United States Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

Northern 

Region

January 2015

Errata for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests Land 

Management Plan

Boundary, Bonner, Benewah, and Shoshone Counties in 

Idaho; Lincoln and Sanders Counties in Montana; 

Pend Oreille County in Washington

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Faye Krueger, Regional Forester

Northern Region

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 59807

For Information, Contact: Mary Farnsworth

Idaho Panhandle National Forest

3815 Schreiber Way

Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 

208-765-7369
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents

Contents ...............................................................................................................i

Errata Overview...................................................................................................1

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

Page 8: Need for Change; Timber............................................................................................... 1

Page 12: Relationship to Other Entities....................................................................................... 1

Page 12: County Governments.................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2—Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...............................5

Page 29: Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study; Additional Eligible 

Wild and Scenic River Designation............................................................................................. 5

Page 30: Boulder Creek............................................................................................................... 5

Page 30: Smith Creek:................................................................................................................. 6

Page 30: Cow Creek .................................................................................................................... 6

Page 30: Lightening Creek .......................................................................................................... 7

Page 30: Big Creek...................................................................................................................... 7

Page 31: Slate Creek.................................................................................................................... 7

Page 31: First full paragraph after Marble Creek description: .................................................... 9

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .......11

Page 48: Vegetation; Legal and Administrative Framework..................................................... 11

Page 48: Vegetation; Legal and Administrative Framework; Regulation and Policy:.............. 11

Page 71: Forest Vegetation Condition; Broadleaved Species ................................................... 11

Page 135: Non-native Invasive Plants; Legal and Administrative Framework......................... 11

Page 136: Non-native Invasive Plants; Affected Environment (Existing Conditions............... 11

Page 141: Non-native Invasive Plants; Environmental Consequences; Management Direction 

for Alternatives B Modified, C, and D...................................................................................... 13

Page 141–144: Non-native Invasive Plants; Environmental Consequences; Consequences to 

Non-native Invasive Plants from Forest Plan Components Associated with other Resource 

Programs or Revision Topics .................................................................................................... 14

Page 192: Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat; Affected Environment ...................... 14

Page 214–215 and 290–294: Terrestrial Wildlife...................................................................... 14

Page 414: Legal and Administrative Framework; Law and Executive Orders ......................... 14

Page 427: Access and Recreation; Affected Environment; Trail Management Objectives...... 14

Page 443: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Motor Vehicle Use (excluding 

over-snow vehicles) Areas......................................................................................................... 15

Page 443–444: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management: Over-Snow Vehicle Use 15

Page 444: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Mechanized Use.................... 16

Page 445: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Hand-held Motorized 

Equipment.................................................................................................................................. 17

Page 491–492: Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended Wilderness; 

Consequences to Wilderness from Forest Plan Components Associated with other Resource 

Programs or Revision Topics; Effects from Management Area Allocations............................ 18

Page 493: Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended Wilderness; 

Consequences to Wilderness from Forest Plan Components Associated with other Resource 

Programs or Revision Topics; Effects from Access and Recreation Management ................... 18

Page 498: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Methodology and Analysis Process; Eligibility................ 19

Page 499: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Designated Rivers; Affected Environment ....................... 19

Page 501: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Methodology and Analysis Process; Eligibility................ 19

Page 502: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Enivronmental Consequences; Alternative B Modified, C, 

and D ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 6—Glossary ........................................................................................23

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS i
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Page 651: Hydrological stability ............................................................................................... 23

Page 651: Invasive species........................................................................................................ 23

Page 652: Invasive Weeds......................................................................................................... 23

Page 655: Noxious weeds.......................................................................................................... 23

Appendix C—Wilderness Evaluation ..............................................................25

Page 159: Inventoried Roadless Areas; Mallard Larkins – (No. 01-300) ................................. 25

Page 160: Mallard Larkins - (No. 01-300); Description........................................................... 25

Appendix D—Aquatics: Analyses and Methodology.....................................27

Page 204: Watsed Analysis....................................................................................................... 27

Page 208: Salmonid Asessment................................................................................................. 27

Page 209: Conservation/Restoration Watersheds; Salmonid Multi-scale Assessment.............. 27

Appendix E—Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers.....................................29

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 29

Process to Identify and Classify Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers in 2005............................... 30

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................................................................... 43

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................................ 43

Appendix G—Response to Public Comments................................................89

Page 340–342: Public Comment 92 .......................................................................................... 89

Page 354: Public Comment 725 ................................................................................................ 89

Page 374: Public Comment 156 ................................................................................................ 89

Page 375: Public Comment 157 ................................................................................................ 90

Page 390: Public Comment 900 ................................................................................................ 90

Page 418: Public Comment 284 ................................................................................................ 91

Page 465: Public Comment 369 ................................................................................................ 91

List of Tables

Table 106. Miles of Managed and Allowed Trail Use on the IPNF ...............................................15

Table 119-2. Summary Miles of Trail by Type of Use by Alternative ...........................................17

Table 120. Acres by Alternative Where Hand-held Motorized Equipment would be Prohibited...17

Table 135. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the IPNF (1987 Forest Plan & Amendment)..............20

Table 136. IPNF Rivers Identified as Eligible during Plan Revision Analysis...............................21

Table 120. Mallard Larkins Rating Summary for Recommended Wilderness...............................25

Table 216-A. Summary of the Changes and Corrections in ORVs and Eligible Rivers.................35

Table 216-B. Change in Free-flowing Status..................................................................................36

Table 216-C. 2014 Review of IPNF Streams Found to Have Potential ORVs...............................37

Table 217. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Areas.......................39

Table 218. Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers...............................................................43

Table 219. IPNF Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers Map Reference List ..................................51

Table 219-A. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for 

the Bonners Ferry District ........................................................................................................66

Table 219-B. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for 

the Coeur d’Alene District........................................................................................................72

Table 219-C. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for 

the Priest Lake District .............................................................................................................77

Table 219-D. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for 

the Sandpoint District ...............................................................................................................80

Table 219-E. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for 

the St. Joe District.....................................................................................................................82

ii Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

List of Figures

Figure 36. IPNF Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Index Map ...................................... 50

Figure 37. UP1-Upper Priest Wild River, H1-Hughes Fork Wild River and H2-Hughes Fork 

Recreational River .......................................................................................................... 52

Figure 38. LC1-Long Canyon Wild River .............................................................................. 53

Figure 39. K6-Kootenai Recreational River ........................................................................... 54

Figure 40. P1-Pack Recreational River............................................................................... 55

Figure 41. NFCDA1-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, NFCDA2-North Fork 

Coeur d’Alene Wild River .............................................................................................. 56

Figure 42. NFCDA3-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion ............... 57

Figure 43. NFCDA3-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, West Portion; 

LNFCDA1-Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, South Portion; CDA1-

Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion ............................................................ 58

Figure 44. LNFCDA1-Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, North Portion . 59

Figure 45. CDA2-Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion ....................................... 60

Figure 46. CDA2-Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, West Portion ...................................... 61

Figure 47. SJ1-St. Joe Designated Recreational River, North Portion.................................... 62

Figure 48. SJ1-St. Joe Designated Recreational River, South Portion; SJ2-St. Joe Designated 

Wild River ....................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 49. LNFC1-Little North Fork Clearwater Recreational River ..................................... 64

Figure 50. LNFC2-Little North Fork Clearwater Wild River and LNFC3-Little North Fork 

Clearwater Recreational River ........................................................................................ 65

Kootenai National Forest 2013 Final EIS Errata iii

Errata Overview

The following errata to the IPNF Land Management Plan final environmental impact statement 

(EIS) represent corrections related to technical errors, omissions, or clarifications per instructions 

provided through the pre-decisional review. This documentation, the final EIS, and the planning 

record provide the documentation of analysis supporting the final record of decision for the IPNF 

Land Management Plan.

See the project record for GIS errata.

Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action

Page 8: Need for Change; Timber

Replace second “Need for Change” paragraph with the following text:

The management direction in the 1987 Forest Plan emphasized the production of timber, 

with the majority of MAs allowing or promoting timber management. In the 1990s, the 

Forest Service began to focus on ecosystem management and ecological sustainability. 

This change in planning focus resulted in a decreased emphasis on commercial timber 

production and an increased emphasis on timber harvest as a tool to restore vegetation or 

as a means to address other resource requirements or needs. There is a need to reanalyze 

timber harvest levels and revise them.

Page 12: Relationship to Other Entities

Replace FEIS text with: 

The Planning Rule under 36 CFR §219.7(c) requires the review of planning and land use 

policies of other Federal Agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. This 

review includes (1) consideration of the objectives of these entities as expressed in their 

plans and policies; (2) an assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and 

policies; (3) determination of how the Forest revised plan should deal with impacts 

identified; and (4) where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, 

consideration of alternatives for resolution.

County, State, and Federal plans were reviewed during the plan revision process. These 

plans are referenced and incorporated in numerous areas of analysis in the FEIS, 

including social and economic, water, air, wildlife, fire, and vegetation. Direction in the 

revised Forest Plan incorporates information from these other plans.

Page 12: County Governments

Replace FEIS text with: 

The Forest worked with County Governments in developing the revised plans. Their 

comments were reviewed during public comment phases. Meetings were held with the 

counties as needed (see the planning record, volume 1, and volume 2).

Numerous county comprehensive management plans were reviewed during the Forest 

revision process. The interdisciplinary team did not find conflicts or inconsistencies with 

Forest Service planning in these county plans. Desired Conditions and Objectives were 

added to the Forest Plan to strengthen the Forests commitment to work with the counties, 

and other government agencies, in order to achieve multiple use goals on the IPNF. In 

addition, the direction found in the county community wildfire protection plans resulted 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 1
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

in delineation of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), which is integral to fire and 

vegetation management in the revised Plan.

Benewah County, Idaho is unique as it has developed a Natural Resource Plan in addition 

to a comprehensive management plan for the county. Many objectives and policy stated 

in the Natural Resource Plan did not apply to forest plan revision but rather to sitespecific analysis. However, both plans were reviewed and a special section is added for 

review of the Natural Resource Plan for Benewah County (BCNRP). The conflicts 

identified in the review are:

1. General Provisions and Guidance (Part 4 of the BCNRP). The BCNRP states the 

Federal agencies will have their plans (e.g., IPNF Land and Resource Management 

Plan) consistent with the BCNRP. The BCNRP also gives direction to the agency on 

when, where, and how to publish notices for planning actions. 

Response 1: 36 CFR 219.7 directs the Forest Service in the coordination of public 

planning efforts. Where conflict occurs with Forest Service planning, the Forest 

Service is directed to consider alternatives for resolution. Four alternatives were 

considered in detail in the revision process and approximately 17 alternatives were 

considered but eliminated from detailed study in the FEIS. Under the Supremacy 

Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state and local law is preempted or overridden to the 

extent it conflicts with these and other applicable federal laws, or impedes 

accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of these and other applicable federal 

laws. Moreover, a state or local law that subjects the Federal Government to state or 

local requirements is presumptively invalid unless the state or local entity enacted it 

pursuant to a clear and express grant of congressional authority. Under these 

principles, local ordinances or resolutions that impose land management 

requirements on the Forest Service, such as a requirement to obtain local approval 

before acting or to comply with certain land management prescriptions, are 

preempted by the Forest Service’s land management authorities and are 

presumptively invalid, as they are not supported by clear and express grant of 

congressional authority. Nothing reviewed in the BCNRP General Provisions and 

Guidance portion of this plan identified a clear and express grant of congressional 

authority to Benewah County.

2. BCNRP Objective 15.3.3 states that “On Federal timberlands suitable for timber 

harvest, a minimum harvest level to capture the equivalent of 80% of the annual 

mortality shown by the most recent forest inventory is necessary to maintain and 

improve forest health...”.

Response 2: As stated in the first response, four alternatives were analyzed and page 

649 of the Final EIS defines “forest health”. Throughout the Forest Vegetation 

Section of the Final EIS (pages 48–121), components of forest management are 

defined and analyzed. The ROD selected the alternative that best addressed Forest 

Health. An arbitrary number of capturing 80% of annual mortality was not used as 

many factors are integrated into the management of forests.

3. BCNRP Objective 15.10 states, “There shall be no upper limit to ASQ, as each may 

be variable, but there shall be a minimum ASQ”. 

Response 3: ASQ is defined on page 643 of the FEIS. There were no alternatives 

developed that changed this definition. Also see Response 1.

2 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

4. BCNRP Objective 15.2.2 states, “Support the maximum area of land possible to be 

excluded from single-use or restrictive-use designations, and that excluded land be 

available for active and sound management”.

Response 4: There are six fundamental components of the programmatic decision

made in the plan revision. One is the establishment of forest wide multiple-use goals, 

objectives, desired conditions, and quantities of goods and services (36 CFR 219.13). 

If “restrictive-use designations” equate to recommended wilderness, this objective 

may or may not be in conflict because many uses may occur in recommended 

wilderness areas. Regardless, no wilderness is recommended in Benewah County. 

But there were 4 alternatives addressing many issues in the FEIS.

5. BCNRP Policy 30.4.2 states, “In areas other than designated Wilderness, RNA, or 

other administratively withdrawn area, or restricted use lands, all government 

agencies shall reestablish, open and maintain all routes, right-of-way, buildings and 

uses that existed in all areas prior to the agencies’ proposal for designation as 

roadless, semi-primitive, and/or wilderness areas, or other restricted use areas”. A 

similar objective exists under the Wild and Scenic River objective 31.2.4 and 

objective 30.2.1 which requires the agency to get the desired mix of trail uses from 

Benewah County.

Response 5: Same as Response 1. The Forest Service also follows the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

6. Access: nearly every policy and objective statement in the BCNRP regarding access 

conflicts with Forest Service law, policy, or regulations. Some objectives are not 

germane to Forest Plan revision. 

Response 6: Same as Response 1.

7. The BCNRP concludes in Findings: #6.4.7.1, “The Board finds that the IPNF Plan of 

1987, excluding amendments, fulfills the management requirements for the IPNF” 

(Page 60 of the BCNRP).

Response 7: Same as Response 1.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 3

Chapter 2—Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action

Page 29: Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study; 

Additional Eligible Wild and Scenic River Designation

Replace FEIS text with: 

Some commenters wanted to see additional rivers designated as eligible wild and scenic 

rivers. One group had a supporting inventory document (Colburn et al. 2011), while 

others name requested streams within their comment letter with little supporting 

information. A systematic inventory of named streams and rivers was completed by the 

IPNF as part of the Forest Planning Process, as required by Forest Service Manual policy 

and the Wild and Scenic River Act. The IPNF validated this 2005 inventory in 2014. 

Appendix E contains a table documenting the 2014 ORV validation of the original 2005 

assessment; identifying those rivers and streams that have potential ORVs and providing

rationale for whether they are rare, unique, and exemplary at the comparative Forest scale 

to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to warrant a rating of eligible. To be 

eligible, a river must be free flowing and possess at least one outstandingly remarkable 

value that is rare, unique, or exemplary. A comparison was made between the inventory 

conducted by the IPNF and the streams and rivers requested by commenters. Although 

some of the streams and rivers are the same, commenters requested several additional 

rivers that were not designated as eligible wild and scenic rivers by the IPNF. The 2014 

validation review identified additional potential values for forest rivers and stream 

identified by the commenters. The following describes the rationale for why these rivers

and streams are not included in any IPNF action alternative:

Page 30: Boulder Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Boulder Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, 

scenery, fisheries, and wildlife values. Other commenters requested this creek be 

included, but did not list specific values. A concern was raised that the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) is presently considering a preliminary permit 

application to construct a small hydropower facility on Boulder Creek. If Boulder Creek 

were designated as eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, FERC 

might be in a position to deny the permit. 

Both the 2005 inventory and the validation of this inventory in 2014 recognized the creek 

had historic values, based on historic mining and development, but they were not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. The 2014 validation of the 2005 inventory identified an additional 

potential river related value of recreational. The recreation value is a high use corridor 

with multiple recreation activities. These corridors are common and located across the 

forest, found along river corridors and adjacent to lakes. The IPNF 2014 validation 

recognized the creek had historic and recreation values, however; these values are not 

rare, unique, or exemplary features that are significant at the Forest scale therefore, they 

are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values. Therefore, this creek is not 

eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Colburn and Hoffman found this creek to have recreation, scenery, fisheries, and wildlife 

values. The scenery value of an old roadbed, impressive views, waterfalls, and tumbling 

rapids can all be found in other drainages on the forest and are not unique to this stream. 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 5
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

This commenter found whitewater paddling to be the recreation value for this creek. 

Although whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. 

This experience can be found on many other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, 

Pack River, Cow Creek, Moyie River, Priest River to name a few. The commenter also 

found critical bull trout habitat to be a fisheries value for this creek. This habitat is not 

unique to this stream. There are at least 42 rivers, streams or stream segments on the 

forest that provide designated critical habitat for bull trout. Examples of these streams are 

Trestle Creek, Lightning Creek, Pack River, Priest River, Independence Creek, Spruce 

Creek, and Marble Creek to name a few. Wildlife was also named as a river related value 

because of the rare wildlife species including grizzly bears and lynx. These species are 

not unique to this stream and can be found throughout the forest. These species do not 

owe their existence to the presence of the stream (FSH 1909.12 - 82.14(3)).

Page 30: Smith Creek: 

Replace FEIS text with:

Smith Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation and 

wildlife values. 

The 2005 inventory did not identify any potential values. The 2014 validation of the 2005 

inventory identified a potential river related value for recreation: The recreation value is a 

high use corridor with multiple recreational uses. These corridors are common and 

located across the forest. The IPNF 2014 validation determined the recreation value is not 

a rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is 

not considered to be an outstandingly remarkable value. Therefore, this creek is not 

eligible as a wild and scenic river. 

Colburn and Hoffman found this creek to have recreation and wildlife values. They found 

whitewater paddling to be the recreation value for this creek. Although whitewater 

paddling occurs on this creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. This experience can 

be found on many other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, Pack River, Moyie 

River, Cow Creek, and Priest River to name a few. The commenter also identified the 

wildlife value as Smith Creek providing habitat for threatened and endangered grizzly 

bear and woodland caribou, as well as lynx, and wolverine. These species habitats are not

unique to Smith Creek and can be found throughout the forest. These species does not 

owe their existence to the presence of the stream (FSH 1909.12 - 82.14(3)). 

Page 30: Cow Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Cow Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, scenery, 

and wildlife values. 

The 2005 inventory did not identify any potential values. The 2014 validation of the 2005 

inventory identified a potential river related value for botany. Cow Creek contains a peat 

land associated community. This is a particularly good example of a rare plant 

community on the forest; however other rare plant communities exist in other similar 

habitats on the forest. The IPNF 2014 validation determined the botany value is not a 

rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not 

considered to be an outstandingly remarkable. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a 

wild and scenic river.

6 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Colburn and Hoffman found this creek to have recreation, scenery, and wildlife values. 

The scenery value was identified as several small waterfalls that are extremely scenic and 

are featured in waterfall books and postcards from the region. The waterfalls in Cow 

creek are not rare, unique, or exemplary and can be found in other areas of the forest. 

This commenter found whitewater paddling to be the recreation value for this creek. 

Although whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. 

This experience can be found on many other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, 

Pack River, Moyie River, and Priest River to name a few. The commenter identified the 

wildlife value as Cow Creek providing habitat for threatened and endangered grizzly bear 

and mountain caribou. This habitat is not unique to this stream and can be found 

throughout the forest. These species do not owe their existence to the presence of the 

stream (FSH 1909.12 - 82.14(3)).

Page 30: Lightening Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Lightning Creek: Several commenters requested this creek be included but did not list 

specific values. One commenter stated the creek was the third largest tributary of Lake 

Pend Oreille, and includes old growth cedar stands, bull trout habitat, and premier 

recreational opportunities. The 2014 validation of the 2005 inventory found recreation to 

be a potential river related value and found the geology value identified in 2005 to no 

longer be a potential value. The recreation value is a high use corridor with multiple 

recreation activities. These corridors are common and located across the forest, found 

along river corridors and adjacent to lakes. The geology value of a dynamic, glacially 

influenced stream system can be found across the forest. Extensive watershed disturbance 

within this creek is natural for these high energy active systems. The IPNF found the 

creek had a recreation value but it is not a rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be an outstandingly 

remarkable value. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Page 30: Big Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Big Creek: Several commenters requested this creek be included but did not list specific 

values. One commenter stated the river provides habitat for bull trout, westslope cutthroat 

trout, and a variety of recreational pursuits. The 2005 inventory did not identify any

potential values during the initial analysis. The 2014 validation of this inventory 

identified recreation as a potential river related value. The recreation value is a high use 

corridor with multiple recreation activities. These corridors are common and located 

across the forest, found along river corridors and adjacent to lakes. The IPNF found the 

creek had a recreation value but it is not a rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be an outstandingly 

remarkable value. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Page 31: Slate Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Slate Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation and 

scenery values. The 2005 inventory did not identify any potential values during the initial 

analysis. The 2014 validation of this inventory identified scenery and recreation as a 

potential river related values The scenery value can be found along Slate Creek which is 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 7
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

typified by forested slopes and a clear-flowing stream pristine in character. There are 

clear "blue" water pools and rapids. While highly desirable and scenic, these features are 

replicated in other drainages on the St. Joe RD e.g. North Fork of the St. Joe River. The 

recreation value consists of Slate Creek being bounded by a very popular high clearance 

road (Road 225 for the lower 15 miles of this stream. The upper 3 miles are bounded by a 

motorized single track trail (Slate Creek Trail 160) which then accesses the Slate Creek 

Trail system (over 50 miles of single track and ATV). Though it provides a high value 

motorized recreation experience, there are other high clearance (slow going) roads with 

spectacular scenery e.g. Road 220 to Getaway Point and many other motorized trails (e.g. 

Big Creek Trail 44, Bronson Meadows Trail 155, Fly Creek Trail 629) on the District 

bordering rivers that are pristine in character. With regard to signs of human settlement 

and management, there are some remnants of historic cabins, mines and an active private 

mining claim within the first 15 miles of Slate Creek. In early spring there are some 

skilled people that kayak this stream. While scenic and popular, these recreational 

experiences are not unique to the forest. The IPNF found the creek had scenic and 

recreation values but they are not rare, unique or exemplary features that are significant at 

the Forest scale therefore; they are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values. 

Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river

Colburn and Hoffman found this creek to have recreation and scenery values. The 

commenter found the scenery value to consist of the old road-bed above the canyon on 

river-right, as well as the river itself offer views of the impressive gorge, beautiful 

waterfalls and tumbling rapids. These scenic qualities are not unique to this stream and 

can be found in other streams across the forest. This commenter found whitewater 

paddling to be the recreation value for this creek. Although whitewater paddling occurs 

on this creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. This experience can be found on 

many other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, and Cow Creek, to name a few.

Page 31: Marble Creek

Replace FEIS text with:

Marble Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, 

scenery, and wildlife values.

Marble Creek was identified as free flowing with ORVs during the initial inventory and 

the eligibility determination in 2005. This river was included as eligible for WSR in the 

Proposed Plan that was released in 2006. Prior to development of the DEIS for the 

revised plan, the Forest reviewed the eligible rivers. It was determined that the splash 

dams along this creek have altered the natural appearance of the waterway, causing it to 

be ineligible (not free flowing). Page 31 of the FEIS described the splash dams as 

creating “artificial cataracts and blockages that continue to alter the creek’s natural path 

and flow. Because the flow continues to be altered, the basic screening criterion of ‘freeflowing’ is not being met; therefore, this creek was not considered as an eligible river for 

wild and scenic designation.” This reversed the call made on the initial inventory in 2005. 

The 2005 review also identified scenery, recreation, and history as potential ORVs but did 

not provide rationale to explain if these potential values were rare, unique, and exemplary 

at the comparative Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to 

warrant a rating of eligible.

In 2014, an interdisciplinary team reviewed and validated the 2005 inventory of potential 

ORVs. They added wildlife to the list of potential river related values and determined the 

8 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

2005 review mistakenly found the splash dams on Marble Creek to affect its free-flowing 

status. 

This review also determined that if the splash dams were not in place, making it freeflowing, the creek’s identified 2005 potential ORVs of scenery, recreation, and history 

was still lacking the criteria to be “rare, unique, and exemplary” at the comparative Forest 

scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to warrant a rating of eligible. 

However the rationale to explain this was lacking. The following describes the results of 

the 2014 validation process for these values:

• Scenery: The potential identified value for scenery has been changed from yes to 

no because the scenery in Marble Creek is not considered rare, unique, and 

exemplary at the Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable 

value. This scenery is very common across the forest, especially across the south 

zone.

• Recreation: The potential recreation value is a high use corridor with multiple 

recreation uses. These high use river corridors are common and located across the 

forest. Several trails go to historic logging sites that feature steam donkeys, 

trestles and other historic logging sites. The type of logging activity found within 

this drainage has occurred in other areas on the forest and is not rare, unique, or 

exemplary. The trails that access the historic sites are not river dependent. These 

potential recreation values are not considered rare, unique, and exemplary at the 

Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value.

• History: The potential history value is comprised of many historic logging sites 

that feature steam donkeys, trestles and several railroad logging features located 

within the drainage but are not within Marble Creek or its immediate shorelands 

(within 1⁄4 mile on either side of the river) FSH 1901.12 82.14 1.

The 2014 review added the potential value of wildlife for Marble Creek. Both harlequin 

duck breeding sites and the Coeur d’Alene salamander habitat have been identified since 

the original 2005 assessment. Both habitat and breeding sites for these species have been 

identified elsewhere on the forest. This wildlife value was not considered rare, unique, 

and exemplary at the Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to 

warrant a rating of eligible.

In the summer of 2014 the splash dams in Marble Creek were removed under the Marble 

Creek Splash Dams Fish Migration Enhancement Project. This project essentially 

restored Marble Creek to its free-flowing natural condition in order to provide fish 

migration and habitat improvement. A report documenting the removal of the splash 

dams is located in the project record.

Page 31: First full paragraph after Marble Creek description: 

Replace text with the following: 

The number of additional creeks and rivers suggested for designation as eligible wild and scenic 

rivers supports the fact these are not rare, unique, or exemplary features. The IPNF has many 

creeks and rivers that support many of these values. The additional streams and rivers do not have 

values that are not rare, unique, or exemplary when considered on a forest or a regional basis.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 9

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Page 48: Vegetation; Legal and Administrative Framework

Replace the Federal Noxious Weeds Act of 1974 with the following:

• The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq) as amended by the Noxious 

Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-412): the Plant Protection Act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, 

exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological 

control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into 

the United States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United 

States. The Act defines the term “Noxious Weed”.

Page 48: Vegetation; Legal and Administrative Framework; Regulation and 

Policy:

Replace the first bullet (FSM 2080) with the following:

FSM 2900: Sets forth National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for 

the prevention, detection, control, and restoration of effects from aquatic and terrestrial 

invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and pathogens).

Page 71: Forest Vegetation Condition; Broadleaved Species

Second sentence should read: 

These species typically occur in relatively small stands, and are often located in riparian 

areas or on moist upland sites.

Page 135: Non-native Invasive Plants; Legal and Administrative Framework

Following the Law and Executive Orders section add the following heading and text: 

Other Policy and Guidance

Forest Service Manual 2900 Invasive Species Management: Sets forth National Forest 

System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, control, and 

restoration of effects from aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, 

invertebrates, plants, and pathogens).

Page 136: Non-native Invasive Plants; Affected Environment (Existing 

Conditions

Replace the affected environment section before table 22 with the following text:

The term “Noxious Weed” is defined for the Federal Government in the Plant Protection 

Act of 2000 and in some individual State statutes. For purposes of this report, the term 

has the same meaning as found in the Plant Protection Act of 2000 as follows: The term 

“noxious weed” means any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or 

cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or 

other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United 

States, the public health, or the environment. The term typically describes species of 

plants that have been determined to be undesirable or injurious in some capacity. Federal 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 11
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

noxious weeds are regulated by USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, which superseded the Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1974. State statues for noxious weeds vary widely, with some States lacking any laws 

defining or regulating noxious weeds. Depending on the individual State law, some plants 

listed by a State statute as “noxious” may be native plants which that State has 

determined to be undesirable. When the species are native, they are not considered 

invasive species by the Federal Government. However, in most cases, State noxious weed 

lists include only exotic (non-native) species.

Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose 

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health.” The Forest Service relies on Executive Order 13112 to provide the basis for 

labeling certain organisms as invasive. Based on this definition, the labeling of a species 

as “invasive” requires closely examining both the origin and effects of the species. The 

key is that the species must cause, or be likely to cause, harm, and be exotic to the 

ecosystem it has infested before we can consider labeling it as “invasive”. Thus, native 

pests are not considered “invasive”, even though they may cause harm. Invasive species 

infest both aquatic and terrestrial areas and can be identified within any of the following 

four taxonomic categories: Plants, Vertebrates, Invertebrates, and Pathogens. Additional 

information on this definition can be found in Executive Order 13112.

Most introduced species never became pests as they could not thrive without special care, 

or they did not compete well with native vegetation and therefore they remained confined 

to gardens or agricultural fields. Some even became valuable crop or landscaping plants. 

However, in the absence of competitors and natural enemies with which they evolved, a 

few exotic species spread and dominated to the detriment of native vegetation. For 

example, knapweed came into the United States from Eurasia in clover and alfalfa seed. 

Oxeye daisy was spread around the northwest in forage grass and legume seed after its 

introduction in the late 1800s. Intentional introductions have brought invasive plants into 

the area as well. Common St. John's-wort seed was brought with English and German 

settlers as seed for gardens. Dalmatian toadflax came from Europe as an ornamental, as 

did orange hawkweed and absinth wormwood. 

Invasive plants that are classified as invaders pose the greatest threat as these plants are 

capable of becoming established in undisturbed or relatively undisturbed areas and have 

the ability to spread quickly over large areas. Spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, 

yellow star thistle, leafy spurge, and dyer’s woad are examples of invaders. These 

infestations can substantially change the biological diversity of areas by influencing the 

amount and distribution of native plants and animals, and they can negatively affect 

recreational experiences, forest regeneration, wildlife and livestock forage, soil 

productivity, fire regimes and riparian and hydrologic function.

Various recreational and management activities that occur on the KNF have the potential 

to disperse invasive plants or increase the likelihood that they will become established at 

a given site. This increase in dispersal and establishment is above what would happen 

naturally as a result of seed transport by wind, water, or wildlife.

In Idaho, state laws and county ordinances require that all landowners be responsible for 

control of noxious weeds on their lands. The IPNF has several district-wide, weed 

management environmental assessments, and plans that provide an adaptive strategy to 

treat both existing and new invasive plant infestations. In addition, currently the IPNF is 

12 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

in the process of updating those district-wide plans by developing a new, forest-wide 

plan. 

The IPNF is also a partner with county, state and other federal agencies in two 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas, which promote the integrated management and 

education on noxious weeds across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Current control efforts are aimed at eradicating new invaders and containing existing 

infestations. Every known site occupied by a new invader species is treated and 

monitored. Logging equipment is cleaned before entering a sale area to reduce the 

potential for the introduction of weed species not yet present in a sale area. Tactics used 

to attempt to contain large infestations include spraying roadsides, seeding major 

disturbances caused by road and skidtrail building and landing piles and treating gravel 

pits. Biocontrols have been released for spotted knapweed, dalmatian toadflax, St. John's 

wort, tansy ragwort, and Canada thistle. Infestations in some sites have been reduced by 

these measures. However, in spite of these control efforts, existing infestations continue 

to invade disturbed areas and intact plant communities.

On the IPNF, it is fairly common to see invasive plants along many roadsides, railroad and power 

line rights-of-way, and other disturbed areas such as gravel pits. In some instances, plants such as 

spotted knapweed, tansy ragwort, rush skeleton weed, and other species have migrated away from 

the road right-of-way onto undisturbed hillsides, especially within the drier vegetation types. 

Invasive plants are also becoming established in harvest units where the seeds have been brought 

by machinery and other vectors such as wildlife, cattle, railcars, and/or wind. Table 1 lists the 

invasive plants that are known to occur on the IPNF, as well as potential invaders. There are 

numerous differences across the IPNF with regard to the location of these plants, and the potential 

for additional invaders to become established. Table 1 summarizes the information for each of the 

three administrative zones on the Forest. Plants in the table that are indicated as potential invaders 

(noted as PI in the table), are those that have not been located yet on the Forest but they are 

assumed to be potential invaders. The management goal for those potential invaders is to prevent 

them from becoming established, and if found, eradicate them promptly. For the new invaders 

that are identified in the table (they have a symbol of NI), there is a goal of eradicating any small 

infestations, and reducing the larger ones. Lastly, for those plants that are recognized as 

widespread invasive plants, the goal is to contain them inside areas that are already infested, and 

reduce the plant populations.

Page 141: Non-native Invasive Plants; Environmental Consequences; 

Management Direction for Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Replace the text with the following:

Relative to Alternative A, all of these action alternatives contain more management 

direction related to invasive plants. For example, these alternatives contain forestwide 

desired condition statements (FW-DC-VEG-10) and objectives (FW-OBJ-VEG-02) that 

stress the need to treat new invaders and utilize best management practices that limit the 

introduction and spread from management activities. The integrated pest management 

approaches and best management practices that are being used in the Region are 

described in FSM 2900. When the Region One supplement to the FSM 2900 direction is 

finalized, it will contain more specific direction to the Forest than what is included in the 

national direction in FSM 2900. In addition to the forestwide direction noted above, these 

alternatives also contain additional direction for some specific MAs. All of the action 

alternatives contain numerous Forest Plan components (e.g., FW-DC-WTR-01, FW-DCErrata to the 2013 Final EIS 13
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

SOIL-01,02,03, FW-DC-RIP-04, 06, FW-DC-AQH-01, FW-OBJ-SOIL-01, FW-STDRIP-03, 04, FW-DGL-RIP-03, 05, FW-GDL-ASQ-02) that would serve to protect 

watershed, soil, riparian and aquatic conditions in ways that would reduce management 

caused disturbances in these areas that could otherwise increase invasive plant spread or 

introduction. Lastly, the monitoring program that is part of each of these alternatives 

includes monitoring items associated with invasive plant species and effectiveness of 

treatments (see Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan). 

Page 141–144: Non-native Invasive Plants; Environmental Consequences; 

Consequences to Non-native Invasive Plants from Forest Plan Components 

Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Replace all references to FSM 2081 with the updated FSM 2900.

Page 192: Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat; Affected Environment

Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under the Macroinvertebrate 

Assemblage (Management Indicator Species (MIS)) heading: 

However, macroinvertebrates are not indicators of fish populations or distribution.

Page 214–215 and 290–294: Terrestrial Wildlife

On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew its proposal to list the wolverine under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) so the wolverine returns to the Northern Region’s Sensitive 

Species list. Refer to the updated specialist report in the planning record the wolverine effects 

determination.

Page 414: Legal and Administrative Framework; Law and Executive Orders

The citation in the last paragraph of this section (just before the Key indicator section) should cite 

US EPA 1998.

Page 427: Access and Recreation; Affected Environment; Trail Management 

Objectives

Replace the sentence describing table 106 with the following text:

Table 106 displays the miles of trails on the IPNF managed for various uses, and miles of 

trail open to those uses. The difference between managed and open miles is that the term 

‘managed’ indicates a management decision or intent to accommodate and/or encourage a 

specific trail use. For example, the 35 miles of trail managed for cross-country skiing are 

the trails that are groomed for cross-country skiing, while all trails are open (not 

restricted) to cross-country skiing. Miles of trail where use is described as ‘open’ is used 

in the environmental effects section. Miles of managed trail is dependent on budget 

constraints, maintenance schedules and partnerships, and may change from year to year.

All trails (whether designated for motor vehicle use or not) on the IPNF allow nonmotorized use, such as hiking. The actual ability to use trails by non-motorized means 

may be limited due to trail design, vegetation, or maintenance.

Replace table 106 with the following table: 

14 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Table 1. Miles of Managed and Allowed Trail Use on the IPNF

Type of Use Use Miles Activity 

Managed 1

Miles Activity 

Unrestricted

Non-motorized Hiker/Pedestrian 1,456 2,726

Pack and Saddle 1,082 2,709

Cross-Country Ski 35 2,726

Snowshoe 12 2,726

Mechanized Bicycle/game cart 82 2,726

Motorized Motor Vehicle/Motor Bike 720 1,1392

Motor Vehicle/OHV <50 inches 802 8352

Over-snow 3 1,407 1,407

1 Mileages reflect recent updates in trail management 2 Motor vehicle use designations 3 Over-snow routes

Page 443: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Motor Vehicle 

Use (excluding over-snow vehicles) Areas

Replace the text with the following:

When considering the number of acres where motor vehicle recreation opportunities 

exist, it is important to note that this refers only to those acres in MAs where roads or 

trails may be constructed and/or designated for such use. Current restrictions as shown on 

the MVUMs remain in effect. Management areas where motor vehicle use may be 

allowed are MA1c (Wilderness Study Areas), MA2a (Wild and Scenic Rivers -

Recreational), MA2b (Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers – Recreational), MA3 (Special 

Areas -Recreational), MA4b (Experimental Forests), MA5 (Backcountry), MA6 (General 

Forest), and MA7 (Primary Recreation Areas). In comparison, Alternatives B Modified 

and D have about 139,000 additional acres where motor vehicle use on roads and trails 

may be allowed. This is because there are fewer acres of recommended wilderness in 

Alternatives B Modified and D than in Alternative C. As shown in Table 119 (FEIS p. 

444), Alternative B Modified will result in fewer acres where motor vehicle use on roads 

and trails may be allowed than currently available. Under all alternatives, no changes will 

be made to current motor vehicle access without site-specific project analysis and NEPA.

Page 443–444: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management: Over-Snow 

Vehicle Use

Replace the text with the following:

Current forest orders prohibit over snow-vehicle use yearlong on approximately 449,246 

acres, which includes designated wilderness, some recommended wilderness, recreation, 

and other area closures for big game winter range. The total includes acres closed as a 

result of a 2006 court order to protect mountain caribou.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 15
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D over-snow motor vehicle use is not suitable in 

recommended wilderness and RNAs. The ROD for the forest plan will also include the 

site-specific decision prohibiting this use, authorizing a legal order per 36 CFR 212.81, 

and 36 CFR 261.14. Areas on the Forest that are currently closed to over-snow vehicle 

use (big game security and winter range) will also remain closed under all alternatives 

(see table 107 above).

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, there will be a direct effect to the number of 

acres available for over-snow vehicle use based on the amount of recommended 

wilderness (MA1b) and RNAs (MA4) proposed in each. Approximately 85,800 

additional acres will be closed under Alternative B Modified, 221,639 acres under 

Alternative C, and 81,611 acres under Alternative D.

As shown in table 119 Alternative C will result in the least number of acres available for 

over-snow vehicle use. Alternatives B Modified and D would result in approximately the 

same number of acres available for this use. These comparisons are based on MA 

standards and guidelines and current closed areas that would remain in affect regardless 

of alternative selected. Actual areas open or closed to over-snow vehicle use may vary 

due to closures necessary for protection of various wildlife species. These restrictions are 

often independent of MA designations.

In addition, Alternative B Modified, C, and D have desired conditions and guidelines for 

certain MAs for year-round non-motorized use. MA2a (Wild and Scenic Rivers – Wild), 

MA2b (Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers – Wild), and MA3 (Special Areas – Botanical, 

Geological, Scenic and Pioneer) have desired conditions for year-round non-motorized 

use. Regardless of alternative chosen, the ROD issued for the revised Forest Plan will not 

close these areas to over-snow use except where they overlap with recommended 

wilderness. Decisions under site-specific winter travel management planning will be 

required to close these additional areas to over-snow use.

There are no proposed site-specific changes to where over-snow vehicles may use IPNF 

roads for winter recreation under any alternative of the revised Forest Plan. Therefore, the 

number of miles of roads available for over-snow vehicle use will be the same for all 

alternatives.

Page 444: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Mechanized Use

Replace the paragraph with the mechanized use heading as follows:

Mechanized Use: Under the 1987 Plan mechanized use is allowed everywhere on the 

IPNF except for designated wilderness (Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area) and some of the 

special areas where pedestrian use is high (i.e., some of the cedar groves classified as 

botanical special areas). Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, mechanized use will 

be prohibited in recommended wilderness (MA1b) resulting in a direct effect on the 

number of acres where mechanized use is allowed. Any area that currently has no 

prohibition to mechanized use, and is proposed as recommended wilderness, will have a 

legal order prohibiting mechanized use (as per 36 CFR 261) issued in conjunction with 

the ROD for the final revised Plan. There is a direct effect to the number of acres of trails 

available for motorized, mechanized and hand held motorized use based on the amount of 

MA1b (Recommended Wilderness) and MA4a (RNAs). As shown in table 119, 

Alternative C will provide the least number of acres available for mechanized use due to 

the acreage of recommended wilderness (MA1b). Alternatives B Modified and D would 

provide approximately the same opportunities for mechanized use.

16 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Add the following text and table after table 119:

Allowed uses on trails will vary by alternative, based on MA allocation. For all action 

alternatives, mechanized use will not be allowed within recommended wilderness 

(MA1b) or research natural areas (MA4). Trails within MA1b and MA4 will have a legal 

closure issued in conjunction with the final ROD closing the routes to mechanical use 

where it is currently permitted.

Table 119-2 displays the miles of trail by type of use by alternative. Alternative B 

Modified, with more MA1b recommended wilderness than Alternative A, will close 212 

miles of trail to mechanized uses, including mountain biking. Some of these trails are 

currently used by mountain bikers (e.g., Long Canyon Trail #16 in the Selkirk 

recommended wilderness area), and riding opportunities will be lost. Alternative C, with 

more MA1b recommended wilderness than Alternative B Modified, will close 370 miles 

of trail to mechanized uses including mountain biking. Alternative D, the alternative that 

recommends the least wilderness, will prohibit mechanized use and mountain biking on 

136 trail miles.

The IPNF does not have any designated over-snow motor vehicle use trails in 

recommended wilderness under any alternative; however the amount of area (acres) 

across the Forest available for over-snow motorized recreation will vary as described in 

table 119.

Table 119-2. Summary Miles of Trail by Type of Use by Alternative

Type of Use Use

Miles of Trail by Allowed Use on IPNF

Alt. A Alt. B 

Modified

Alt. C Alt. D

Non-motorized Hiker/Pedestrian 2726 2726 2726 2726

Pack and Saddle 2709 2709 2709 2709

Cross-Country Ski 2726 2726 2726 2726

Mechanized Bicycle/Game Cart 2726 2514 2356 2590

Motorized

Motor Vehicle (Motorcycle/ORV) 1139 1129 1040 1132

Over-snow 835 835 835 835

Page 445: Environmental Consequences; Travel Management; Hand-held 

Motorized Equipment

Replace table 120 with the following:

Table 2. Acres by Alternative Where Hand-held Motorized Equipment would be Prohibited

Alt A Alt B 

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Acres where Hand-held Motorized Use is Prohibited1 9,900 181,800 328,400 149,900

1 The use of hand-held equipment for administrative purposes is excluded

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 17
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Page 491–492: Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended 

Wilderness; Consequences to Wilderness from Forest Plan Components 

Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics; Effects from 

Management Area Allocations

Replace the first three paragraphs with the following text:

When considering the number of acres where motor vehicle use would be allowed, it must be 

remembered that this refers only to those acres in MAs where roads or trails may exist and be 

designated for such use. All four alternatives recommend wilderness and this MA designation 

would preclude the designation of trails for motor vehicle use. Table 129 displays the 

recommended wilderness acres by alternative where motorized vehicle use would not be allowed. 

In addition to recommended wilderness, the primitive lands MA (MA1e) in Alternative B 

Modified would prohibit designation of motor vehicle use, with the exception of over-snow 

vehicle use. The addition of MA1e in Alternative B Modified would increase the acreage where 

motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicle use) is prohibited to 181,200 acres. Motor 

vehicle use is prohibited in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Single track 

motor vehicle use is allowed within the Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four. Allowed uses 

within the wilderness area and the WSA do not vary by alternative.

There is an effect to the number of acres available for over-snow vehicle use based on the amount 

of recommended wilderness (MA1b) in the various alternatives. Table 129 indicates the acreage 

of recommended wilderness in each alternative. Alternative C would prohibit over-snow vehicle 

use on the most acreage while Alternative D would limit this use on the least number of acres. 

Alternative B Modified includes MA1e which would allow over-snow vehicle use. There would 

be no prohibition to this use in MA1e. Any area that currently has no prohibition to over-snow 

vehicle use, and is allocated to MA1b (recommended wilderness), will have a legal order 

prohibiting this use (as per 36 CFR 212.81, and 36 CFR 261.14) issued in conjunction with the 

ROD for the revised Forest Plan. Over-snow vehicle use is prohibited in the Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Over-snow vehicle use is allowed within the 

Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four alternatives. Allowed uses within the wilderness area and 

the WSA do not vary by alternative.

There is an effect to the number of acres available for mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) 

based on the amount of recommended wilderness (MA1b) in the various alternatives. Alternative 

C would prohibit mechanized use on the most acreage while Alternative D would limit this use on 

the least number of acres. Alternative B Modified includes MA1e which would allow mechanized 

use. Any area that currently has no prohibition to mechanized use, and is allocated to MA1b 

(recommended wilderness), will have a legal order prohibiting mechanized use (as per 36 CFR 

261.55[b]) issued in conjunction with the ROD for the revised Forest Plan. Mechanized use is 

prohibited in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Mechanized use is allowed 

within the Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four alternatives. Allowed uses within the 

wilderness area and the WSA do not vary by alternative.

Page 493: Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended 

Wilderness; Consequences to Wilderness from Forest Plan Components 

Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics; Effects from 

Access and Recreation Management

Replace the first two paragraphs with the following text: 

Wilderness itself is equally treated under all four alternatives. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness and 

Grandmother Mountain WSA may be affected by management of adjacent lands, particularly with 

18 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

non-motorized allocations including recommended wilderness in all alternatives. These 

alternatives would add to the size of protected areas and discourage illegal motorized use that 

may be entering designated wilderness. Alternative C recommends more wilderness than the 

other three alternatives so it maintains more acres of wilderness character. Alternative D 

recommends the least wilderness so it maintains the least amount of acres of wilderness character. 

The other two alternatives fall between C and D in this regard.

Recreation and travel management restrictions within the Grandmother Mountain WSA do not 

change by alternative.

Page 498: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Methodology and Analysis Process; 

Eligibility

In the first paragraph under the bulleted statements add the following emphasis:

Using the Forest as the comparative scale, the IPNF then reviewed the identified 

potential ‘outstandingly remarkable values’ and determined whether they meet the 

criteria of being rare, unique, or exemplary. After reviewing the initial assessments a 

determination was made as to whether the potential outstandingly remarkable value(s) is 

a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is significant at the selected comparative scale 

and meets the other criteria for being directly river-related (as described above) to be 

considered eligible for wild and scenic river study.

Page 499: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Designated Rivers; Affected Environment

Replace the first paragraph (before table 134) with the following:

Congress designated the St. Joe wild and scenic river on November 10th, 1978 (P.L. 95-625 

Section 708) as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority granted by the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended. The St. Joe River is designated as a classified 

wild river from Spruce Tree campground upriver to St. Joe Lake near the Montana State line. It is 

designated as a classified recreational river from Spruce Tree campground downstream to Avery. 

After this designation the forest developed the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Development Plan. 

This plan provides Congress with detailed management information for the administration of the 

upper St. Joe River. It serves as a planning framework within which the Forest Service will 

administer the river and its resources, and provides management information to interested parties. 

This plan has been posted to the IPNF Forest Planning webpage under General Planning 

Documents.

The St. Joe River totals 8,229 acres for the wild portion and 13,061 for the recreational portion of 

the river (based on GIS acreage). Proclaimed (land status) acres equal 8,198 designated wild river 

and 12,665 designated recreational river Table 134 displays information on the designated St. Joe 

Wild and Scenic River.

Page 501: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Methodology and Analysis Process; 

Eligibility

Replace table 135 with the following:

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 19
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Table 3. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the IPNF (1987 Forest Plan & Amendment)

River/

Segment(s)

Map 

Code

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classification

Acres 

(on 

NFS 

lands)

Upper Priest River

Segment 1 UP1 Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife, 

Fisheries, 

Geology, Botany

19.8 19.8 Wild 5,096

Little North Fork Clearwater River

Segment 1 LNFC1 Recreation, 

Fisheries, 

Wildlife

Scenery

11.3 7.9 Recreational 2,443

Segment 2 LNFC2 26.1 18.3 Wild 5,852

Segment 3 LNFC3 3.4 0.4 Recreational 39

Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 CDA1 Recreation 

Historic

Wildlife

Fish 

7.6 0.0 Recreational 0

Segment 2 CDA2 30.2 0.3 Recreational 395

Little North Fork Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 LNFCDA

1

Fisheries 38.2 37.8 Recreational 11,338

North Fork Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 NFCDA1 Scenery, 

Fisheries

Geology

Wildlife

Botany

Other

9.2 9.2 Recreational 2,904

Segment 2 NFCDA2 15.6 15.6 Wild 4,454

Segment 3 NFCDA3 52.2 35.0 Recreational 11,268

Pack River

Segment 1 P1 Fisheries 15.3 13.7 Recreational 4,262

Long Canyon Creek

Segment 1 LC1 Wildlife

Geology

Other

15.2 14.1 Wild 4,488

Total* 244.10* 172.1* 52,539*

* Lengths and acres are a result of using current GIS methodologies.

Page 502: Wild and Scenic Rivers; Environmental Consequences; Alternative B 

Modified, C, and D

Replace table 136 with the following: 

20 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Table 4. IPNF Rivers Identified as Eligible during Plan Revision Analysis

River/Segment(S) Map 

Code

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classificatio

n

Acres 

(on NFS 

lands)

Hughes Fork

Segment 1 H1 Scenery, 

Recreation, 

Wildlife, History, 

Botany

4.8 4.8 Wild 1,562

Segment 2 H2 9.9 9.9 Recreational 2,410

Kootenai

Segment 1 K6 Scenery Fisheries

Recreation

History

6.6 6.5 Recreational 1,213

Total* 21.2 21.2 5,185

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 21

Chapter 6—Glossary

Page 651: Hydrological stability

Add the following term and definition:

Hydrological stability Condition where the potential for road failure and sedimentation 

is expected to be reduced.

Page 651: Invasive species

Replace the invasive species definition with the following: reference to the noxious weeds 

definition with the following: 

Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien 

species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health.” The Forest 

Service relies on Executive Order 13112 to provide the basis for 

labeling certain organisms as invasive. Based on this definition, 

the labeling of a species as “invasive” requires closely 

examining both the origin and effects of the species. The key is 

that the species must cause, or be likely to cause, harm and be 

exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before we can consider 

labeling it as “invasive”. Thus, native pests are not considered 

“invasive”, even though they may cause harm. Invasive species 

infest both aquatic and terrestrial areas and can be identified 

within any of the following four taxonomic categories: Plants, 

Vertebrates, Invertebrates, and Pathogens.

Page 652: Invasive Weeds

Remove the invasive weeds definition.

Page 655: Noxious weeds

Replace the noxious weeds definition with:

Noxious weeds Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or 

cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant 

products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, 

the public health, or the environment. The term typically 

describes species of plants that have been determined to be 

undesirable or injurious in some capacity. Federal noxious weeds 

are regulated by USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, which 

superseded the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. State statues 

for noxious weeds vary widely, with some States lacking any 

laws defining or regulating noxious weeds. Depending on the 

individual State law, some plants listed by a State statute as 

“noxious” may be native plants which that State has determined 

to be undesirable. When the species are native, they are not 

considered invasive species by the Federal Government. 

However, in most cases, State noxious weed lists include only 

exotic (non-native) species.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 23

Appendix C—Wilderness Evaluation

Page 159: Inventoried Roadless Areas; Mallard Larkins – (No. 01-300)

Add the following text to the end of the description section (before table 120):

Mining and mineral exploration have had some impact on the area's natural integrity. The 

most significant development is the garnet mine at Scat Creek Flat on the St. Joe River. 

Rusted mining equipment, a dredge pond, and old cabins were part of this development; 

however, today they can barely been seen. Hydraulic mining scars are found in the 

Mallard-Larkins area at California Creek, Yankee Bar Creek, and the North Fork of Bean 

Creek. A small, old sawmill with some associated logging was located near Bean Creek. 

Mill operations were incidental to the mining activities early in the century. Almost all 

the evidence of the mill's existence is gone.

A claim in Marquette Creek was worked a number of years ago, with very little evidence 

remaining now. The open pit hardrock mining on Indian Henry Ridge is still evident 

although it covers only a small area.

Qualifying for Potential Wilderness

There is very little evidence remaining of past mining activities within the Mallard 

Larkins recommended wilderness. The existence of past mining does not change the 

inherent wilderness quality of the Mallard Larkins nor does it change the suitability for 

potential wilderness. The FEIS evaluation of capability, availability, and need results 

remains unchanged after considering this past mining activity. The mining descriptions 

above meets the criteria outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 71.11 (4).

Page 160: Mallard Larkins - (No. 01-300); Description

Replace table 120 with the following: 

Table 5. Mallard Larkins Rating Summary for Recommended Wilderness

Roadless 

Area

Summary Rating1 Recommend 

in Action 

Alts

Rationale

Capability Availability Need

Mallard 

Larkins 

(01-300)

High High High

B Mod=73,103 

C= 75,528 

D= 50,087

All three action alternatives 

recommend a portion of this 

roadless area as recommended 

wilderness (MA 1b). 

Alternative C would include 

acreage that would be 

inconsistent with the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

1

Please refer to detailed ratings and summaries in this appendix for each roadless area

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 25

Appendix D—Aquatics: Analyses and 

Methodology

Page 204: Watsed Analysis

Add the following text after the first two paragraphs:

It is important to note that the WATSED model was not used for the analysis of the 

watershed condition; however, the coefficients from the WATSED model were used, in 

part, to determine ECA values.

Page 208: Salmonid Assessment

Heading should read: Salmonid Assessment (V7.0—January 2013)

Page 209: Conservation/Restoration Watersheds; Salmonid Multi-scale 

Assessment

Replace the first two sentences with the following text:

The Region 1 Salmonid Multi-Scale Assessment was used to evaluate the status of 

salmonids within the planning area. Risks and threats to native fish species of interest 

were identified for each subwatershed and tracked in a spreadsheet (V7.0).

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 27

Appendix E—Wild, Scenic, and Recreational 

Rivers

This replaces, in its entirety Appendix E of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Idaho Panhandle National found on pages 215–246. During and following the objection 

resolution period, the IPNF reviewed all steps involved in determining rivers eligible as wild, 

scenic, or recreational rivers (WSR). The inventory of rivers completed in 2005 was reviewed and 

validated. This review resulted in changes to potential river related values in the inventoried 

rivers but did not result in changes to the determination of eligible rivers.

The process used in evaluating the values of rivers or streams in “Step 5” of the Wild and Scenic 

River eligibility assessment has been corrected and updated in this appendix, specialist reports,

and the project record. The changes include clarification of process, and documentation of 

potential values. Differences between the 2005 inventory and current inventory are noted in Table 

196-A, Summary of Changes and Corrections in ORVs, are found under Step 5 of the inventory.

Introduction

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 to preserve select river’s freeflowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The most important 

provision of the WSRA is protecting rivers from the harmful effects of water resources projects. 

To protect free-flowing character the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which licenses 

nonfederal hydropower projects) is not allowed to license construction of dams, water conduits, 

reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works on or directly affecting wild 

and scenic rivers. Other federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, and license or otherwise 

any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a 

river was designated.

The WSRA also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National 

System) be administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river’s outstanding natural and 

cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future uses to be considered, so 

long as existing or proposed use does not conflict with protecting river values. The WSRA also 

directs building partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and all levels of 

government.

Rivers may be identified for suitability studies by an act of Congress under Section 5(a), or 

through federal agency-initiated study under Section 5(d) (1). By the end of 2002, Congress had 

authorized 138 rivers for study. Section 5(d) (1) directs federal agencies to consider the potential 

of wild and scenic rivers in their planning processes, and its application has resulted in numerous 

individual river designations, and state and area-specific legislation.

Both Sections 5(a) and 5(d) (1) require determinations to be made regarding a river’s eligibility, 

classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of existing 

conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is free-flowing and possesses one or 

more outstandingly remarkable value. If found eligible, a river is analyzed as to its current level 

of development and a preliminary classification determination is made as to whether it should be 

placed into one of three classes—wild, scenic, or recreational.

The final procedural step, a suitability study, provides the basis for determining whether to 

recommend a river as part of the National System. A suitability study is designed to answer the 

following questions:

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 29
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

• Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing 

otherwise?

• Will the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values 

be protected through designation? Is it the best method for protecting the river corridor? 

In answering these questions, the benefits and impacts of Wild and Scenic River 

designation must be evaluated and alternative protection methods considered.

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal entities that 

may be partially responsible for implementing protective management?

Rivers authorized for suitability studies by Congress are protected under the WSRA; specifically,

• Section 7(b)—prevents the harmful effects of water resources projects;

• Section 8(b)—withdraws public lands from disposition under public land laws;

• Section 9(b)—withdraws locatable minerals from appropriation under mining laws; and

• Section 12(a)—directs actions of other federal agencies to protect river values. 

These protections last through the suitability study process, including a three-year period 

following transmittal of the final suitability study report by the President to Congress. The 

integrity of the identified classification must also be maintained during the protection period.

The identification of a river as eligible through the Forest planning process does not trigger any 

protections under the WSRA. To manage the river for its potential inclusion into the National 

System, other authorities are cited to protect its free-flowing character, water quality, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and preliminary or recommended classification.

No suitability studies are being conducted with this Forest Plan revision.

In this evaluation, only eligibility of rivers on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is completed. 

Suitability is deferred, pending:

1. Public interest or support in wild and scenic river study, and

2. Congress expresses interest in a specific river for Wild and Scenic River designation, or

3. A proposed project would alter the free-flowing character of a stream, such as by 

impoundment, or adversely affect outstandingly remarkable values, or the river's 

inventoried classification (82.5).

Process to Identify and Classify Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in 2005

The following describes the process used for identifying those rivers and streams on the IPNF 

that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Maps of 

existing eligible and potentially eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers are also included.

Using the Forest as the comparative scale, the IPNF then reviewed the identified potential 

‘outstandingly remarkable values’ and determined whether they meet the criteria of being rare, 

unique, or exemplary. Values are not considered to be “outstandingly remarkable values” until 

they have been found to be rare, unique or exemplary at the Forest scale. In order to identify 

potentially eligible rivers the Forest used:

• Region 1 "Draft Consistency Paper — Wild and Scenic Rivers Assessment";

30 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

• Forest Service Handbook 1912.09 Ch.80 for identifying and evaluating potential 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System on NFS lands pursuant to the 

WSRA of October 2, 1968, as amended; and

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Guidelines as published in the Federal Register/Vol.47, No. 

173/Tuesday, Septermber7, 1982.

Step 1: Evaluate the status of eligible wild and scenic rivers in 

the current Forest Plan.

A review of the 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF revealed that the Forest addressed eligibility of 

select rivers, but no forestwide assessments were completed. Therefore, a comprehensive 

forestwide evaluation of potentially eligible rivers on the Forest was needed.

Step 2: Complete a systematic forestwide inventory of streams 

and rivers.

As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 

1924.03) a systematic inventory of named streams and rivers was completed on the IPNF. The 

inventory of the named rivers and streams on the IPNF was generated from the Forest’s GIS 

coverage of rivers and streams on the Forest.

• The inventory of named streams and rivers on the IPNF resulted in the identification of 

1,337 candidates to consider for eligibility. By district there are: Bonners Ferry District 

(145), Priest Lake District (123), Sandpoint District (142), Coeur d'Alene District (561), 

and St. Joe District (366).

Step 3: Determine which of the named rivers and streams are 

free-flowing.

Initial assessments were accomplished in an interdisciplinary manner by having district and/or 

supervisor office resource specialists review the listed named rivers and streams and, based on 

their knowledge, identify if the river or stream is free-flowing. This determination is made by 

answering the question:

• Is the river segment flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip rapping, or other modification of the waterway? Bridges and culverts 

are allowed and do not affect the segment’s free-flowing nature.

If the river segment is not free-flowing, the river is not eligible.

Step 4:Identify potential eligibility by determining which of the 

named rivers and streams that is free-flowing, have a potential

“outstandingly remarkable value”.

To be eligible for designation, a river must be free flowing and possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable value. Thus, the eligibility analysis consists of an examination of the river's 

hydrology, including any man made alterations; and an assessment of its natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources. The determination that a river area contains a potential “outstandingly 

remarkable value” is a professional judgment on the part of the interdisciplinary team, based on 

objective, site-specific assessments. 

In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a river related value must be a unique, rare, 

or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale. Dictionary 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 31
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

definitions of the words "unique" and "rare" indicate that such a value would be one that is a 

conspicuous example from among a number of similar values that are themselves uncommon or 

extraordinary. Only one such value is needed for eligibility.

The area, region, or scale of comparison is not fixed, and is defined as that which serves as a basis 

for meaningful comparative analysis; it may vary depending on the value being considered. 

Typically, a "region" is defined on the scale of an administrative unit, a portion of a state, or an 

appropriately scaled physiographic or hydrologic unit. The comparative scale used for this 

assessment is the individual Forest. That is, the rivers and streams on the IPNF were compared 

one to another.

While the spectrum of resources that may be considered is broad, all values should be directly 

river related. That is, they should:

a) Be located in the river or on its immediate shore lands (generally within 1/4 mile on 

either side of the river);

b) Contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; and/or

c) Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river.

The following criteria were considered in order to establish whether one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values are present. This is an illustrative list and is not intended to be all inclusive.

Scenery

• Do the landforms, vegetation type or seasonal variations, watercolor, or related factors result 

in notable or exemplary visual features or attractions?

Recreation

• Are recreational opportunities unique or rare within the region?

• Are recreational opportunities popular enough or have the potential to be popular enough to 

attract visitors from throughout the region of comparison?

• Are visitors willing to travel long distances to use the river resources for recreational 

purposes?

• Are interpretive and/or educational opportunities exceptional and unique within the region of 

comparison?

Geology

• Does the river, or area within the river corridor, contain one or more example of a geologic 

feature, process, or phenomenon unique or rare within the region of comparison?

Fish Populations

• Is there threatened or endangered species represented?

• Is it an important stronghold for native fish assemblages (diversity)?

• Are there genetically pure strains of native populations?

• Is there a Native American dependence on this fishery?

• Is there a lack of exotic species or non-native species in this river?

• Are there other important wildlife species dependent upon this fishery?

32 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Habitat

• Is there a relationship between this river and the health and vigor of the fishery that would 

warrant protection of the river?

• Are there natural barriers to fish migration that restrict the distribution of the population?

• Is there high restoration or recovery potential for the habitat?

• Is this an intact system and does the habitat support native or wild stock assemblages?

• Does the habitat represent a pristine river system?

Wildlife

• Does the river or river corridor contain nationally or regionally important populations of 

indigenous wildlife species?

• Does the river or river corridor provide exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of 

national or regional significance?

• Does the river or river corridor provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions 

for federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered, or sensitive species? [Of 

particular significance is the presence of wild stocks and/or federal or state listed (or 

candidate) threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important 

consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of "outstandingly remarkable."]

Prehistory

• Does the river or river corridor contain a site(s) where there is evidence of occupation or use 

by Native Americans?

• Do sites have unique or rare characteristics or exceptional human-interest value(s)?

• Do sites represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first identified and 

described?

• Were sites used concurrently by two or more cultural groups, and/or used by cultural groups 

for sacred purposes?

History

• Does the river or river corridor contain a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a significant 

event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-a-kind in 

the region?

Botany/Rare Plants and Plant Communities

• Are there any occurrences of federally threatened or endangered plant species?

• Are there any occurrences of plant species designated as sensitive by the Forest Service?

• Are there any occurrences of other rare plants that are tracked by the state Natural Heritage 

Program(s)?

• Are there any plant communities or habitats that are unique, rare, or significant, or that are 

tracked by the state Natural Heritage Programs?

• Are the native plant communities in good ecological conditions (i.e., relatively free of 

invasive plant species)?

Natural Areas

• Are there any designated research natural areas along the river?

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 33
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

• Are there any special interest areas (Botanical, Geological, Scenic, Zoological, etc.) along the 

river?

• Are there any other specially designated areas in the corridor (such as National Natural 

Landmarks)?

Initial assessments were accomplished in an interdisciplinary manner by having district and/or 

supervisor office resource specialists review the listed named rivers and streams and, based on 

their knowledge, identify whether a potential ‘outstandingly remarkable value’ exists. In most 

cases on-the-ground knowledge was used in developing the assessment of outstandingly 

remarkable values. Only the botanical resource was assessed using GIS information; this data was 

populated from on-the-ground surveys. All other assessments were based on direct knowledge of 

the individual streams.

The initial 2005 assessment, in Step 4, on the free flowing nature, scenery, and recreation was 

completed by the district recreation specialist. The assessment of geology was completed by the 

forest hydrologist and geologist. The assessment of fish was completed by the forest fish 

biologist. The assessment of wildlife was completed by the forest wildlife biologist. The 

assessment of history and prehistory was completed by the forest archaeologist. The assessment 

of botany was completed by the forest ecologist.

The resulting assessment of the free-flowing nature and potential outstandingly remarkable 

values was summarized by named stream and input into a spreadsheet. A copy of this spreadsheet 

can be found in the project record (PR# 1502 - Wild and Scenic River Inventory. 

Step 5: Using the Forest as the comparative scale, review the 

identified potential “outstandingly remarkable values” and 

determine whether they meet the criteria of being rare, unique, 

or exemplary. 

Values are not considered to be “outstandingly remarkable values” until they have been found to 

be rare, unique or exemplary at the Forest scale. See table 219-A through E WSR Inventory with 

potential values, ORVs, and determination of eligibility for the potential ORVs analyzed, 

supporting documentation and final ORV determination. For tracking purposes the potential

ORVs identified in Step 4 are shown. Final values determined to be outstandingly remarkable 

values at the forest scale are noted, with further explanation of ORV in the rivers narrative 

section. Only rivers or streams with potential ORVs at the forest scale, or presented by the pubic 

(2011 American Whitewater inventory report) are shown in this appendix. For the complete list of 

streams and the identified potential values see project record #2802 and #2803 Wild and Scenic 

River Inventory.

The Forest initially completed an inventory and assessment of rivers eligibility for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System in 2005. The results of this inventory were described 

in the FEIS (pages 495-505), FEIS Appendix E, and the Specialist Report in the record. In 

resolving objections to the revised Forest Plan, the IPNF reviewed and validated the 2005 

inventory and findings of eligible rivers. In conducting the review, values of rivers and streams 

brought forward by public familiar with the river resources were reviewed. .

In March of 2014, the IPNF followed FSH 1909.12, chapter 80 in reviewing, validating, and 

identifying rivers and streams eligible for wild and scenic river designation. A forest team met 

and reviewed the potential values for the named streams in the 2005 inventory. Values identified 

by the public were reviewed. Changes resulting from this review are summarized in Table 216-A

below. Rationale for the 2014 changes and corrections in ORVs are documented in Table 219-A 

34 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

through E (titled 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values by 

district). 

Table 216-A. Summary of the Changes and Corrections in ORVs and Eligible Rivers

River NRI 2005 

Potential 

ORV

2013 

LMP 

ORV

2014 Validation and Review 

Findings

2014 Final ORV 

Upper Priest 

River

S,R,F,W1 S,R,F,G S,R,F Added W to match NRI

Added B due to this area having the 

largest area of old growth cedar, 

western hemlock and grand fir in the 

interior western U.S.

S, R, F, W, G, B

Little North 

Fork Clearwater

River

R,F,W S,R,F,W R,F,W No change to 2005 inventory

Final ORVs will combine NRI and 2005 

inventory

S,R,F,W

Coeur d’Alene 

River

N/A R,F,W,H R,H No changes to 2005 inventory

Final ORVs will combine 2005 

inventory with the 2013 LMP listing

R,F,W,H

Little North 

Fork of Coeur 

d’Alene River

F F F No changes to 2005 inventory No change from 

LMP

North Fork 

Coeur d’Alene 

River

S,F,W S,G,F,W,B, 

O

S,R,F No change to 2005 inventory

ORV listing in 2013 LMP for recreation 

is in error since neither the 2005 

inventory or the NRI found recreation 

as an ORV. It appears that recreation 

was erroneously listed rather than 

wildlife.

Final ORVs will combine NRI and 2005 

inventory

S,F,W,G,B, O

Pack River F No listing of 

ORVs

R Added F 

Final ORVs will use NRI and 2014 

validation inventory

R,F

Long Canyon W,O G W Added W and O to match NRI

Final ORVs will combine 2005 

inventory with NRI 

G,W,O

Hughes Fork N/A S,R,W,H,B S,R,W,H,B No change from 2005 inventory No change from 

LMP

Kootenai RIver N/A S,R,F,H S,F Added R and H to match 2005 

inventory

S,R,F,H

1

S= Scenery, R= Recreation, G= Geology, F = Fisheries, W= Wildlife, H= History, P = Prehistory, B= 

Botany, and O= Other

An interdisciplinary team completed the review as instructed in the objection response: forest 

planning and team leader, forest hydrology and geology, forest fish biologist, forest wildlife 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 35
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

biologist, district botany, district archaeologist, forest recreation and scenery, GIS specialist. 

When necessary, the team worked with district specialists to determine values by streams.

The team met and reviewed the potential values for the named streams in the 2005 inventory. 

Values identified by the public were also included. The team completed the following steps:

1. Reviewed the list of streams that are on the Congressionally Authorized Studies 

River list (section 5a of the WSR Act). The last public law that added any rivers to 

this list was March of 2009. The IPNF has two streams (1) Moyie River (26.1 miles; 

report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982; designation not 

recommended) and Priest River (67 miles; report recommending congressional 

designation transmitted to Congress on October 2, 1979; no action taken). 

2. Reviewed the list of rivers on the National River Inventory (NRI) from the Park 

Service. There was no change in the rivers listed in the NRI from the 2005 inventory. 

Little North Fork of the Clearwater River, North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, 

Long Canyon Creek, Pack River, and Upper Priest River are the only creeks/rivers on 

the NRI list on the IPNF. These are the rivers that were included as eligible under the 

1987 Forest Plan.

It was noted during this review that the ORVs listed in the Land Management Plan in 

Table 11on page 58 did not always match either the NRI or the 2005 inventory. The 

team corrected the inconsistencies between the two inventories. Table 216-A above 

and 218 below corrects the inconsistencies and errors. Table 218 will be included in 

the errata to the Land Management Plan.

3. Identified rivers that need to be inventoried based on public input. The report 

submitted by American Whitewater was included in the inventory of streams. Big 

Creek, Boulder Creek, Boundary Creek, Smith Creek, Cow Creek, Lightning Creek, 

Slate Creek, Marble Creek, and North Fork of the Saint Joe were specifically 

reviewed by the team. 

4. As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy 

(FSM 1924.03), a systematic inventory was completed on the IPNF in 2005. The 

inventory of named rivers and streams on the IPNF resulted in the identification of 

1,337 candidates to consider for eligibility (Bonners Ferry District = 145, Priest Lake 

District = 123, Sandpoint District = 142, Coeur d’Alene District = 561, and St. Joe 

District = 366). The team reviewed the 2005 assessment of these 1,337 candidates to 

validate the initial review and identify any potential outstandingly remarkable values 

and their free-flowing characteristics

In validating the 2005 review to identify rivers and streams that were free-flowing the 

team used the definition of free flowing from the FSH 1909.12, 82.12 “The existence 

of low dams, diversion works, or other minor structures at the time any river is 

proposed for inclusion in the National System does not automatically disqualify it 

from designation, but future construction of such structures is not allowed.”

In reviewing the status of free-flowing streams the team identified the following 

changes:

Table 216–B. Change in Free-flowing Status

Stream Change in Free-flowing Status

Yellowdog Creek Changed to free-flowing because this creek has been 

restored since the original analysis 

Marble Creek Changed to free-flowing; this creek was erroneously 

36 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Stream Change in Free-flowing Status

considered not free-flowing; rationale regarding changes 

made to Marble Creek can be found on the following 

page

Hughes Fork Changed to not free-flowing because of the channelized 

conditions of the creek

Bath Creek Changed to not free-flowing due to an error in the 

original assessment 

5. The team reviewed streams with no potential values identified by the Forest in 2005 

or by the public in the DEIS and found eight streams that had previously been 

identified with no potential values to have potential values. These streams are 

identified in table 216–C below. The individual rivers and streams were compared to 

others on the Forest.

Table 216–C. 2014 Review of IPNF Streams Found to have Potential ORVs

Stream Potential Value

Cow Creek Botany

Smith Creek Recreation

Grass Creek Wildlife; Botany

Bog Creek Botany

West Fork Eagle Creek Scenery; Recreation; Fish; Botany

Big Creek Recreation

Slate Creek Recreation

Round Prairie Botany

6. The team reviewed all remaining streams that had potential values identified either 

by the Forest or by the public. Each stream was reviewed to determine if the potential 

values were outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) based on FSH 1909.19, 82.14. 

Based on identified values and subsequent discussion, some of the ORVs were 

changed (added or deleted) for the eligible river systems. Rationale supporting all 

changes made can be found in tables 219 A through E at the end of this appendix. 

There is an individual t for the rivers and streams for each district.

Some of the streams with potential ORVs, or brought forward by the public, were 

found to not have rare, unique, or exemplary values at the forest comparative scale. 

For example, some streams were identified, or proposed by the public, with a fish 

potential ORV because they had west slope cut trout or bull trout critical habitat. The 

Forest has numerous streams that are critical habitat for these species, so this value is 

not rare, unique, or exemplary and is not an ORV. This also applies to several 

wildlife potential ORVs identified based on lynx, grizzly bear, or wolf species or 

habitat. These species and habitat occur across the forest and are not unique or rare. 

The review found several recreation potential ORVs identified by public with specific 

opportunities or areas on forest that are valued by individuals or groups. This was the 

case with paddling, or white water class IV-V streams. The wild and scenic river 

eligibility report provided by American Whitewater listed paddling on several 

streams that they found as having outstanding values. However in order for a 

recreation value to be outstandingly remarkable it should appeal to a larger 

community, and draw recreating public to the specific activity or area. Determination 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 37
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

of outstanding recreation values for streams or rivers are documented for the St. Joe 

River.

In conducting this review, the team confirmed the rivers identified as eligible in the 

revised Forest Plans and did not identify any additional streams or rivers as eligible.

Eligibility Analysis for Marble Creek

Marble Creek was identified as free flowing with ORVs during the initial inventory and the 

eligibility determination in 2005. This river was included as eligible for WSR in the Proposed 

Plan that was released in 2006. Prior to development of the DEIS for the revised plan, the Forest 

reviewed the eligible rivers. It was determined that the splash dams along this creek have altered 

the natural appearance of the waterway, causing it to be ineligible (not free flowing). Page 31 of 

the FEIS described the splash dams as creating “artificial cataracts and blockages that continue to 

alter the creek’s natural path and flow. Because the flow continues to be altered, the basic 

screening criterion of ‘free-flowing’ is not being met; therefore, this creek was not considered as 

an eligible river for wild and scenic designation.” This reversed the call made on the initial 

inventory in 2005. The 2005 review also identified scenery, recreation, and history as potential 

ORVs but did not provide rationale to explain if these potential values were rare, unique, and 

exemplary at the comparative Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to 

warrant a rating of eligible.

In 2014 an interdisciplinary team reviewed and validated the 2005 inventory of potential ORVs. 

They added wildlife to the list of potential river related values and determined the 2005 review 

mistakenly found the splash dams on Marble Creek to affect its free-flowing status. When 

applying the definition of free-flowing (described below) the team found the splash dams did not 

warrant a not free-flowing status. 

FSH 1909.12 – 82.12 Free-flowing: The act defines free-flowing as existing or flowing in 

a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other 

modification of the waterway. The existence of low dams, diversion works, or other 

minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the National System 

does not automatically disqualify it for designation, but future construction of such 

structures is not allowed. The USDA-USDI Guidelines state that, “The fact that a river 

segment may flow between large impoundments will not necessarily preclude its 

designation. Such segments may qualify if conditions within the segment meet the 

eligibility

This review also determined that if the splash dams were not in place, making it free-flowing, the 

creek’s identified 2005 potential ORVs of scenery, recreation, and history was still lacking the 

criteria to be “rare, unique, and exemplary” at the comparative Forest scale to be considered an 

outstandingly remarkable value to warrant a rating of eligible. However the rationale to explain 

this was lacking. The following describes the results of the 2014 validation process for these 

values, and is documented in table 217 below:

• Scenery: The potential identified value for scenery has been changed from yes to no 

because the scenery in Marble Creek is not considered rare, unique, and exemplary at the 

Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value. This scenery is very 

common across the forest, especially across the south zone.

• Recreation: The potential recreation value is a high use corridor with multiple recreation 

uses. These high use river corridors are common and located across the forest. Several 

trails go to historic logging sites that feature steam donkeys, trestles and other historic 

logging sites. The type of logging activity found within this drainage has occurred in 

38 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

other areas on the forest and is not rare, unique, or exemplary. The trails that access the 

historic sites are not river dependent. These potential recreation values are not considered 

rare, unique, and exemplary at the Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly 

remarkable value.

• History: The potential history value is comprised of many historic logging sites that 

feature steam donkeys, trestles and several railroad logging features located within the 

drainage but are not within Marble Creek or its immediate shorelands (within 1⁄4 mile on 

either side of the river) FSH 1901.12 82.14 1.

The 2014 review added the potential value of wildlife for Marble Creek. Both harlequin duck 

breeding sites and the Coeur d’Alene salamander habitat have been identified since the original 

2005 assessment. Both habitat and breeding sites for these species have been identified elsewhere 

on the forest. This wildlife value was not considered rare, unique, and exemplary at the Forest 

scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value to warrant a rating of eligible.

In the summer of 2014 the splash dams in Marble Creek were removed under the Marble Creek 

Splash Dams Fish Migration Enhancement Project. This project essentially restored Marble Creek 

to its free-flowing natural condition in order to provide fish migration and habitat improvement. A 

report documenting the removal of the splash dams is located in the project record. 

Tables 5-9 at the end of this appendix contain the 2014 ORV validation of the 2005 assessment. 

These tables document, by district, those rivers, streams that have potential ORVs and provides 

rationale for whether they are rare, unique, and exemplary at the comparative Forest scale to be 

considered an outstandingly remarkable value to warrant a rating of eligible.

Step 6: Determine preliminary classification.

The potential classification of a river found to be eligible is based on the condition of the river 

and the adjacent lands as they currently exist. Section 2(b) of the WSRA of October 2, 1968 

specifies and defines three classification categories for eligible rivers:

1. Wild rivers;

2. Scenic rivers; and

3. Recreational rivers.

The USDA and USDI Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas 

dated September 7, 1982 (USDA-USDI Guidelines) provides the following classification criteria 

for wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.

Table 6. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Areas

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Water 

Resource 

Development

Free of impoundment. Free of impoundment. Some existing impoundment or 

diversion.

The existence of low dams, 

diversions, or other 

modifications of the waterway is 

acceptable, provided the 

waterway remains generally 

natural and riverine in 

appearance.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 39
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Shoreline 

Development

Essentially primitive. Little 

or no evidence of human 

activity.

Largely primitive and 

undeveloped. No 

substantial evidence of 

human activity.

Some development. Substantial 

evidence of human activity.

The presence of a few 

inconspicuous structures, 

particularly those of historic 

or cultural value is 

acceptable.

The presence of small 

communities, dispersed 

dwellings, or farm 

structures is acceptable.

The presence of extensive 

residential development and a 

few commercial structures is 

acceptable.

A limited amount of 

domestic livestock grazing or 

hay production is acceptable.

The presence of grazing, 

hay production, or row 

crops is acceptable.

Lands may have been developed 

for the full range of agricultural 

and forestry uses.

Little or no evidence of past 

timber harvest. No ongoing 

timber harvest.

Evidence of past or 

ongoing timber harvest is 

acceptable, provided the 

forest appears natural from 

the riverbank.

May show evidence of past and 

ongoing timber harvest.

Accessibility Generally inaccessible 

except by trail.

Accessible in places by 

road.

Readily accessible by road or 

railroad.

No roads, railroads, or other 

provision for vehicular travel 

within the river area. A few 

existing roads leading to the 

boundary of the area are 

acceptable.

Roads may occasionally 

reach or bridge the river. 

The existence of short 

stretches of conspicuous 

or longer stretches of 

inconspicuous roads or 

railroads is acceptable.

The existence of parallel roads 

or railroads on one or both banks 

as well as bridge crossings and 

other river access points is 

acceptable.

Water Quality Meets or exceeds criteria or 

federally approved state 

standards for aesthetics, for 

propagation of fish and 

wildlife normally adapted to 

the habitat of the river, and 

for primary contact 

recreation (swimming) 

except where exceeded by 

natural conditions.

No criteria are prescribed by the WSRA. The Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 have made it a 

national goal that all waters of the US are made fishable and 

swimmable. Therefore, rivers will not be precluded from scenic 

or recreational classification because of poor water quality at 

the time of their study, provided a water quality improvement 

plan exists or is being developed in compliance with applicable 

federal and state laws.

(1) Wild River Areas 

The rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except 

by trail, with watersheds or shoreline essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent 

vestiges of primitive America.

These criteria are interpreted as follows:

a) "Free of impoundments." Wild river areas shall be free of impoundments.

b) "Watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive." Wild river areas will show little or no 

evidence of human activity. Shorelines and watersheds within the river area should be 

essentially free of structures including such things as buildings, pipelines, power lines, 

dams, pumps, generators, diversion works, rip-rap, and other modifications of the 

waterway or adjacent land within the river corridor. The existence of a few inconspicuous 

40 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

structures, particularly those of historic or cultural value, at the time of study need not bar 

wild classification.

c) A limited amount of domestic livestock grazing or hay production may be considered 

"essentially primitive." There should be no row crops or ongoing timber harvest and the 

river area should show little or no evidence of past logging activities.

d) "Generally inaccessible except by trail." Wild river areas will not contain roads, railroads, 

or other provisions for vehicular travel within the river area. The existence of a few 

inconspicuous roads leading to the boundary of the river area at the time of study will not 

necessarily bar wild river classification.

e) "Waters unpolluted." The water quality of a wild river will meet or exceed federal criteria 

or federally approved state standards for aesthetics, for propagation of fish and wildlife 

normally adapted to the habitat of the stream, and for primary contact recreation except 

where exceeded by natural conditions.

(2) Scenic River Areas

The rivers, or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still 

largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

These criteria are interpreted as follows:

a) "Free of impoundments." Scenic river areas will be free of impoundments.

b) "Shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive." To qualify for scenic classification, the 

rivers segment's shorelines and immediate environment should not show substantial 

evidence of human activity. The portion of the watershed within the boundary of the 

scenic river may have some discernible existing development. "Largely primitive" means 

that the shorelines and the immediate river environment still present an overall natural 

character, but that in places land may be developed for agricultural purposes. Row crops 

would be considered as meeting the test of "largely primitive," as would timber harvest 

and other resource use, providing such activity is accomplished without a substantial 

adverse effect on the natural appearance of the river or its immediate environment.

c) "Shorelines largely undeveloped," means that any structures or concentration of 

structures must be limited to relatively short reaches of the total area under consideration 

for designation as a scenic river area.

d) "Accessible in places by road." Means that roads may reach the river area and 

occasionally bridge the river. The presence of short stretches of conspicuous or longer 

stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads or railroads will not necessarily 

preclude scenic river designation. In addition to the physical and scenic relationship of 

the free-flowing river area to roads or railroads, consideration should be given to the type 

of use for which such roads or railroads were constructed and the type of use which 

would occur within the proposed scenic river area.

(3) Recreational River Areas

The rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some 

development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 

diversion in the past.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 41
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

These criteria are interpreted as follows:

a) "Some impoundment or diversion in the past." There may be some existing 

impoundments, diversions, and other modifications of the waterway having an impact on 

the river area. Existing low dams, diversion works, rip-rap, and other minor structures 

will not bar recreational classification, provided the waterway remains generally natural 

and riverine in appearance.

b) "Some development along their shorelines." Lands may have been developed for the full 

range of agricultural and forestry uses, may show evidence of past and ongoing timber 

harvest, and may include some residential, commercial, or similar development.

c) "Readily accessible by road or railroad." River areas classified as recreational may 

contain existing parallel roads or railroads in close proximity to one or both banks of the 

river as well as bridge crossings and roads fording or ending at the river.

There are several points to keep in mind when reading and applying the classification criteria:

• It is important to understand each criterion, but it is more important to understand their 

collective intent. Each river segment and its immediate environment should be considered 

as a unit. The basis for classification is the degree of naturalness, or stated negatively, the 

degree of evidence of man's activity in the river area. The most natural rivers will be 

classified wild; those somewhat less natural, scenic, and those least natural, recreational.

• Generally, only conditions within the river area determine classification; however, 

occasionally conditions outside the river area, such as developments which could impact 

air and water quality, noise levels, or scenic views within the river area, may influence 

classification.

• For the purpose of classification, a river area may be divided into segments. Each 

segment, considered as a whole, will conform to one of the classifications. In segmenting 

the river, the assessment should take into account the management strategies necessary to 

administer the entire river area and should avoid excessive segmentation.

• The WSRA provides no specific guidance on water quality for scenic and recreational 

rivers. However, the Clean Water Act has made it a national goal that all waters of the 

United States be made fishable and swimmable, and provides the legal means for 

upgrading water quality in any river which would otherwise be suitable for inclusion in 

the system. Therefore, rivers will not necessarily be excluded from the system because of 

poor water quality at the time of study, provided a water quality improvement plan exists 

or is being developed in compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

• Although each classification permits certain existing development, the criteria do not 

imply that additional inconsistent development is permitted in the future.

• The classification criteria provide uniform guidance for professional judgment, but they 

are not absolutes. It is not possible to formulate criteria so as to mechanically or 

automatically classify river areas. Therefore, there may occasionally be exceptions to 

some of the criteria. For example, if the assessment finds that strict application of the 

classification criteria would not provide the most appropriate classification for a specific 

river segment, the recommendation may consider an exception to the classification 

criteria.

42 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers

Congress designated the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River on November 10th, 1978 (P.L. 95-625 

Section 708) as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The St. Joe River is designated as a 

classified wild river from Spruce Tree campground upriver to St. Joe Lake near the Montana State 

line, covering 29 miles and 8,229 acres of NFS ownership. The St. Joe River is designated as a 

classified recreational river from Spruce Tree campground downstream to Avery, covering 41.6 

miles and 13,061 acres of NFS ownership.1

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

All of the eligible rivers and streams identified in the 1987 Forest Plan and subsequent 

amendments were found to still be eligible, totaling 172 miles on NFS lands and 52,539 acres 

within the associated corridors. Three additional river and stream segments were found to be 

potentially eligible as wild and scenic rivers, totaling 19.5 miles on NFS lands and 5,185 acres 

within the associated corridors. Table 218 below lists eligible wild and scenic rivers along with 

their outstandingly, remarkable values.

Table 7. Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers

River Status* Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

Preliminary 

Classification

NFS 

Miles

NFS 

Acres

Upper Priest River

Seg. 1 Existing

Recreation, 

Scenery, 

Wildlife, 

Fisheries

Geology, Botany

Wild 19.8 5,096

Little North Fork Clearwater River

Seg.1 Existing Scenery

Recreation, 

Fisheries, 

Wildlife

Recreational 7.9 2,443

Seg. 2 Existing Wild 18.3 5,852

Seg. 3 Existing Recreational 0.4 39

Coeur d’Alene (CDA) River

Seg. 1 (all non-Forest Service) Existing Recreation

Fisheries

Wildlife

Historic

Recreational 0.0 0.0

Seg. 2 Existing Recreational 0.3 395

Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene River

Seg. 1 Existing Fisheries Recreational 37.8 11,338

1 Miles and acreages listed are from GIS data. The proclaimed (land status) acreage is actually 8,198 designated as wild 

and 12,665 designated recreational. The St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Development and Management Plan identify 

the mileage as 26.6 miles designated as wild and 39.7 designated as recreational.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 43

 
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

River Status*

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values

Preliminary 

Classification

NFS 

Miles

NFS 

Acres

North Fork Coeur d’Alene (CDA) River

Seg. 1 Existing Scenery, 

Fisheries

Wildlife

Geology

Botany

Other

Recreational 9.2 2,904

Seg. 2 Existing Wild 15.6 4,454

Seg. 3 Existing Recreational 35.0 11,268

Pack River

Seg. 1 Existing Fisheries

Recreation Recreational 13.7 4,262

Long Canyon Creek

Seg. 1 Existing

Wildlife

Geology

Other

Wild 14.1 4,488

Hughes Fork

Seg. 1 New Scenery, 

Recreation, 

Wildlife, History, 

Botany

Wild 4.8 1,562

Seg. 2 New Recreational 9.9 2,410

Kootenai River

Seg. 1 New

Scenery

Recreation

Fisheries

Historic

Recreational 6.5 1,213

Total 191.6 57,724

* Segments found to be eligible as wild and scenic under the 1987 Forest Plan as amended as listed as 

“existing.” Additional segments found to be potentially eligible under the plan revision are listed as “new”

Narratives

Following are narratives for each river system listed determined to be eligible in the above table 

218 and the designated St. Joe River.

St. Joe River System

The St. Joe River begins its journey at St. Joe Lake, at an elevation of 6,460 feet. Known for its 

exceptionally clear water, visitors can stand on a bridge 30 feet above the river and see the bottom 

through 15 feet of water. The primary tributary is the St. Maries River, with several other smaller 

tributaries and lakes along the length of the river. A total of 66.3 miles of the St. Joe River is 

designated in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The segment from St. Joe Lake to 

44 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Spruce Tree Campground (26.6 miles) is designated as a wild river and the segment from Spruce 

Tree Campground (39.7 miles) to the town of Avery is designated as a recreational river.2

The entire St. Joe Wild and Scenic River corridor has spectacular scenery, with crystal clear 

water, numerous pools, riffles and small falls, moss and fern-covered cliffs to the water’s edge, a 

large variety of trees, views of near and distant timber covered slopes interspersed with grass, and 

brush field openings. Tree species are typical of northern Idaho with a scattering of 100-year old 

snags left standing after the 1910 fire, their tops still visible above the green canopy of the 

younger trees, a mosaic of fir, pine, cedar, and other species. The golden hues of the western larch 

scattered throughout the corridor brighten up the hill sides in the fall. Outstanding winter 

landscapes along the groomed snowmobile trail from Avery to Gold Creek provide opportunities 

to view snow-draped trees and frozen waterfalls. Visitors have an excellent opportunity to see elk, 

deer, and moose, and variety of birds, fish, and fur-bearing animals. More unique species such as 

mountain goats, mountain lions, wolves, bald eagles, osprey, and harlequin ducks can sometimes 

be seen throughout the river corridor.

Good access along paved roads (Highway 50 and Red Ives Road 218) takes visitors through the 

recreational river corridor to the doorstep of the wild river section where a non-motorized trail 

parallels the river for 17 miles. Facilities along the recreational river segment include a picnic 

area and several developed campgrounds. Dispersed recreation is important throughout the entire 

St. Joe Wild and Scenic River corridor, with over two dozen dispersed sites that are used for both 

camping and day use activities. Numerous trails originate from the recreation segment, providing 

opportunities for both non-motorized use and to a lesser extent single-track motorized 

opportunities. The very popular Red Ives Cabin Rental and Historic Ranger Station are located in 

the recreation segment two miles from the end of the road. Along the wild segment, nonmotorized trail use opportunities abound. This segment of the river is favored by stock riders, 

backpackers, and anglers who want a more remote experience.

Recreation uses are diverse along the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River and include rafting (both 

whitewater and leisure floating), canoeing, kayaking, swimming, sightseeing, camping, fishing, 

hunting, hiking, backpacking, stock riding, berry picking, and in winter, snowmobiling. One of 

the few whitewater opportunities in North Idaho, segments of fast-running water, provide 

challenging class II, III, and IV rapids for whitewater enthusiasts in spring and early summer.

Hunting and fishing opportunities draw thousands of visitors to the area every year. The river 

corridor provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and is well known for its elk hunting 

opportunities, as well as mountain goats, deer, moose, mountain lion, and bear. The river provides 

outstanding habitat for a diversity of fish species, supporting populations of nationally-significant 

fish species such as bull trout and native westslope cutthroat trout. The river is designated as a 

blue-ribbon wild trout stream by Idaho Fish and Game and is considered one of the highest 

quality fisheries in the state. Considered by many to be the best westslope cutthroat trout river in 

northern Idaho, the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River is managed as catch-and–release water.

Many anglers, who visit either segment of the St. Joe, fly fish. This sport requires a great deal of 

concentration as you usually have to “see” a strike rather than “feel” it. With this in mind, the 

combination of the flowing water, steep canyons, and heightened concentration give an angler a 

truly wild experience.

2 Miles listed here are from the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Development and Management Plan. See the 

Development and Management Plan for additional information on the management of the river.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 45

 
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Upper Priest River

The Upper Priest River originates at the Canadian border and flows south for approximately 20 

miles to the Upper Priest Lake. The entire eligible river is under NFS ownership. This freeflowing river is characterized by cold clear water, clean substrate, and abundant deep pools that 

provide outstanding aquatic habitat. It meanders through a glaciated U-shaped valley vegetated 

with predominately continuous stands of mature old growth western redcedar and western 

hemlock. A large portion of the Upper Priest River is within the Salmo-Priest proposed 

wilderness and is also proposed as both a Research Natural Area and botanical Special Interest 

Area. The river is designated as critical habitat for threatened bull trout and the river corridor is 

within identified habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species (woodland caribou, 

grizzly bear, Canada lynx), and is considered suitable habitat for harlequin duck (R1 Sensitive 

Species). Upper Priest River is paralleled by a non-motorized trail extending eight miles south to 

north terminating near the Canadian border and Upper Priest Falls. This trail and associated 

primitive campsites are extremely popular with locals and visitors for providing solitude not 

found near Priest Lake. 

Little North Fork Clearwater River

The river is a free flowing stream from its source at Fish Lake to where it flows into the 

Dworshak Reservoir. The headwaters are on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service. The Little North Fork of the Clearwater River is a fastmoving but mostly crystal-clear river. Major streams draining into the Little North Fork include 

Sawtooth Creek, Canyon Creek, and Foehl Creek.

The upper section, from Fish Lake to Adair Creek, is classified as recreational and runs for 

approximately 11 miles, with 8 miles on NFS lands. This upper section gently flows through 

meadows and then flows through private and national forest properties that have roads and have 

been managed for timber production. The middle section, from Adair Creek to the border of the 

Idaho State lands, is classified wild and runs for approximately 26 miles, with 18 miles on NFS 

lands. This section flows through a deep, rugged, roadless river canyon, dominated by scenic 

groves of mature western redcedar and hemlock. The canyon is rimmed with scenic views of the 

surrounding peaks of the Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area and Snow Peak Wildlife Management 

Area. The third section, from the Idaho State lands to the Dworshak Reservoir, is classified as 

recreational and is approximately three miles long, with less than 1⁄2 mile on NFS lands. This area 

is roaded, with recreational access.

The Little North Fork Clearwater River contains a diverse range of unique and challenging 

rapids, rated from class II to Class V. In its upper reaches, the river has continuous class II-III 

boulder garden style rapids. Lower down, the river drops into several distinct canyons with rapids 

formed by exposed bedrock ledges, constricted canyon walls and large boulder fields. In its last 

three miles, the river offers nearly continuous class III/IV whitewater, punctuated by large and 

challenging class IV+ and V drops. The Little North Fork also offers paddlers the opportunity for 

a multi-day river trip in a remote and roadless setting. Once on the river, the user is committed for 

12-15 miles until reaching the upper end of the Dworshak Reservoir. During high water runoff in 

May or June, there may be limited opportunities for rafting and kayaking on the Little North 

Fork; and access to the middle section of the river is by trail and cross-country up to several 

miles. Fallen trees pose floating challenges. The canyon also offers superb opportunities for 

recreational fishing, as well as hiking and wildlife viewing.

The Little North Fork Clearwater has superb water quality, an intact watershed, and is designated 

critical habitat for bull trout, and holds an exceptional fishery of westslope cutthroat. Several 

anadromous fishes also use the Little North Fork for spawning. In addition, the Little North Fork 

46 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

provides habitat for several special wildlife species including mountain goats, Canada lynx, 

fisher, wolverine, and harlequin ducks.

Coeur d'Alene River

The Coeur d'Alene River system begins just south of the confluence with the North Fork Coeur 

d'Alene River and flows approximately 38 miles to Coeur d'Alene Lake. The river is broken into 

two segments, both of which are classified as recreational. The first segment flows from the 

North Fork Coeur d'Alene River almost to the Cataldo Mission. This segment is 7.6 miles long 

and does not have any NFS ownership. The second segment flows from just east of the Cataldo 

Mission to Coeur d'Alene Lake. This segment is 30.2 miles long, with less than one mile on NFS 

ownership. The Coeur d'Alene River is noted for its recreational and historic values. Thousands 

of people recreate along this river each year. Popular activities include fishing, canoeing, 

camping, and inner tubing. The river is clear and shallow in this section making inner tubing a 

popular summertime activity. There are no developed campgrounds along this stretch of the river, 

but dispersed camping is very popular. This segment of river corridor is roaded with paved access 

along this entire stretch.

Little North Fork Coeur d'Alene River

The Little North Fork Coeur d'Alene River is currently listed as eligible in the Nationwide Rivers 

inventory by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. The river is classified as 

recreational and is approximately 38 miles long, with more than 98 percent in NFS ownership. 

Scenery along the Little North Fork Coeur d'Alene River is spectacular, providing a large variety 

of trees and examples of early and mid-succession riparian vegetation. Visitors along this segment 

of river may see a variety of wildlife including bears, moose, elk, deer, and a variety of birds. 

This major tributary of the Coeur d'Alene River is noted for its crystal clear water and 

outstanding fisheries. The Little North Fork provides anglers with a unique opportunity to catch 

native westslope cutthroat trout.

North Fork Coeur d'Alene River

The North Fork Coeur d'Alene River flows out of the Bitterroot Mountains in a southwesterly 

direction eventually flowing into the Coeur d'Alene River. The river is 77 miles long with more 

than 75 percent on NFS lands. Segment 1 is classified as recreational, and flows from the 

headwaters at Powder Mountain to the trailhead for the Coeur d'Alene River NRT trail #20. This 

segment is nine miles long with 100 percent NFS ownership. Segment 2 is classified wild, and 

flows from trail #20 to the intersection with road 6310. This segment is almost 16 miles long with 

100 percent NFS ownership. Segment 3 flows from the intersection with road 6310 to the 

confluence with the Coeur d'Alene River. This segment is 52 miles long with 67 percent NFS 

ownership.

The North Fork has beautiful scenery with clear water, multiple riffles, small pools, and varying 

terrain along the river’s edge from forested areas to meadows and rocky cliff bands. The North 

Fork canyon contains unique and highly scenic geologic features including Cathedral Rocks, a 

formation comprised of shear canyon walls and large rock spires. Tree species are typical of 

North Idaho including white pine, Douglas-fir, grand and subalpine fir, hemlock, cedar, larch, and 

spruce. Some snags from the 1910 fire still stand within the canopy. Wildlife is abundant 

including elk, deer, moose, bear, and bald eagles. Sensitive species that may occur in the area 

include the Coeur d'Alene salamander, western toad, black-backed woodpecker, Townsend’s bigeared bat, fringed myotis, and fisher. This portion of the river contains some of the most critical 

bull trout habitat in the Coeur d'Alene drainage. The North Fork also provides anglers with a 

unique opportunity to catch native westslope cutthroat trout. There is also a rich history of human 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 47
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

occupation along this stretch of river. This is evidenced by a large number of historic properties 

and archeological sites along the recreational segment of the North Fork Coeur d'Alene. The 

Spion Kop RNA is within the corridor of segment 3.

Recreational opportunities are abundant along the North Fork Coeur d'Alene River. The 

recreational segments are accessible by road or trail, with Trail 20, a National Recreation Trail 

paralleling the wild segment. Other opportunities along the entire river corridor include 

picnicking at developed picnic sites, camping at developed campgrounds or in rural, unmanaged 

camp sites, renting a historic cabin at Avery Creek or Magee, hiking, canoeing, kayaking, inner 

tubing, or swimming.

Pack River

The headwaters of the Pack River originate from a collection of high mountain lakes among the 

Selkirk Crest north of Sandpoint, Idaho. The river is classified as recreational and flows 15 miles, 

with 90 percent NFS ownership. The upper portion of the river has one access road maintained 

primarily for summer and winter recreation purposes. The lower portion is roaded. This stream is 

the second largest tributary to Lake Pend Oreille and the upper river is a designated water body 

for cold water aquatic life, salmonid spawning, domestic water supply, and outdoor recreation. 

The Pack River drainage provides a unique setting for recreation, offering a little bit of 

everything; trails to high mountain lakes, summer and winter motorized trails at the lower 

reaches, and primitive camping experiences. The Pack River is designated as critical habitat for 

threatened bull trout and the portion of the river corridor above Blanc Creek is within identified 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species (woodland caribou, grizzly bear, 

Canada lynx, and wolverine) and is considered suitable habitat for harlequin duck (R1 Sensitive 

Species).

Long Canyon Creek

Long Canyon Creek flows north from its source in the Selkirk Crest to the Kootenai River. The 

river is classified wild and flows 15 miles, with 93 percent NFS ownership. The underlying 

material in the area is a metamorphosed granitic intrusive rock. It is one of the few remaining 

stream corridors of its size in northern Idaho that has seen limited disturbance by human activity. 

The river flows through a canyon and a hiking trail (#16) parallels most of the river. Stands of old 

growth western redcedar, western white pine, western hemlock, and Engelmann spruce dominate 

much of the canyon floor within the river corridor. Whitebark pine is found along the ridgelines 

of the watershed. The canyon also contains habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed 

wildlife species (woodland caribou, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and wolverine) and is suitable 

habitat for harlequin duck (R1 Sensitive Species). Additionally, Long Canyon Creek is designated 

as critical habitat for threatened bull trout.

Hughes Fork

The Hughes Fork (a tributary to the Upper Priest River) flows south from its source near 

Shedroof Divide for almost 15 miles to its junction with the Upper Priest River. The river is 

broken into two segments: segment 1 is classified as wild and flows from its source south for 

almost five miles to the intersection with trail 312; segment 2 flows for almost 10 miles from the 

intersection with trail 312 to its confluence with the Upper Priest River. Approximately 2 miles of

the lower reaches of Hughes Fork has been channelized and altered. The channelization that has 

occurred is considered minor and does not affect the free-flowing value for which the river was 

considered. The entire river is in NFS ownership. The area is popular for recreation, with trail 312 

paralleling most of segment 1. The southern portion of segment 2 is roaded, with several hiking 

trails in the area. From a hiking and horseback riding experience the variety of trail experiences 

48 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

offered ranges from dense shaded old growth stands mingled with ancient cedars to expansive 

meadows creating a very unique trail experience. The river offers spectacular scenery, from 

meadows to mountain views as well as views of old growth and ancient cedars

Hughes Fork is designated as critical habitat for threatened bull trout and the stream corridor is 

within identified habitat for threatened wildlife species (grizzly bear, Canada lynx) and is suitable 

habitat for harlequin duck (R1 Sensitive Species). The meadow complex associated with the 

Hughes Fork is unique for the area as it supports abundant foraging grizzly bears in the late 

spring/early summer. The Hughes Fork basin is also home to old and ancient cedar groves that are 

a part of the longest, contiguous old growth cedar stand east of the Cascade Mountains. This area 

is also very species rich in rare plant populations including Botrychium species (moonworts) and 

many fern species.

Sometime prior to 1925, the Forest Service established Hughes Meadow for a summer guard 

station. Nothing remains from this original development but another guard station and associated 

structures were built in 1935 and still remain today.

Kootenai River System

The Kootenai River originates in Canada then flows south and west through Montana and Idaho 

before turning north and flowing back into Canada. In Idaho, the river flows through a steep and 

confined canyon carved through the Purcell and Cabinet Mountains and then emerges into a wide, 

glaciated valley composed of private agricultural lands near the community of Bonners Ferry. It is 

the second largest tributary to the Columbia River in volume and third largest in drainage area 

(18,000 square miles). The river corridor includes outstanding scenery along the entire length, 

abundant recreational opportunities, as well as the historic and pre-historic values that are related 

to the early days of northwest exploration and settlement. Approximately six miles flow across 

NFS lands on the IPNF.

The entire reach of the river in Idaho is designated as critical habitat for threatened bull trout and 

also provides spawning and rearing habitat for the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon. 

Additionally, the Kootenai River and some of its tributaries are the only places burbot and 

redband trout (R1 Sensitive Species) can be found in northern Idaho. The river corridor also 

provides suitable nesting habitat for the bald eagle (R1 Sensitive Species).

Maps

Following are maps of the designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers. Figure 36 displays the 

wild and scenic rivers forestwide and table 219 indicates the name of the river segment, 

classification, and page number and figure number for detailed maps.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 49
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 36. IPNF Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Index Map 

50 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Table 8. IPNF Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers Map Reference List

Figure # Page Number Name Type

37 233 Upper Priest River Wild

38 234 Long Canyon Creek Wild

37 233 Hughes Fork Wild

37 233 Hughes Fork Recreation

39 235 Kootenai River Recreation

40 236 Pack River Recreation

41 237 North Fork Coeur d'Alene River Recreation

41 237 North Fork Coeur d'Alene River Wild

42/44 238/240 Little North Fork Coeur d'Alene River Recreation

42/43 238/239 North Fork Coeur d'Alene River Recreation

43 239 Coeur d'Alene River Recreation

45/46 241/242 Coeur d'Alene River Recreation

47/48 243/244 St. Joe River Recreation

48 244 St. Joe River Wild

49 245 Little North Fork Clearwater River Recreation

50 246 Little North Fork Clearwater River Wild

50 246 Little North Fork Clearwater River Recreation

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 51
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 37. UP1-Upper Priest Wild River, H1-Hughes Fork Wild River and H2-Hughes 

Fork Recreational River 

52 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 38. LC1-Long Canyon Wild River 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 53
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 39. K6-Kootenai Recreational River 

54 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 40. P1-Pack Recreational River 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 55
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 41. NFCDA1-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, NFCDA2-North 

Fork Coeur d’Alene Wild River 

56 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 42. NFCDA3-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 57
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 43. NFCDA3-North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, West Portion; 

LNFCDA1-Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, South Portion; CDA1-

Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion 

58 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 44. LNFCDA1-Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, North Portion 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 59
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 45. CDA2-Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, East Portion 

60 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 46. CDA2-Coeur d’Alene Recreational River, West Portion 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 61
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 47. SJ1-St. Joe Designated Recreational River, North Portion 

62 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Figure 48. SJ1-St. Joe Designated Recreational River, South Portion; SJ2-St. Joe Designated Wild River 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 63
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 49. LNFC1-Little North Fork Clearwater Recreational River 

64 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Figure 50. LNFC2-Little North Fork Clearwater Wild River and LNFC3-Little North 

Fork Clearwater Recreational River

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 65
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Rationale for Identified Potential Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Determining Eligibility

Table 219-A. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for the Bonners Ferry District Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Blue Joe 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N

No ORVs, severe 

contamination

(patent), Heavy 

metals, Continental 

Mine

History: The Centennial Mine does not owe its location or 

existence to the presence of the river (FSH1909.12 82.14(3)).

Boulder 

Creek Y N Y N N N Y N N N Historic mining & development

American 

White 

Water 

S,R,F,W

Recreation: The recreation value is a high use corridor with 

multiple recreation activities. These corridors are common 

and located across the forest, found along river corridors and 

adjacent to lakes. History: There is evidence of historic 

mining activity in this drainage. Examples of this historic 

mining activity are common across the forest. SUMMARY: 

Neither of these values is rare, unique or exemplary features 

that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not 

considered to be outstandingly remarkable values. American 

Whitewater ORVs: Scenery: The scenery of old roadbed, 

impressive views, waterfalls, and tumbling rapids can all be 

found in other drainages on the forest and are not unique to 

this stream. Recreation: Although whitewater paddling occurs 

on this creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. This 

experience can be found on many other streams on the forest 

such as Marble Creek, Pack River, Cow Creek, Moyie River, 

Priest River to name a few. Fish: Critical bull trout habitat is 

not unique to this stream. There are at least 42 rivers, streams 

or stream segments on the forest that provide designated 

critical habitat for bull trout. Examples of these streams are 

Trestle Creek, Lightning Creek, Pack River, Priest River, 

Independence Creek, Spruce Creek, and Marble Creek to 

name a few.. Wildlife: The rare wildlife species including 

grizzly bears and lynx brought up by American Whitewater 

66 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

are not unique to this stream and can be found throughout the 

forest. These species do not owe their existence to the 

presence of the stream (FSH 1909.12 - 82.14(3)).

Boundar

y Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N

Channelized at the 

bottom, Continental 

Mine

American 

White 

Water 

R

History: The Continental Mine does not owe its location or 

existence to the presence of the river (FSH1909.12 82.14(3)). 

American Whitewater ORVs: Recreation: Although 

whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, this is not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. This experience can be found on many 

other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, Pack River, 

Cow Creek, Moyie River, Priest River to name a few. 

Copper 

Creek Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Waterfalls

Scenery –The scenic values are multiple water falls. Water 

falls are common across the forest.

Recreation: The recreation value is the water falls that 

receive frequent visitation. Copper Falls is managed as a 

special area. There are many other falls located on the forest 

such as Centennial, Myrtle, and Snow Creek Falls. Wildlife:

Since the original assessment, several black swift nesting 

sites have been found at several other waterfalls across the 

forest. SUMMARY: These values are not rare, unique or 

exemplary features that are significant at the Forest scale 

therefore, they are not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable values.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 67
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Cow 

Creek Y N N N N N N N Y N

American 

White 

Water 

S, R,W

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values for 

Cow Creek. Botany: Contains a peat land associated 

community. This is a particularly good example of a rare 

plant community on the forest; however other rare plant 

communities exist in other similar habitats on the forest. The 

topography of the stream drops in several places as it 

approaches Smith Creek; however similar drops in stream 

elevation can be found in other streams across the forest. 

SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique, or exemplary 

feature that is significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not 

considered to be an outstandingly remarkable value. 

American Whitewater ORVs: Scenery: Several small 

waterfalls that are extremely scenic and are featured in 

waterfall books and postcards from the region. The waterfalls 

in Cow creek are not rare, unique, or exemplary and can be 

found in other areas of the forest. Recreation: Although 

whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, this is not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. This experience can be found on many 

other streams on the forest such as Marble Creek, Pack River, 

Moyie River, and Priest River to name a few. Wildlife:

Habitat for threatened and endangered grizzly bear and 

mountain caribou brought up by American Whitewater are 

not unique to this stream and can be found throughout the 

forest. These species do not owe their existence to the 

presence of the stream (FSH 1909.12 - 82.14(3))

Cutoff 

Creek Y N N N N N N N N N

No ORV Identified, 

include with Long 

Canyon

Cutoff Creek actually drains into Smith Creek and not Long 

Canyon

68 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

East Fork 

Boulder 

Creek 

Y N N N N N Y N N N Part of Boulder

History: There is evidence of historic mining activity in this 

drainage. Examples of this type of historic mining activity are 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary features that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be an 

outstandingly remarkable value

Faro 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N See Keno - Tribal History: This drainage has areas of Tribal importance however; these important areas are not tied to the stream.

Keno 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Tribal importance History: This drainage has areas of Tribal importance however; these sensitive areas are not tied to the stream.

Kootenai 

River Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N Burbot, white sturgeon

Currently listed as eligible in the revised Forest Plan

IDENTIFIED ORVS: SCENERY, RECREATION, 

FISHERIES, HISTORY

Preliminary Classification: Recreational

Long 

Canyon Y N N Y N Y N N N Y

Currently listed as 

eligible in the 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory, glaciated

American 

White 

Water

R,F,W

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan and currently listed 

as eligible in the revised Forest Plan. Nationwide Inventory 

ORVs: Wildlife and Other 

Moyie 

River Y N N N N N N N N N

Previously studied and 

determined to not be 

suitable. No ORV 

Identified

American 

White 

Water|

R,S

No change from original assessment - determined unsuitable; 

report transmitted to Congress on September 13, 1982

Myrtle 

Creek Y Y N N N N N N N N Watershed for Bonners Ferry. Waterfalls

Scenery –The scenic values is a water fall. Water falls are 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 69
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Parker 

Creek Y Y N N N N N N N N

Untouched - you can 

overlook headwaters 

from ridge

Scenery: View of U-shaped valley which has not had 

vegetation management activities. These views exist across 

the forest. Recreation: This is a popular trail, located on the 

ridgeline and is not associated with the river corridor. 

SUMMARY: These values are not rare, unique or exemplary 

features that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they 

are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values. 

Round 

Prairie 

Creek 

N N N N N N N N Y N No ORVs, extensive 

drainage and rerouting

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values. 

Botany: Similar botanical communities can be found across 

the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or 

exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

Smith 

Creek N N Y N N N N N N N

No ORVs, lower 4.5

miles have run-of-river 

power diversion

American 

White 

Water R,W

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values. 

Recreation: The recreation value is a high use corridor with 

multiple recreation use. These corridors are common and 

located across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value. American Whitewater ORVs:

Recreation: Although whitewater paddling occurs on this 

creek, this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. This experience 

can be found on many other streams on the forest such as 

Marble Creek, Pack River, Moyie River, Cow Creek, and 

Priest River to name a few. Wildlife: although this area 

provides habitat for threatened and endangered grizzly bear 

and woodland caribou, as well as lynx, and wolverine these 

species habitats are not unique to Smith Creek and can be 

found throughout the forest. These species does not owe their 

existence to the presence of the stream (FSH 1909.12 -

82.14(3)). 

70 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Snow 

Creek Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Snow Falls, possible 

tribal interest

Scenery –The scenic value is a water fall. Water falls are 

common across the forest. Recreation: The recreation value

is the water fall that receive frequent visitation. There are 

many other falls located on the forest such as Centennial, 

Myrtle, Copper, and Shadow Falls. Wildlife: Since the 

original assessment, several black swift nesting sites have 

been found at several other waterfalls across the forest. 

History: This drainage has areas of Tribal importance 

however; these sensitive areas are not tied to the stream. 

SUMMARY: These values are not rare, unique or exemplary 

features that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they 

are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values.

Spruce 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Large clearcut, experimental

History: There is evidence of historic timber harvest activity 

in this drainage. Examples of this historic activity are 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Grass 

Creek Y N N N N Y N N Y N

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values. 

Wildlife: There is significant grizzly bear activity in the 

drainage but this is not unique to this drainage, similar habitat 

and activity can be found across the Selkirk's. Botany:

Contains a peat land associated community. This is a 

particularly good example of a rare plant community on the 

forest; however other rare plant communities exist in other 

similar habitats on the forest. SUMMARY: Neither of these 

values is rare, unique or exemplary features that are 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not

considered to be outstandingly remarkable values.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 71
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geolog

y

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Bog 

Creek Y N N N N N N N Y N

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values. 

Botany: Similar plant communities can be found across the 

forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or 

exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

Table 219-B. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for the Coeur d’Alene District Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History (*) Prehistory Botany Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Avery 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Chutes and flumes (N)

History: Chutes and flumes are timber industry remnants that 

are common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not 

a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Blue 

Lake 

Creek 

Y N N N N N Y N N N Mine and Camp (N)

History: Mining industry remnants are common across the 

forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or 

exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

Burnt 

Cabin 

Creek 

Y N N N N N N N N N Winton Railroad 

Camp (N)

History: The railroad camp is not an legible property on the 

National Register for Historic Places. Other similar camps 

can be found across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not 

a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

72 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History (*)

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Coeur 

d'Alene 

River 

Y N Y N Y Y Y N N N

Not currently listed as 

eligible in Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory is in 

Pacific NW River 

Study Ratings from 

IPNF ‘87 Forest Plan 

EIS records.

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan. No change from 

original assessment

Copper 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Flumes (N)

History: Chutes and flumes are timber industry remnants that 

are common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not 

a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable

George 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Chutes and towpath (N)

History: Chutes and flumes are timber industry remnants 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Honey 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Chutes and flumes / towpath

History: Chutes and flumes are timber industry remnants 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Independ

ence 

Creek 

Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y

Wild (see explanation 

at end of table **) 

from Trident Cr. To 

Gorsuch and from 

Surprise to Goose Cr., 

National Rec Trail, 

1910 Fire snags, 

unique system, fresh 

water mussels & 

Scenery: Scenery along Independence Creek is typified by 

forested slopes with scattered openings and large fire snags 

evident, highly dissected drainages, and a clear-flowing 

stream pristine in character. While highly desirable and 

scenic, these features area replicated in drainages throughout 

the forest where roads are limited. Recreation: Very popular 

non-motorized National Recreation Trail (NRT) along river 

corridor that reveals little sign of human settlement and 

management. Though it provides a high value recreation 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 73
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History (*) Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

pristine early/mid 

succession riparian 

vegetation,

experience relative to other trails on the district, there are 

other long trails on the forest bordering rivers and lakes that 

are pristine in character, such as Big Creek (NRT) and Priest 

Lake Lakeshore trail (NRT). While scenic and popular, this 

trail is not unique to the forest. Geology: Although it is 

recognized the stream has associated interesting geologic 

features these geologic values are not ‘outstandingly 

remarkable' on the IPNF and are common across the Coeur 

d'Alene ranger district and the forest. Botany: This is a 

common example of an early/mid seral vegetation value after 

the 1910 fire and can be found across the forest. Other: Fresh 

water mussels are not unique to this creek and can be found in 

other creeks across the forest. SUMMARY: None of these 

values are rare, unique or exemplary features that are 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not 

considered to be outstandingly remarkable values.

Little N. 

F. Coeur 

d'Alene 

River

Y N N N Y N N N N N

Currently listed as 

eligible in Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan and currently listed 

as eligible in the revised Forest Plan - no change from 

original assessment NRI - F

Lost 

Creek Y Y Y Y N N N N N N

Wild (see explanation 

at end of table **) 

from Stack Creek to 

headwaters. Trail 

follows the creek. 

Many abrupt cliffs.

Scenery: Long trail that doesn't intersect any management 

activity i.e. crossing roads, viewing land management 

activities; this experience is replicated across the forest. 

Recreation: There are non-motorized ridge top trails such as 

Chilco Mtn, trail #81, and #309 on the Coeur d'Alene ranger 

district that can replicate this experience. Geology: Although 

it is recognized this creek has associated interesting geologic 

features (cliffs) these geologic values are not ‘outstandingly 

remarkable’ and are common across the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest. SUMMARY: These values are not rare, 

unique or exemplary features that are significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; they are not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable values.

74 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History (*)

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Montford 

Creek Y N N N N N N N N N No ORV Identified (Note: RNA)

No change from original assessment; Montford Creek RNA is 

established in this area

North 

Fork 

Coeur 

d'Alene 

River 

Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y

Currently listed as 

eligible in NRI, above 

Tepee Cr. Fire 

influenced stream, 

from Taft Creek 

North: Spion Kop 

RNA + outstanding 

e.g. of undisturbed 

early & mid 

succession riparian 

veg - includes low elev 

spruce + assoc 

wetlands.

American 

White 

Water 

S,R,F 

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan and currently listed 

as eligible in the revised Forest Plan

Prichard 

Creek N N N N N N Y N N N Gold Mine from early 20th century, dredged

History: The dredge mining referred to here is along the 

majority of the stream bed, most if not all is located on 

private lands. Dredge mining has also occurred on Beaver 

Creek. Since such a small portion of the mine is on FS lands 

and dredge mining is common across the forest. SUMMARY: 

This value is not a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to 

be outstandingly remarkable value.

Sob 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Chutes, flumes, towpaths (N)

History: Chutes and flumes are timber industry remnants 

common across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 75
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History (*) Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

West 

Fork 

Eagle 

Creek 

Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N

No ORV Identified 

(Note: Settlers Ancient 

Cedar SIA)

Original evaluation did not identify any potential values. 

Scenery: The scenic value is the Settlers Grove of Ancient 

Cedars (special area). Old growth cedar is common across the 

forest; there are several old growth cedar special areas across 

the forest such Hobo Cedar Grove, Roosevelt Grove of 

Ancient Cedars, and Sandhouse Cedar Grove. Recreation: 

Tied to cedar groves, non-motorized short trail. Many short 

interpretive trails that access cedar groves, across the forest. 

See scenery for more detail. Fish: Since original assessment, 

Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for bull 

trout which is currently unoccupied. This is high quality bull 

trout habitat that can be found on other streams across the 

forest. Botany: Ancient cedars can be found across the forest 

and are represented in several special areas. SUMMARY: 

None of these values are rare, unique or exemplary features 

that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not 

considered to be outstandingly remarkable values 

West 

Fork 

Placer 

Creek 

Y N Y N N N Y N N N

No ORV Identified 

Pulaski tunnel, Pulaski 

escape trail

Recreation: Since the original assessment, the forest 

developed the Pulaski Tunnel trail as an interpretive trail. 

This trail and tunnel is not directly tied to the West Fork of 

Placer Creek (FSH1909.12 82.14 (3)) History: The 

interpretive trail was developed for the 1910 fire and the 

saving of a fire crew by Ranger Pulaski, but does not owe the 

location or existence to the presence of the river (FSH1909.12 

82.14(3)). SUMMARY: Neither of these values are rare, 

unique or exemplary features that are significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; they are not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable values

76 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History (*)

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Yellow 

Dog 

Creek 

Y Y Y N N Y N N N N

Fern Falls, Shadow 

Falls (N), channelized, 

Contains only two 

documented blackswift nests in Idaho 

(less than 12 currently 

in Pacific NW - Id. 

Or.. WA.)

Free Flowing: The status changed from an N to a Y due to a 

stream restoration project that restored the free flowing nature 

of this creek since the original assessment. Scenery: The 

scenic values are multiple water falls. Water falls are 

common across the forest. Recreation: The recreation value

is viewing the water falls and the nest sites of black swifts. 

There are several other falls located on the forest such as 

Centennial, Myrtle, Copper, and Snow Creek Falls where this 

experience can be replicated. Wildlife: Since the original 

assessment, several black swift nesting sites have been found 

at several other waterfalls across the forest. SUMMARY: 

These values are not rare, unique or exemplary features that 

are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not 

considered to be outstandingly remarkable values.

(*) Numbers were originally used for the potential history value in 2005; numbers represented importance in potential value. The 2014 validation changed this 

system to a Yes or No.

(**) At the time of the original assessment the evaluators were looking at rivers with potential ORVs and then made a preliminary call as to what the river 

classification would be if the river value had been an outstandingly remarkable value. These creeks did not have ORVs associated with them as identified in the 

2014 review.

Table 219-C. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for the Priest Lake District Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory Botany Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Bath 

Creek N N N Y N N N N N N Probably an SIA

Revised Forest Plan proposes the Bath Creek Gorge as a 

geologic Special Area (407 acres). Free Flowing: This is a 

small tributary with no water, or riparian area. 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 77
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Hughes 

Fork N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N

Unique meadow and 

guard station, High 

concentration of old 

growth and ancient 

cedars, Upper Priest 

Proposed RNA, lots of 

coastal disjointed plant 

communities, Wildlife -

includes 3 sensitive 

species and 2 T&E 

species :river otter, 

harlequin duck, and 

fisher. Bald eagle 

roosts. One of the 

largest concentrations 

of grizzly bears 

foraging in the spring.

Currently listed as eligible in the revised Forest Plan

Identified ORVs: Scenery/Recreation/Wildlife/History/Botany

Preliminary Classification:S-1: Wild; S-2: Recreational 

Flowing: Changed from original assessment; approximately 2 

miles of Hughes Fork has been channelized and altered; 

therefore the free flowing status has been updated to reflect this 

change. Although minor channelization has occurred in the 

lower reaches of this stream (approximately 2 mile length) this 

does not affect the free-flowing value for which the river was 

considered (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 82.12). Scenery: Hughes 

Fork provides spectacular views of old growth and ancient 

cedars. Although old growth cedars and vistas can be found in 

other places on the forest; the mix of the river with expansive 

meadows, ancient cedar stands all within a short distance on the 

trail cannot be found on other trails on the forest. Recreation: 

Although recreation experiences can be found elsewhere, this 

area provides year round motorized and non-motorized 

recreation. From a hiking and horseback riding experience, the 

variety of trail experience (dense shaded old growth stands 

mingled with ancient cedars and meadows) cannot be found 

elsewhere on the forest. This trail is the primarily access to the 

Salmo Priest Wilderness and the Salmo Priest recommended 

wilderness area. Wildlife: Hughes Fork provides a wide variety 

of wildlife habitat for a complex of threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species. This is a unique combination of wildlife 

habitat found on the forest. This area provides for important 

grizzly bear spring habitat. However, grizzly bear 

concentrations are higher in other areas. History: Hughes 

Meadow guard station is eligible to the national register. 

Botany: The old and ancient cedar grove is part of the longest, 

contiguous old growth cedar stand east of the Cascade 

Mountains. This area is also very species rich in rare plant 

populations.

78 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Kalispell 

Creek Y N N N N N Y N N N Narrow gauge train (gas 

powered) logging

History: There is evidence of historic railroad logging in this 

drainage. Examples of this historic logging activity are common 

across the forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique 

or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

North 

Fork 

Granite 

Creek 

Y Y Y N N N N N N N Granite & Lasota Falls

Scenery –The scenic value includes multiple waterfalls and the 

Roosevelt Cedar Grove. Waterfalls and cedar groves are 

common across the forest Recreation: The recreation values 

are the water falls and Roosevelt Cedar grove; both receiving 

frequent visitation. There are many other falls located on the 

forest such as Centennial, Myrtle, Copper, and Snow Creek 

Falls. Roosevelt cedar grove is an existing scenic area in the 

forest plan. Other cedar groves on the forest include Hobo, 

Sandhouse, and Settlers cedar groves. SUMMARY: Neither of 

these values is rare, unique or exemplary features that are 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not considered 

to be outstandingly remarkable values.

Priest 

River Y N N N N N N N N N

Suitability study 

completed and 

determined not to be 

suitable

No change from original assessment.

South 

Salmo 

River 

Y N N Y N N N N N N

Flows into wilderness 

area, continental 

glaciated stream

Geology: Although it is recognized the stream has associated 

interesting geologic features (glaciated stream) this geologic 

value is not ‘outstandingly remarkable’ since glaciated aquatic 

systems are found across the north zone of the forest. 

SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or exemplary 

feature that is significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not 

considered to be outstandingly remarkable value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 79
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Tepee 

Creek Y N N N N N N N N N Existing SIA No change from the original assessment. Tepee Creek and Bottle Lake are RNAs and not SAs

Upper 

Priest 

River 

Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N

Upper section currently 

listed eligible in the 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory. Already 

studied and determined 

to be suitable, outwash 

and bedrock channels

American 

Whitewater 

R,S,F,W

Wildlife: Harlequin duck breeding habitat found along river, 

also the river corridor is a known caribou travel corridor; 

Botany: Proposed Upper Priest River Botanic Area (Special 

Area) in revised Forest Plan. Largest area of old growth cedar, 

western hemlock and grand fir in the interior western U.S. This 

area is also very species rich in rare plant populations.

Table 219-D. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for the Sandpoint District Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory Botan

y

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Gold 

Creek 

(flows into 

Lake Pend 

Oreille)

Y N N N Y N N N N N Important bull trout 

spawning

Fish: There are many bull trout spawning streams across the 

forest. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or 

exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

80 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botan

y

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Lightning 

Creek Y N Y N N N N N N N Strong glacial influence, substantial flow regime

American 

White 

Water

Objection 

w/out prior 

comment 

no ORVs 

specified

Recreation: The recreation value is a high use corridor with 

multiple recreation activities. These corridors are common 

and located across the forest, found along river corridors and 

adjacent to lakes. Geology: Dynamic, glacially influenced 

stream systems can be found across the forest. Extensive 

watershed disturbance is natural; this is a high energy active 

system. SUMMARY: Neither of these values is rare, unique 

or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; they are not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable values.

Pack River Y N Y N Y N N N N N

Upper section currently 

listed in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory as 

eligible. No ORV 

Identified

American 

White 

Water 

R,F

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan and currently listed 

as eligible in the revised Forest Plan. Recreation: The 

recreation value is a high use corridor with multiple 

recreation activities. These corridors are common and 

located across the forest, found along river corridors and 

adjacent to lakes. Fish: Nationwide Rivers Inventory found 

fisheries to be the ORV for the river. 

Trestle 

Creek Y N N N Y N N N N N

Bull trout population 

stronghold, important 

spawning

Fish: Critical bull trout habitat is not unique to this river. 

There are at least 42 rivers, streams or stream segments on 

the forest that provide designated critical habitat for bull 

trout. Examples of these streams are Trestle Creek, 

Lightning Creek, Pack River, Independence Creek, Spruce 

Creek, and Marble Creek to name a few. SUMMARY: This 

value is not a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is not considered 

to be outstandingly remarkable value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 81
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory

Botan

y

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

West Fork 

Blue 

Creek 

Y N N Y N N N N N N Glaciation

Geology: Although it is recognized the stream has 

associated interesting geologic features (glaciation) this 

geologic values is not ‘outstandingly remarkable’ - the 

glaciated influence in Blue Creek can be found in other 

streams on the north zone and across the forest. 

SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, unique or exemplary 

feature that is significant at the Forest scale therefore; it is 

not considered to be outstandingly remarkable value.

Table 219-E. 2014 Review of WSR Inventory Documenting Rivers with Potential Values for the St. Joe District Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory Botany Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Big Creek Y N Y N N N N N N N

American 

White 

Water 

Objection 

w/out prior 

comment 

no ORVs 

specified

Originally no potential values were identified during the initial 

analysis. Recreation: The recreation value is a high use 

corridor with multiple recreation activities. These corridors are 

common and located across the forest, found along river 

corridors and adjacent to lakes. SUMMARY: This value is not 

a rare, unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

82 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Black 

Prince 

Creek 

Y N N Y N N N N N N unique gorge & 

riparian

Geology: Short gorge area; first 1.5 miles private; gorge located 

just on other side of private land entirely on National Forest 

lands. Old growth cedars, missed from 1910 fire are within 

gorge. Log jams have created deep pools in the gorge. Log jams 

are ephemeral features within the gorge that will eventually rot 

away. This gorge feature with pools can be found on other 

reaches of the St. Joe system. SUMMARY: This value is not a 

rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is significant at the 

Forest scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Dip Creek Y N N N N N N N Y N Ancient Cedars

Botany: Old growth cedar is common across the forest; there 

are several old growth cedar special areas across the forest such 

Hobo Cedar Grove, Roosevelt Grove of Ancient Cedars, and 

Sandhouse Cedar Grove. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, 

unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Foehl 

Creek Y N N N N N N N Y N

outstanding ancient 

cedar - numerous 

small groves

Botany: Old growth cedar is common across the forest; there 

are several old growth cedar special areas across the forest such 

Hobo Cedar Grove, Roosevelt Grove of Ancient Cedars, and 

Sandhouse Cedar Grove. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, 

unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Larkins 

Creek Y N N N N N N N Y N ancient cedar

Botany: Old growth cedar is common across the forest; there 

are several old growth cedar special areas across the forest such 

Hobo Cedar Grove, Roosevelt Grove of Ancient Cedars, and 

Sandhouse Cedar Grove. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, 

unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 83
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

Little North 

Fork 

Clearwater 

River 

Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N

Currently listed in 

the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory as 

Eligible

American 

White 

Water 

S, R,F,W

Listed as eligible in the 1987 Forest Plan and currently listed as 

eligible in the revised Forest Plan - no change from original 

assessment

Marble 

Creek Y N Y N N Y Y N N N

Rich in logging 

history, splash dams, 

logging camp, steam 

donkeys throughout 

drainage. 

Classification -

Recreation: from 

jct.w/ St. Joe River 

to Cornwall Creek 

(ORVs = rec and 

history), Scenic: 

from Cornwall 

Creek to headwaters 

(can't go wild even 

though no road 

access because of 

historic logging, 

splash dams, steam 

donkey, etc.)

American 

White 

Water

R, S, W

Free flowing: The numerous splash dams in Marble Creek do 

not altered the free flowing nature of the stream changing the 

free flowing status when applying FSH 1909.12. 82.12 free 

flowing definition; therefore the free-flowing determination has 

been changed from no to yes. NOTE: Since the March 2014 

validation the splash dams on Marble Creek have been removed 

(summer of 2014) restoring the stream to its free flowing nature. 

Scenery: Change due to the scenery in Marble Creek is not 

considered rare, unique, and exemplary at the Forest scale to be 

considered an outstandingly remarkable value. This scenery is 

very common across the forest, especially across the south zone. 

Recreation: Potential recreation value is a high use corridor 

with multiple recreation uses. High use river corridors are 

common and located across the forest. Several trails go to 

historic logging sites that feature steam donkeys, trestles and 

other historic logging sites. The type of logging activity found 

within this drainage has occurred in other areas on the forest 

and is not rare, unique, or exemplary. The trails that access the 

historic sites are not river dependent. These potential recreation 

values are not considered rare, unique, and exemplary at the 

Forest scale to be considered an outstandingly remarkable 

value. Wildlife: Both harlequin duck breeding sites and Coeur 

d’Alene salamander habitat have been identified since the 

original assessment. Both habitat and breeding sites for these 

species have been identified elsewhere on the forest. History:

Many historic logging sites that feature steam donkeys, trestles 

and several railroad logging features are within the drainage but 

are not located in Marble Creek or its immediate shorelands 

(within 1⁄4 mile on either side of the river) FSH 1901.12 82.14 1. 

84 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

SUMMARY: These values are not rare, unique or exemplary 

features that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they 

are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values. 

American Whitewater ORVs: Scenic: Marble Creek flows 

through a highly scenic roadless canyon. The scenic viewing 

and quality is not unique to Marble Creek and can be found in 

other areas on the south zone, as described above. Recreation:

Although whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, this is not 

rare, unique, or exemplary. This experience can be found on 

many other streams on the forest such as Pack River, Cow 

Creek, and Moyie River to name a few. Wildlife: The upper 

reaches of Marble Creek, near the St. Joe / Clearwater divide, is 

habitat for wolverine. Wolverine habitat is not unique to Marble 

Creek and can be found throughout the forest. This species does 

not owe their existence to the presence of the stream (FSH 

1909.12 - 82.14(3)).

Medicine 

Creek Y N N N Y N N N N N

Fisheries- most bull 

trout redds on the St. 

Joe District. 

Mining>stream 

straightened?

Fish: There are many bull trout spawning streams across the 

forest. The stream straightening was related to historic mining 

done in the drainage. SUMMARY: This value is not a rare, 

unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable value. 

Mosquito 

Creek Y Y N N N N N N N N MAYBE?

"Maybe" remark refers to the burned out cedars in the creek 

bottom. Similar cedars can be found across the forest. 

SUMMARY: The scenery value is not a rare, unique or 

exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest scale 

therefore; it is not considered to be outstandingly remarkable 

value.

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 85
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Stream Name Free Flowing Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife History Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

North Fork 

Saint Joe 

River 

Y Y Y N N N Y N N N

Lower reach has 

severe 

encroachments and 

muds(Patten)Headw

aters to Spruce Tree 

CG - Wild, Spruce 

Tree to Avery -

Recreation.

Scenery:1910 burn, 

swampy cedar 

graveyard. History: 

Milwaukee Electric 

RR, Hiawatha Trail. 

Rec - Road along 

entire route, high 

use dispersed 

camping & driving 

for pleasure, popular 

snowmobile rt.

American 

White 

Water

Objection 

w/out prior 

comment 

no ORVs 

specified

Scenery: The scenery values are the views of the 1910 burn and 

the swampy cedar areas along the corridor, both of these can be 

found in other areas on the forest. Recreation: The recreation 

value is a high use corridor with multiple recreation activities. 

The very popular Hiawatha trail is tied to a road grade that is 

located within the river corridor. This old railroad grade was 

chosen as a trail because of the railroad right-of-way and is not 

linked to the creek or river dependent. Recreation use along the 

creek is not unique - there are other locations across forest with 

similar experience. History: The Milwaukee Road RR and the 

Hiawatha Trail are already listed on the National Register and 

are not always near the River (outside of corridor). Many rivers 

and streams on the forest have heavy dispersed use. Many roads 

on the forest are used for pleasure driving, and many similar 

routes on the forest have popular winter snowmobile routes. 

SUMMARY: These values are not rare, unique or exemplary 

features that are significant at the Forest scale therefore; they 

are not considered to be outstandingly remarkable values.

Rocky Run Y N N Y N N N N N Y

Steep glaciated 

stream (extensive 

watershed 

disturbance)

Geology: Although it is recognized the stream has associated 

interesting geologic features (steep glaciated stream) this 

geologic value is not ‘outstandingly remarkable’ on the IPNF 

and can be found within other drainages on the forest. Other: 

extensive watershed disturbance is natural; this is a high energy 

active system. SUMMARY: Neither of these values is a rare, 

unique or exemplary feature that is significant at the Forest 

scale therefore; they are not considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable values.

Slate Creek Y Y Y N N N N N N N

American 

White 

Water

R, S

Original assessment did not identify any potential vales. 

Scenery: Scenery along Slate Creek is typified by forested 

slopes and a clear-flowing stream pristine in character. There 

are clear "blue" water pools and rapids. While highly desirable 

86 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Stream Name

Free Flowing

Scenery

Recreation

Geology

Fish

Wildlife

History

Prehistory

Botany

Other

2005 Remarks

Inventory 

from 

Public

2014 Review

and scenic, these features are replicated in other drainages on 

the St. Joe RD e.g. North Fork of the St. Joe River. Recreation: 

Slate Creek is bounded by a very popular high clearance road 

(Road 225 for the lower 15 miles of this stream. The upper 3 

miles are bounded by a motorized single track trail (Slate Creek 

Trail 160) which then accesses the Slate Creek Trail system 

(over 50 miles of single track and ATV). Though it provides a 

high value motorized recreation experience, there are other high 

clearance (slow going) roads with spectacular scenery e.g. Road 

220 to Getaway Point and many other motorized trails (e.g. Big 

Creek Trail 44, Bronson Meadows Trail 155, Fly Creek Trail 

629) on the District bordering rivers that are pristine in 

character. With regard to signs of human settlement and 

management, there are some remnants of historic cabins, mines 

and an active private mining claim within the first 15 miles of 

Slate Creek. In early spring there are some skilled people that 

kayak this stream. While scenic and popular, these recreational 

experiences are not unique to the forest. SUMMARY: Neither 

of these values is rare, unique or exemplary features that are 

significant at the Forest scale therefore; they are not considered 

to be outstandingly remarkable values. American Whitewater 

ORVs: Scenery: The old road-bed above the canyon on riverright, as well as the river itself offer views of the impressive 

gorge, beautiful waterfalls and tumbling rapids are not unique to 

this stream and can be found in other streams across the forest. 

Recreation: Although whitewater paddling occurs on this creek, 

this is not rare, unique, or exemplary. This experience can be 

found on many other streams on the forest such as Marble 

Creek, Cow Creek, to name a few.

Saint Joe 

River Y Y Y N Y N N N N N

Designated WSR. 

Rec: Avery -Spruce 

Tree. Wild:: Spruce 

Tree - St. Joe Lake

This is a designated wild and scenic river - designated on 

November 10, 1978 - no change from original assessment

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 87

Appendix G—Response to Public Comments

Page 340–342: Public Comment 92

Replace response summary item B-D with the following text:

B and D.) We agree that restricting motorized or mechanized uses in MA1b 

recommended wilderness is not based on science related to impacts on physical 

resources. The restrictions in MA1b were based on the desired conditions (MA1b-DCAR-01, 02, 03) and the wilderness character and potential for the area to be included in 

the National Wilderness Preservation system remain intact until Congressional action is 

taken.

FSM 1923.03 provides direction on management of recommended wilderness “A 

roadless area being evaluated and ultimately recommended for wilderness or wilderness 

study is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the area’s wilderness 

potential. Activities currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the 

activities do not compromise wilderness values of the roadless area.” The FEIS page X 

discloses how the effects of continuing motorized and mechanized uses would be 

inconsistent with meeting desired conditions in MA1, 1b, and 4 and may have adverse 

effects on outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

A Region 1 white paper provides additional guidance for management of recommended 

wilderness. It suggests that if it is determined the area is best suited to wilderness 

designation the desired condition and standards in the revised Forest Plan should support 

those conclusions by restricting uses that would jeopardize the capability and availability 

of the area as designated wilderness. If there are existing uses that may threaten the 

capability and availability of the area, forest should choose to implement one of the 

following actions1

:

1. Eliminate those uses that threaten the capability and availability;

2. Adjust the management area boundary to eliminate the area with established 

uses; or

3. Not recommend the area for wilderness designation.

This guidance was considered during the analysis but does not represent binding policy.

In the revised Forest Plan we did not recommend some areas that had been previously 

recommended wilderness in the 1987 Plan. We also modified boundaries of some areas 

that had established motorized/mechanized use to exclude them from recommended 

wilderness. In the areas that are recommended wilderness, the management area direction 

includes standards to not allow motorized and mechanized uses to maintain the 

wilderness characteristic including outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation.

1

Regional Consistency for Management of Recommended Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Areas, 2007

Page 354: Public Comment 725

Strike reference to FSM 2080 in the response. 

Page 374: Public Comment 156

Replace response summary item A with the following text:

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS 89
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

A) This area is designated as a Wilderness Study Area (MA1c). Under BLM ownership, 

this area was designated as a Wilderness Study Area under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The legislation that accompanied the land exchanges for this area (the 

Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act of 1992 and the Idaho Land Enhancement Act of 

2006) requires the Forest Service to maintain the wilderness character and suitability for 

designation as wilderness until Congress determines otherwise. Because of the 

requirement to maintain this suitability until Congress makes a determination, the Forest 

is required to retain these areas as Wilderness Study Areas (MA1c). The Arkansas-Idaho 

Land Exchange Act of 1992 stated that, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 

permitting or prohibiting continued use of motorized vehicles on existing routes within 

such area at the level of such use as was permitted on August 1, 1992.” One of the 

established uses is single track motorized use, which will be allowed in the revised Forest 

Plan. OHV use, including ATV use, was not an established use when the Forest Service 

acquired the Wilderness Study Area; therefore, this use is not allowed in the revised 

Forest Plan; and

Page 375: Public Comment 157

Replace the response text with the following: 

A) See response to Public Comment 156 A. The Forest will allow uses that existed when 

the land was acquired. The recent court rulings do not apply to the Grandmother 

Mountain WSA;

B) Planned ignitions are allowed in the WSA and may be used as a tool to restore natural 

conditions in vegetation. Gathering firewood and special forest products for personal use 

is allowed. Some products might be gathered and carried outside the wilderness 

boundary. As long as that material is for personal use, it will be allowed under this Plan;

C) The trail from Freezout Ridge to Pinchot Butte is neither a system route nor a system 

trail; the IPNF does not consider this a road and will not be on the South Zone MVUM 

(expected to be published in 2014). The Forest Service does coordinate with the BLM on

the management of this area. We are not clear what appendix you are referring to. 

Appendix C to the Forest Plan does not have any information on roads or Pinchot Butte. 

Appendix C of the FEIS refers to the wilderness evaluation and includes Pinchot Butte,

but nothing about roads;

D) The legislative acts that accompanied the two land exchanges to the Forest Service 

state that existing uses at the time of the exchanges may be allowed (but are not required) 

to continue. The three primary recreational uses that existed at the time of the land 

exchanges include; snowmobile use, single track motorized use, and mechanized use 

(mountain bikes). The revised Forest Plan allows uses that existed at the time of the land 

exchange. There is no language about the amount of use; and

Page 390: Public Comment 900

Replace the response text with the following: 

The superfund team is only in the planning phase of Coeur d'Alene Superfund cleanup and does

not currently have a mechanism for prioritizing areas. The superfund cleanup has been added to 

the cumulative effects in the FEIS. The decisions in the ROD for the revised Plan are generally 

programmatic in nature and do not authorize ground disturbing activities such as vegetation 

removal that may potentially affect water yield. This type of analysis is best addressed at the 

project-level, where locations of potential disturbance are known.

90 Errata to the 2013 Final EIS
Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Page 418: Public Comment 284

Replace the response with the following text: 

The IPNF recognizes the importance that prevention measures have in an integrated weed 

management strategy and program. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2900 (Dec 5, 2011) 

provides policy for invasive species management. This final invasive species management 

directive provides foundational comprehensive guidance for the management of invasive species 

on aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System (NFS). The purpose of this policy is 

to bring existing efforts together for a more coordinated management approach. The Forest does 

not feel it is necessary to reiterate those requirements in this Forest Plan as they already exist 

elsewhere. As indicated on page 2 of the IPNF draft Forest Plan (under the heading of 

Implementing the Forest Plan), the Forest Service will follow all existing laws, regulations, and 

policies relating to the management of the NFS lands, and the forest plan components are 

generally designed to supplement, not replace, existing direction.

Page 465: Public Comment 369

Remove this sentence: Specifically, pages 3-5 of FSM 2081.2. 

Errata to the 2013 Final EIS