Caribou-Targhee NF Caribou-Targhee NF 

1405 Hollipark Dr. 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

(208) 524-7500 

Record of Decision 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Revised Caribou Travel Plan 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Located In: 

Bannock, Bear Lake, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, 

and Power Counties in the State of Idaho 

Box Elder and Cache Counties in the State of Utah 

Lincoln County in the State of Wyoming 

Responsible Agency: 

USDA - Forest Service, Caribou – Targhee National Forest 

Responsible Official: 

Larry Timchak, Caribou - Targhee Forest Supervisor 
ROD--II

 Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................3

Forest Setting.................................................................................................................................................3 

My Decision...................................................................................................................................................3 

Decision Authority.........................................................................................................................................5 

Why Alternative 5R? .....................................................................................................................................5 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED......................................................6

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................6 

Tribal Trust Responsibilities.........................................................................................................................6 

How was the public involved in developing the Travel Plan?....................................................................6

Issues and Concerns......................................................................................................................................7 

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................................................7 

ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...................................................................................................8 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...........................................................................................................8 

DECISION AND RATIONALE .....................................................................................................................11

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................11 

Travel Plan Decisions.................................................................................................................................11 

RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION .........................................................................................................................14 

Consistency with Forest Plan ......................................................................................................................... 

How the Revised Caribou Travel Plan addresses the issues and concerns ................................................. 

FINDINGS RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND AUTHORITIES.......................................................16 

How does the Revised Caribou Travel Plan meet other laws or authorities? .........................................16 

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................23

IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................23 

How and when will the Revised Caribou Travel Plan be implemented? .................................................23 

Transition to the Revised Caribou Travel Plan.........................................................................................23 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF MY DECISION.................................................................................................24 

CONTACTS ........................................................................................................................................................25 

Where can I obtain more information on the Revised Caribou Travel Plan? .........................................25 

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................25 

 Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................25 
ROD--III

Part 

1 Introduction 

Forest Setting 

The Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, herein referred to as the Caribou, lies in 

the northern reaches of the Great Basin Region. The Westside, Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger 

Districts comprise the Caribou planning unit. In general, precipitation is low and climatic conditions 

harsh. High, rugged mountain ranges rise sharply from semi-arid sagebrush plains and agricultural 

valleys. Approximately 50 percent of the Caribou supports stands of Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and aspen. These conifer species are mainly found above 6,000 ft. 

in elevation. Shrubs such as sagebrush and rabbitbrush dominate non-forested areas. The Caribou 

provides a wide variety of diverse habitats for 334 species of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife known or 

suspected to occur on the Caribou. Four species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The water bodies on the Caribou provide habitat for a variety of aquatic, plant, insect, and fish species, 

including the Bonneville and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 

The Caribou encompasses ten counties in three states and includes 1,042,200 acres. Bannock County, 

a retail and commercial hub for southeast Idaho, is at the center of this “zone of influence.” Residents 

of several communities use the Caribou for recreation and commercial uses. 

My Decision 

I have selected Alternative 5R for implementation, as described in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Revised Caribou Travel Plan for the Westside, Soda Springs and 

Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. This decision does not 

determine travel restrictions for the Targhee planning unit or for the Curlew National Grasslands, 

which are also administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. By selecting Alternative 5R, I 

am approving the Revised Caribou Travel Plan that describes in detail and maps the opportunities and 

restrictions for public travel, both summer and winter, on the Westside, Soda Springs, and Montpelier 

Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. 

The purpose and need for action is to amend the 2002 Travel Plan with the 2003 Special Order to 

reflect management direction of the Caribou Revised Forest Plan. Under the 2003 Special Order, 

motorized travel is restricted to designated routes on 97 percent of the Forest. Before the Revised 

Forest Plan and the Special Order, approximately 40 percent of the Caribou was open to cross-country 

motorized travel during the snow-free season. The purpose and need for action is to determine which 

routes will be designated for motorized and mechanized travel, and which areas will be managed as 

non-motorized during the snow and snow-free seasons. Alternative 5R meets the desired future 

condition for the transportation system described in the Revised Plan (3-36). The Selected Alternative 

provides a variety of year-round travel opportunities and settings on the forest, while meeting the goals 

and objectives for resources; including soils, water, vegetation and wildlife habitat as identified in the 

Revised Plan. 
ROD--4

Travel management changes between the 2002 Caribou Travel Plan with the 2003 Special Order and 

the Selected Alternative include a reduction in designated motorized roads and trails forest-wide, 

additional designated mountain bike trails and identifying the non-motorized system trails that will be 

maintained over time. 

Snow season changes include designated snowmobile routes through winter range prescriptions, 

changing the prescription boundary for the Bonneville Peak non-motorized area, north of Lava Hot 

Springs, providing additional non-motorized areas in the Bear River Range, and refining nonmotorized boundaries in Mink Creek, southwest of Pocatello. 

The Revised Plan set general direction for travel using the transportation inventory that was available 

in 2003. The Revised Plan emphasizes adaptive management and monitoring to address uncertainties 

regarding management of Forest resources, changing conditions and scientific knowledge. This 

decision includes three non-significant plan amendments that are responsive to changing conditions 

and more accurate data. 

The Revised Travel Plan will require a plan amendment to change management direction for the 

“Huckleberry Basin” prescription area, east of Soda Springs, from “open to cross-country motorized 

travel” to “motorized travel on designated routes during the snow-free season”. This change retains 

motorized opportunity in the area and simplifies travel management regulations, mapping and 

enforcement on the Caribou. 

The Revised Travel Plan will require a plan amendment to change the prescription boundary for the 

eastern slope of Bonneville Peak. This boundary adjustment will provide additional high-elevation 

areas for snow-riding in a non-motorized setting. 

Open Motorized Route Density (OMRD) ceilings are used in the Revised Plan to achieve a desired 

recreation setting and to minimize wildlife disturbance. The prescribed OMRDs were determined by 

the density of the existing road and trail system, motorized access needs and uses, and the management 

emphasis for the prescription area. In 2004, transportation maps were updated to reflect route 

locations indicated by satellite image and GPS technology. With this update, it was discovered that 

many routes were longer than initially mapped and some route alignments were not accurate. The 

Revised Travel Plan will require a plan amendment to increase the OMRD ceilings for nine 

prescription areas between 0.1 to 0.3 miles per square mile. This amendment will accommodate 

existing designated motorized routes that were not mapped correctly, retain a motorized right-of-way 

onto the forest, reduce traffic conflicts on the South Fork Mink Creek Road, and provide additional 

motorized opportunities. 

National Travel Management Rule 

The National Travel Management Rule was released on November 2, 2005. The Caribou Travel Plan 

decision meets the intent and purpose of the National Rule. Forest staff engaged the public in 

identifying an appropriate road and trail system of designated routes for motorized travel. The Caribou 

Travel Plan decision manages all motorized travel on designated routes during the snow-free season. 

If the Forest determines the need to adjust travel direction to comply with the specifics of the National 

Travel Management Rule, the public will be engaged in the appropriate NEPA process. 
ROD--5

Decision Authority 

I have been delegated the authority to make this decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Chief of 

the Forest Service (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). 

Why Alternative 5R? 

I know that my decision will not completely satisfy every group or individual; however, I have 

concluded that Alternative 5R is a reasoned choice that provides a mix of recreation travel 

opportunities and settings. The Selected Alternative maintains needed administrative access and will 

not adversely impact soils, vegetation, water and wildlife habitat. In my judgment, Alternative 5R is 

consistent with all laws, regulations and policy governing National Forest management. 

Alternative 5R was built around the public’s diverse wishes, the wants and needs of our American 

Indian neighbors, and other government and agency objectives. Portions of the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribe’s ancestral homelands are located within the Caribou. Throughout the travel planning process, 

the Forest has coordinated with the Tribe. Staff biologists for the Tribe were members of the 

interdisciplinary team. Two open houses were held at Tribal Offices to inform tribal members of the 

travel plan analysis and the alternatives. 

The Forest held two rounds of evening meetings in six area communities and forest staff met with local 

groups and individuals to provide maps and to answer questions. Local residents, trail use groups, 

agencies and other interested parties were engaged throughout the two year process. Alternative 5R 

addresses the contentious issue concerning the desire for more non-motorized settings and the desire to 

retain or increase motorized opportunities. Public comment on this subject is highly variable, ranging 

from people who want no restrictions on motorized travel to those desiring complete abolition of 

motorized travel on the Caribou and other public lands. The range of alternatives analyzed in the FEIS 

reflects this continuum of public desires, while staying within the framework of the Revised Forest 

Plan. 

The decision retains a majority of the existing motorized opportunities and non-motorized settings as 

currently managed under the 2002 Travel Plan. The decision reduces designated motorized routes by 

90 miles. The decision creates a non-motorized area during the snow-free season within Stump Creek 

drainage. The decision increases mountain bike opportunity on non-motorized trails and retains some 

single-track motorcycle trails. The decision improves non-motorized settings during the winter in Bear 

River Range, Bonneville Peak and Mink Creek, south of Pocatello. 
ROD--6

Part 

2 Public Involvement and 

Alternatives Considered 

Government and Public Involvement 

Tribal Trust Responsibilities 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe has ancestral Treaty Rights on the public domain lands reserved for 

National Forest purposes administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The relationship of 

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

sovereign nations. The Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868 reserved hunting and fishing rights for 

Tribal members on “...all unoccupied lands of the United States.” Consultation with the Fort Hall 

Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is required on land management activities that 

could affect forest uses and access to the forest. 

How was the public involved in the analysis and decision? 

During the Forest Plan revision process, the public was keenly interested in travel management. Ongoing dialogue with interested parties and groups continued after the plan was finalized and while 

forest staff completed a detailed transportation inventory in preparation for site-specific travel 

planning. On March 11 of 2004, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to 

revise the Caribou Travel Plan was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 69, Number 48, pages 

11588 to 11589). The Notice of Intent included a description of the Proposed Action. Maps of the 

Proposed Action were mailed to interested parties. Large scale maps were distributed to groups and 

individuals upon request, and topographic maps were posted on our external website for public review. 

This began the formal scoping process. On March 12, 2004, a scoping letter was mailed to over 1,500 

interested and potentially affected publics. 

During March and April 2004, Forest staff hosted a series of eight evening open houses to share the 

road and trail inventory and the “Proposed Action” with the public. In addition to the identification of 

preliminary issues, the Forest solicited ideas for site-specific travel route management. The official 

comment period closed on May 1, 2004. Over 450 individual comments were received. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released to the public on April 1, 2005. 620 

individuals, agencies and groups were mailed an executive summary of the DEIS or the full document 

and map package. The initial comment period was scheduled to close on May 16, 2005 but was 

extended to May 27, 2005. Seven open houses and briefings were conducted during April and May to 

discuss the DEIS and Preferred Alternative with local communities and trail users. The Forest 

received approximately 1,700 letters, postcards, e-mails, and phone calls from people commenting on 

the draft document. Many of these comments were electronic form letters. The Forest 

Interdisciplinary Team developed Alternative 5R based on additional public comment. 

(See FEIS, Appendix A, Response to Public Comments.) 
ROD--7

Issues and Concerns 

Preliminary issues were identified through public comments and interdisciplinary team concerns; from 

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

implementing the proposed action originally provided to the public. 

• Issue 1—Some people feel the travel plan should increase motorized opportunity. 

• Issue 2— Some people feel the travel plan should increase non-motorized settings and some 

people want more non-motorized mountain bike trails. 

• Issue 3— Some people want more single-track motorcycle trails. 

• Issue 4—Some people want to eliminate cross-country motorized travel during the snow-free 

season in Huckleberry Basin, east of Soda Springs. 

• Issue 5—All alternatives exceed the prescribed Open Motorized Route Densities of the 

• Revised Forest Plan in some forest areas. 

• Issue 6—The Idaho Department of Fish and Game want the travel plan to reduce wildlife 

disturbance from motorized travel. 

• Issue 7—There is a concern for designated motorized routes on unstable soil types. 

• Issue 8—There is a concern for designated motorized routes within Aquatic Influence Zones. 

• Issue 9— There is a concern for designated motorized routes within Aquatic Influence Zones 

of fish-bearing streams 

Alternative Development 

Alternatives under consideration in the DEIS were developed from the following sources: 

• Evaluation of current forest travel routes and the implementation of the 2002 Caribou Travel 

Plan 

• Review of Forest Service policy and direction 

• An assessment of existing conditions and initial public comments 

• Issues identified during the public scoping process and comments received at public meetings 

• Management concerns and opportunities identified by the interdisciplinary team 
ROD--8

Five alternatives were formulated and the effects displayed in the DEIS. In response to public 

comments on the DEIS, the Forest developed another alternative, Alternative 5R. The Final EIS 

analyzes six alternatives. 

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail 

The public suggested management options during scoping or during public participation activities. 

The following options or alternatives were considered by the interdisciplinary team but were 

eliminated from detailed analysis. (See FEIS, Chapter 2) 

AN ALTERNATIVE THAT DESIGNATES ALL ROUTES FOR MOTORIZED TRAVEL AND /OR BUILDS NEW ROUTES

Some people want the decision to “maximize” all possible motorized routes to meet the growing 

demand for motorized travel on the forest. A “motorized travel emphasis” alternative would 

“grandfather” in all existing travel routes on the ground as a designated motorized road or trail, and/or 

construct new designated motorized routes. This alternative would not meet Revised Plan direction to 

provide a transportation plan that offers a variety of recreation opportunities and settings. Such an 

alternative would dramatically exceed prescribed OMRDs in most prescription areas, and not meet 

guidelines for recreation settings as mapped for forest areas. Although most routes would be open to 

hikers, mountain bikers and stock or horse use, this alternative would offer few areas for a nonmotorized setting on the forest. 

AN ALTERNATIVE THAT CLOSES MOST DESIGNATED MOTORIZED ROUTES TO MOTORIZED TRAVEL

Some people want the decision to “maximize” non-motorized experiences to meet the demand for nonmotorized settings for people and wildlife on the forest. An alternative that would emphasize nonmotorized settings would close many existing motorized routes and manage large forest areas as nonmotorized. This alternative would not meet Revised Plan direction to provide a transportation plan that 

offers a variety of recreation opportunities. This alternative does not meet the guidelines of recreation 

settings as mapped for forest areas. This alternative would offer little motorized travel opportunity 

other than established main travel routes. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The Final EIS considers six alternatives in detail. Design features and mitigations have been 

incorporated into the alternatives to reduce impacts on resources or forest uses; these are listed in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 
ROD--9

ALTERNATIVE 1—NO ACTION (2002 CARIBOU TRAVEL PLAN WITH 2003 SPECIAL ORDER) 

Alternative 1 proposes to continue management under the 2002 Caribou Travel Plan with the 2003 

Special Order. This Alternative reflects the likely outcomes of managing Forest travel routes under the 

existing condition. This alternative does not meet the goals, objectives and desired conditions 

identified in the Revised Forest Plan. 

ALTERNATIVE 2—PROPOSED ACTION 

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

the updated roads and trail inventory, The 2003 Forest Roads Analysis, the Revised Forest Plan, and 

previous public comments on travel access. The proposed action considered issues of non-motorized 

settings, motorized opportunity and the potential of resource impacts from designated travel routes. 

This alternative manages a core area of the Stump Creek drainage as non-motorized during the snowfree season, and offers a mix of semi-primitive non-motorized and motorized experiences. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

Alternative Three was developed from wildlife issues provided by Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. Fish and Game staff wanted an alternative to the Proposed Action that emphasized managing 

large areas as non-motorized during the snow-free season, to reduce wildlife disturbance from 

motorized travel. The Department also wanted more areas that offer a non-motorized hunting 

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

during the snow-free season creating larger non-motorized areas. 

ALTERNATIVE 4 

Alternative Four was developed from issues received by a Southeast Idaho Recreation Alliance, SIRA. 

This group is a coalition of local residents, conservation groups and recreation organizations. This 

alternative was based on comments received by SIRA, however not all features of the alternative 

reflect their views. This group wanted an alternative to the Proposed Action that emphasized 

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

alternative manages some designated roads and trails as closed to motorized travel during the snowfree season creating larger non-motorized areas. This alternative also manages additional areas as nonmotorized during the snow season. 

ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERED ALTERNATIVE IN DRAFT EIS) 

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

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

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

opportunities through loop routes and manages a “core” area of the Stump Creek drainage as nonmotorized during the snow-free season. 
ROD--10

ALTERNATIVE 5R (SELECTED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative 5R was developed from Alternative 5 with changes in response to route-specific 

comments, mountain bike opportunity and the quality of non-motorized and motorized opportunities. 

Specific management under this alternative includes: 

• Snow-free motorized travel is restricted to designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin area, east 

of Soda Springs. 

• Direction to explore a preliminary design and analysis for new trail construction for two 

designated motorized trails, one parallel to Cub River Road, and the other parallel to the South 

Fork Road of Mink Creek. These trails would allow trail users of all kinds to reach other 

recreation destinations without traveling with full-sized vehicle traffic on these popular roads. 

• Due to construction and maintenance concerns, the Winschell Dugway, on Caribou Mountain, 

is not managed as a system trail. To bring this route to trail standard for non-motorized or 

motorized use will require additional public involvement and analysis. This analysis will be 

initiated within one year. Under this alternative, the southern portion of the trail can be 

traveled by hikers, stock users, but the route will not be maintained to standard. 

• Three new motorized loop opportunities will be designated on the Montpelier District, these 

will require constructing three segments of trail, all under 1⁄2 mile in length. 

• The Crestline Trail, in Mink Creek, is managed as a single-track motorcycle trail. 

• 90 miles of motorized route will be closed through a combination of the following methods: 

signing, gating, vegetative debris, earthen berms and rock barriers. Most of these routes are 

located in areas formerly managed as “open to cross-country motorized travel” and were 

temporarily “designated” by the 2003 Special Order. 

• Five miles of motorized trail will be decommissioned in areas that have parallel routes. 

Specific snow season management of Alternative 5R includes: 

• Three areas are managed as non-motorized during the snow season along State Highway 36, in 

the Bear River Range on the Montpelier District. 

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

from RFP prescription. The boundary moves north to take in “Strawberry Fields”, adding 

additional high elevation acres for a non-motorized setting. 

• Minor boundary changes to non-motorized areas in the Gibson Jack Natural Research Area and 

Valve House Draw, south of Pocatello, which will improve travel plan compliance. 
ROD--11

Part 

3 Decision and Rationale 

Introduction 

The analysis of Alternatives and public comment received on the DEIS documented in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Revised Caribou Travel Plan serves as the 

foundation for my decision for the Revised Travel Plan for the Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest. The FEIS portrays both the cumulative effects and site specific considerations for 

travel route designation. The travel plan FEIS analysis tiers to the 2003 Caribou Revised Forest Plan 

FEIS. My decision incorporates by reference the analysis of effects and management direction 

disclosed in the FEIS and the planning record in its entirety. In the case of discrepancies between this 

Record of Decision, the Alternative 5R maps and the FEIS alternative description, the description of 

management in the Record of Decision will take precedence, then the FEIS text, and then the 

Alternative 5R maps in determining the Decision.

Travel Plan Decisions 

A Travel Plan establishes the designated travel routes and seasons of use for public travel on forest 

roads, trails and areas. Generally, foot and stock travel is not restricted to designated routes; however, 

the travel plan does close some areas to public travel due to safety or to provide for administrative use. 

Motorized and mechanized travel is restricted to designated routes forest-wide, and in some cases 

routes have seasonal closures. The Caribou Travel Plan also determines travel during the winter, or 

snow season. Non-motorized winter travel is rarely restricted, with the exception of closures for 

administrative use or safety. Snowmobile travel is restricted in some areas of the forest for wildlife 

and/or to provide a non-motorized setting in accordance with the Revised Forest Plan. Snowmobile 

travel is restricted to designated routes in areas managed under a big game winter range prescription, 

as directed in the Revised Plan. 

The Revised Travel Plan is implemented through the design, execution, and monitoring of site-specific 

activities. These include: signing of designated motorized and non-motorized routes and closing routes 

not designated for motorized travel. The Caribou Travel Plan Map will be distributed. Education, 

enforcement and monitoring efforts for the new travel plan are described in the FEIS, Chapter 2. I am 

making the following decisions in the Revised Caribou Travel Plan: 

• Motorized travel is allowed on designated routes forest-wide during the snow-free season. 

• The Revised Caribou Travel Plan Map defines designated routes for motorized and mechanized 

travel during the snow-free season. 

• The Revised Caribou Travel Plan defines the areas closed to snowmobile travel and the 

designated snowmobile routes through areas managed for winter range. 
ROD--12

Table 1: Snow-free Travel by Miles of Route & Travel Mode for the Revised Caribou Travel Plan 

Mode of Travel Miles of 

Travel Route

motorized vehicle over 50” in width (full-sized vehicles) 

Note: licensed ATVs & motorcycles may travel some of these routes 970 

motorized vehicle, 50” in width or less 

(ATV, motorcycle, mountain bike, hikers and stock) 650 

motorcycle, mountain bike, hikers and stock 150 

mountain bike, hikers and stock 490 

Hikers and stock 150 

Note: A total of 970 miles of designated roads, 800 miles of designated motorized trails, 

and 640 miles of designated non-motorized trails. 

 Table 2: Snow Travel by Acres & Travel Mode for the Revised Caribou Travel Plan 

Mode of Travel Acres Available 

open to cross-country snowmobile travel 

and non-motorized travel 

801,190 

(76.9% of Caribou) 

snowmobiles restricted to designated routes, 

no restriction on non-motorized travel 

194,475 

(18.7% of Caribou) 

non-motorized snow travel only 46,535 

(4.5% of Caribou) 
ROD--13

MITIGATION AND MONITORING

Mitigation measures are listed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. They include Best Management Practices for 

soil, water and noxious weed control. Site surveys for heritage resources will be conducted before any 

ground-disturbing activities. These measures are designed to reduce adverse impacts from travel route 

closures, trail construction, and travel route designation. 

Forest Plan monitoring involves both legally required monitoring activities and monitoring that is 

conducted based on the availability of funding and personnel. Forest Plan monitoring that could 

indicate adverse impacts to forest resources from road and trail use include: 

• Annual reviews of Best Management Practices and updating projects in the Forest’s Watershed 

Improvement Needs Inventory are designed to protect water quality. (RFP 5-3) 

• Riparian properly functioning condition will be reevaluated at the stream level by 2008 to 

determine rate of movement towards desired future conditions. (RFP 5-7) 

• Fish habitat is monitored annually where needed to determine if conditions are outside of 

desired AIZ attributes. (RFP 5-13) 

• Wildlife occurrences and territories are monitored to determine if management activities are 

providing adequate habitat to maintain populations of Management Indicator Species and to 

assist in recovery of listed species. (RFP 5-15). 

• Condition surveys are conducted on system trails per national direction, these includes stream 

crossings and trails in riparian areas. 

• Road and trail closure effectiveness will be monitored, as described in Chapter Two of the 

FEIS. 

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

A forest travel plan has no value without an education and enforcement program to implement public 

compliance. Many people have commented on the need for additional education and enforcement of 

travel plan regulations. The Forest is committed to funding and implementing the Revised Caribou 

Travel Plan. Education and enforcement efforts are described in the FEIS Chapter 2, Actions Common 

to All Alternatives. Travel Plan maps will be distributed and will be available on the Forest’s website. 

Education and enforcement efforts will include partnerships with trail use groups, State of Idaho Parks 

and Recreation and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. On-the-ground signing of non-motorized 

and motorized routes will be initiated within the first field season after the decision. During the first 

field season, forest staff will strive for travel plan education, however, forest travelers will be cited if 

they are causing resource damage. With any law enforcement activities, not all violators are caught. 

In establishing a field presence and having examples of those who are caught for non-compliance, it is 

anticipated that, over time, forest travelers will conform to the travel plan. 
ROD--14

Rationale for my decision 

My decision to select Alternative 5R for implementation is based on three principal factors. 

Is the decision consistent with Revised Forest Plan goals, objectives and desired future 

conditions? 

In making my decision I evaluated each of the alternatives considered for compliance with the Forest 

Plan goals and objectives for recreation, transportation and resource protection. In all cases except for 

the No Action Alternative, all the alternatives are consistent with general forest plan direction, 

however some met the desired future conditions more successfully than others. 

Alternative 5R, The Selected Alternative, will bring forest activities closer to the desired future 

condition for recreation and public access while reducing resource impacts from recreational travel on 

roads and trails. The decision reduces designated motorized routes during the snow-free season to 

meet the intent of OMRD ceilings. The decision eliminates all cross-country motorized travel during 

the snow-free season on the Caribou. The decision will improve travel plan compliance through route 

signing and monitoring. Education and enforcement will be achieved through partnerships and 

cooperation with trail use groups and agencies. 

What is the relationship of my decision to issues identified during the analysis process? 

Organizations, local governments, and the general public all submitted comments that required me to 

consider the issues and concerns and how they were addressed by each alternative. Public and agency 

comments helped me identify a reasonable range of alternatives for route designation on the Caribou. 

The decision closes 90 miles of motorized routes; however, motorized opportunities are improved with 

the reduction of short dead-end trails and parallel routes. The decision creates more loop trails, which 

improves trail experience. The decision gives direction to design and analyze two new motorized trails 

that parallel the Cub River Road and the South Fork of Mink Creek Road to provide an alternative for 

all trail users to avoid traveling these popular roads with full-sized vehicles. The decision also 

provides for a detailed analysis to determine the future management of the Winschell Dugway.

The decision identifies the snow-free non-motorized trails that will be maintained over time. Before 

this decision, the non-motorized trail system had not been formally defined. The decision manages a 

sizable area within the Stump Peak drainage as non-motorized, and also creates additional smaller nonmotorized areas during the snow-free season. The decision adds three new snow season nonmotorized areas and refines the boundaries of exiting non-motorized areas to improve compliance and 

snow riding experience. 

The current travel plan restricts mountain bike travel to motorized routes, with the exception of two 

trails within the Mink Creek Drainage. The decision responds to the need for additional mountain bike 

opportunity on non-motorized trails. 490 miles of non-motorized trail have been designated for 

mountain bike use. 

The single-track trail experience is important to motorcyclists, mountain bikers, and some hikers. The 

decision retains 150 miles of single-track motorcycle trails in a variety of forest settings. 
ROD--15

The Revised Forest Plan prescribed the Huckleberry Basin area on the Soda Springs District as open to 

cross-country motorized travel. The decision manages the entire forest as motorized travel on 

designated routes during the snow-free season to provide consistency in management and enforcement. 

The Revised Plan uses OMRD ceilings to reduce disturbance to wildlife and to maintain recreation 

settings. The decision exceeds the Revised Plan’s OMRDs by 0.1 miles per square mile in five areas, 

by 0.2 miles per square mile in three areas and 0.3 miles per square mile in one area. The nine 

prescription areas are 3.8 percent of the Caribou planning unit acres. The Selected Alternative, 

including the increase of OMRDs, may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a 

trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, (FEIS, Chapter 4, 

Wildlife). The decision will maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive and management 

indicator species. The Selected Alternative decreases motorized route densities from the existing 

condition forest-wide, reducing human disturbance. Occupancy and production of management 

indicator species within the project area will continue with the decision. The OMRD increases do not 

change the viability determination in the Revised Forest Plan. 

The decision manages large non-motorized areas within Bear Creek, Caribou Mountain, Stump Peak, 

Worm Creek, Mt. Naomi, and Toponce during the snow-free season. These areas will provide a nonmotorized setting for wildlife and people, including hunters. 

Is the decision compatible with county government, state agencies and goals of Indian tribes? 

I considered comments received from public agencies, Indian Tribes, and elected officials in my 

decision making process. Based upon these comments, I have made a comparison between my 

Selected Alternative, and the goals and concerns expressed by the following: 

Shoshone – Bannock Tribes 

The analysis considered effects to forest access for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal members (FEIS, 

Chapter 4). Staff members for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have indicated that the Revised Caribou 

Travel Plan is compatible with their goals. 

County, State and Federal Land Management Agencies 

Access management is a concern of county government and public land managers. Bonneville County 

and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation want the Winschell Dugway reconstructed for 

motorized travel. The decision includes direction for additional analysis concerning access 

management on the Winschell Dugway. Consultation with the affected counties and other agencies 

indicate that there are no major conflicts between the Revised Caribou Travel Plan and the goals and 

objectives of the counties and adjacent land managers. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDF&G) has been involved throughout the analysis process. An 

IDF&G biologist was a member of the interdisciplinary team. An alternative was developed based on 

comments received from IDF&G. Their concern for more large areas to be managed as non-motorized 

is used as an indicator to compare and contrast each alternative’s impacts to big game. While the 

decision does not provide as many large non-motorized areas as desired by IDF&G, it does manage 

areas of “refugia” for people and wildlife in the more remote areas of the forest. 
ROD--16

Part 

4 Findings Related to other 

Laws and Authorities 

How does the Revised Forest Plan meet other laws or authorities? 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Consideration of Long Term and Short Term Effects 

The Revised Caribou Travel Plan will manage public travel on the Caribou portion of the CaribouTarghee National Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. The FEIS discloses the analysis of effects for 

a range of alternatives including No Action. Effects to the significant issues and other resources of 

concern were considered for this time frame. 

Human use of the Caribou is also a major consideration in the Revised Caribou Travel Plan. The 

decision maintains most existing recreation opportunities and settings, motorized and non-motorized. 

The decision manages some areas as non-motorized that were “de-facto” non-motorized before the 

advent of today’s OHV capabilities. Long and short-term effects are detailed further in the FEIS, 

Appendices, and the Planning Record. 

What are the Adverse Effects that cannot be avoided? 

Effects on the environment that might result from implementation of the travel plan alternatives are 

analyzed in the FEIS. These include some unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Despite efforts 

to mitigate adverse impacts to resources, some adverse impacts on soil, vegetation, water quality and 

fish habitat cannot be avoided in localized areas. Adverse effects on the biological and physical 

environment are anticipated to be less than the existing condition, since the decision reduces the miles 

of designated motorized routes forest-wide. The adverse effects from implementing the Selected 

Alternative are: 

• localized, adverse effects to water quality and fisheries from designated travel routes in aquatic 

influence zones; 

• temporary disturbance to wildlife from continued or increased human activity on designated 

travel routes; 

• localized decreases in air quality due to dust from designated travel routes; 

• designated travel route use contributing to soil compaction, erosion, vegetation degradation, 

and stream sedimentation. 

 

These effects are discussed under various resource headings in the FEIS Chapter 4. 
ROD--17

Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s) 

Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require agencies to specify 

the alternative(s) considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). Forest Service 

policy further defines this as the Alternative that best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA. In 

determining the environmentally preferred alternative, I referred to the goals of Section 101 

which are to: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintain wherever possible an environment which supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice; 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 are the Environmentally Preferred Alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 4 will cause “...the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment” (CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions, #6A). However, 

Alternative 5 and 5R, over the long-term, will “attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 

without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences”. 

Alternative 5R, the Selected Alternative, provides a mix of recreation opportunities and settings; while 

moving forest resource conditions to the desired future conditions identified in the plan. The emphasis of 

Alternative 5R is to maintain many of the existing recreation opportunities that exist today, while decreasing 

site-specific travel impacts to forest resources. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve overall riparian conditions and fisheries habitat, but do not provide the 

desired motorized access for forest administration and recreation. Alternatives 5 and 5R are in the middle of 

the range of alternatives. Improvements to resources are expected to occur under Alternative 5R, albeit at a 

slower rate than Alternatives 3 and 4. 

The goals of Section 101 of NEPA require consideration of, among other things, a “...variety of individual 

choice” and “...balance between population and resource use.” Given those parameters, Alternative 5R 

maintains forest resources while providing for a variety of recreation choices, both now and into the future. 

 
ROD--18

 FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 16 USC 1604(f) (4), forest plans may "be 

amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption and after public notice, and, if such 

amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, in accordance with subsections (e) and 

(f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this 

section." The NFMA regulations at 36 CFR §219.10(f) state: "Based on an analysis of the objectives, 

guidelines, and other contents of the forest plan, the Forest Supervisor shall determine whether a 

proposed amendment would result in a significant change in the plan." The Forest Service Land and 

Resource Management Planning Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12) provides a framework 

for this analysis. Section 5.32 of FSH 1909.12 lists four factors to be used when determining whether 

a proposed change to a forest plan is significant or not significant: (a) timing; (b) location and size; 

(c) goals, objectives and outputs; and (d) management prescriptions. I have evaluated the proposed 

management direction and concluded that it does not constitute a significant amendment of the 

Caribou National Forest Revised Forest Plan for the reasons described below: 

Timing 

The timing factor examines at what point, over the course of the planning period, the Forest Plan is 

amended. Both the age of the underlying documents and the duration of the amendment are relevant 

considerations. The handbook indicates that the later in the planning period, the less significant the 

change is likely to be. The Caribou RFP was signed in February of 2003 and is in the early stage of 

the planning period. In the case of amending prescribed OMRD ceilings, this amendment is specific to 

nine prescription areas and the changes are of small increment. In the case of amending the 

Huckleberry Basin prescription area from “open to cross-country motorized travel” to “motorized 

travel on designated routes” during the snow-free season, this change is localized to one prescription 

and will not eliminate motorized opportunity in the area. Changing the prescription boundary on the 

east slope of Bonneville Peak is also a localized change of small increment. For these reasons, the 

early timing of the amendments is offset by their localized nature and small increment of change. 

Location and Size 

The key to the location and size is context, or "the relationship of the affected area to the overall 

planning area, the smaller the area affected, the less likely the change is to be a significant change in 

the forest plan." Concerning the amendment to change OMRD ceilings in nine prescription areas; the 

actual miles of motorized route attributed to the change is 1⁄4 mile to 1.5 miles for each area. Five areas 

are located in the vicinity of Mink Creek, south of Pocatello, one on the west slope of Oxford 

Mountain, one in Pebble Basin, north of Lava Hot Springs, one in Home Canyon, north of Montpelier 

and one in Bear Creek, north of McCoy Creek Road. The amendment involves scattered locations of 

prescription areas, a small degree of change in density and 3.8 percent of the Caribou planning unit 

acres. 

Huckleberry Basin prescription area, east of Soda Springs, is 29,400 acres, or 3 percent of the Caribou 

planning unit. The amendment to change the boundary of the Bonneville Peak prescription area, 

southeast of Pocatello, changes the prescription area from 1,070 to 918 acres. The acres affected by 

the proposed amendments are all of small scale when compared to the Caribou planning unit as a 

whole. 

 

 

 
ROD--19

Goals, Objectives, and Outputs 

Effects of the amendments to the level of goods and services identified in the Forest Plan need to be 

considered, (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 5.32(c)). These amendments will not decrease 

the level of goods and services available on the Caribou. The amendments are expected to improve the 

recreation experience for motorized and non-motorized travelers. 

 

The Revised Plan emphasizes adaptive management and monitoring to address uncertainties regarding 

management of forest resources, changing conditions and scientific knowledge. OMRDs are used to 

achieve a desired recreation setting and to minimize disturbance to wildlife. The degree of change is 

0.1 to 0.3 miles per square mile within a given prescription area. The effects of the amendment to the 

desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan are analyzed in the FEIS (Chapter 4, Recreation, and 

Wildlife). The overall forest plan management direction for recreation and wildlife resources will not 

change with the amendments. 

Amending the Huckleberry Basin prescription area to “motorized travel on designated routes” during 

the snow-free season will not eliminate motorized opportunity in the area. Most existing motorized 

routes in the area would be managed as designated motorized routes. 

Changing the prescription boundary on the east slope of Bonneville Peak will provide additional high 

elevation areas for a non-motorized experience during the snow season. 

The guidance in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 5.32(c) explains: "In most cases, changes 

in outputs are not likely to be a significant change in the forest plan unless the change would forego the 

opportunity to achieve an output in later years." The proposed amendments do not forego the 

achievement of existing goals and objectives as described in the Revised Plan. 

Management Prescriptions 

The management prescriptions factor involves the determination of (1), "whether the change in a 

management prescription is only for a specific situation or whether it would apply to future decisions 

throughout the planning area" and (2), "whether or not the change alters the desired future condition of 

the land and resources or the anticipated goods and services to be produced" (Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 5.32(d)). 

The OMRD ceiling adjustments will occur in Prescriptions 3.1a, 3.2b, 5.2b, and 6.2b. Prescription 

3.1a is managed for non-motorized recreation and wildlife security. The OMRD is adjusted to 0.1 in 

this prescription to reflect the Targhee motorized trail occurring just over the forest boundary. 

Prescription 3.2b areas are managed for semi-primitive motorized recreation and no new travel routes 

are proposed in these areas. Prescription 5.2b areas are managed for forest vegetation management and 

Prescription 6.2b areas are managed for rangeland vegetation management. The ceiling adjustments 

will not change the management intent and desired condition for these areas. 

The amendment to change motorized travel to designated routes in the Huckleberry Basin prescription 

area will change Prescription 5.2c, Forested Vegetation Management with cross-country motorized 

travel; to Prescription 5.2b Forested Vegetation Management with motorized travel on designated 

routes during the snow-free season. This amendment will not change the management intent or desired 

condition in this area. The amendment to adjust the boundary for the Bonneville Peak non-motorized 

area will enhance the Prescription 3.2f goal of maintaining or enhancing semi-primitive recreation, 

(RFP 4-57). 
ROD--20

The proposed plan amendments will not alter the goals, objectives, and desired future conditions for 

wildlife resources or recreation management, or the long-term levels of goods and services projected in 

the Caribou Revised Forest Plan. 

Findings 

On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the FEIS, it is my determination that the 

change in management direction reflected in the decision does not result in significant amendments to 

the Caribou Revised Forest Plan. These amendments will move forest resources and opportunities 

towards the desired future condition described in the Caribou RFP. 

4.3 Compliance with Other Laws 

TRANSPORTATION RULE AND POLICY

On January 12, 2001, The Chief of the Forest Service signed the Administration of the Forest 

Development Transportation System; Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads 

(Transportation Rule), and Forest Service Transportation, Final Administrative Policy 

(Transportation Policy). The Transportation Rule and Policy provide guidance for transportation 

analysis – they do not dictate or adopt land management decisions. 

The Transportation Rule requires the Forest Service to identify a minimum road system, determining 

which roads are needed (classified) and which roads are unneeded (unclassified). Decisions are to be 

accomplished through area/project planning and documented through the NEPA process, including full 

public participation. 

Beginning on January 12, 2002, the Transportation Policy requires a roads analysis (watershed or 

project-area scale) be prepared before most road management decisions. This roads analysis is not a 

formal decision-making process. Road management decisions are made through the NEPA process 

with full public participation and involvement. The 2005 Caribou Travel Plan Roads Analysis Report 

and the 2003 Forest-wide Roads Analysis Report for the Caribou planning unit were both considered 

in the decision. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (E.O. 12898) 

As required by Executive Order, all Federal actions will consider potentially disproportionate effects 

on minority or low-income communities. Potential impacts or changes to low-income or minority 

communities within the planning area due to the proposed action must be considered. Where possible, 

measures should be taken to avoid negative impacts to these communities or mitigate adverse affects. 

As identified in the Revised Forest Plan FEIS, few minorities reside within the study area, and no 

communities are considered low-income. While there are individual households that are either 

minority or low-income, the communities as a whole are not. 

 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribal members live adjacent to the planning area. Throughout the planning 

process, consultation between the Tribe and the Caribou NF has occurred. I have determined from the 

analysis disclosed in the FEIS that the Revised Caribou Travel Plan is in compliance with Executive 

Order 12898. 
ROD--21

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) creates an affirmative obligation “...that all Federal departments 

and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened [and proposed] species” of fish, 

wildlife, and plants. There are four species listed as endangered or threatened that may inhabit the 

Caribou National Forest. A biological assessment (BA) was prepared and submitted to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service with two updates on June 17 of 2005. According to the BA, the Revised Caribou 

Travel Plan “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” the bald eagle; and will have “no effect” 

on the Canada lynx, gray wolf and yellow-billed cuckoo. (FEIS, Chapters 3 and 4; Biological 

Assessment prepared June 17, 2005 and two updates; Concurrence Letter from USFWS dated June 30, 

2005). Based upon consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I have determined that the 

Revised Caribou Travel Plan is in compliance with the ESA. 

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT/EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Revised Caribou Travel Plan does not authorize activities that would contribute to a decline in 

habitat for migratory bird species. I have determined that decision is in compliance with the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order #13186 of January 12, 2001. 

CLEAN AIR ACT

According to analysis disclosed in the FEIS, projected activities under all Alternatives are expected to 

meet air quality standards. The decision will result in no adverse long-term effects. (FEIS, Chapter 4, 

Air Quality) I have determined that the Revised Caribou Travel Plan will comply with the provisions 

of the Clean Air Act. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Any actions undertaken in response to the direction in this decision will fully comply with the laws and 

regulations that insure protection of heritage resources, (FEIS, Chapter 4, Heritage Resources). 

Several other laws apply to preservation of heritage resources on Federal lands. The Forest will 

consult with the Idaho, Utah and Wyoming State Preservation Offices (SHPO) under the National 

Historic Preservation Act prior to any ground-disturbing activities. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe was 

consulted during the analysis for this decision. 

It is my determination that the decision complies with the National Historical Preservation Act and 

other Statutes that pertain to the protection of heritage resources. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to “...restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” One of the Act’s goals is to “...provide for the protection 

and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife” and provide for “...recreation in and on the water” (33 

U.S.C. 466 et seq., Title I, Section 101). Based on the analysis disclosed in the FEIS, I have concluded 

the decision satisfies the Clean Water Act. 
ROD--22

ENERGY REQUIREMENT AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

This decision affects public travel on the roads and trails located on the Caribou portion of the 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The scope of the proposed action and decision is limited by 

geographic area and the specific nature of recreational travel. The decision will have little or no effect 

on the total amount of energy used locally and offers little opportunity for measurable energy 

conservation. 

INVASIVE SPECIES (EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112) 

Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species directs that Federal agencies should not authorize any 

activities that would increase the spread of invasive species. The RFP includes mitigation designed to 

limit the spread of invasive species from designated travel routes and forest travel. The decision 

reduces cross-country motorized travel by the public and reduces the miles of designated motorized 

travel routes. These actions have the potential to reduce the spread of invasive species by motorized 

travel, (Caribou Travel Plan FEIS, Chapter 3 and 4, Noxious Weeds). The decision will follow RFP 

direction that requires integrated pest management methods be used to contain and control the spread 

of invasive species following the latest Caribou-Targhee Noxious Weed Strategy (RFP, Chapter 3, 

Biological Elements, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species, Standard 4). Therefore, I have 

determined the Caribou Revised Plan is in compliance with E.O. 13112. 

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS

The decision includes the reduction of designated motorized routes. This has the potential to improve 

riparian area conditions, (Caribou Travel Plan FEIS, Chapter 3 and 4, Riparian Areas). 

Implementation of the decision will result in no net loss of wetlands. 

OTHER POLICIES

The existing body of national direction for managing National Forests is cited in Appendix A of the 

FEIS and is incorporated by reference into this decision. 
ROD--23

Part 

5 Conclusion 

Implementation 

How and when will the Revised Forest Plan be implemented? 

The 45-day appeal period begins when the legal notice is published in the newspaper of record, the 

Idaho State Journal. The Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Final EIS will also be 

published in the Federal Register (36 CFR 219.10 (c) (1)). If no appeals are filed within the 45-day 

appeal period, implementation of this ROD may occur on, but not before, five business days after the 

close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not 

before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. 

Transition to the Revised Forest Plan 

TRAIL MAINTENANCE

It is the forest’s goal that over time, all system travel routes (motorized and non-motorized) will be 

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

Much of the improvement associated with bringing individual travel routes up to standard falls within 

the category of routine maintenance and would proceed as funding is secured. However, portions of 

some travel routes may require relocation to meet road and trail standards. Authorization of some of 

the actual road or trail relocation work may require supplemental analysis, and in some cases a 

subsequent NEPA decision. 

SIGNING PROTOCOL

Travel routes are “closed, unless designated open” to motorized and mechanized use as indicated on 

the Revised Caribou Travel Plan map. The forest will provide signing that indicates the allowed travel 

and season of use for forest roads and trails. Signing priorities will be identified and implemented 

within the first field season after the decision. 

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

The Forest is committed to funding and implementing the Revised Caribou Travel Plan. Travel Plan 

maps will be distributed and will be available on the Forest’s website. Education and enforcement 

efforts will include partnerships with trail groups, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. During the first field season of the decision, forest staff will 

strive for travel plan education, however, forest travelers will be cited if they are causing resource 

damage. 
ROD--24

MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

Mitigation measures are listed in Chapter Two of the FEIS. They include Best Management Practices 

for soil, water and noxious weed control. Site surveys for heritage resources will be conducted before 

any ground-disturbing activities. 

Forest Plan monitoring of soils, water quality, riparian areas, and habitat for fish and wildlife will 

reduce adverse impacts from road and trail use. System trail condition surveys will also monitor 

resource impacts from system trails. Road and trail closure effectiveness will be monitored, as 

described in Chapter Two of the FEIS. 

Administrative Appeals of My Decision 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 215.14. A written notice of 

appeal must be filed with the Regional Forester within 45 days of the date that the legal notice of this 

decision appears in the Idaho State Journal newspaper. Appeals must be sent to: 

Regional Forester of the Intermountain Region 

USDA - Forest Service 

324 25th Street 

Ogden, UT 84401 

A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the Deciding Officer: 

Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CRF 215.14 and include at a minimum: 

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. 

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant. 

• Identification of the decision to which the objection is being made. 

• Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date of 

the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer. 

• Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which objection is made. 

• The reasons for appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy and, if applicable, 

specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy. 

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 
ROD--25

Contacts 

Where can I obtain more information on the Decision and Final EIS for the Caribou Travel Plan 

Revision? 

More information on the Final EIS and the Caribou Travel Plan Revision can be obtained by 

contacting one of the following people: 

Lynn Ballard, Public Affairs Officer 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

(208) 524-7500 

Deb Tiller 

Travel Plan Revision Team Leader 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

(208) 524-7500 

Conclusion 

For the past two years, Caribou-Targhee personnel have worked with Shoshone-Bannock Tribal staff, 

other agencies’ personnel, and members of the public to complete the Draft and Final EIS for the 

Caribou Travel Plan Revision. 

The decision evolved from a site-specific travel route inventory, substantial public interest and 

comment, natural resource science and research, and the work of the interdisciplinary team. It is 

important to remember that discussions about the forest are also discussions about people and their 

relationship to the forest. 
26

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

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

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

all programs.) Person with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

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

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 

or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 
Appendix A 

Appendix A – Caribou Plan Amendments One-Three 

Plan Amendment #2 to the 2003 Caribou Revised Forest Plan 

The non-significant amendment changes the Prescription of the Huckleberry Prescription area, east of 

Soda Springs, from 5.2c to 5.2b. This changes the management in this prescription area from “crosscountry motorized travel” to “motorized travel on designated routes during the snow free season”. The 

prescription 5.2c is no longer applicable to the Caribou Revised Forest Plan, as described on RFP 4-71. 

This amends the Prescription maps for Alternative 7R for this area as shown in the FEIS map package. 

This non-significant amendment is part of the Record of Decision for the 

July 2005 Caribou Travel Plan Revision.