 

alternatives. Generally, Alternatives 3 and 2 provide relatively high levels of areas where both 

treatments and access are available due to their emphasis on restoration activities. However, this 

is not the case under Alternative 7, on the Payette, which ranks higher than Alternative 2 for 

treatments and access availability to treat uncharacteristic wildfire conditions.

Issue 3 Statement: Forest Plan management strategies for Inventoried Roadless Areas may or 

may not be consistent with the direction established under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Issue 3 Indicators: The following indicators will be used to measure each alternative’s 

consistency with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule:
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 119

• Acres of IRAs assigned to management prescriptions (MPCs 1.2, 2.2, and 4.1a) that are 

consistent with direction established by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

• Acres of IRAs assigned to management prescriptions (MPCs 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1b, 4.1c, 4.2, 

4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, or 8.0) that are not consistent with direction established by the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

Effects to Issue 3, Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) Consistency: Each 

alternative’s level of consistency with the RACR can be analyzed based on the assigned MPCs. 

Some MPCs (1.2, 2.1, 2.2, and 4.1a) are consistent with management direction prescribed for 

IRAs under the current version of the RACR. Acres within IRAs assigned to these management 

prescriptions are compiled and displayed in Table S-35.

Table S-35. Roadless Area Conservation Rule Consistency*

Forest Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

IRA Acres Assigned to Management Prescriptions That Are Consistent with the RACR

Boise 184,000 188,900 188,900 805,000 6,100 1,108,500 216,500

Payette 221,800 224,900 242,500 883,000 227,200 908,500 277,500

Sawtooth 267,500 265,800 266,000 929,000 1,900 1,225,100 265,800

IRA Acres Assigned to Management Prescriptions That Are Not Consistent with the RACR

Boise 924,500 919,600 919,600 303,600 1,102,400 0 892,000

Payette 686,600 683,500 666,000 25,500 681,200 0 631,000

Sawtooth 957,600 959,300 959,100 296,200 1,223,200 0 959,300

* Actual Forest totals by alternative are rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Totals by alternative may differ 

slightly due to rounding.

Alternative 6 is the only Alternative that is fully consistent with the RACR for all three Forests. 

All other alternatives are inconsistent with the RACR to some extent. Although not fully 

consistent, Alternative 4 is close to being consistent on the Boise and Sawtooth and is also the 

second closest alternative on the Payette. Alternative 5 is the least consistent on the Payette and 

Sawtooth, while Alternative 1B is the least consistent on the Boise. Values for all three Forests 

under Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, and 7 are relatively similar, ranging only from about 166,000 acres 

to 283,000 acres being consistent with the RACR. 

Issue 4 Statement – Management strategies for recommended wilderness may affect recreation 

opportunities and experiences within recommended wilderness areas as well as the potential for 

wilderness designation of those areas.

Issue 4 Indicators - In that travel regulations for cross-country and trail use can differ, separate 

indicators are used to measure effects by alternative on mechanized use opportunities in 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 120

recommended wilderness areas. The following indicators are used to contrast the relative levels 

of both motorized and mechanized use opportunities offered by the alternatives for cross-country 

travel experiences.

• Acres Open to Summer Cross-Country Motorized Uses. 

• Acres Open to Summer Cross-Country Mechanized Uses. 

• Acres Open to Winter Cross-Country Motorized Uses. 

The following indicators are used to contrast the relative levels of both motorized and 

mechanized use opportunities offered by the alternatives for on-trail experiences. 

• Miles of Summer Trail Open to Motorized Uses. 

• Miles of Summer Trail Open to Mechanized Uses. 

The following indicators are used to contrast the relative levels of groomed snowmobile and 

cross-country ski trails under each of the alternatives. 

• Miles of Groomed Snowmobile Trails. 

• Miles of Groomed Cross-Country Ski Trails. 

Effects to Issue 4, Mechanized Use in Recommended Wilderness – Estimates for anticipated 

mechanized use opportunities by alternative are included in Table S-36. 

Table S-36. Opportunities for the Use of Mechanical Transport within Recommended 

Wilderness Areas Under Revised Forest Plan Direction1

Indicator Alternatives2 Boise NF1Payette NF 1 Sawtooth NF 1

1B 900 200 0

2, 3, & 7 200 200 0

Acres Open to Summer Cross-Country 

Motorized Uses3

4 & 6 0 0 0

1B 179,000 207,300 265,600

2, 3, & 7 183,900 207,300 263,900

Acres Open to Summer Cross-Country 

Mechanized Uses3

4 & 6 0 0 0

1B 177,400 92,900 221,900

2, 3, & 7 182,300 92,900 220,200

Acres Open to Winter Cross-Country 

Motorized Uses3

4 & 6 0 0 0

1B 59 84 74

2, 3, & 7 62 84 70

Miles of Summer Trail Open to 

Motorized Uses

4 & 6 0 0 0

1B 91 197 243

2, 3, & 7 98 197 239

Miles of Summer Trail Open to 

Mechanized Uses

4 & 6 0 0 0

Miles of Groomed Snowmobile Trails All 0 0 0

Miles of Groomed X-Country Ski Trails All 0 0 0

1 Data is compiled on an administrative unit basis and does not include portions of recommended 

wilderness on the Salmon-Challis National Forests. 

2

 There is no recommended wilderness in Alternative 5. As a result, it does not appear in the above data. 

3

 Area estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 acres. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 121

Because mechanized transport within recommended wilderness is prohibited under Alternatives 

4 and 6, the results for those alternatives would be the same. This effect is larger in scale under 

Alternative 4 than 6 due to the greater area of Recommended Wilderness in Alternative 4. 

Alternatives 4 and 6 discontinue non-conforming uses and increase opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation experiences within these areas. The results for Alternative 1B differ from 

those of Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 only because of small recommended wilderness boundary 

differences between those alternatives.

 

Wilderness

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect Wilderness resources. 

Effects: No significant issues related directly to wilderness resources were identified during 

public scoping or the DEIS public comment period. Because direction for wilderness 

management of the three wilderness areas is detailed in law, regulation, agency policy, and in 

specific management plans, management in the revision alternatives would not differ. The 

relative amount of activities and uses may, in some cases, vary somewhat by alternative. 

However, they are likely to be present to some extent in all alternatives. Significant effects to 

wilderness areas are not expected under any alternative nor are effects expected to differ by 

alternative. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Issue Statement: Eligible rivers and their corridors may affect the Forest’s ability to implement 

management activities. 

Indicators: The primary indicator used to display effects by alternative is the amount of eligible 

river segments by classification that could affect, or be affected by, management activities. 

These segments are measured in both miles of river and acres of river corridor. 

Effects: The numbers in Table S-37 represent the maximum miles and acres of river segments 

identified at this time that could become eligible or suitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation by alternative. 

Table S-37. Eligible Wild and Scenic River Miles and Acres by Alternative

Classification Miles/Acres Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

River Miles 0 119 119 119 0 70 15 Wild

Corridor Acres 0 37,421 37,421 37,421 0 22,294 4,111

River Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scenic

Corridor Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

River Miles 0 128 128 128 0 177 123 Recreational

Corridor Acres* 0 37,124 37,124 37,124 0 52,251 35,595

*Recreational corridors have much more private and state lands within them than Wild corridors. Private 

and state land acreage has been subtracted from the total river corridor area.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 122

The types and amounts of management activities within an eligible or suit able river corridor 

depend on whether it is classified as a Wild, Scenic, or Recreational river. These management 

constraints are detailed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS by classification and resource area. Each river 

segment determined eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation will be managed to maintain 

its eligibility and classification until a detailed suitability study is done. The determination of 

which segments are eligible or suitable will be made in the Record of Decision for this EIS.

Socio-Economic Environment

Issue Statement 1: Forest Plan management strategies may have social and economic effects on 

local counties and communities. 

Indicators: Indicators for this issue include county populations, community employment and 

income, lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values, social organization, land-use patterns, and civil 

rights. 

County Populations: See Table S-38 below for estimates of historic, current, and projected 

populations for selected counties in the Ecogroup’s Zone of Influence. All county populations 

are predicted to increase, with the greatest increases generally occurring in urban or urbanadjacent counties. 

Table S-38. Historic and Projected Populations of Ecogroup Counties: 1985-2020

County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020

1990-

2000 

Change

2000-10 

Projected 

Change

2010-20

Projected

Change

Ada 189,811 207,505 252,251 300,904 358,495 416,167 45% 19% 16%

Adams 3,372 3,265 3,850 3,476 3,973 4,449 6% 14% 12%

Blaine 12,159 13,767 16,528 18,991 23,337 27,543 38% 23% 18%

Boise 3,285 3,552 4,669 6,670 7,902 8,971 88% 18% 14%

Camas 795 737 831 991 1,212 1,422 34% 22% 17%

Canyon 87,815 90,639 109,123 131,441 155,288 178,676 45% 18% 15%

Cassia 20,315 19,607 21,187 21,416 25,025 28,703 9% 17% 15%

Custer 5,118 4,155 4,255 4,342 5,325 6,294 5% 23% 18%

Elmore 21,764 21,232 23,547 29,130 34,504 40,284 37% 18% 17%

Gem 11,789 11,940 13,871 15,181 17,267 19,246 27% 14% 11%

Gooding 12,246 11,664 12,908 14,155 16,305 18,289 21% 15% 12%

Idaho 14,386 13,818 14,860 15,511 17,082 18,777 12% 10% 10%

Lincoln 3,508 3,345 3,716 4,044 4,660 5,230 21% 15% 12%

Power 7,233 7,073 8,129 7,538 8,678 9,823 7% 15% 13%

Twin Falls 54,185 53,797 59,383 64,284 71,543 78,748 19% 11% 10%

Valley 6,525 6,150 7,848 7,651 9,621 11,426 24% 26% 19%

Washington 8,662 8,595 9,606 9,977 11,280 12,504 16% 13% 11%

Idaho 977,617 996,553 1,149,284 1,293,953 1,506,581 1,717,847 23% 16% 14%
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 123

Lifestyles: The ICBEMP identified 12 rural-based lifestyles in the Columbia Basin. Although 

these 12 “lifestyle segments” are diverse, ranging from small-town, blue-collar families to 

retirement town seniors, they seem to share a common characteristic—an attraction to the natural 

setting of their communities. As noted earlier in this discussion, rural county commissioners cite 

the “natural beauty” of their area, as well as the wildlife and recreational opportunities. Many 

express a desire to continue a “multiple-use” way of life, while recognizing that economic 

diversity and economic development are necessary. 

More urban areas, including the Treasure Valley, note dramatic growth, with newcomers 

originating from within and outside Idaho. In these areas, an increasing share of the economy is 

tied not to resource-related employment, but to the burgeoning high-tech industry. 

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values: The environment and public lands are of great interest to many 

Westerners, including those in Idaho and the Ecogroup Forests. However, while there may be 

widespread interest in environmental and public land issues, there is often little agreement on 

how to resolve these issues, or what the outcome should be. While some believe National Forest 

timber harvest provides high-paying employment and sustainable family incomes, others argue 

that timber harvest creates environmental degradation, and that economic and population growth 

in the Northwest is and should be tied to natural landscapes and environmental features. Others 

see many environmental issues tied to what is perhaps a more fundamental issue: whether or not 

state and county officials should dictate the uses of public lands within a state.

With changing demographics and economies in many parts of the Ecogroup zone of influence, 

county commissioners and mayors articulate the shifts and challenges their communities face. 

At the same time, many are proud of their counties, communities and surroundings, and want to 

retain viable communities for the future. Many cite a commitment of community members to 

help each other. Many also express a desire to continue a “multiple-use” way of life, while 

recognizing that economic diversity and economic development are necessary.

Social Organization: According to ICBEMP studies, some counties may show low or moderate 

economic and socio-economic resilience, while small communities within these counties have 

moderately high or high community resilience.

At the same time, counties and communities note the effect of recent growth and change, citing 

less free exchange of ideas, and less time with neighbors and friends (and more time at 

meetings). In some urban-adjacent areas, such as Boise County or the Fairfield area, small towns 

have become “bedroom communities,” providing more affordable housing for urban workers, or 

providing increased services for part-time residents and visitors.

Also noted was a “ripple effect” in communities of recent economic and social changes. For 

example, in Fairfield, the 1980 closure of a local sawmill directly or indirectly affected the 

railroad, the dairy industry, and an increase in the size and specialization of farms. In many 

counties, declining 25 percent funds (see Chapter 3) have resulted in fewer funds available for 

schools and roads, especially since an alternative source of funding, property tax, is subject to an 

annual three percent cap on increases.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 124

Several commissioners feel that there are changes in the way public-land decisions are made, 

believing that local land managers have less authority and management discretion than they have 

had in the past, and that decisions are now made or strongly influenced by upper levels of the 

Forest Service, and/or regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the courts.

Land Use Patterns: The ICBEMP noted that within the Interior Columbia River Basin 

(including the Ecogroup), the region followed the national trend, with the bulk of recent growth 

occurring in the urban centers. Within Idaho, urban and urban-adjacent counties have and are 

expected to grow faster than rural areas, with Ada, Blaine, Boise, Canyon, Gem and Valley 

Counties exhibiting the greatest rate of growth from 1985 to 1995. In 10 of the counties, more 

than 50 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, and in seven of 17 counties, 

more than 70 percent of the land is in federal ownership.

Civil Rights: Although Idaho and the Ecogroup remain largely white and Anglo-Saxon, the 

state is becoming more racially diverse. Hispanics comprise 6.8 percent of the state’s 

population, but the Hispanic population increased by about 50 percent from 1990 to 1996. 

Canyon County, which lies within the Ecogroup socio-economic overview area, includes 25 

percent of Idaho’s Hispanic population. Although few data are available, there is a sense that the 

state’s Hispanics use and relate to National Forests in ways that are similar to Idaho’s 

predominantly white population.

Community Employment and Income: Differences across Forest Service management 

alternatives are reflected in differences in Forest outputs. Three broad output types are 

considered: range, recreation, and timber. 

Range-Linked Outputs - All action alternatives result in small grazing reductions, and 

corresponding reductions in jobs and earnings (Table S-39). 

Table S-39. Ecogroup Area Community Range-linked Jobs and Income by Alternative

Alternative Jobs/Income 2000 (Current) 2005 2010

Change in Jobs 286 270 279 1B Change in Income $7,640,000 $7,234,000 $7,434,000

Change in Jobs 286 -10 -20 2

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$211,000 -$447,000

Change in Jobs 286 -8 -22 3

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$170,000 -$471,000

Change in Jobs 286 -11 -33 4

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$248,000 -$733,000

Change in Jobs 286 -9 -8

5

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$181,000 -$154,000

Change in Jobs 286 -20 -20 6

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$519,000 -$426,000

Change in Jobs 286 -22 -22 7

Change in Income $7,640,000 -$544,000 -$446,000
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 125

Alternative 4 results in the most total job and income reductions over the long term, and 

Alternative 5 has the least reductions. Alternatives 6 and 7 result in steeper job and income 

losses in the short term (2005), but some recovery would occur by 2010. Alternatives 2 and 3 

are very similar in effects. Alternative 1B represents the current condition for each time period.

Recreation-Linked Outputs - Under all alternatives, recreation use and recreation-linked jobs and 

earnings, would increase over time, with no differences among alternatives. The job increases 

would be from 2,695 in 2000, to 2,847 in 2005, to 2,696 in 2010. The income increases would 

be from $42,168,000 million in 2000, to $52,271,000 million in 2005, to $59,450,000 in 2010.

Timber-Linked Outputs – All alternatives result in increases in jobs and incomes by 2005, and 

then level off by 2010 (Table S-40). The largest increases are seen under Alternative 1B, 

followed in descending order by Alternatives 5, 3, 7, 2, 6 and 4.

Table S-40. Ecogroup Area Community Timber-linked Jobs and Income by Alternative

Alternative Jobs/Income 2000 (Current) 2005 2010

Change in Jobs 284 +1,000 +1,000 1B

Change in Income $10,942,000 $40,796,000 $40,796,000

Change in Jobs 284 +605 +605 2

Change in Income $10,942,000 $21,882,000 $21,882,000

Change in Jobs 284 +763 +763 3

Change in Income $10,942,000 $27,927,000 $27,927,000

Change in Jobs 284 +12 +12 4

Change in Income $10,942,000 $395,000 $395,000

Change in Jobs 284 +1,059 +1,059 5

Change in Income $10,942,000 $38,499,000 $38,499,000

Change in Jobs 284 +18 +18 6

Change in Income $10,942,000 $717,000 $717,000

Change in Jobs 284 +764 +764 7

Change in Income $10,942,000 $27,864,000 $27,864,000

Overall, Alternative 5 has positive effects on timber-linked jobs and earnings; Alternative 1B has 

no effect over current levels. Alternatives 2 and 3 have similar and moderate negative effects, 

while Alternatives 4 and 6 significantly reduce timber-linked jobs and earnings under all 

scenarios. Communities hardest hit by timber-linked losses would generally be those that are 

currently most dependent on National Forest timber resources—Emmett, Cascade, and New 

Meadows. 

Total Forest-Linked Outputs - Combining the impacts of the Forest Plan alternatives on all forest 

outputs presents an overall picture of how Forest management will affect the seventeen 

communities. Communities in southwest Idaho vary considerably in their resource dependency. 

For example, McCall-Donnelly has 672 jobs linked to Forest Service outputs. This constitutes 

about 14 percent of all employment in the McCall-Donnelly area. In contrast Stanley has only 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 126

216 jobs linked to Forest Service outputs, but this constitutes 75 percent of all employment in the 

Stanley area. Other communities that are very dependent on Forest Service outputs are CrouchGarden Valley (37 percent), New Meadows (26 percent), Challis (24 percent), Fairfield (20 

percent) and Cascade (20 percent). 

The alternative that has the largest employment impact in the region is Alternative 5 (Tables S41, S-43). This alternative has a total impact in 2005 of 1,050 jobs and an impact in 2010 of 

1,049 jobs. The two communities most strongly affected by this alternative are Emmett, with a 

139.8 percent change in employment, and New Meadows, with 141.5 percent change in 

employment linked to Forest Service outputs. Note that the impact of Forest Service outputs 

vary considerably for any given community across the range of Forest Service management 

alternatives. For example, Emmett has an increase of 171 jobs in Alternative 5, and has a much 

larger increase of 458 jobs in Alternative 1B.

Tables S-42 and S-44 show the corresponding picture in terms of earnings impacts. The largest 

change in earnings in any of the alternatives is an increase of $21.983 million in Emmett in 

Alternative 1B. Much of this new $22 million payroll would be associated with the new sawmill 

that is projected to locate in Emmett by 2005. Another major change is shown in McCallDonnelly where a $10.477 million increase in earnings occurs in Alternative 5. The alternative 

that has the largest overall impact on earnings is Alternative 1B, which generates a $40.796 

million increase in earnings throughout seventeen Southeast Idaho communities.

Table S-41. Jobs Indicated by All Forest Outputs by Alternative: 2005

Current Situation Change In Total Jobs**

Communities Total 

Jobs

All FS 

Output 

Linked Jobs

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Cascade 961 189 98 173 187 -2 203 2 174

Challis 1,278 300 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1

Council 1,164 131 100 44 96 -8 110 -2 77

Crouch-Garden V. 690 256 24 20 29 -1 33 1 20

Emmett 5,654 122 458 98 115 -0 171 4 121

Fairfield 701 139 4 4 18 2 83 0 16

Gooding 3,615 140 0 -3 -2 -2 -3 -5 -5

Hailey-Bellevue 5,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho City 801 53 46 23 37 -1 54 0 48

Ketchum -Sun V. 12,219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McCall-Donnelly 4,811 672 107 74 66 15 125 1 97

New Meadows 711 185 153 158 204 1 262 5 193

Oakley Valley 449 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Raft River Valley 668 62 0 -0 -0 -1 0 -7 -7

Riggins 696 123 10 5 7 -1 12 -1 8

Stanley 288 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weiser 4,566 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 44,368 3,401 1,000 595 755 1 1,050 -2 742

 All job numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 127

Table S-42. Earnings Indicated by All Forest Outputs by Alternative: 2005

Current Situation Change in Total Earnings ($1,000)

Communities Total 

Earnings 

($1,000)

All FS 

Output 

Linked 

Earnings

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Cascade 21,700 3,688 2,927 5,180 5,614 -56 6,086 54 5,232

Challis 34,661 4,698 0 -15 -15 -15 0 -15 -15

Council 31,796 3,888 4,614 2,123 4,464 -287 5,163 45 3,664

Crouch-Garden V. 14,929 2,773 267 217 316 -9 364 9 219

Emmett 118,349 3,048 21,983 4,739 5,563 54 8,198 228 5,896

Fairfield 15,733 1,228 105 105 527 70 2,492 0 491

Gooding 97,995 3,366 0 -68 -48 -48 -68 -101 -105

Hailey-Bellevue 155,270 5,208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho City 16,204 938 1,156 576 932 -27 1352 11 1,209

Ketchum -Sun V. 348,552 13,564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McCall-Donnelly 102,309 12,135 3,426 2,380 2,106 474 4,018 33 3,102

New Meadows 26,380 5,662 6,111 6,346 8,166 70 10,477 197 7,737

Oakley Valley 14,135 432 0 0 0 -15 0 -26 -27

Raft River Valley 25,297 2,129 0 -15 -5 -47 0 -226 -236

Riggins 14,918 1,835 207 104 136 -18 238 -13 153

Stanley 5,246 3,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weiser 86,665 1,863 0 -8 -8 -8 -7 -9 -9

TOTAL 1,130,140 70,447 40,796 21,664 27,749 139 38,311 188 27,311

Note: All earnings numbers are expressed in thousands of dollars and rounded to the nearest thousand.

Table S-43. Jobs Indicated by All Forest Outputs by Alternative: 2010

Current Situation Change In Total Jobs**

Communities Total 

Jobs

All FS 

Output 

Linked Jobs

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Cascade 1,038 203 98 173 187 -2 203 2 174

Challis 1,350 302 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1

Council 1,230 137 100 42 93 -10 108 -4 74

Crouch-Garden V. 751 258 24 20 29 -1 33 1 20

Emmett 5,952 126 458 98 115 -1 170 4 121

Fairfield 757 139 4 4 18 2 83 0 16

Gooding 3,875 144 0 -9 -10 -17 1 -6 -6

Hailey-Bellevue 5,533 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho City 882 55 46 23 37 -1 54 0 48

Ketchum -Sun V. 13,665 503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McCall-Donnelly 5,253 731 107 74 66 15 125 1 97

New Meadows 741 191 153 158 203 1 261 4 193

Oakley Valley 474 13 0 0 -0 -1 0 -0 -0

Raft River Valley 721 62 0 -1 -0 -3 1 0 0

Riggins 742 134 10 4 6 -2 11 -2 7

Stanley 318 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weiser 4,811 137 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

TOTAL 48,093 3,532 1,000 583 739 -22 1,049 -4 740

 All job numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 128

Table S-44. Earnings Indicated by All Forest Outputs by Alternative: 2010

Current Situation Change in Total Earnings ($1,000)

Communities Total 

Earnings 

($1,000)

All FS 

Output 

Linked 

Earnings

Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Cascade 24,828 4,087 2,927 5,180 5,614 -56 6,086 54 5,232

Challis 37,790 5,090 0 -33 -33 -33 0 -33 -35

Council 34,696 4,001 4,614 2,081 4,406 -345 5,120 -13 3,603

Crouch-Garden V. 16,952 3,126 267 217 316 -9 364 9 219

Emmett 129,606 3,113 21,983 4,736 5,551 40 8,192 219 5,887

Fairfield 17,316 1,348 105 105 527 70 2,492 0 491

Gooding 108,305 3,542 0 -205 -215 -363 20 -142 -148

Hailey-Bellevue 177,156 5,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho City 18,602 1,014 1,156 576 932 -27 1,352 11 1,209

Ketchum -Sun V. 408,713 15,905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McCall-Donnelly 116,730 13,904 3,426 2,379 2,105 472 4,016 31 3,100

New Meadows 28,267 5,744 6,111 6,337 8,158 62 10,468 188 7,728

Oakley Valley 15,394 423 0 0 -5 -21 0 -10 -11

Raft River Valley 27,196 2,131 0 -20 -15 -88 19 9 10

Riggins 16,509 2,033 207 83 115 -39 217 -34 131

Stanley 5,977 4,399 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weiser 95,180 2,026 0 -34 -35 -35 -33 -37 -38

TOTAL 1,279,216 77,827 40,796 21,401 27,420 -373 38,313 254 27,381

Note: All earnings numbers are expressed in thousands of dollars and rounded to the nearest thousand.

Issue Statement 2: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the financial efficiency of 

operating the three National Forests in the Ecogroup. 

Indicators for Issue 2: Present Net Value (PNV) and revenue/cost ratio for the Boise, Payette, 

and Sawtooth National Forests over a 50-year time period. 

Effects: The analysis below compares the financial efficiency of the seven alternatives over a 

50-year period for each of the Ecogroup Forests, and for all of the Forests combined. Displayed 

under the four different scenarios are revenues, costs, PNV, and the revenue/cost ratio. PNV is 

defined as the value of discounted revenues minus discounted costs. Revenue/cost ratios are 

discounted revenues divided by discounted costs. Ratios greater than one indicate that revenues 

exceed costs, and ratios less than one indicate that costs exceed the revenues. It is important to 

note that this type of analysis does not account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, 

individual values, or other values, benefits, and costs that are not easily quantifiable. This is not 

to imply that such values are not significant or important, but to recognize that non-market 

values are difficult to represent with appropriate dollar figures. 
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 129

Boise National Forest - Table S-45 shows the results of the financial analysis by alternative for 

the Boise National Forest. All alternatives have a positive PNV and revenue/cost ratio. The 

alternatives (5 and 1B) with the highest levels of commodity production have the highest PNV 

and revenue/cost ratio. Alternatives 4 and 6 have the lowest PNVs. 

Table S-45. PNV (in Millions of Dollars) by Alternative for the Boise National Forest

Indicator Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Revenue $2,843 $2,058 $2,165 $597 $3,233 $745 $2,325

Costs -$766 -$658 -$659 -$557 -$832 -$545 -$742

Present Net Value $2,077 $1,399 $1,506 $40 $2,400 $201 $1,583

Revenue/Cost Ratio 3.71 3.13 3.28 1.07 3.88 1.37 3.13

Payette National Forest - Table S-46 shows the results of the financial analysis for each 

alternative for the Payette National Forest. All Alternatives have a positive PNV revenue/cost 

ratio. The alternatives (5 and 1B) with higher levels of commodity production have the highest 

PNV and revenue/cost ratio. Alternatives 4 and 6 have the lowest PNVs and ratios.

Table S-46. PNV (in Millions of Dollars) by Alternative for the Payette National Forest 

Indicator Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Revenue $2,487 $1,674 $2,132 $586 $3,097 $849 $2,164

Costs -$498 -$413 -$419 -$367 -$540 -$377 -$480

Present Net Value $1,988 $1,261 $1,713 $219 $2,556 $473 $1,684

Revenue/Cost Ratio 4.99 4.06 5.08 1.60 5.73 2.26 4.51

Sawtooth National Forest - Table S-47 shows the results of the financial analysis for each 

alternative for the Sawtooth National Forest. Alternatives 1B, 2, 3, 5, and 7 have a positive PNV 

and revenue/cost ratio. The alternatives (5 and 1B) with the highest levels of commodity 

production have the highest PNV and revenue/cost ratio. Alternatives 6 and 4 have the lowest 

PNVs and benefit cost ratios. 

Table S-47. PNV (in Millions of Dollars) by Alternative for the Sawtooth National Forest 

Indicator Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Revenue $433 $368 $382 $126 $560 $90 $481

Costs -$246 -$244 -$245 -$224 -$260 -$222 -$256

Present Net Value $188 $125 $137 -$98 $300 -$132 $225

Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.76 1.51 1.56 0.56 2.15 0.41 1.88
Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 130

Southwest Idaho Ecogroup - Table S-48 shows the results of the financial analysis for each 

alternative Ecogroup-wide. All alternatives have a positive PNV and a revenue/cost ratio of 

more than one. The alternatives featuring higher levels of commodity production have the 

highest PNV and revenue/cost ratio. Alternatives 5 and 1B have the highest PNVs at $5,257 

million and $4,253 million, respectively, at the current budget levels. Alternatives 4 and 6 have 

the lowest PNVs at $162 million and $542 million, respectively.

Table S-48. PNV (in Millions of Dollars) by Alternative for the Ecogroup Forests 

Indicator Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Revenues $5,763 $4,100 $4,680 $1,309 $6,889 $1,685 $4,970

Costs -$1,510 -$1,315 -$1,324 -$1,147 -$1,633 -$1,143 -$1,478

Present Net Value $4,253 $2,786 $3,356 $162 $5,257 $542 $3,492

Revenue/Cost Ratio 3.82 3.12 3.53 1.14 4.22 1.47 3.36

*These costs do not consider re-payment of funds to the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation due 

to trail conversion. Re-payment amounts have not been fully estimated at this time.

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIS

The Preferred Alternative identified in the DEIS was Alternative 3. This alternative is described 

in detail under the Alternatives Considered in Detail section in this Chapter.

The Responsible Official’s selected alternative for implementation could be this alternative, one 

of the other alternatives considered in detail, or it could be a different combination of the 

alternatives considered in detail. The final decision will be documented in the Records of 

Decision for this Forest Plan revision.