Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU

Draft Record of Decision

USDA- Forest Service 

Northern Region

Nez Perce-Clearwater

National Forests

903rd Street

Kamiah, Idaho 83536

February 2016

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU)

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Idaho County, Idaho

February 2016

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Cheryl F. Probert

Forest Supervisor

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

903 3rd Street

Kamiah, Idaho 83536

(208) 935-4265

For Information Contact:

Jennie Fischer or Ralph Rau

Project Team Leader Deputy Forest Supervisor

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

104 Airport Road 903 3rd Street 

Grangeville, Idaho 83530 Kamiah, Idaho 83536

(208) 983-4048 (208) 935-4257

Abstract:

This Record of Decision (ROD) identifies the alternative selected by the Forest

Supervisor for the Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle use (DRAMVU) project on 

the Nez Perce National Forest –. It documents the Forest Supervisor’s rationale for the selection 

of Alternative 5, as Modified, and described in the DRAMVU project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), November 2015. The Selected Alternative - Alternative 5, as

Modified, minimizes effects on resources and values identified in the Nez Perce National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan while responding to a broad range of public sentiment 

regarding management of motor vehicles. The FEIS analyzed seven alternatives, including No 

Action, for managing motorized travel within the 1.2 million acre Nez Perce National Forest, 

outside of wilderness. Alternative 5, as Modified provides a blend of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities. The selected actions include one project-specific amendment to the 

1987 Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The DRAMVU project 

decision will establish a system of designated routes for motorized uses, except over-snow 

vehicles. Off-route travel by motorized vehicles will be prohibited, except for over-snow vehicle 

use in winter.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employments on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable political beliefs, marital 

status, familial status, or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's 

income is derived from any public assistance program or protected genetic information in 

employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor 

(click the hyperlink list of EEO Counselors) within 45 days of the date of the alleged 

discriminatory act, event or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be 

found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-

9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested 

in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at: program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you with to file either 

an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 

877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on 

how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means for 

communication of program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact 

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

Table of Contents

Decision Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................................... 2

Background.............................................................................................................................. 5

Minimization ........................................................................................................................... 7

Decision and Reasons for the Decision....................................................................................... 8

Decision Criteria...................................................................................................................... 8

Decision................................................................................................................................... 9

Decision Rationale................................................................................................................. 26

Consideration of the Issues.................................................................................................... 46

Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................ 50

Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................... 53

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 59

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 59

Scoping .................................................................................................................................. 59

Draft Environmental Impact Statement................................................................................. 60

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.......................................................... 60

Public Re-Engagement .......................................................................................................... 60

Final Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................................. 61

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments......................................................... 61

Forest Plan Amendment............................................................................................................ 62

Related Decisions Not Superseded ........................................................................................... 63

Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy .................................................... 64

Permits Required....................................................................................................................... 68

Best Available Science.............................................................................................................. 68

Implementation.......................................................................................................................... 68

Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Opportunities.............................................................. 68

Contact Person........................................................................................................................... 71

Signature and Date .................................................................................................................... 71

Attachments– Summary ........................................................................................................ 72

Attachment 1 – Record of Decision Maps

Attachment 2 – Trail Designations & Road Management Objectives

Attachment 3 – Consultation Correspondence

Attachment 4 - Forest Plan Amendment

Attachment 5 – Consistency with Forest Plan and other laws and regulations
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 1

Decision Summary

After extensive analysis and based on my consideration of comments, I have decided to 

implement Alternative 5, as Modified as described in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final EIS) and this document for the DRAMVU project. In making this decision I 

have considered the condition of roads, trails and areas on the Forest and the potential 

environmental effects of this project to natural resources including laws, regulations and the 

natural resource conditions. I believe my decision is the best balance of all of these factors. This 

Record of Decision documents my decision and rationale for implementing the selected actions 

in the project area.

The DRAMVU project area includes approximately 1,232,625 acres of National Forest System 

lands on the Nez Perce National Forest, outside of wilderness areas. Nez Perce National Forest is 

located within Idaho County, Idaho. The forest is bounded on the north by the Clearwater 

National Forest, on the east by the Bitterroot National Forest, on the south by the Payette 

National Forest and on the west by the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and Wilderness

(Figure ROD-1). 

Briefly, this Decision will, designate public wheeled motor vehicle use on roads, trails and areas 

on the Nez Perce National Forest described in this document and Attachments 1 through 5. 

Various issues were evaluated and address. Alternative 5, as Modified, will accomplish the 

following actions (Attachments 1 and 2 and ROD – Map 1).

 

Road Designation. In this alternative, 1,963 miles of road are open for motor vehicle use (24

miles of roads will no longer be available for motorized use). There will be 846 miles of road 

open yearlong and 1,117 miles of road open seasonally. Of those roads open for motor vehicle 

use: 1690 miles of road are open to all vehicles; 271 miles of road are open to vehicles less than 

50 inches in width and 2 miles of road are open to motorcycles only. There will be 1,762 miles 

of road are open to non-motorized travel.

Trail Designation. In this alternative, 390 miles of trail are open for motor vehicle use (9 miles 

of trails will no longer be available for motorized use). Three new trail connectors, 

approximately 1.1 miles, will be designated for motor vehicle use (Attachment 1 and 2; Trails 

New-1, New-4, and New-5). There will be 88 miles of trail open yearlong and 302 miles of trail 

open seasonally. Of those trails open for motor vehicle use: 33 miles of trail are open to all 

vehicles; 207 miles of trail are open to vehicles less than 50 inches in width; and 149 miles of 

trail are open to motorcycles only. There will be 693 miles of trail open to non-motorized travel.

With this decision 3.4 miles of trail will be converted from a single to a double track trail.

Area Designation. No areas for motorized use will be designated on the entire Nez Perce 

National Forest (1,232,625 acres). Motor vehicle use off designated routes will be prohibited, 

including retrieval of downed big game, on the entire forest, outside wilderness. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 2

Limited motor vehicle access for dispersed camping will be allowed from the centerline of 

designated roads (300 feet) and designated trails (300 feet), with additional exceptions on 18 

miles of road and 34 miles of trail (Table 2-10 and Table 2-11). Conditions of use to minimize 

resource damage are defined (FEIS, Chapter 2, Actions common to all action alternatives).

Provide for parking safely next to the side of the road, within one vehicle length including trailer.

One project-specific Forest Plan amendment will be applied (see Attachment 4). 

Purpose and Need for Action

This section provides a framework for the Proposed Action. The forest proposes actions to 

address a need for change: to move the forest from the existing condition to the desired 

condition. The need may stem from law, regulation or policy; public desires; resources needs, 

and professional judgment. The purpose identifies the scope of activities used to address the 

need. The purpose also serves to guide the range of alternatives and helps the deciding official 

focus on concerns relevant to the decision. Alternatives to the Proposed Action are described in 

detail in FEIS, Chapter 2.

Purpose

The overall objective of the proposed action is to provide a manageable system of designated 

public motor vehicle access routes and areas within the Nez Perce National Forest, consistent 

with the Forest Plan, Executive Order 11644, the travel management regulations at 36 CFR 212 

subpart B.

Executive Order (EO) 11644 (1972) as amended required the Forest Service to, among other 

things, designate “the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road 

vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted. 

In November 2005, the Forest Service published new implementing regulations (Federal Register 

2005: 70 FR 68264). This rule, known as the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212 

Subpart B), replaced the previous regulations (USDA-FS 2005).

While carrying forward the requirements of the executive order, it makes two other national 

requirements. First, all Forest Service units will now use a consistent approach to designations by 

identifying on a map those routes and areas that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use. Second, 

once designations are in place, motor vehicle use off of designated routes and areas will be 

prohibited.

Most National Forest visitors use motor vehicles to access their National Forests to some degree, 

whether for recreational sightseeing; camping and hiking; hunting and fishing; or for commercial 

purposes such as outfitting, logging, and mining (USDA-FS 2009b). For many visitors, motor 

vehicles also represent an integral part of their recreational experience. The people who come to 

the Nez Perce National Forest may ride on roads and trails in passenger vehicles/SUVs/pickup 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 3

trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, or non-motorized conveyances. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy their National 

Forests—this type of use; however, needs to be in the right places and with proper management 

to sustain our natural resources. 

Need

The Nez Perce National Forest began to comply with Executive Order 11644 in 1987 (Forest 

Plan Record of Decision, page 30, USDA-FS 1987, as amended). In 1988 a Forest Plan 

Amendment #2 was signed to clarify direction for management of motorized recreation on the 

forest and illustrated motorized recreation use in each Management Area. The executive order, 

Section 8, then requires the agency to “monitor the effects of the use of off-road vehicles [and] 

from time to time amend or rescind designations.” The Nez Perce National Forest has updated its 

visitor map and, road and trail access guide numerous times over the last three decades, 

amending or rescinding designations as monitoring indicated the need. This current proposal 

continues that longstanding approach. Public motor vehicle use of much of the existing system 

continues to be manageable and consistent with the Executive Order and current travel 

management regulation; but we have identified a need for change in some areas.

Forest Plan goals (USDA Forest Service, 1987b, as amended) provide the focus for the 

DRAMVU project with additional direction below: 

• Provide a wide range of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities and 

experiences by providing access, facilities, and education necessary to meet public 

demand (Recreation).

• Protect Forest resources to allow for their safe and orderly use (Recreation).

• Provide a stable and cost-efficient transportation system through construction, 

reconstruction, maintenance, or transportation system management (Transportation).

Forest Plan standards for Recreation, Transportation, Wildlife, Gospel Hump Multipurpose 

Resource Development Area #1, PACFISH; Management Areas 3, 6, 16, 21, 22 and 23 were key 

considerations for the DRAMVU project with direction related to roads, trails or areas and motor 

vehicle use. See Forest Plan goals and standards that are considered in this analysis in 

Attachment 5.

There is a need to designate motor vehicle use on roads, trails and areas on the Nez Perce 

National Forest to comply with the Travel Management Rule, Executive Order 11644 as 

well as specific Forest Plan direction. This need is strengthened by the current demand for 

recreational use and the natural resources found across the Forest. Compliance with this direction 

could be achieved incrementally through many small analyses and decisions, or it could be 

achieved compensatively through the DRAMVU analysis for motor vehicle use.

Designations should consider: necessary actions to minimize adverse effects associated with 

change in travel management designations (EO-Section 3 and TMR-212.55b) and bringing the 

current system into compliance with laws, regulations and Forest Plan direction.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 4

Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A, B, and C). Subpart A of these regulations 

establishes requirements for administration of the forest transportation system, including roads, 

trails, and airfields, and contains provisions for acquisition of rights-of-way. Subpart B 

describes the requirements for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and for 

identifying designated roads, trails, and areas on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Apply the 

criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 in designating NFS roads, NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.

Executive Order 11644 (“Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands”), dated February 8, 

1972, as amended by Executive Order 11989, dated May 24, 1977. Provides for developing 

regulations governing use of off-road vehicles on federal lands to protect natural resources, 

promote public safety, and minimize conflicts among uses.

There is a need to eliminate unmanaged off-road vehicle use supported by a nationwide 

awareness with the Forest Service that this use has harmful effects. On the Nez Perce 

National Forest, route designation and off-road vehicle use has been prohibited on approximately 

19 percent of the Forest (228, 197 acres) through Forest Supervisor orders. These past orders are 

the result of management decisions since the forest plan was signed in 1987. The detailed 

reasons for these restrictions are in the project record. To be consistent with the travel 

management direction, there remains a need to designate motor vehicle use on approximately 81 

percent of the forest (1,004, 428 acres; FEIS, Appendix A, Map 3- blue shaded areas, Alternative 

1). 

There is a need to identify and evaluate routes, and consider them for possible adoption 

into the designated motorized system. Motorized recreationists use some routes—referred to as 

“unauthorized” or “user-created” routes were unaffected by past decisions. These routes were not 

authorized by the Forest Service, and may not have violated the Forest Plan, access guide, or 

other restrictions when they were created. These routes are generally found in areas where offroad vehicle use has not been prohibited. Therefore this proposal must determine future use of 

those unauthorized routes.

There is a need to provide forest visitors information and a map about available motor 

vehicle access on the Nez Perce National Forest. The DRAMVU decision and other future 

decisions will be published on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Nez Perce National 

Forest. Public motor vehicle use on the Forest will be allowed only on the routes and areas 

designated on the map including the type of vehicles and the season of use. The goal for the Nez 

Perce National Forest is to publish a MVUM for public use.

The responsible official has elected not to designate Over Snow Vehicle use with this decision 

(36 CFR 212.81). An Over Snow Vehicle Use map would be developed in the future. No road or 

trail decommissioning is proposed with this project.

For terms and definitions see FEIS, Chapter 5 - Acronyms and Glossary.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 5

Background

Federal agencies are directed to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

managed to protect resources, to promote the safety of Forest users, and to minimize conflicts 

among the various Forest users in Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 8, 1972), “Use of OffRoad Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977). They provide 

direction for federal agencies to establish policies and provide for procedures to control and 

direct the use of off-road vehicles on public lands so as to (1) protect the resources of those 

lands; (2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and (3) minimize conflicts among the 

various users on those lands. In 2005, the Forest Service developed regulations in response to the 

EO’s (43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8340 and 36 CFR 212, 216, 261 and 295). Under 

those regulations, OHVs can be restricted or prohibited to minimize (1) damage to the soil, 

watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife 

habitats; and (3) conflict between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. The “Travel 

Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule’’ is referred to as 

the Travel Management Rule (USDA-FS 2005; 70FR68264). 

While carrying forward the requirements of the executive order, it makes two other national 

requirements. First, all units will now use a consistent approach to designations by identifying on 

a map those routes and areas that are open to wheeled motorized use. Second, once designations 

are in place, motorized travel off of designated routes and areas will be prohibited.

The 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan was prepared when motor vehicle use levels were 

considerably lower than they are today (USDA-FS 1987b). The Forest Plan provides the 

foundation for minimizing the effects from motorized use. Forest Plan Amendment 2 (1988) 

identified distinct land area allocation between motorized and non-motorized uses, and how the 

public would be notified if a road was open for use. New roads were constructed overtime to 

facilitate timber harvest and removal. The amount of road constructed peaked in the 1970s. The 

amount of roads on the forest transportation system when the Forest Plan was signed was 

approximately 500 miles (FEIS, Table 3-1). Over the past 25 years, fewer roads have been built 

and more roads have been reconstructed, decommissioned or converted into trails.

In 2007, the Nez Perce National Forest’s distributed the Road and Trail Access Guide for public 

use. More complete guides have been published in: 2003, 2001-2002, 2000-2001, 1999, 1998, 

1997, and 1996. The guide has not been updated or published after 2007 because of the lack of 

funding. The guide was a representation of the forest roads and trail system based on past forest 

and district decisions, and Forest Supervisor orders. The guide was created to provide more 

detail about how to access and use the forest, but was not a comprehensive decision document. 

When a forest visitor map was purchased this guide was a free companion document. The guide 

listed roads with the vehicle use and period of restriction, the reason for restriction, location of 

restriction and a reference to the Forest Supervisor orders. The guide also listed trails with a 

reference to wilderness area trails, but no reference to Forest Supervisor orders. 

EO 11644, as amended, Section 8, requires the agency to “monitor the effects of the use of offroad vehicles [and] from time to time amend or rescind designations.” Forest Plan monitoring 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 6

item 2a identified monitoring for off-road vehicle impacts (USDA Forest Service 1987b, as 

amended). Forest Plan monitoring reports were prepared form 1988 through 2004 and reported 

on item 2a. Reporting showed Forest Plan monitoring of off-road use was not completed 

regularly, however project monitoring identified some areas of impacts and actions to address 

resource damage.

Past project decisions have managed road, trail and area for motor vehicle use (Appendix C- Past 

Actions; project record). These decisions have resulted in Forest Supervisor orders signed and 

implemented from 1996 to present (detailed lists in the project record). Forest Supervisor orders 

clearly established restrictions to motor vehicle use on specific roads, trails and areas. The 

reasons for these restrictions included: to protect wildlife, to reduce damage to roads, trails or 

areas during wet seasons; to reduce sediment entering streambeds; to restrict motorized use in 

wilderness or other areas; to protect big game or to reduce conflict. Many of these decision 

minimized adverse effects associated with motor vehicle use and are consistent with direction of 

the Executive Orders and travel management regulations to manage motor vehicle use, where 

implemented. However not all roads, trails or areas of the Forest have been designated for motor 

vehicle use or are managed under current Forest Supervisor orders.

The current management continues that longstanding approach. Public motor vehicle use on 

much of the existing system continues to be manageable and consistent with the Executive 

Orders and current travel management regulation; but we have identified a need for change in 

some areas.

The detrimental effects of indiscriminate off-road motorized travel are nationally recognized. 

The Chief of the Forest Service identified unmanaged recreation, including Off-HighwayVehicle use, as one of the four greatest threats to forests of all kinds in the United States. This 

prompted a proposal for the national “Travel Management Rule” that was eventually adopted in 

2005.

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the final rule, “Travel Management;

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” in the Federal Register (36 CFR

Parts 212, 251, 261, 295 Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor

Vehicle Use; Final Rule, Federal Register 2005: 70FR68264)). The Rule requires each

National Forest to complete a local analysis before the Rule can be implemented. It requires each 

National Forest to designate those roads, trails, and areas where motorized travel will be 

permitted, while minimizing effects on resources and values identified in the Nez Perce National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Rule also requires Forests to 

display designated roads, trails, and areas on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Once the 

MVUM is published, public summer motor vehicle use on the Nez Perce National Forest will be 

allowed only on the designated routes displayed on the map. The MVUM will show routes 

designated for non-winter public motorized travel, along with permitted vehicles and use 

seasons.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 7

The final rule does not require that over-snow vehicles such as snowmobiles be limited to 

designated routes, but it does provide that they may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited. I have 

elected not to include designation for over-snow vehicles in this analysis or decision.

Minimization

When designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands, the 2005 Rule requires Forests to consider effects on the following, with the objective of 

minimizing:

1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;

2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;

3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of 

National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and

4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest system lands or 

neighboring Federal lands.

For purposes of this project, I would like to clarify my interpretation of the term “minimize.” It is 

my interpretation that meeting Forest Plan standards, moving forest resources toward the goals 

and objectives described in the Forest Plan, and complying with all state and federal regulations 

will minimize effects on Forest resources. Since all of the action alternatives analyzed in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) would meet these requirements, any of them 

would minimize effects on Forest resources if selected.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 8

Decision and Reasons for the Decision

In making my decision for the Nez Perce National Forest, DRAMVU project, I focused on the 

following criteria:

Decision Criteria

As the responsible official for the DRAMVU project, I have determined that preparation of an 

EIS is required for a decision on the proposed project under Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 940 CFR 

1500-1508). I have considered the degree to which each alternative would move Forest resources 

closer to the goals and objectives described in the 1987 Nez Perce Forest Plan.

Given the purpose and need, I have reviewed the Proposed Action and alternatives, considered

the environmental consequences of all alternatives, and considered public comments, in order to 

make the following decisions for motor vehicle use on the Nez Perce National Forest:

• What changes to the current system of public motorized roads, trails and areas will be 

designated on the Nez Perce National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)? 

• What type of motor vehicle and season of use would be allowed on these roads, trails and 

areas?

• What changes to the current system are necessary to minimize adverse effects associated 

with motor vehicle use designations?

• What monitoring requirements are appropriate and necessary to evaluate project 

implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures?

• Whether to approve any Forest Plan Amendments, and if so, what elements of the Forest 

Plan are to be amended for this project?
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 9

Decision

As the Forest Supervisor, I am the Responsible Official for this decision. After careful 

consideration of the potential effects of the alternatives documented in the DRAMVU Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and the project record, I have selected Alternative 5, as

Modified, to designate routes for motor vehicle use on the Nez Perce National Forest, except 

over-snow vehicle use (Attachment 1 – Maps 1 through 16). Alternative 5, as Modified, does not 

identify any areas designated for motorized use. ROD – Map 1a displays only Alternative 5, as 

Modified. ROD – Map 1, displays the results of the combination of this decision and other recent 

decisions on motor vehicle access (ROD - Map 1 – Alternative 5, as Modified, with Other 

Decisions). My decision is described in detail below, supplemented by the maps and information 

included in the FEIS and this document. This decision changes the distribution of vehicle types 

and the season of use by motorized vehicles.

This alternative will respond to public comments about providing motorized and non-motorized 

use opportunities, while moving toward the standards and objectives for wildlife resources, and 

other management areas. There will be no areas identified for off-route motor vehicle use on the 

forest. Road and trail designations will reduce the number of miles available for motorized use 

by designations, change the season of use and identify the type of vehicles allowed. Three new 

routes that were proposed by the public will be added to the system for motorized use. 

Alternative 5, as Modified was based on Alternative 5, and most features of these two 

alternatives are the same. Alternative 5 was added to the range of alternatives for the FEIS 

analysis in response to comments received for the DEIS and SDEIS. However, Alternative 5, as

Modified, response to issues and concerns about protection of areas adjacent to trails within 

Research Natural Areas and motorized access to private lands within the administrative boundary 

of the forest. Alternative 5, as Modified, will minimize effects on forest resources, while 

addressing forest plan standards on roads for elk/deer and moose habitat; providing more nonmotorized opportunities on trails in some Idaho Roadless Areas (Adjacent to Gospel Hump, 

Mallard, West Fork–Crooked River, Rapid River, Salmon Face, Selway–Bitterroot, and Silver 

Creek- Pilot Knob); and provide a variety of motorized and non-motorized opportunities across 

the forest outside wilderness.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate 2,353 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or 

seasonal motorized use (Figure ROD-1; Attachments 1 and 2). Routes open to motorized use will 

include 1,963 miles of road and 390 miles of trails. In additional routes open to non-motorized 

use include 1,762 miles of road, 693 miles of trails outside of wilderness areas. Motorized access 

for dispersed camping will be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 300 feet from trails, 

following the conditions of use. In addition 18 miles of road and 34 miles of trail would have 0 

feet of motorized access for dispersed camping.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate approximately 49% routes for motorized opportunities 

and 51% for non-motorized use, outside wilderness. Alternative 5, as Modified, changes
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 10

motorized use from yearlong to seasonal use on many routes. Many of these changes reflect 

when roads and trails are actually accessible and useable due to snow and/or wet conditions. This 

alternative will designate motorize use on 933 miles for yearlong use (19%), 1,419 miles for 

seasonal use (30%), and 2,455 miles (51%) as non-motorized, outside wilderness. 

Overall on the forest this will provide an approximately 49% to 51% split between motorized 

and non-motorized opportunities, outside wilderness. This will provide an array of recreation 

opportunities on the Nez Perce National Forest.

Figure ROD-1 Alternative 5, as Modified - Miles of Road and Trail by Season of Use.

The items described in the FEIS under “Actions Common to All Action Alternatives”, “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 4 and 5” and “Actions Common to Alternatives 5 and 6” will be 

implemented.

Alternative 5, as Modified, designates a system of roads and trails for motorized use as described 

in this document and in Alternative 5 in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. Motorized access for 

dispersed camping restrictions will be different from Alternative 5 for some roads and trails as 

described in Table ROD-4 and Table ROD-5, respectively. Figure ROD-2 and Figure ROD-3

display the array of designations for roads and trails in Alternative 5, as Modified.

All of the action alternatives would comply with Forest Plan standards as well as all state and 

Federal environmental regulations, thereby minimizing adverse effects on Forest resources and 

users.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 11

Alternative 5, as Modified - Off-Route Motor Vehicle Use

Off-route motor vehicle use actions remain the same as for Alternative 5 (Attachment 1 – ROD 

Map 1). 

• No off-route motor vehicle use will be designated on the Nez Perce National Forest, 

including retrieval of downed big game. Unauthorized routes (routes not on the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map) would not be available for motorized use.

• All roads, trails and areas are closed to motorized use unless designated as open. Motorized 

use would be allowed on designated roads, trails, areas as displayed on the Motor Vehicle 

Use Map, based on the specified type of vehicle and season of use (ROD – Attachment 2; 

FEIS Appendix B – Alternative 5). A designation for a road or trail includes all terminal 

facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the designated road or trail.

Alternative 5, as Modified – Area Designations

Areas designated for motorized use remain the same as for Alternative 5.

• No areas are designated for motorized use. 

Alternative 5, as Modified – Parking

Parking actions remain the same as for Alternative 5.

• Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route is also permitted 

from the edge of the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a trailer 

(e.g. boat, horse, or camper). Use would be allowed when it is safe to do so and as to not 

create resource damage and follows forest orders or prohibitions.

Alternative 5, as Modified - Motorized Use of Designated Roads, Trails and Areas

Alternative 5, as Modified, for motorized use of designated road, trails and areas are the same as 

Alternative 5.

Motorized Use of Designated Roads, Trails and Areas

• Motorized use on roads and trails is subject to Idaho State Law or County ordinances.

• Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood following the terms and conditions of standard 

personal use firewood permits (FS 2400-0001; USDA-FS 2011).

• No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) are allowed 

within wilderness areas as specified by law and the Nez Perce Forest Plan (Wilderness Act 

1964, Endangered American Wilderness 1978, Central Idaho Wilderness Act 1980, USDAFS 1987b, as amended; and within the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River corridor, as 

specified within the enabling legislation for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and 

Rapid River Wild and Scenic River).
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 12

• All areas and routes in the project area are open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain 

bike, or stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons such as safety or otherwise 

posted. Mountain bikes would be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness 

areas, unless otherwise posted. 

• General prohibitions and any other restrictions placed on National Forest Service Roads and 

Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest (36 CFR, Part 261, Subpart A and 

Subpart B; Sections 36 CFR 261: 53, 54, 55), will continue to allow the local manger the 

responsibility and authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use anytime a there is 

considerable adverse environmental effects occurring from use until the problem has been 

resolved (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

• This project will not supersede the terms and conditions for motorized use as authorized 

under permit, by a line officer, on any road or trail. Such forest activities may include: 

grazing permits, weed treatment, mineral activities, fire wood cutting permits, special use 

permits and authorizations for administrative use. Motorized use may include travel on or 

off designated routes. 

• Maintain access to areas important to all Native American Tribes who use the Nez Perce 

National Forest, and will preserve local Native American culture by providing for the 

continued ability to practice inherent tribal treaty rights and traditional uses of the forest.

• Post access points into the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal watersheds with signs 

informing users of the municipal watershed, encouraging caution with potential pollution 

sources and detailing sanitation requirements. 

• Conditions of Use – Wheeled Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping (are listed below in 

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives).

Alternative 5, as Modified – New Routes 

New routes proposals remain the same as for Alternative 5 (Table ROD - 1; Attachment 1 

Maps 3, 4 and 5).

The 1987 Nez Perce Forest Plan did not prohibit off-road motor vehicle use, except in 

congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness. Currently, motorized recreationists use 

some routes that are not part of the official Nez Perce National Forest transportation system. 

Comments received during scoping of the Proposed Action suggested that some of these routes 

should be added to the official transportation system. Proposed routes were reviewed based on 

the criteria listed in FEIS - Appendix B. To be considered as a motorized trail, the route must 

meet the national trail standards without reconstruction. Routes will be checked against a set of 

criteria to meet the trail standard before the new routes are placed on the MVUM map.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 13

Alternative 5, as Modified includes 1.1 miles of “new” routes that will be added to the 

transportation system as trails: New – 1, New-4 and New-5 (Table ROD - 1, Attachment 2 -

trails). 

Table ROD - 1. New Routes in Alternative 5, as Modified.

Route 

Name General Location and Purpose Designation Miles

New – 1

Red River Ranger District, Trapper Creek,

creates connection

from Road 9550 to Road 9560A.

Open 6/16 to 9/14 vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width

OSS6

0.5

New – 4

Clearwater Ranger District, Mill Creek,

creates connection

from Road 9449 to Road 9550.

Open Yearlong to vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width 

OYS2

0.3

New - 5

Clearwater Ranger District, Grouse Creek,

creates connection

from Road 2023 to Road 2009.

Open 6/16 to 11/30 to < 

Vehicle less than 50 inches 

in width- OSS4

0.3

Alternative 5, as Modified – Road Designations

Road actions for motorized vehicles are modified from Alternative 5 as presented in the FEIS

(ROD Map 1 and Map 1a; ROD-Attachment 2) on 30 miles of 25 roads (Table ROD-2).

Overall, Alternative 5, as Modified, will seasonally allow motorized travel on local roads and 

some arterial and collectors in Management Area 16 and 21 to protect important elk/deer and 

moose habitat and meet Forest Plan standards. A forest plan amendment is needed to continue 

yearlong use of some local roads in Management Area 16 (ROD Attachment 4).

Alternative 5, as Modified, will restrict motorized use on local roads yearlong in Management 

Area 22 to protect downstream water quality in the Wall Creek municipal watershed.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate motorized uses on 1,963 miles of road and nonmotorized use on 1,762 miles of road (Figure ROD-2). Of the motorized road designations will 

include 846 miles open yearlong and 1,117 miles open seasonally to all vehicle types. Roads 

open for vehicle use will be open on: 763 mile for all vehicles yearlong and 926 miles 

seasonally; 82 miles will be open yearlong and 189 miles open seasonally to vehicles less than 

50 inches in width. Motorcycles will have a seasonal opportunity on 2 miles of road.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will change use on roads from motorized to non-motorized on 17

miles. Some of the reduction for motorized use on roads will be in areas like Earthquake basin 

(ROD Map-15). Alternative 5, as Modified, will change use from non-motorized to motorized on 

7.4 miles of road (Table ROD-7). This increase will provide seasonal use of roads for vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width and create new loop opportunities.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 14

Figure ROD-2. Alternative 5, as Modified - Road Miles Open by Season and Vehicle.

The primary modification for road designations from Alternative 5 is to maintain current 

access to private inholdings and minimize the need for individual road use permits. In addition 

other modifications include jurisdiction adjustments, corrections to the transportation system 

where roads were recently identified or decommissioned or where past decisions have been 

implemented (Map 1 and 1a, Table ROD-2). 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 15

Table ROD - 2. Road Designation Modifications, from Alt. 5 to Alternative 5, as Modified.

Number BMP EMP GIS 

Miles Alternative 5 Alternative 5, as Modified Description

1150 0.0 1.2 1.2 OSA1 OYA Access to private property.

1807A 0.0 0.2 0.2 RYA PVT Non FS Road

1808 8.1 8.1 0.01 OSA1 OYA Access to private property. 

From R307 to R1808A. 

1808A 0.0 0.2 0.2 OSA1 OYA Access to private property. 

From R1808.

1809 2.6 3.1 3.1 OSA4 OYA

Access to private property 

within Elk City Township.

Gate just past R1810 junction 

with R1809.

1809 3.1 6.0 2.9 OSS5 OYS1

Access to private property 

within Elk City township.

At junction with 78526.

1809C 0.0 0.8 0.8 OSS5 OYS1

Accesses private land within 

Elk City Township. 

Dependent on access via 1809

18701 0.0 0.6 0.6 OSF1 OSF2

Access to private property. 

Limits motorcycle use in winter

based on access from R642.

1870 0.6 5.2 4.6 OSA3 OSF2

Access to private property. 

Limits motorcycle use in winter 

based on access from R642.

2021 4.5 5.8 1.3 OSA3 OYA

Access to private property. 

Yearlong access from R279, 

R2022 

2021A 0.0 0.7 0.7 OSA3 OYA

Access to private property to 

Road 2021A2 road. Yearlong

access from R279, R2022, 

R2021. 

2021A2 0.0 1.0 1.0 OSA3 OYA

Access to private property. 

Yearlong access from R279, 

R2022, R2021, R2021A. 

2022 0.0 1.5 1.5 OSA3 OYA

Access to private property from 

0.0 to junction with R2021. 

Yearlong from R279 

2114A 0.0 0.1 0.1 OYS1 OYA Match Rapid River Trailhead 

decision.

2114A 0.1 0.2 0.0 OYS1 RYA Match Rapid River Trailhead 

decision.

2114A 0.2 0.3 0.1 OYS1 NDOTH Non FS Road – Idaho Power

2114A 0.3 0.5 0.2 RYA NDOTH Non FS Road – Idaho Power

222K1 0.5 1.6 1.02 OSA6 RYA Upriver of Mackay Bar 

Campground to rock barrier.

235 7.8 8.3 0.5 RYA OPOTH Non FS Road
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 16

Number BMP EMP GIS 

Miles Alternative 5 Alternative 5, as Modified Description

3071 0.0 3.1 3.1 OSA1 OYA

Access to private property. 

Portion on snowmobile trail.

Access to Elk City Wagon 

Road.

309D 0.0 0.1 0.1 OSA4 OSA1 Access to private property from 

R309.

410 2.7 3.0 0.3 RYA PVT Non FS Road.

451 1.3 8.9 7.6 OSA3 OSA2 Access to private property in 

May to junction with R76808

4600 0.0 0.1 0.1 OSA1 OYA Access to Fish Creek 

Campground

4841 0.0 0.5 0.5 OSA1 OYA

Access to private property 

yearlong. Matches with the rest 

of R484 to the north.

4841 0.5 2.2 1.7 OSA1 OYA

Access to private property 

yearlong. Matches with the rest 

of R484 to the north.

652B 0.0 0.4 0.4 N/A OYA Road identified in June 2015

652B 0.4 0.9 0.5 N/A OYA Road identified in June 2015

76808 0.0 0.4 0.4 OSS4 OSA2 Access to private property in 

May. 

9519A 0.0 0.6 0.6 RYA B Road decommissioned in 2011.

9867 2.9 4.2 1.3 OSS6 OYS2

Provide access to private lands 

from Highway 13 to junction of 

9867A and T9867

9868 0.0 0.2 0.2 OYS1 OPOTH Non FS - BLM Road

9868 0.3 2.6 2.4 OYS1 OPOTH Non FS- BLM Road

1 In Management Area 16 – Elk and Deer Winter Range.

Alternative 5, as Modified – Trail Designations

Trail actions for motorized vehicles are modified from Alternative 5 as presented in the FEIS

(ROD Map 1; ROD-Attachment 2) on seven trails (16 miles; Table ROD-3). 

Similar to Alternative 5, Alternative 5 as Modified, will seasonally restricted motorized travel on 

trails in Management Area 16 and 21 to protect important elk/deer and moose habitat, based on 

the designations of roads that access the trails. 

This alternative will move trail use in West Meadow, East Meadow and Silver Creek- Pilot Knob 

toward more non-motorized trails to provide quiet recreation, protect riparian areas, wildlife and 

fish habitat.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate motorized use on 390 miles of trail. Motorized use will 

be designate trails on 88 miles for yearlong use and 302 miles for seasonal use (Figure ROD-3). 

Of the motorized trail opportunities on the forest, Alternative 5, as Modified, offers 9 miles open 

yearlong and 24 miles open seasonally to all vehicles. This alternative will provide 50 miles open 

yearlong and 157 miles of trail open seasonally to vehicles less than 50 inches in width. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 17

Motorcycle use will be on 29 miles of trail open yearlong and 121 miles seasonally. Nonmotorized trails use outside wilderness on 693 miles.

Figure ROD-3 Alternative 5 Trail Miles Open by Season and Vehicle, outside wilderness.

The primary modification from Alternative 5 on trails is to maintain current access 

designations to private inholdings and minimize the need for individual trail use permits 

(Table ROD-3; ROD-Map 1 and 1a). Other modifications include designation to maintain 

motorized loop opportunities that have the same season of use or vehicle type. 

Yearlong 4/2 -

11/30

6/16 -

11/30

5/16-

11/30

6/16 -

11/4

6/16 -

9/14

NonMotorize

d

Non-motorized 693

Motorcycle Only 29 16 34 0 24 47 0

Vehicles < 50" 50 87 44 0 0 26 0

All Vehicles 9 18 1 0 0 5 0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Miles

Alternative 5, as Modified

Trail Designations Season & Vehicle Type
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 18

Table ROD - 3. Trail Designation Modifications from Alternative 5.

Trail 

Number BMP EMP GIS Miles Alternative 5 Alternative 5, as Modified Description

163 2.2 6.4 4.2 OSS6 OYS2 Access to private property from 

Road 394.

320 5.3 7.4 2.2 OSM1 OSS2

Currently used by < 50” vehicles.

Maintain a loop opportunity with 

T385 and other adjacent trails.

325 0.9 2.4 1.5 OSS4 OSS9 Access to private property. Limited 

by R1870 and R642.

330 0.0 3.5 3.5 RYA OYM Maintains loop opportunity for 

motor cycles.

385 0.0 1.9 1.8 OSS6 OSS2

Currently used by < 50" vehicles 

yearlong. Matches season of use for 

loop opportunity with T320 and 

other adjacent trails.

82 0.0 1.5 1.5 OYM OYS1 New opportunities for <50" with 

T136 area.

9867 0.0 1.1 1.1 OSS6 OYS2

Access to private property from 

Highway 13 to junction with 9867A 

road

From Alternative 2, Alternative 5, as Modified, will change use from non-motorized to 

motorized on 7.4 miles of trail, and adds 1.1 miles on three new trails. This increase will provide 

seasonal use of trails for vehicles less than 50 inches in width or motorcycle only on trails: 

Lemhi 212, Blowout-Divide 234, and Divide 505 (Table ROD-8). Based on this decision, 

reconstruction of these trails would be needed before these trails can be added to the MVUM for 

public use.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will change use from single track to two-track (motorcycle to 

vehicles less than 50 inches in width) on the Deadpoint 307, Telephone Ridge 329, and Relief 

Creek 844 (6.4 miles) trails, in comparison to Alternative 2 (Table ROD-9). However, the Little 

Slate Decision designated Telephone Ridge trail for vehicles less than 50 inches in width

seasonally (6/16-9/14) as show on ROD Map 1 and Attachment A.

Alternative 5, as Modified – Conditions for Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Conditions for motorized access for dispersed camping remain the same as Alternative 5.

Alternative 5, as Modified, would designate motorized access for 300 feet from roads and 300 

feet from trails with Conditions of Use as described in Alternative 5, with the exceptions listed in

Table ROD-4 and Table ROD-5 (ROD Attachment 1 – Maps 6 through 14).

Roads 

Alternative 5, as Modified, includes 18 miles of road that will not allow motorized access to 

dispersed camping (Table ROD 2, ROD Attachment 1 – Maps 8, 9, 10, 11). I have modified

Alternative 5 by decreasing 2.5 miles of this access as presented in the FEIS. The distance for 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 19

motorized access for dispersed camping from roads would be 0 feet, except Gospel Hump Road 

444. Alternative 5, as Modified, does not include Fish Creek Road 1856 or Magruder Road 468 

(also known as the Montana Road or Nez Perce Trail) presented in Alternative 6. On the 

Clearwater River Ranger District, Road 1856 is a high use recreation area near Fish Creek 

Campground. On the Red River Ranger District Road 468 receives high use area along the road 

and near Poet Creek Campground.

This decision does not include any designations that contradict direction in the Wilderness acts. 

Motorized access for dispersed camping will not be allowed in Wilderness areas. Specifically 

along: the Magruder Road 468 to Montana; Gospel Hump Road 444 to Square Mountain; Dixie 

Road 222 to Mackay Bar; and Big Mallard Creek Road 421 from Big Mallard trailhead to Vista 

Point; or Roads near Hells Canyon Wilderness.

Table ROD-4. Alternative 5, as Modified, Roads with Reduced Wheeled Motorized Vehicle Access 

for Dispersed Camping.

Road 

Number Road Name

Alternative 5, 

as Modified

Road

Designation

Beginning 

Milepost

Ending 

Milepost*

GIS 

Miles

Proposed Distance for 

Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping1

1870 Pinnacle OSF2 3.3 5.2 1.9 0 feet

243 Free Use OSF2 9.7 10.4 0.7 0 feet

243G Rocky Knob OSF2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 feet

243G1 Rocky Knob 

Spur OSF2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0 feet

394 Kelly Mountain OSF2 1.6 2.7 1.1 0 feet

420 Boise Trail OYA 4.8 6.8 2.0 0 feet

420C Grave Point OSA4 0.0 1.2 1.2 0 feet

444 Gospel OSA1 4.8 6.3 1.5 300 feet or to Wilderness 

Boundary whichever is less

479 Swartz Meadows OSA3 5.7 6.5 0.8 0 feet

643 Florence Basin OSA1 3.6 7.8 4.2 0 feet

672 Crooked OYA 19.1 21.3 2.3 0 feet

672E Johnson Ridge OSA4 0.0 1.2 1.0 0 feet

9323 Bull Run Ridge OSF2 0.9 1.9 1.0 0 feet

TOTAL Road Miles 18.1 0 feet

1

Alternative 5, as Modified, does not include Roads 1856 or 468 presented in Alternative 5 in 

the FEIS.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 20

Trails

Alternative 5, as Modified, includes 34 miles of trail that will not allow motorized access to 

dispersed camping (Table ROD-5; ROD-Attachment 1 -Maps 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14). I have 

modified Alternative 5, by an increase of 10 miles as presented in the FEIS (bold text in Table 

ROD-5). The distance for motorized access for dispersed camping from these trails would be 0 

feet. Alternative 5, as Modified, adds restrictions along Trails 207, 301, 330, 349 as presented in

Alternatives 3 and 6. On the Salmon River Ranger District in the No Business Research Natural 

Area (RNA) and in the Little Slate Creek IRA: motorized use would be restricted off: Trail 301 

(8.1 miles), Trail 330 (4.9 miles), and Trail 349 (2.8 miles). On the Red River Ranger District in 

the Moose Meadows RNA and in the Dixie-Summit-Nut Hill IRA: motorized use would be 

restricted off Trail 207 (8.4 miles).

Table ROD-5. Alternative 5, as Modified, Trails with Reduced Wheeled Motorized Vehicle Access 

for Dispersed Camping1

.

Trail

Number Trail Name

Alternative 5, 

as Modified

Trail 

Designation

Resource Beginning

Milepost

Ending 

Milepost*

GIS 

Miles

82 Martin 

Springs OYM High elevation fragile soils and plant communities 0.0 1.4 1.5

107 Camp 

Howard OYS2 Grassland/sensitive specieshabitat 0.0 3.3 3.0

118 Southwest 

Butte OYS2 High elevation fragile soils and plant communities 0.0 4.2 4.3

136 John Day 

Mountain OYS2 High elevation fragile soils and plant communities 0.0 4.2 4.2

207 Moose 

Butte OSS4 Moose MeadowsResearch Natural Area 2.2 3.9 1.8

301 Dead Horse 

Ridge OSF5/OYS2 No BusinessResearch Natural Area 7.4 7.5 0.2

325 Pinnacle 

Ridge OSS4 Grassland/sensitive species habitat 1.6 2.4 0.8

330

Little Van 

Buren 

Ridge

OYM No Business

Research Natural Area 4.4 4.7 0.2

340 Bentz Ridge OSS4 Grassland/sensitive species 

habitat 0.3 5.8 3.0

349 No 

Business OYM No BusinessResearch Natural Area 0.0 1.8 1.7

387 Wild Horse 

Corrals OSS4 Grassland/sensitive specieshabitat 0.0 3.6 2.0

480 Fish Creek OSS2

Grassland/sensitive species

habitat. Damage common. 

Conflicts of use.

0.0 11.0 11.0

Total Trail Miles 33.7

* Milepost miles are from INFRA and may vary from calculated GIS miles.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 21

1 Alternative 5, as Modified – adds reduced motorized access adjacent to Trails 207, 301, 330, 349 as presented 

in Alternatives 3 and 6, in bold text.

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives, including Alternative 5, as Modified. 

The following actions common to all action alternatives remain the same as Alternative 5 unless 

otherwise noted in bold italic text.

Motorized Use of Designated Roads, Trails and Areas

• Conditions of Use – Wheeled Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping 

In response to comments on the DEIS and internal discussions there was a need to be 

consistent with the Clearwater National Forest about motorized access for dispersed 

camping. Because of the location of the Nez Perce National Forest and the neighboring 

Clearwater National Forest, many forest visitors travel and enjoy activities on both forests. 

There was a need to remove differences between the two forests. The proposed conditions of 

use, responds to this concern. 

In response to the potential effects of natural and heritage resources, there was also a need to 

clarify conditions of use, and several areas on the forest were determined to need additional 

protection from effects from dispersed camping activities. The proposal for reduced wheeled 

vehicle access for dispersed camping responds to this concern. 

Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes is included as designated 

route travel as long as the conditions for that travel are met. When the conditions below are 

not met, the motorized travel is illegal.

To meet the intent of the rule, motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated 

routes would be permitted within a specific distance (varies by alternative) of a designated 

route during the period when that route is open to motorized traffic. The distance is 

measured perpendicular to the designated route. Campsites, even where they currently exist 

that are beyond the distance would be off-limits to motor vehicles.

Since the intent is to provide for camping access, it would not be permissible to roam around 

with a motor vehicle off the designated route while looking for a campsite. Campers are 

expected to explore and evaluate campsites by non-motorized means and travel to them with 

their vehicle using the most clearly defined existing track. Cutting corners on the established 

track or taking shortcuts back to the main road or trail would not be permitted. Again since 

the intent is to provide for camping access, repetitive recreational riding around in the 

campsite or along the access route would not be permitted.

Barriers of logs, rocks, or earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to restrict 

vehicles from sensitive or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to eliminate 

motorized traffic in wet areas, streamside zones, on redundant tracks or for other resource 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 22

protection purposes. Moving, going over, going around, or in any way circumventing these 

restriction devices would not be permitted.

Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of resource 

damage associated with motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but are not limited 

to:

o Cutting, harming or unreasonably disturbing vegetation

o Using more than one track to access the campsite

o Crossing streams, driving on stream banks, or riding in any wet area off the 

established track where rutting occurs.

o Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track

• Follow Terms and Conditions identified through consultation with NOAA-Fisheries and 

UDSI-Fish and Wildlife Service (See text below for Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation). See ROD - Attachment 3.

Mitigation

Recreation

• Coordinate with Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) to review past IDPR 

grants when the designation would convert use on a trail from motorized to non-motorized. 

Work with the IDPR to determine if an application for replacement opportunity is necessary 

(Same as Alternative 5. Applies only to Bilk Mountain Trail 517. See FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Recreation, Table 3-38).

Monitoring

Monitoring can include several kinds of activities. Project implementation monitoring evaluates 

compliance with land management plans and project decisions, including any required mitigation 

measures. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates the effectiveness of management actions in 

achieving desired outcomes. Program monitoring tracks and evaluates ecological, social, and 

economic trends. Validation monitoring verifies assumptions and models used in project 

implementation. Each kind of monitoring is relevant to managing motor vehicle use. 

Heritage Resources

• Identify and evaluate all historic properties within the project area and develop protection 

measures for sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office would approve all identification, evaluation, and protection 

measures. In order to comply with Section 106, the protocol states the Forest Service will 

conduct the following activities: 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 23

1. A portion of cultural resources associated with open road systems will be monitored 

and protected yearly as part of the broader target-attainment, NHPA Section 110, 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act and related Heritage Program 

responsibilities. 

2. Newly designated motorized roads and trails will be inventoried for cultural resources 

and reported to the Idaho SHPO following protocols found in the 2001 North Idaho 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) prior to a travel planning decision.

3. Existing dispersed recreation sites accessed by roads, and where no prior survey has 

occurred or where use is expanding will be inventoried for cultural resources 

following a travel planning decision. This inventory will be conducted in the 

following manner:

a. Fifty-acres of survey will be conducted annually by each Forest. This survey 

will occur where there is a conjunction between high cultural resource 

probability and high motorized use. 

b. Inventory will include monitoring, condition assessments and development of 

appropriate mitigation measures as needed to reduce or eliminate adverse 

effects to historic properties within the targeted annual survey area. 

c. All three National Forests are currently conducting recreation inventories and 

GPS mapping of dispersed recreation sites. The above activities will be aided 

by these inventory/GPS efforts and resulting GIS products. 

Mitigation needs arising from implementing the above protocol elements may include, 

but are not limited to, route relocation/closures, site specific dispersed camping closures, 

barrier rock placement, capping archaeological properties with a protective soil layer, 

formal collection of surface artifacts, or data recovery. 

Fisheries

• The following monitoring activities would be completed during the first two complete 

field seasons following the authorization of the travel plan. A report will be prepared the 

second field season. The report will note any existing and potential problems, immediate 

actions taken during the interim to minimize or avoid adverse effects, and any pending or 

potential actions that the Forest will address administratively or through the NEPA 

process. If monitoring finds adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat are 

occurring, the action will be immediately curtailed until a remedial plan is formed and 

subsequent ESAS consultation is completed. See aquatic monitoring plan (Appendix F). 

• Continue to monitor selected motorized trail crossings to determine if travel is causing 

direct or indirect adverse effects to ESA listed species, designated critical habitat, or 

other aquatic resources (e.g. sensitive species, unoccupied stream habitat, wetlands, etc). 

• Determine if existing dispersed recreational sites located within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas and within drainages that support ESA listed fish species are meeting 

standards and guidelines regarding PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 24

Recreation

• Alternative 5, as modified includes the following new monitoring. Inventory motorized 

access for dispersed camping along the Coolwater Ridge area. Inventory motorized use 

within 300 feet of Roads 317, 317A, 317B and 317C. Establish a base line in Year 1 

and repeat inventory in Year 5 to show any increased use. A R1 Primitive Recreation 

Site Resource Condition Survey will identify location, condition and access to any 

campsites within 300 feet of these roads. District would determine if conditions require 

addition restrictions to dispersed camping access in separate NEPA analysis. 

Project Implementation and MVUM Revision

• The Nez Perce National Forest would follow national direction for producing maps. The 

Forest Service has implemented a standard national format for Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

(MVUM). These maps will be available at local Forest Service offices and, as soon as 

practicable, on Forest Service web sites. The Forest Service plans to issue additional 

travel management guidance in its sign standards handbook to ensure consistent 

messages and use of standard interagency symbols. 

• Revision. The designations identified on the motor vehicle use map are subject to 

revision. Information collected through monitoring and through public user groups will 

be useful in evaluating and revising travel management decisions. The forest would 

update the INFRA database, and the MVUM maps to incorporate any changes in 

motorize access from new NEPA decisions annually or as needed, including corrections.

• Complete future NEPA analysis and decisions for activities such as reconstruction of 

roads or trails to accommodate the designated uses with this decision.

• Implementation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and objectives would 

continue on a site-specific basis when resource concerns are identified. Future sitespecific planning and enforcement of motorized vehicle regulations would occur at the 

project level.

• User education and enforcement of the new travel management regulations would occur. 

User education would include public meetings, and brochures describing the new travel 

management policy and use of the MVUM. The Nez Perce National Forest will provide 

FPO’s on the forest to educate visitors on the implementation of MVUM.

• Grants and Agreements. The Forest Service will pursue partnerships and grants with 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain motorized and non-motorized 

trails and other groups.

• Mixed Use Traffic. State of Idaho law allows for motorized mixed use of licensed drivers 

in registered OHVs and highway legal vehicles on unpaved NFS roads designated as 

open to motorized public travel. The Forest may choose to regulate this use based on a 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 25

Mixed Use Traffic Study which determines the safety of such use. Routes deemed to be 

unsafe as a result of the traffic study may be closed to mixed use by the Forest, thus 

eliminating use by OHV’s or highway legal vehicles. 

• Standards, Maintenance, and Construction. Road and trail standards vary depending on 

intended use. Road and trail standards allow for a range of route conditions from 

primitive to high standard. Road and trail maintenance, required by Forest Service 

Manual direction, would continue as available funding is allocated by Congress. In all 

action alternatives, portions of some roads and trails may require reconstruction or 

relocation in order to meet standards. Most of the new construction would consist of short 

“connector” segments, which would tie existing roads or trails together. New trails or 

roads would be designed to meet the trail or road standards as defined by the USDA 

Forest Service Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM-7720-102; or the 

FSH 7700 Roads USDA Forest Service Handbook for roads (USDA-FS 2011).

Actions Common to Alternatives 4 and 5, including Alternative 5, as Modified

The following actions common to Alternatives 4 and 5 remain the same as Alternative 5.

• For new routes (New-1, New-4, New-5) implementing the following measures would be 

applied to reduce the spread of invasive species:

o Check for invasive weeds at new trail routes, especially for new invader species. 

Treatment at these sites would be addressed under the existing Weed Management 

program.

o If determined necessary, establish desirable vegetation on all ground disturbing areas 

promptly, following the Regional native species guidelines. All non-certified seed 

used would be tested and certified free of all state noxious weeds by a certified seed 

laboratory. All straw and mulch used would be certified as free of noxious weed 

seed.

o Remove all mud, soil and plant parts from all off-road equipment before moving into 

the project area to limit the spread of invasive species. This includes ATVs used on 

and off roads, but does not apply to service or hauling vehicles that would stay on 

improved roadways.

Actions Common to Alternatives 5 and 6, including Alternative 5, as Modified

The following actions common to Alternatives 5 remain the same as Alternative 5.

• Post informational signs along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access for 

dispersed camping is limited by the Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 26

Forest Plan Amendment, Alternative 5, as Modified

Forest Plan amendments, remain the same as for Alternative 5, except for Roads 1870, 221G, 

222K, 307, and 484. These road designations require an amendment (Table ROD-2). Forest 

Plan Amendment is included in Attachment 4 of the ROD. The full text and description of the 

proposed amendment is in the FEIS – Appendix D. 

One project-specific Forest Plan amendment for Management Area 16 – Elk/Deer Winter Range, 

Wildlife/Fish Access Standard #1. Alternative 5, as Modified, would exempt the decision from 

following the standard on 38 miles of road in Management Area 16. Arterial and collector roads 

would be used as designated in Attachment 2 and 4 on the motor vehicle use map. This is a nonsignificant amendment.

Tribal Treaty Rights

All of the action alternatives would maintain access to areas important to all Native American 

Tribes who use the Nez Perce National Forest, and would preserve local Native American 

culture by providing for the continued ability to practice inherent tribal treaty rights and 

traditional uses of the forest.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

has been completed. Each agency has issued a Biological Opinion for the Nez Perce National 

Forest DRAMVU proposal (ROD-Attachment 3). Specific terms and conditions, and monitoring 

requirements, are part of this decision and will be followed.

Decision Rationale

General Rationale

In making my decision, described on pages 11 through 26 of this record of decision, I carefully 

considered a variety of choices from across the forest based on a thorough review of all 

alternatives and full consideration of the record.

From the record this included:

• Information gathered from numerous public meetings in local communities over the 

course of the analysis from 2007 through 2015.

• Public comments from the proposed action, public meetings, and the supplemental EIS.

• Information gained from numerous stake holders groups and organizations.

• Input from state agencies to include the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.

• Local government, to include the Idaho County Commissioners.

• Consultation with National Marine Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

State Historic Preservation Office.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 27

• Two complete reviews of the project and each trail and road by the district rangers and 

their staffs.

• A complete review and consideration of each trail and road on all districts jointly by the 

district rangers, deputy forest supervisor, forest supervisor and the team leader.

All alternatives, with the exception of the no-action, will result in reduced environmental 

impacts. Further, my rationale supports meeting the purpose and need for action:

• It meets the need to designate motor vehicle use on roads, trails and areas on the forest.

• It meets the need to eliminate unmanaged off-road vehicle use.

• It meets the need to identify and evaluate routes, and consider them for possible adoption 

into the designated motorized system.

• It will meet the need to provide forest visitors with a map about available motor vehicle 

access on the forest.

And for meeting requirements to consider effects on the following, with the objective of 

minimizing:

• Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.

• Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

• Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of 

National Forest system lands or neighboring Federal lands.

• Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest system lands 

or neighboring Federal lands.

The basis for my rationale is derived from information in the record, meeting the need for the 

decision, and minimizing effects, all as described above. Finally, the rationale criterion that 

follows on pages 25 through 59 of this document provides additional focus and detail to my 

rationale.

Recreation Opportunities

One of my objectives was to provide opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forest 

visitors on the Nez Perce National Forest outside of Wilderness, while moving toward Forest 

Plan goals and objectives for other resources and minimizing the impacts to natural resources.

Some people commenting on this project expressed interest in particular destinations like 

roadless areas and trailheads that access the wilderness portals. For people seeking quiet 

recreation these opportunities are provided for in areas like Adjacent to Gospel Hump, Mallard, 

West Fork–Crooked River, Rapid River, Salmon Face, and Selway–Bitterroot IRAs where there 

will be non-motorized use designated on trails.

Motorized routes to existing forest recreation facilities such as trailheads, developed 

campgrounds, lookouts and boat ramps will be maintained. Motorized uses on main roads will be 

maintained much in a similar condition to the current access that people have used in the past. 

Road designations provide a balance for recreational access and providing protection for wildlife 

during critical time periods. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 28

During scoping and the comment period for the DEIS and SDEIS recreationists mentioned the 

need to keep as many motorized opportunities available to the public as possible. Many 

mentioned opportunities for OHVs and motorcycles. Some felt that reducing motorized 

opportunities would impact local communities. Some felt that changing use to non-motorized 

would reduce their ability to see places they have gone to in the past, because they cannot 

physically access the areas by foot. However, some trails were built to accommodate use by 

stock and foot traffic, not motorized vehicles such as OHVs or motorcycles but never restricted

for motorized use officially by a Forest Supervisor order. 

Past forest orders defined some areas of no off-route motor vehicle use and designated use on 

some roads and trails. This decision will follow the Travel Management rule direction and apply 

no cross country travel consistently across the forest and designate motorized use on both roads 

and trails. Some past forest orders designated use on roads and trails, but not for the entire road 

or trail system, making inconsistent links for seasons of use. This decision will provide a logical 

season of use that links motorized use on forest roads and trails. This decision will also remove 

inconsistences where road and trail use overlap (coincident use). 

Some forest trails were not built for motorized use in the past, and did not have forest orders in 

place to enforce a specific use. This decision will provide the designation for motorized uses that 

will be more enforceable.

My decision will reduce motorized opportunities, compared to the existing situation. Based on 

comments and discussions I have received during the DRAMVU planning process, I know that 

some of the motorized users or non-motorized users, will disagree with my decision. 

Others interests may disagree with the decision as well, thinking seasonal restrictions to 

motorized uses are not needed. Wildlife is an important resource for many people that visit the 

Nez Perce National Forest. The Forest Plan directs our activities to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife species and their habitats. By changing the season of use on roads and trails, wildlife 

habitat will be provided the protection needed from disturbance from motorized vehicles on 

roads and trails during the fall or winter. Much of the forest is already inaccessible during the 

winter because of the seasonal snow pack that falls on the Nez Perce National Forest. Conflict 

with recreational use and wildlife habitat is more common on winter range because these areas 

are lower in elevation and accessible earlier in the spring. This decision provides a balance of 

motorized use and minimizes disturbance to wildlife, plant, cultural, soil, water and fish 

resources. 

Many of these trails were not developed for motorized use in the past and cannot currently 

accommodate motorized use. This alternative provides the most seasonal access miles of all of 

the alternatives and will influence the motorized trail access of forest users, including spring and 

fall hunters. Trail restrictions in the spring limit use when trail treads are saturated and are 

vulnerable to accelerated erosion, these designations will reduce resource impacts on trails 

during this vulnerable timeframe. This alternative will not affect access to the groomed crosscountry ski or snowmobile trail systems.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 29

My decision represents my best effort at resolving these competing interests: motorized 

recreation opportunities and other management area goals. Meeting Forest Plan standards, and 

striving to move resource conditions closer to Management Area goals and objectives, will 

minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and wildlife resources, while reducing conflicts 

between motor vehicle uses and existing or proposed recreational uses on National Forest 

System lands.

Resource Protection

My most important objective was to manage motorized uses as necessary to minimize potential 

adverse effects to Forest resources. Moving conditions closer to the goals and objectives in the 

Forest Plan, and managing motorized travel so that it complies with laws, regulations, policy, 

and Forest Plan direction, will accomplish this This objective creates the sideboards within 

which recreation opportunities may be provided. In summary, travel opportunities were limited 

as follows:

• Manage motorized use in Management Areas 16 and 21 to minimize effects to wildlife 

from road and trail use while meeting standards in the Forest Plan.

• Manage motorized use in Management Areas to minimize effects to wildlife and fisheries 

while moving toward objectives in the Forest Plan, specifically related to Summer Elk 

Habitat Effectiveness. 

• Manage motorized use in Management Area 22 and 23 to minimize effects to 

downstream water quality while meeting standards in the Forest Plan.

• Retain motorized uses to the greatest extent possible in other Management Areas where 

motorized uses are consistent with goals and objectives in the Forest Plan.

• Reduce motorized use on trails in some Idaho Roadless Areas.

• Minimize effects from motorized use on road, trails or areas on natural resources.

There is often an inverse relationship between the level of human uses of the Forest, and the 

condition of other resources, as is evidenced by the effects analysis disclosed in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. For example, as motorized use increases, wildlife habitat security often decreases. 

Generally speaking, adverse environmental impacts were a factor I considered in not choosing 

the other alternatives. Impacts on Idaho Roadless Areas, wildlife, and fisheries were also factors 

in my decision not to choose Alternative 1A. Beyond that, my decision was largely based on my 

desire to provide an appropriate array of recreation opportunities, while minimizing adverse 

effects by complying with laws, regulations, policy, and the Forest Plan.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 30

Forest Plan Goals, Objectives and Standards

In addition to laws, regulations, and policy, the Forest Plan provides overarching direction for 

the management of Forest resources. All selected actions must comply with Forest Plan 

standards. To move resource conditions toward Forest Plan goals and objectives, however, it is 

sometimes necessary to strike a compromise between different resources. For example, reducing 

motorized use to minimize effects on wildlife security habitat may have adverse effects on 

motorized recreation opportunities. My goal is to move resource conditions closer to the goals 

and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan by achieving the best possible balance between 

recreational opportunities including motorized recreation and the various resources that may be 

affected by motorized travel.

I believe that the seasonal restrictions for motorized travel on roads and trails in certain 

management areas that were developed by the IDT for Alternative 5, as Modified, represent the 

best compromise between allowing access for recreation and hunting while protecting wildlife 

habitat. The seasonal restrictions for specific routes and areas are described in detail in this ROD 

Attachment 1 - Maps 1-16, Attachment 2 and Appendix B of the Final EIS. 

Forestwide standards are described in the Forest Plan on pages II-15 through II-27. Forest Plan 

standards for individual Management Areas are described on pages III-5 through III-67, and 

PACFISH was amended to the Nez Perce Forest Plan in 1995. PACFISH standards also apply to 

this project.

My decision to implement the Selected Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines as documented in each resource section in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS, and in the Rationale Section of this ROD (Attachment 5). In addition, my decision 

incorporates management requirement from the Forest Plan that are designed for the protection 

of Forest resources and to ensure consistency with Forest Plan direction. 

However, this decision amends the Forest Plan as displayed in Attachment 4 of this ROD and 

documented in Appendix D of the FEIS.

Consideration of Issues and Concerns

Idaho Roadless Areas

The Nez Perce Forest Plan (1987) identified 19 Inventoried Roadless Areas, totaling 503,162 

acres (FEIS, Appendix A, Maps 31-42). These were evaluated for potential inclusion into the 

Wilderness Preservation System as required by NFMA. In that plan, a decision was made that 

none would be managed as recommended Wilderness. Only 3 of these areas (East Meadow, 

Rapid River, and Silver Creek–Pilot Knob), totaling 126,846 acres, were identified to be 

managed as roadless into the future.

Roadless Area mapping was revised according to national protocol (36 CFR 219.17 Evaluation 

of Roadless Areas and FSH 1919.12 Land and Resource Planning Handbook). The revised

Roadless Areas were used in the development of the 2008 Idaho Roadless rule. The Idaho 

Roadless Rule was promulgated on October 16, 2008 (USDA-FS 2008b) and established 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 31

management direction for designated Roadless Areas in the State of Idaho. Under the Idaho 

Roadless Rule Inventory there are 19 Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs), totaling 497,085 acres. On 

the Nez Perce National Forest, 3 IRAs were added within the Idaho Roadless Rule (FEIS 

Appendix A–Maps 31, 33 through 42). On the Nez Perce National Forest, IRAs are managed 

under the Idaho Roadless Rule.

As noted in the Idaho Roadless Rule decision, travel management decisions are not affected by 

the rule (CFR Part 294.26(a)). The Idaho Roadless Rule describes other activities within Idaho 

Roadless Areas:

Decisions concerning the future management of existing roads or trails in Idaho 

Roadless Areas shall be made during the applicable travel management process. (36 

CFR Subpart C 294.26)

The Forest Plan does provide direction for travel management by management area. Travel 

Management direction is also provided in Appendix Q of the Forest Plan and within the 

Recreational Opportunities, Wildlife, Wild & Scenic Rivers, and Research Natural Areas 

sections of the Forest Plan (FEIS, Table 3-17).

Alternative 5, as Modified, shifts mileages of motorized trail from open yearlong to open 

seasonally in Idaho Roadless Areas. The split for Alternative 5, as Modified, is 72% nonmotorized to 28% motorized based on total miles of trail within IRAs. The motorized 

opportunities would be 115.6 miles of trail to be open seasonally, with 34.5 miles proposed to be 

open yearlong.

Roadless characteristics related to soil, water, air, sources of public drinking water, diversity of 

plant communities, habitats for TES species dependent on large undisturbed areas of lands, and 

reference landscapes for research study or interpretation, natural-appearing landscape with high 

scenic quality, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites, other locally unique characteristics 

including Wild and Scenic Rivers will have be stable or have positive effects in the IRAs.

Two of the three National Recreation Trails (Anderson Butte and East-Boyd-Roundtop-Glover) 

will be seasonally available for motorized use and one would provide non-motorized trail use 

(Meadow Creek). These seasonal closures may appear to reduce opportunities, but the dates 

coincide with snow melt, when users can actually access the area and match the adjacent road 

systems designations.

In IRA, Alternative 5, as Modified, motorized recreation opportunities in a semi-primitive setting 

include more seasonal motorized opportunities and less yearlong motorized opportunities when 

compared to Alternative 1 in order to minimize resource impacts.

In this alternative, six IRAs provide non-motorized trail opportunities: Adjacent to Gospel 

Hump, Mallard, West Fork–Crooked River, Rapid River, Salmon Face, and Selway–Bitterroot. 

The East and West Meadow Creek IRAs, Gospel Hump, Rackliff–Gedney IRAs would provide 

both Semi-Primitive Motorized and Non-Motorized recreational opportunities. The Clear Creek, 

East Meadow Creek, Gospel Hump, Lick Point, North Fork Slate, O-Hara-Falls Creek, RackliffGedney and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob IRAs will have Semi-Primitive Motorized seasonal trail 

access. The West Meadow Creek IRA would primarily provide recreation opportunities in a 

semi-primitive setting as described below (57.5 miles motorized and 1.5 miles non-motorized). 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 32

Meadow Creek

This area was of high interest by the public. Both East and West Meadow Creek areas offer a 

semi-primitive recreation opportunity and both were previously rated as being highly capable of 

providing wilderness character. In these two areas, this alternative provides additional miles of 

seasonal motorized opportunity, while slightly decreasing yearlong motorized opportunity. In 

the East Meadow Creek IRA, there would be 6.1 miles of motorized opportunity seasonally and 

90.1 miles of non- motorized opportunity offered in a semi-primitive setting. In the West 

Meadow Creek area, there would be 89.3 miles of non-motorized opportunity; 57.5 miles of 

seasonal motorized opportunity and 1.5 miles of yearling motorized opportunity within a semiprimitive setting (FEIS, Table 3-17).

This alternative will provide non-motorized use on the majority of the trails within East Meadow 

and West Meadow Creek IRAs. This area provides important habitat for both fish and wildlife 

species. This alternative provides more non-motorized use along the Eligible-Wild Wild and 

Scenic River corridor. This area has been a destination for forest visitors for both motorized and 

non-motorized recreation, with an emphasis on non-motorized use. Maintaining motorized 

access to the Meadow Creek cabin area and along the western boundary of the watershed for 

motorized use was important to forest visitors. Some commented that all of Meadow Creek 

should be non-motorized, while others asked for more access. This alternative will maintain 

main roads that provide access to wilderness trailheads and core motorized access to the area, but 

on a seasonal basis.

Rackliff-Gedney

Within the Rackliff–Gedney IRA, approximately 19.7 miles of trail will be managed for seasonal 

motorized access, while 13.2 miles will provide non-motorized trail opportunities. Motorized use 

will be designated on trails: Rackliff 702, East Boyd 703, Glover 704, Gedney 708 and CCC 

734.

Rapid River and Gospel Hump

Rapid River IRA, would continue to provide 52.9 miles of non-motorized recreational 

opportunities, while the Gospel Hump IRA would add 4.8 miles of seasonal motorized use where 

it currently provides only non-motorized opportunities. 31.5 miles of non-motorized 

opportunities are provided in this alternative within the Gospel Hump IRA. 

Silver Creek-Pilot Knob

The Nez Perce Tribe, Forest Plan and Idaho Roadless Rule and the have identified the Silver 

Creek-Pilot Knob area, as area of tribal significance. Comments about road and trail 

management in this area were received. Based on those comments Alternative 5, modified will 

designate roads to provide motorized access to this area, while designating 1.2 miles of trail as 

motorized seasonally and 11.2 miles as non-motorized. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 33

Management Area 3 - Cultural Resources

In the Forest Plan, cultural resources are included in Management Area 3. The North Idaho 

Travel Management Protocol was developed with the Idaho State Preservation Office to 

determine how and when cultural properties will be identified, evaluated and protected and 

potential adverse effects mitigated for the DRAMVU project. Cultural resources have been 

inventoried on the three new routes that will be motorized for use in Alternative 5, as Modified.

In addition annual monitoring for cultural resources is part of this decision. 

Two areas of interest emerged through the DRAMVU project analysis. Florence Basin on the 

Salmon River District and the corridor of Green Mountain Trail 541 and Bargamin Creek Trail 

502 on Red River Ranger District. 

The Forest reviewed motorized use in the Florence Basin area with the Idaho SHPO. There was 

concern with the potential effects of motorized traffic and dispersed camping on cultural 

resource sites in the historic 50-square mile Florence Basin mining district. Cultural resource 

reconnaissance was completed in 2009 and identified only two corridors along Florence Basin 

Road 643 and Kelly Mountain 394) that had a co-occurrence between motorized routes and a 

high number of cultural resource sites. Alternative 5, modified, will designate no motorized 

access for dispersed camping along a portion of Road 643 and the short length of Road 394 to 

protect cultural resources (Table ROD-4 and ROD Attachment 1-Map 9). This designation 

would adequately protect cultural resources in this area for this project. 

Located on the Red River Ranger District, Trails 541 and 502 received numerous public 

comments. The approximate eight mile Trail 541 extends east from near Red River Hot Springs 

across Meadow Creek and up to Green Mountain. The Forest considers this trail a historic 

property because of its association with the Southern Nez Perce Trail. 

A basic premise of the North Idaho Protocol acknowledges motorized use can have adverse 

effects to historic properties, but the resolution of these effects will necessarily occur in the 

outyears following a travel planning decision given the thousands of miles of motorized routes 

existing on the Forest and the time necessary to understand how these routes might interact with 

and otherwise affect numerous historic properties. This resolution of effects is consistent with the 

expectations and intent of the North Idaho Protocol. On May 13, 2011 the Idaho SHPO 

concurred with this approach and formally agreed that implementing the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule on the Nez Perce National Forest would have No Adverse Effect to historic 

properties.

Trail 541and 502 Corridor. This trail corridor represents a small portion of the larger Southern 

Nez Perce Trail (SNPT). The historic SNPT trail extends from near Clearwater, Idaho east all 

the way to the Bitterroot Valley. The trail was used by the Tribe for centuries for travel between 

the Clearwater Basin and areas now in Montana. While information on the exact routing of the 

SNPT trail through time across the greater 541/502 trail corridor is somewhat elusive, there is 

little doubt given the documented oral and written history that the trail (or at least a branch of the 

trail) extended through the greater 541/502 corridor. The Tribe (and their supporters) have 

responded to both our Draft and Supplemental EIS travel planning documents with direct 

language stating their desire that we close the 541/502 trail corridor to motorized traffic. This 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 34

involves the entire 14 mile length of trail from the 541 trailhead near Red River Hot Springs, 

across Meadow Creek, over Green Mountain to Poet Creek Campground. 

Alternative 5, as Modified, will closed the 541/502 trail corridor to motorized traffic from the 

Trail 541 trailhead near Red River Hot Springs to Poet Creek Campground with the exception of 

a 2 mile section of the Road 285 which is coincident with the 541 and 502 trails. Road 285 

would be open to all motorized vehicles from June 16 to November 30.

Management Area 6 – Research Natural Areas

Five Research Natural Areas (RNAs) outside wilderness were analyzed in the FEIS, including 

Moose Meadows, Newsome Creek, No Business, O’Hara Creek, and Warm Springs RNAs. 

Forest Plan direction is for RNAs to have a full array of recreational opportunities and generally 

prohibits motorized use. Activities that do not impair the research or educational values of the 

RNA are allowed.

Alternative 5, as modified will limit off-route motor vehicle use on the forest, including within 

the RNAs. 

Alternative 5, as modified will implement the more motorized use on roads and trails in as 

Alternative 5, but will reduce motorized access for dispersed camping from Trails 207, 301, 330 

and 349 within RNAs (Table ROD-4; ROD Maps 6 and 7). The presence of motorized trails or 

roads in Moose Meadows, Newsome Creek, No Business and O’Hara Creek RNAs will not 

impair the research or educational values in these areas because the routes currently exist on the 

landscape and the conditions of use for motorized access for dispersed camping will eliminate 

new disturbance. No new roads or trails will be constructed in the RNA. Alternative 5, as 

Modified, road and trail designations will be commensurate with RNA objectives. 

Management Areas 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are three designated (Middle Fork Clearwater, including the Selway River; Salmon River 

and Rapid River) and fourteen eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Nez Perce National Forest

considered with this project. Comments on the Draft and Supplemental EIS about motorized use 

in wild and scenic corridors were received. 

Alternative 5, as modified, will implement a Forest-wide prohibition on off-route motor vehicle 

use. Some off-route motorized travel could continue to occur under the Conditions of Use 

described previously relating to motorized access for dispersed camping. Monitoring, as 

proposed in Chapter 2 for the fisheries and cultural resources, would assist in identifying routes 

that may need to be closed due to their proximity to the stream bank or other resource impacts, 

including in Wild and Scenic River corridors. 

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers

Alternative 5, as modified will not include work within the normal high-water mark of any 

designated Wild and Scenic River segments. No effect to the free flowing character of any river 

will occur. The scenic integrity of the Wild and Scenic River corridors will not be altered 

substantially from the existing condition under any alternative. Isolated impacts associated with 

unregulated off-route motor vehicle use may occur; however, the impacts are difficult to predict. 

Should impacts occur, they may increase with increased use, and may, over time, adversely 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 35

affect Outstandingly Remarkable Values through soil compaction, vegetation loss, and discharge 

of petroleum products.

Alternative 5, as modified will designate less miles of trail motorized in the Recreational Selway 

Wild and Scenic River corridor. 

Within the Wild Rapid River WSR corridor, 0.3 miles less of motorized road will be designated 

for use. This designation is consistent with the Rapid River Trailhead decision that was signed in 

2005 and implemented in 2010.

While this alternative will decrease the miles of motorized trail by 0.3, it will also decrease the 

amount of motorized road by 1.0 in the Wild Salmon Wild and Scenic River corridor from 

Alternative 1 and 5. The beginning of Road 222K (Painter Bar Road) will be closed upriver of 

the Mackay Bar campground. The end of the road will continue to be closed yearlong after the 

rock barrier. This designation will be consistent with the ROS setting of Semi-primitive 

motorized within the river corridor. 

With this designation, I will maintain consistency with the Frank Church River of No Return 

Wilderness Management Plan decision on the management of Road 222K (the Painter Bar 

Road), that was made in 2003. Specifically, the road will be closed to motorized use year-round 

upriver of the Mackay Bar Campground. Use of the road is not compatible with the Wilderness 

Act direction or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As stated in 2003 ROD, the road is no longer 

needed for private land access. Providing for opening the road with this decision would require a 

forest plan amendment which I have chosen not to do at this time based on consideration of 

public comments associated with this decision, as well as previously documented decisions and 

their associated rationale concerning this road.

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

The effects to fourteen eligible WSR were evaluated in the DRAMVU FEIS. Alternative 5, as 

Modified,, will not alter the free flowing character of any eligible Wild and Scenic River or 

adversely affect any Outstandingly Remarkable Value for any eligible Wild and Scenic River. 

This alternative will not change shoreline development to cause classification to change.

Eligible Wild Rivers

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate 2.1 miles of motorized use in eligible Wild WSR 

corridors along Slate Creek (T88-Idaho Centennial Trail, T310-Roundtop) and Meadow Creek 

(T611- Sable Hill and T809 -Butte Creek) (Table ROD 6). This alternative reduces the existing 

motorized use on several trails within eligible Wild WSR corridors including: Bargamin Creek 

(T502-Bargamin Creek), Meadow Creek (T541-Green Mountain, T672-West Fork Sable and 

T726-Meadow Creek) and West Fork Gedney Creek (T708-Gedney). Non-motorized use on 

Trail 407-Snoose Creek along Johns Creek, was selected to continue the Wing Creek-Twentymile decision and is consistent with Gospel Hump Multi-purpose Resource Development Area 

#1 standard. No changes within eligible wild WSR Lake Creek or Running Creek.

Proposed designation, as used in this Forest-wide Management Direction is interpreted by the 

Nez Perce National Forest as a river segment that has gone through the suitability study process 

(FSH 1902.12, Chapter 83), an EIS has been prepared, a decision made and a recommendation 

for designation proposed to Congress. The direction makes clear the intent that once deemed 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 36

suitable and a river segment is proposed for designation, that the river areas would be managed 

for these specific recreation experiences. This interpretation allows for management of a variety 

of recreation experiences along rivers that are considered eligible, but have not yet been studied 

for suitability. There are currently no rivers proposed for designation.

It is important to note that the simple presence of a motorized route does not preclude a stream 

segment from being classified as Wild. Motorized use in a Wild stream segment, however is 

uncommon and generally incompatible (FSH 1902.19, Chapter 80, Section 82.5, see Regulator 

Framework at the beginning of this section). Interpretation of the Forest Plan, Forest-wide 

Management Direction for Wild and Scenic Rivers suggests there are no proposed WSRs on the 

Nez Perce National Forest at this time, which maintains a variety of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities until a river has been studied for suitability and proposed for designation 

to Congress. Designation of motorized use along a potential Wild river is not irreversible. 

Decisions made with this analysis could be reversed through the suitability analysis and 

designation process for any stream. 

Alternative 5, modified will designate a minimal amount of motorized use within potential Wild 

corridors and is more compatible with WSRA definitions and Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook direction than the existing condition. Future analysis through the suitability process 

will determine the appropriate classification for each stream based on existing development. The 

designation of motorized use within these corridors is not an irreversible decision. The type of 

use on routes could be changed when streams become designated as a Wild and Scenic River.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 37

Table ROD 6. Motorized designations in eligible Wild WSR corridors.

Eligible Wild WSR Trail Miles Comments/Rationale

Slate Creek

T310/T88 0.06 Maintain existing trail access to Rocky Bluff Campround 

within eligible Wild and Scentic River corridor

T88 0.04

Maintain existing road/trail access near Rocky Bluff 

Campround within eligible Wild and Scentic River 

corridor

Meadow Creek

T611 1.3

Maintain motorized access near Meadow Creek cabin and 

Meadow Creek from Sable Hill area. Continue to provide 

a motorized loop opportunity.

T809 0.7

Maintain motorized access near Meadow Creek cabin and 

Meadow Creek from Anderson Butte area. Continue to 

provide a motorized loop opportunity.

Eligible Recreational Rivers

Alternative 5, as Modified,, will designate 4.9 miles of motorized trail use, and 25.3 miles of 

non-motorized use in eligible Recreation WSR corridors. Motorized trail use will be designated 

in Salmon River, Slate Creek, and South Fork Clearwater River WSR river corridors. Nonmotorized trail use will be in Gedney Creek, Lake Creek Meadow Creek, and Whitebird Creek 

WSR river corridors. The amount of motorized roads within the eligible Recreational WSR 

corridors is similar to the existing condition at 138.8 miles.

Management Area 10 and PACFISH

Alternative 5, as Modified,, will meet the standards for Management Area 10 and move the

forest toward attainment of the PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives by eliminating offroute motor vehicle use. Unregulated operation of motorized vehicles in or across streams could 

result in direct adverse effects to habitat and mortality of fish, eggs in the gravel, and unemerged 

fry this alternative will reduce that effect. In addition, this alternative establishes conditions for 

off-route travel for dispersed camping and motorized camping that will limit use to existing sites, 

prevent establishment of new sites, and prevent crossing of streams off designated routes. These 

conditions were partly developed to maintain or enhance Riparian Management Objectives 

(RMOs) and prevent adverse effects to listed anadromous fish. 

Individual sites, generally stream crossings or motorized streamside roads or trails, that may 

continue to retard or prevent attainment of RMOs because they affect width:depth ratio, lower 

bank angle, or other variables. A site-specific review of these sites will be completed, and actions 

taken to address attainment of RMOs. Specific actions are outlined in the proposed monitoring 

plan are included in ROD-Attachment 3. It is expected that any site-specific issues associated 

with stream crossings, streamside roads and trails, and potential effects to fish and their habitat 

will be addressed during the implementation phase of this decision. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 38

Management Area 16 and 21, and Summer Elk Habitat Objectives.

Important wildlife habitat areas have been identified by the forest plan, including Elk and Deer 

Winter Range (Management Area 16) and Moose Winter Range (Management Area 21). The 

Forest plan also directs the forest to provide elk habitat at or near optimum levels. 

This decision will eliminate off-route motor vehicle use on the entire forest and will benefit 

many wildlife species sensitive to motorized use. In addition, Alternative 5, as Modified, will 

designate road and trails to be available seasonally for motorized use. This will provide 

protection for wildlife during critical seasons, while providing opportunities for motorized 

recreation at other times of the year in both Management Area 16 and 21. Alternative 5, as 

Modified, will designate motorized use on roads and trails where the current access did not 

provide protection during critical times. These designations will be positive for deer, elk, moose 

and other wildlife species that need security for survival and will provide larger areas of secure 

habitat for wildlife while providing recreation opportunities.

This decision includes a project-specific forest plan amendment to continue yearlong use on 38

miles of local road in Management Area 16. Although Alternative 5, as Modified, reduced the 

amount of local roads open in the winter, the need for yearlong access to administrative sites, 

recreation sites, and private property out weighted the benefit that wildlife would gain through a 

seasonal designation of these roads. ROD-Attachment 4 fully describes the details of this 

amendment. 

Summer Elk Habitat Objectives. 

Alternative 5, as Modified,, will increase the amount of acres in the 25, 50, and 75 percent 

objectives for summer elk habitat across the forest, compared to the forest plan levels. The elk 

habitat evaluation areas with 100 percent objective are in high elevation areas that inherently 

cannot reach 100 percent potential of hiding cover, because of the open areas common in high 

elevation environments and existing roads. Seasonal designations will improve overall objective 

percent in many areas in addition to some of the changes from motorized to non-motorized use, 

particularly in Meadow Creek. 

Overall, the percent secure habitat for wildlife will improve in spring/summer, fall and winter 

with the selection of Alternative 5, as Modified. With Alternative 5, as Modified, the percent 

secure habitat forestwide compared to existing conditions is maintained a near 37% in 

spring/summer, fall will improve to near 42% and winter to near 80%. This alternative will 

reduce the adverse effects of motorized uses for both roads and trails by approximately 14%

compared to the current condition. The reduction of any motorized uses will likely have a 

beneficial effect to elk and other wildlife species by providing increased amounts of habitat 

security. Many of the seasonal designations are not expected to impact recreation, because the 

season designation for motorized use is during the snow free season (use from April or June, to 

November). The exception is in Management Area 16, where the emphasis is on protection of 

wildlife in the early spring versus providing recreational access.

The Elk Habitat Evaluation Area (EHEA), Earthquake Basin, was currently below the 25 percent 

objective for elk habitat. Alternative 5, as Modified, road designations in this EHEA, will 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 39

continue to provide seasonal use adjacent to winter range (ROD Map 16). Although the season of 

use was adjusted from open on May 16th to June 16th, the total number of miles of road open for 

motorized use was greatly reduced. This alternative established a system of roads, off Road 451, 

for use by vehicles less than 50 inches in width from June to November. Alternative 5, as

analyzed in the FEIS will close roads yearlong and seasonally designate motorized road use

moving the percent objective from 11 to 20 percent, similar to Alternative 6. However, 

Alternative 5, as Modified, does reduce the amount of improvement, because Road 451 to the 

junction of Road 76808 (~7.6 miles) will be managed as open on May 16th to provide access to 

private lands. The remained of the road system beyond this point will be managed for a June 16th

open date. 

Some individual Elk Habitat Evaluation Areas will move away and some toward from the Forest 

Plan Objectives with the selection Alternative 5, as Modified. Within the 181 EHEAs, 113 will 

meet or exceed their objective (change from 102 to 113) and 68 will be below objective (change 

from 79 to 68). Much of this improvement will is a result of seasonally designating motorized 

use on roads and trails.

Because Alternative 5, as Modified, overall will provide many benefits to wildlife I am willing to 

have some Elk Habitat Evaluation Areas move away from their Forest Plan objectives for 

summer elk habitat effectiveness to provide recreation opportunities. 

Management Area 22 and 23 (Municipal Watersheds)

Alternative 5, modified adjusts the road system in Management Area 22, in the Wall Creek 

municipal watershed to meet the forest plan standards. The designations of motorized use on 

roads are a minor change to the existing access (ROD Map 15). 

Seasonal designations for motorized use on roads and trails in Management Area 23, in the Elk 

Creek municipal watershed provide seasonal use of road and trail that meet the Forest Plan 

standards. 

Posting signs at access points into the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal watersheds to inform

forest visitors of the municipal watershed, encouraging caution with potential pollution sources 

and detailing sanitation requirements, will also meet the forest plan standards.

Tribal Treaty Rights

In addition to rights reserved by treaties, federally recognized American Indian tribes have 

special rights under various federal statutes: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 

CFR 800), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C.), Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (43 CFR 7), Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA [43 CFR 10]), Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103141), American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 

1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996, 1996a) (AIRFA), Executive Orders 12898, 13007 and 13175. Some of 

these statutes and federal guidelines direct federal agencies to consult with tribal representatives 

who may have concerns about federal actions that may affect religious practices, other traditional 

cultural uses, or cultural resource sites and remains associated with tribal ancestors. Any tribe 

whose aboriginal territory occurs within a project area is afforded the opportunity to voice 

concerns for issues governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 40

The Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests lie within the Nez Perce Tribe’s ceded territory and 

are central to both tribal and federal efforts to recover imperiled species. In Article 3 of its 1855 

Treaty with the United States, the Nez Perce Tribe explicitly reserved for itself certain rights, 

including the right to fish, hunt, and gather within the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests, 

within the ceded territory of the Nez Perce Tribe. 

The DRAMVU project has been discussed with the Nez Perce Tribe at quarterly staff-to-staff 

interdisciplinary meetings since July 2008.I am committed to fulfilling the Forest Service’s trust 

responsibilities and to strengthen our government-to-government relationship with the Nez Perce 

Tribe. The Forests manage and provide ecosystems that support Tribal traditional practices. The 

DRAMVU project will continue to provide opportunities for traditional uses on the Forest for 

future generations.

Rationale for Other Components of the DRAMVU Project

Forest Plan Amendment

The selected actions include one project-specific Forest Plan amendment. It will not apply one 

management area standard of the 1987 Forest Plan.in Management Area 16 – Elk and Deer 

Winter Range.

The final text of the amendments is included in Attachment 4 of this ROD. The full text and 

analysis of the amendment included in Appendix D of the FEIS. This amendment will allow the 

forest to meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule to minimize effect to wildlife habitat, 

provide an array of recreation opportunities while balancing public access, and resource 

protection.

Access for Dispersed Camping and Parking

Dispersed camping may well be the most popular recreational activity on the Nez Perce National 

Forest and my goal was to continue to provide for this opportunity while minimizing potential 

adverse effects on other resources. The Travel Management Rule certain conditions and allows 

for parking along designated routes. It is consistent with the Travel Management Rule, and with 

travel management decisions that have been made or will be made on adjoining National Forest 

lands, to continue to provide motorized access to dispersed campsites and for parking. 

For these reasons, I have chosen to permit motorized travel to dispersed campsites in certain 

areas and under certain conditions, as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under “Motorized Use 

of Designated Roads, Trails and Areas, Conditions of Use – Wheeled Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping.” Alternative 5, as Modified, will minimize effects on Forest resources and 

users, while allowing motorized travel to dispersed campsites to continue. An alternative that 

would allow motorized travel on designated routes only, without permitting off-route travel to 

existing campsites, was discussed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under “Alternatives Considered But 

Not Analyzed in Detail.”
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 41

By applying these conditions of use for access for dispersed camping, potential impacts to 

cultural resources, rare plants, soils, water quality and fish are reduced. This decision will 

providing similar access for dispersed camping that exists today. 

New Routes

Alternative 5, as Modified, will include New Trails 1, 4 and 5 (user-suggested) that passed the 

screening criteria and contribute to loop opportunities for motorized use while balancing other 

resource concerns.

 New 1 trail will provide a new loop opportunity by connecting two roads open to trail 

vehicles. This short addition will allow vehicles less than 50 inches in width from 

Trapper Creek over to the Magruder Road from June 16 to September 14 (MA 10, 17). 

(OSS6)

 New 4 trail will provide a loop opportunity for vehicles less than 50 inches in width for 

yearlong use by connecting two roads that are open to trail vehicles in Mill Creek. 

(OYS2). (MA 17).

 New 5 trail will provide a new loop opportunity onto a roads open to trail vehicles in the 

West Fork Grouse Creek. This addition will allow vehicles less than 50 inches in width 

use seasonally from June 16 to November 30th (OSS4) (MA 12).

Alternative 5, as Modified, will not include New Trails 2 or 3. New 2 Trail was not added 

because the connecting Trail 205 is designated for non-motorized use. In addition to some 

cultural resource concerns making a connection to a non-motorized trail would be difficult to 

enforce at this location. New 3 trail was not added because it is located in a below objective elk 

habitat evaluation unit (Cove Creek, 75% objective) and adjacent to elk and deer winter range

(MA16). This location has multiple routes that have been developed by off-route motor vehicle 

use overtime with some cultural and natural resource concerns. 

Road and Trail Designations

Changes from Non-motorized to Motorized use on Roads and Trails.

Alternative 5, as Modified, designates the same amount of motorized use on roads as Alternative 

5. Scoping comments and comments on the DEIS and SDEIS requested changing use on roads 

from non-motorized to motorized to provide loop opportunities. Table ROD-7 displays the roads 

and rationale for changing from non-motorized to motorized use from the current condition.

Approximately seven miles of road would be designated for motorize use. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 42

Table ROD-7. Alternative 5, as Modified, – Road Changes from Non-Motorized to Motorized, and 

Rationale. 

Road 

Number Name BMP EMP GIS Miles

Alt 5

Modified Rationale

1820 (FDR) Table Ridge 0.0 1.9 1.9 OSS5

Connects several roads open 

for vehicles less than 50 

inches in width. Seasonal 

use provides protection for 

wildlife.

1870C (FDR) Doroleta Lane 0.0 1.5 1.5 OSS10

Matches adjacent seasonal 

closures while providing use 

for vehicles less than 50 

inches in width. Seasonal 

use provides protection for 

wildlife.

9439 (FDR) Elk Meadows 0.0 2.0 1.7 OSS5 Allow seasonal motorized 

use by vehicles less than 50 

inches in width. Good 

addition for visitors to Fish 

Creek Recreation site. 

Provides seasonal motorized 

access out to Fish Creek 

Point. Seasonal use provides 

protection for wildlife.

9439 (FDR) Elk Meadows 2.0 2.6 0.4 OSS5

9439B (FDR) Tall Pine 0.0 0.7 0.7 OSS5

9439D (FDR) Yellow Pine 0.0 1.2 1.2 OSS5

Total 7.4

1

Map Codes, See also Appendix B:

BMP – Beginning Mile Post (in reference to a measurement of distance in miles)

EMP – Ending Mile Post

GIS – Miles of route represented for FEIS analysis.

OSS5 - Open Seasonally to vehicles less than 50 inches in width, 6/16 to 9/14

OSS10 - Open Yearlong to < 50” Vehicles, 6/16 to 11/30

Alternative 5, as Modified, designates the similar amount of motorized use on trails as 

Alternative 5. Comments on the Proposed Action, DEIS and SDEIS requested changing use on 

some trails from non-motorized to motorized to provide loop opportunities or quiet recreation. 

Table ROD-8 displays the trails and rationale for changing from non-motorized to motorized use 

from the current condition (Alternative 2) on 7.4 miles of trail.

Meadow Creek watershed was of particular interest related to having more non-motorized use. 

Designating motorized use on Trail 505 (Divide) seasonally redirects motorized use from 

crossing Meadow Creek with Trail 541 to the watershed divide.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 43

Table ROD-8. Alternative 5, as Modified – Trails Changes from Non-Motorized to Motorized, and 

Rationale. 

Trail 

Number NAME BMP EMP GIS Miles

Alternative 

5, as 

Modified

Rationale

212 Lemhi 0.0 1.8 1.7 OSS2

Provide connection for vehicles less than 

50 inches in width use from Road 9537

to Blowout Mountain and Trail 234. 

This will change the Upper Rhett EHEA 

from 70 to 68% in a 75% objective 

EHEA.

234 Blowout 

Divide 0.0 3.1 3.1 OSS2

Provide connection for vehicles less than 

50 inches in width use from Blowout 

Mountain to Road 222F. Considered 

with Trail 212 designation. Loop from 

Dixie mining area to Lemon Saddle. 

Access to the Salmon River breaks. This 

will change the Olive Creek EHEA from 

66 to 62% in a 50% objective EHEA.

505 Divide 10.4 16.2 5.6 OSS2

Provide connection for vehicles less than 

50 inches in width use from Trail (835) 

to Road 468 (Montana Road ). This 

section of the trail is along the ridge of 

Meadow Creek watershed in place of 

motorized use on Trail 541 access across 

Meadow Creek. 

Season of use the same as Road 468 and 

433 that provide access onto Trail 505. 

Seasonal restriction compatible with

hunting season dates and is on the 

boundary of Units 15 and 16A.

Season provides for non-motorized use 

in winter.

Trail is part of the Anderson Butte 

National Recreational Trail.

This will change Sable Creek EHEA 

from 75 to 68% in a 100% objective 

EHEA. Upper Meadow Creek will 

change from 79 to 80% & Cabin Creek 

from 73 to 78%, both are 75% objective 

EHEA. Maintains Matteson South 

EHEA at 73% with 100% objective.

Total 7.4

Changes from Single to Double Track Motorize Use on Trails

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate the 1.5 more miles than Alternative 5 to change from 

single to double track motorized use on trails. The Martin Spring trail (T82) is the modification. 

Table ROD-9, bold displays the trails and rationale (See also ROD Map 1, 2a and 2b). 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 44

Alternative 5 would have designated the Deadpoint trail (T307) entirely for vehicles less than 50 

inches in width. However, with the recent Little Slate Project decision, this trail will be managed 

for motorcycle use (2.3 miles; OSM4), vehicles less than 50 inches width (1.7 miles; OSS6) and 

non-motorized use (0.6 miles; RYA), displayed on ROD Map-1. This designation will be 

displayed on the future MVUM map.

Therefore, this decision will designate 3.4 miles of trail that will change from single to double 

track motorized use (Table ROD-9).

Table ROD-9. Alternative 5, as Modified – Single to Double Track motorized use on Trails.

Trail 

Number Trail Name BMP EMP GIS Miles

Alternative 

5, as 

Modified

Rationale

82 Martin Springs 0.0 1.5 1.5 OYS2

Alternative 5, as Modified, will 

provide yearlong use for vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width. This 

modification from Alternative 5, 

was considered in Alternative 1.

This trail will connects to Trail 

136 with the same season of use 

and type of vehicle. This trail in 

within the John Day IRA and 

would have the same effect as the 

existing condition.

329 Telephone Ridge 0.0 0.4 0.5 OYS2

Short connect from lower Little 

Slate Creek to Road 2038 and Trail 

301. Provide yearlong loop 

opportunity for vehicles less than 50 

inches in width. 

844 Relief Creek 0.0 1.4 1.4 OYS2

Provides a yearlong connection for 

vehicles less than 50 inches in width

use from Road 1808 to Trail 508 by 

Porters Mountain.

Total 3.4

Changes from Motorized to Non-motorized Trails.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate the majority of the same motorized trails as Alternative 

5. The modification will designate the beginning of the Little Van Buren Trail 330 for yearlong 

motorcycle use in the Little Slate Creek North IRA. This is the current use that provides a 

motorcycle loop opportunity. This is the only change on trails proposed to change from 

motorized to non-motorized in Alternative 5 as presented in the FEIS.

Alternative 5, as Modified, will reduce the overall amount of motorized trails from the current 

condition (Alternative 2). Comments on the potential reduction of available motorized trails were 

received. Many of the trails represented in Alternative 1 as open for motorized use, had not been 

officially restricted to only non-motorized use. On the ground, less trail miles are currently 

managed as open or accessible to motorized vehicle use. 

There will be a reduction of motorized trail miles, where forest visitors have historically 

accessed but not a large change (1%). The change on trails from motorized use to non-motorized 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 45

use will be primarily in: Meadow Creek on Trails 502, 504, 513, 517, 541, 672, 726; Rackcliff -

Gedney IRA on Trail 708; Ohara-Falls Creek IRA and Ohara Creek RNA on Trails 335, 713; 

and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob IRA on Trails 425, 426. Because of limited access from private 

lands part of: Trail 340 on Bentz Ridge and Trail 325 on Pinnacle Creek. To provide consistency 

with adjacent agencies in Selway-Bitterroot IRA on Trail 613 (Bitterroot NF), Brushy Ridge 

Trail 135 (BLM) and near Elk City on Trail 808 (BLM).

Trail designations in Alternative 5, as Modified, will provide forest visitors a similar amount of 

motorized trail available for use compared to the current conditions, but with a complete 

designation for each type of vehicle and season of use on all trails. 

Seasonal Restrictions

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designate more yearlong use of roads and trail than Alternative 

5. Figures ROD-1, ROD-2 and ROD-3 display the type of seasonal designations for motorize use 

on roads and trails. The modification include more yearlong access on roads (20.4 miles) and 

trails (10.2 miles) to access private inholdings and provide a longer season of use on some trails. 

On roads, approximately 846 miles will be available for yearlong motorized use while 1,117

miles will be designated for seasonal use and 1,762 miles as non-motorized.

On trails, 88 miles will be available for yearlong motorized use while 302 miles will be 

designated for seasonal use and 693 miles as non-motorized, outside wilderness.

Seasonal designations on more roads and trails will better reflect when access is available to 

motorized use on the forest during the snow-free season while providing protection for wildlife 

and road surfaces that could cause sediment delivery to streams. 

Type of Motor Vehicle Use.

As the technology of motorized vehicles change overtime, the Forest is challenged with 

enforcement of restrictions on road and trails. More “side-by-side” type small OHV vehicles use 

is occurring on the forest. Some of these vehicles can be less than 50 inches in width. The forest 

recognized that these vehicle types are a popular vehicle to use on forest roads and trails. 

Access to the forest using an OHV was of interest for many people. Many stated that driving on 

an OHV is their primary recreational use on the forest. They commented that using OHV

allowed them to go places with their families that they would not otherwise be able to access. 

Alternative 5, as Modified, will designates 271 miles of road and 207 miles of trail for vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width that will accommodate a variety of small motorized vehicle types. 

By designating use for vehicles less than 50 inches in width on roads closed to full size vehicles, 

user conflict is reduced. 

Motorcycle use was also of interest to many that recreate on the forest. Alternative 5, as 

Modified, will provide 149 miles of trails and approximately 2 miles on road for motorcycle use

only. In addition motorcycles will be able to use trail designated for vehicles less than 50 inches 

in width. The majority of the trails open for motorcycle use are seasonally designated to provide 

wildlife protection, much like the roads that access the trailheads. The designated motorcycle 

only trails include areas such as Coolwater Ridge, Meadow Creek and in areas outside 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 46

wilderness. These trails will allow for opportunities for motorcycle use independently of other 

motorized user. 

Alternative 5, as Modified, designates 1,963 miles of roads for motorized use. Of those miles: 

1,690 miles for use by full size vehicles, 271 miles for use by vehicles less than 50 inches in 

width, and approximately 2 miles for use by motorcycles. 1,762 miles of road would be 

designated for non-motorized use.

Alternative 5, as Modified, designates trail 390 miles of trail motorized use. Of those miles: 33 

miles for full size vehicles and small vehicles, 207 miles for use by vehicles less than 50 inches 

in width and 157 miles for use by motorcycles. Non-motorized use (outside wilderness) would 

be designated on 693 miles of road.

Consideration of the Issues

Significant issues result from the anticipated effects of implementing a proposed action based on 

environmental effects. Issues are unresolved conflicts regarding effects of the proposed action 

that are identified during internal and external scoping efforts. In Section 1501.7, the Council on 

Environmental Quality NEPA regulations requires the Forest to “...identify and eliminate from 

detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior 

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...”

The following significant issues were used to develop the alternative array in the FEIS.

Significant Issues

Idaho Roadless Areas

Comments about access to and in Inventoried Roadless Areas were either for less or more 

motorized recreation opportunities. And many comments were made about this issue. 

The Forest Plan decision determined none of the Inventoried Roadless Areas would be managed 

as recommended Wilderness. Only 3 of these areas (East Meadow, Rapid River, and Silver 

Creek–Pilot Knob), totaling 126,846 acres, were identified to be managed as roadless into the 

future. The Idaho Roadless Rules is the current direction for Inventoried Roadless area 

management on the forest and established 19 Idaho Roadless Areas (497,085 acres) on the forest. 

That decision directs that future management of existing roads or trails in Idaho Roadless Areas

should be made during the applicable travel management process. The DRAMVU decision is the 

right place to address this issue. 

I feel Alternative 5, as Modified, provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized trail use 

within the 19 Idaho Roadless Areas on the Forest (Table ROD-9). Meadow Creek (East and 

West), Rackliff-Gedney, and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob were particular areas of interest from 

commenters who wanted to see non-motorized recreation. These areas provide important fish 

and wildlife habitat and include cultural resource areas of interest. In the past, motorized use has 

been on trails in and through many Idaho Roadless Areas, and motorized users have come to 

enjoy recreating in these areas.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 47

I am deciding to designate the amount of motorized road access to and along Idaho Roadless 

Areas similar to the current condition, but changing to seasonal designations. Of the 7.5 miles of 

roads currently located within IRAs, 5 miles (67%) will accommodate full sized vehicles, while 

2.5 miles (33%) will provide non-motorized opportunities. This will maintain traditional access 

to forest facilities and important wilderness portals and improve wildlife habitat security. It will

also provide seasonal quiet recreation in these areas. This will also provide enforceable closures 

on roads. My decision will maintain the amount of motorized and non-motorized miles of road in 

Idaho Roadless Areas. 

I am deciding to reduce motorized trail access along and in some Idaho Roadless Areas (Table 

ROD-10). Of the 543.4 miles of trail currently located within IRAs, 150.1 (28%) will provide 

motorized opportunities for vehicles less than 50 inches in width, while 393.2 (72%) will provide 

non-motorized opportunities. Within a Semi-Primitive recreation setting, the following IRAs will 

offer only non-motorized trail opportunities: Adjacent to Gospel Hump, Mallard, West Fork–

Crooked River, Rapid River, Salmon Face, and Selway–Bitterroot IRAs. Within a SemiPrimitive setting, the following IRAs will offer both non-motorized and motorized trail 

opportunities: East and West Meadow Creek, Gospel Hump and Rackliff–Gedney. In the West 

Meadow Creek IRA non-motorized use within a Semi-Primitive setting will be the primary 

recreation opportunity. 

Because of the adjustments to more non-motorized use in the West Meadow IRA, I have decided 

to change the type of use on approximately 5 miles of Trail 505 from non-motorized to seasonal 

vehicles less than 50 inches in width (Table ROD-10). This change should help reduce conflict 

of users in Meadow Creek while creating a new opportunity for motorized use along the 

boundary with existing motorized trails.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 48

Table ROD-10. Motorized trail opportunities within Idaho Roadless Areas—Alternative 5, 

as Modified2

Idaho Roadless Area Motorized Trail Names and Numbers

Miles of 

Motorized Trail

OS1 OY1

Adjacent to Gospel 

Hump No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0 

Clear Creek Clear Creek Trail 723 2.4 0.0 

Dixie Summit–Nut 

Hill

Moose Butte Trail 207, Dixie Summit Trail 209, Porters 

Trail 508 8.6 0.1 

East Meadow Creek Lynx Trail 534, Sable Hill Trail 611 6.1 0.0 

Gospel Hump Lemhi Trail 212, Blowout Divide Trail 234 4.8 0.0

John Day Martin Springs Trail 82, Southwest Butte Trail 118,

John Day Mountain Trail 136 0.0 9.4

Lick Point West Fork American Creek Trail 837 1.3 0.0

Little Slate Creek

Nut Basin Trail 117, Dead Horse Ridge Trail 301,

Van Buren Creek Trail 303, Dead Point Trail 307,

Telephone Ridge 329

0.0 17.3

Little Slate Creek 

North

Waterspout Trail 323, Little Van Buren Creek Trail 330,

No Business Trail 349 0.0 6.2

Mallard No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0

North Fork Slate 

Creek

N FK Slate Creek Trail 320/320A, Mill Creek Crossing 

385,Wild Horse Corrals 387 10.6 0.0

O’Hara–Falls Creek West Fork Crosscut Trail 717 3.4 0.0

Rackliff Gedney Rackliff Trail 702, East Boyd Trail 703, Glover Trail 704,

Gedney Trail 708, CCC Trail 734 19.7 0.0

Rapid River No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0

Salmon Face No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0

Selway-Bitterroot No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0

Silver Creek–Pilot 

Knob Nellie Mountain Trail 425, Mackay Mine Trail 426 1.2 0.0

West Fork Crooked 

River No trails identified for motorized use. 0.0 0.0

West Meadow Creek

Meadow Creek Trail 726, Kirks Fork 830, Divide Trail 

505, Blackhawk Connect 810, Otto Trail 509, Sable Hill 

Trail 611, Butte Creek 809, Boundary Trail 835, Box Sing 

Trail 887

57.5 1.5

Total Motorized Miles 115.6 34.5 1

OS—Open Seasonally; OY—Open Yearlong; 2

Modifications from Alternative 5 are in bold, italic font.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 49

Requests for More Non-Motorized Use

Alternative 3 was developed and analyzed to address the issue of providing more non-motorized 

opportunities. This alternative emphasized non-motorized use of trails in all Inventoried 

Roadless areas. Motorized use would be reduced on some roads and trails by adjusting to a 

shorter season of use. A reduction of use would also be though a change in the type of vehicle 

allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from motorized to non-motorized 

or from large to smaller vehicle types. Some examples of designations that were considered with 

this alternative include, but are not limited to: Trails within IRAs would not be designated for 

motorized use. If a route was proposed to be closed to motorized use, all spur roads were also 

closed. Seasonal restrictions are proposed on road or trails that reduce the season of motorized 

use. See also the above sections on Recreation Opportunities, Management Area 3, Idaho 

Roadless Areas, Seasonal restrictions, and Changes from motorized to non-motorized use.

Requests for More Motorized Use

Alternative 4 was developed and analyzed to address the issue of providing more motorized 

opportunities. This alternative emphasized designations for motorized use on road and trails 

across the forest. Motorized use would be increased on some routes by adjusting to a longer 

season of use. An increase of motorized use would occur though changing the type of vehicle 

allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from non-motorized to motorized, 

or from small to larger vehicle types. Five routes that were proposed by the public would be 

added to the system for motorized use. Routes were proposed to change the use from nonmotorized to motorized. Changes were also proposed for the type of motorized vehicle allowed 

on a route. Some comments were received that identified motorized loop opportunities to 

improve safety and reduce user conflicts. This adjusted the type of use on some routes. See also 

the above sections on Recreation Opportunities, New Routes, and Changes from non-motorized 

to motorized use on roads and trails.

Effects to Wildlife Habitat and Forest Plan Direction

Alternative 6 was developed and analyzed to address the issue of providing protection for 

wildlife and to move toward forest plan direction. This Alternative emphasizes Forest Plan 

standards and objectives for protecting elk, deer and moose habitat; Municipal watersheds other 

forest plan direction. This alternative would also move toward objectives in the Forest Plan for 

summer elk habitat. Consistency on motorized designations with adjacent forest and land 

managers would be provided on several roads and trails. Motorized opportunities are generally 

reduced though a reduction in the season of use available on designated roads or trails in 

important habitat or areas. See also the above sections on Recreation Opportunities, Idaho 

Roadless Areas, Management Area 3, 6, 16, 21, 22, 23 and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 50

Non-Significant Issues

Non-significant issues that met one or more of the following criteria were not carried through the 

analysis:

1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 

2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 

3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 

4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or

5) expected to have negligible effects.

Some non-significant issues were carried through the effects analysis, but were not used to 

develop alternatives to the proposed action. Many resource values are sensitive to travel 

management decisions, and the severity of the potential effects on each resource varies by 

alternative. Designation of motorized routes, proposed new routes, and the use of these routes 

and areas adjacent to these routes could result in effects to these resource areas. 

Other potential effects are described in FEIS - Chapter 3 and include sections: Recreation 

Opportunities, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife, Soil and Water Resources, Fisheries, 

Vegetation (Invasive species, Rare Plant, Cultural Plants), Research Natural Areas, Heritage 

Resources, Social Economics, and Appendix D - Forest Plan Amendments.

Alternatives Considered 

The action alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other 

agencies. Each alternative would respond differently to the issues that were identified through 

scoping, public comments, and the analysis process. Each alternative would produce different 

environmental effects.

In 2007, the Nez Perce National Forest’s distributed the Road and Trail Access Guide for public 

use. The guide was a representation of the forest roads and trail system based on past forest and 

district decisions and forest supervisor orders. This guide and forest supervisor orders were the 

basis for the exiting condition described in this FEIS. The Forest develop a proposed action that 

address the Purpose and Need for Action described above. 

The Nez Perce National Forest proposed action was released to the public in May 2007. It 

described what a designated system of motorized routes on the Nez Perce National Forest would 

look like, and invited the public to provide comments, including requests for new route 

proposals. The original proposed action was the Forest’s initial effort to develop an action that 

would satisfy the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, while addressing 

Forestwide resource needs and concerns related to motorized travel on the Nez Perce National 

Forest. 

In response to the public comments that were received during the scoping period, the original 

proposed action was carried forward to be analyzed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) as Alternatives 1A and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were developed by the 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 51

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The IDT reviewed public comments on the DEIS, the effects 

analysis of the DEIS, and review of the Forest Plan direction, the Forest released the DRAMVU 

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for public comment on October 

22, 2010. 

The DRAMVU FEIS analyzed seven alternatives, including the No Action. DEIS Alternatives 1, 

2, 3 and 4 were updated between draft and final to make corrections for logic. Two alternatives 

were developed between Draft and Final EIS, Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 5 is a blend of the 

alternatives. Alternative 6 modified Alternative 3 to include actions presented in the SDEIS. All 

alternatives were updated to provide logical links on the season of use on roads and trails (See 

FEIS, Appendix B for more details).

The action alternatives that were developed by the IDT for analysis in the FEIS respond to public 

comments that were received during scoping and comments that were received for the DEIS, 

SDEIS, as well as the purpose and need for action that has been described for this project. The 

alternatives are described in detail in the FEIS in Chapter 2 and in the Appendices.

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative represents the existing legal access on roads and trails (Pre-Travel Management 

Rule). The No Action alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action 

alternatives. The No Action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action for the 

Travel Planning project because it would not implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

Alternative 1A – Proposed Action 

Only actions to meet the basic requirements of the Travel Management Rule would be taken. 

This alternative would designate for motorized use on the same road and trail system in 

Alternative 1 and have no off-route motor vehicle use. This alternative would provide the most 

motorized recreation opportunities, compared to existing conditions. However, of the alternatives 

analyzed, it would do the least to move toward the goals and objectives for Management Areas 

16, 21 and 22.

Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 would respond the intent of past decisions by providing a system of roads and trails 

for motorized, and have no off-route motor vehicle use. This alternative is most like the existing 

condition.

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would emphasize non-motorized use of trails in all Inventoried Roadless areas and 

have no off-route motor vehicle use. Motorized use would also be reduced on some roads and 

trails by adjusting to a shorter season of use. A reduction of use would also be though a change 

in the type of vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from 

motorized to non-motorized, or from large to smaller vehicle types. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 52

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would emphasize designation for motorized use on road and trails across the forest 

and have no off-route motor vehicle use. Motorized use would be increased on some routes by 

adjusting to a longer season of use. An increase of motorized use would occur though changing 

the type of vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from nonmotorized to motorized, or from small to larger vehicle types. Five routes that were proposed by 

the public would be added to the system for motorized use.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would respond to public comments about providing motorized and non-motorized 

use opportunities, while moving toward the standards and objectives for wildlife resources, and 

other management areas. There would be no off-route motor vehicle use on the forest. Road and 

trail designations would reduce the number of miles available for motorized use by designations 

and a change in the season of use. Three new routes that were proposed by the public would be 

added to the system for motorized use. This alternative is the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

EIS. Based on public comments received on the DEIS and the SDEIS, and management area 

direction I felt Alternative 5 would further minimize potential effects on natural resources if it 

were slightly modified. 

Alternative 6 

Alternative 6 would emphasize Forest Plan standards and objectives for protecting elk, deer and 

moose habitat; Municipal watersheds other forest plan standards. Consistency on motorized 

designations with adjacent forest and land managers would be provided on several roads and 

trails. There would be no off-route motor vehicle use. Motorized opportunities are generally 

reduced though a reduction in the season of use available on designated roads or trails in 

important habitat or areas. This alternative also responds to public comments providing less 

motorized use on roads and trails. Also, of the alternatives analyzed, Alternative 6 would do the 

least to address public concerns about providing a wide range of motorized recreation 

opportunities.

Forest Plan Amendments

Up to two project-specific Forest Plan amendments were proposed in the FEIS alternatives.

Based on an updated effects analysis for wildlife, the proposed elk habitat amendment, presented 

in the DEIS was not carried forward into the FEIS. Up to two proposed amendments in the DEIS 

and SDEIS were carried forward into the FEIS, depending on alternative. Proposed amendments 

are described in Appendix D of the FEIS and Attachment 4.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 53

Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

NEPA requires the Forest Service to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. It would not be 

possible to analyze all possible alternatives for motorized travel on the Nez Perce National 

Forest, nor is the Forest Service required to do so. As one comment was made about alternatives 

"The number of possible permutations between those end points is mind boggling." I consider the 

action alternatives that are analyzed in detail in this FEIS to be an adequate range of alternatives 

to address the purpose and need for action, and to move toward Forest Plan goals and objectives 

for a variety of resources, while addressing public comments that were received in response to 

the proposed action that was advertised for scoping and the alternatives presented in the DEIS 

and SDEIS. In this section of the ROD, I will briefly describe other alternative scenarios that 

were considered by the IDT, but were not analyzed in detail.

The Travel Management Rule requires National Forests to consider the existing road and trail 

systems and designate routes that will be open for motorized travel. The results of this process 

will not constitute the ultimate or final transportation system for the Nez Perce National Forest. 

Over time, after this initial route designation is made and the MVUM is published, routes may be 

added to or removed from the system and additional designations of motorized routes may be 

considered. Future proposals to change the designated system will require site-specific analysis. 

Future changes to the system will also need to be consistent with the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

Designate Over-Snow Vehicle Use. 

Several comments were received that disagreed with the scope of the project not to include 

motor vehicle use designating for over-snow vehicles. The Forest Supervisor had made the 

decision to not complete travel planning for over-snow motorized vehicles at this time because 

the forest had fewer issues with over-snow vehicle use. The direction in the travel rule (36 CFR 

212) allows for the line officers discretion to choose what vehicle types would be included in 

their forest’s travel plan. In the future, the Nez Perce National Forest could designate over-snow 

vehicles use and fully analyze winter motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, 

including trail grooming for snowmobiling and cross-country skiing.

Designate Areas for Motor Vehicle Use.

The forest requested proposals for new routes and areas in the Proposed Action that was 

presented in May of 2007. A few comments were received to identify an area for motorized use, 

beyond the road and trail system. None of these comments included specific areas that could be 

included in an alternative and no suitable areas for this kind of activity were identified by the IDT. 

The decisionmaker chose not to include or accept any new proposals for areas during the DEIS or 

SDEIS comment period or to designate any areas in the alternatives to be analyzed in detail.

Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping.

Designated Camp Sites. Some comments were received to allow no motorized access for 

dispersed camping from roads and to designate all campsites. The IDT considered 0 feet for no 

motorized access for dispersed camping along main routes such as proposed in Letters 536 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 54

commented on the DEIS. In the Supplemental DEIS, the forest proposed new conditions of use 

to minimize resource damage while allowing access to existing dispersed campsites. The 

conditions of use direct motorized use for dispersed camping use to existing access and sites. The 

Forest also proposed limited access to dispersed camping as 0 feet from some roads. Letters S16 

and S82 also commented about limiting access of main roads. Roads included: 1614, 221, 222, 

223, 233, 233I, 234, 285, 290, 317, 354, 357, 443 and Highway 14. Along these routes there are 

currently well established areas of use and many have established dispersed campsites that can 

be used following the proposed conditions of use. 

The IDT considered additional areas for restrictions for 0 feet from road and trails that were not 

included in alternatives. FEIS Alternatives 5 and 6 proposed additional areas for no motorized 

dispersed camping access from roads where additional resource protection was needed. 

Alternatives 3 and 6 provide for 0 feet of motorized access for dispersed camping from all trails.

See Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives. Additional mitigation and 

monitoring has been added, where resource concerns have been raised about potential impacts 

from motorized access to dispersed camping.

Unlimited Access. Some comments were received that requested unlimited motorized access for 

dispersed camping or allow to more than 300 feet of access. In designating routes, the Travel 

Management Rule ( 36 CFR 212.51 (8)b) allows responsible official to include, “ limited use of 

motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within 

specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping...”. The final rule requires 

inclusion of either activity in a designation, or reconsideration of any decision prohibiting motor 

vehicle use while engaging in this activity. The rule does not specify a distance that the line 

officer must use. The Nez Perce National Forest considered the access allowed on adjacent lands, 

such as the Clearwater, Payette, Wallowa-Whitman and Bitterroot National Forests, Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area and the Cottonwood Field Office (BLM). The forest used a 

300 feet distance for consistency and considering potential impacts to natural resources with the 

conditions of use for motorized access for dispersed camping. The alternatives provide limited 

motorized access to dispersed campsites and for parking while minimizing effects on other 

resources and is consistent with the Travel Management Rule, and with travel management 

decisions that have been made or will be made on adjoining National Forest lands, to continue to 

provide motorized access to dispersed camping sites.

The Travel Management Rule allows for the designation to include motorized access for 

camping under certain conditions and within a limited distance of designated routes. The 

decisionmaker chose to include in the designation motorized travel to dispersed campsites in 

certain areas and under certain conditions, as described earlier in this chapter under, “Actions 

Common to All Alternatives.” This has been updated to reflect a forest-wide approach for 

limited motorized off-route travel for dispersed camping and day use activities.

Motorized Access for Big Game Retrieval.

Some comments were received to designate motorized access for big game retrieval. The travel 

management rule allows limited exceptions to the prohibition on off-route motor vehicle use for 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 55

specific purposes including big game retrieval. This alternative would not be consistent with 

adjacent federal travel management plans (Clearwater, Payette and Salmon National Forests; 

Cottonwood BLM). The State of Idaho’s regulations direct the hunters to comply with all motor 

vehicle limits or prohibitions instituted by the landowner or land manager. The alternative to 

allow motorized access for big game retrieval was not considered in detail because the National 

Forests in Idaho have consistently applied that retrieval of game off of designated routes must be 

accomplished utilizing non-motorized means; game carts or sleds, dragging, backpacking, or 

packing with stock. Therefore, motorized travel off of designated routes for game retrieval was 

not considered in detail in any action alternatives. 

Parking.

Allow More. A comment was received to allow parking more than one vehicle widths from a 

road (Letter S117). Alternative 1 does not limit parking, unless a current Forest Supervisor 

closure order is in place that does not allow parking. Alternatives 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 proposed to 

allow parking up to one vehicle width, including trailer, from designated routes. The Travel 

Management Rule and FSM 7716.1 provide the Forest Service direction to implement the rule 

and states the designation for roads must specify “... either that they include parking within one 

vehicle length, or within a specified distance of up to 30 feet, from the edge of the road surface.” 

The alternatives presented in the FEIS are consistent with the Travel Management Rule, and with 

travel management decisions that have been made or will be made on adjoining National Forest 

lands, to continue to provide parking options to the public.

Designate More Motorized Routes. 

New Routes. Several comments were received to increase the amount of motorized routes on the 

Forest. The proposed action (2007) specifically requested proposals and stated new routes to be 

considered must meet a criterion. The criteria for new routes was presented with the propose action 

in the DEIS (FEIS Appendix B-New Route Proposals). The public proposed eleven new routes that 

currently were not on the Forest road or trail systems. One route, Trail 320A was proposed to be 

opened and was included in FEIS in Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5. This trail is currently under a Forest 

Supervisor order to be open as a trail (FEIS, Table 2-7). Seventeen closed roads were considered in 

Alternative 4 to be opened for motorized use in the DEIS.

More Miles Motorized. Alternative 1A provides for the highest number of motorized routes 

designated because it considered routes for motorized use that are currently not open for use, or 

currently up to standard for certain types of vehicles. Alternative 2 best reflects the existing road 

and trail system and the currently allowed uses. Alternative 4 was developed based on 

comments received on the proposed action to increase the amount of motorized use using the 

existing road and trail system and provides an increase in comparison to Alternative 2 (existing 

condition). Alternative 4 included motorized use on routes that are currently non-motorized, 

when the Forest received comments to specifically change the use and follow the Forest Plan 

direction.

Comments were received to allow all trails open for motorized use, including more areas open 

for OHV use (Letter 73). This alternative was eliminated from detail study because current laws 

(Wilderness Acts, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), regulations, the Forest Plan including 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 56

management area direction does not allow for motorized use on all trails on the Nez Perce 

National Forest. 

No other alternatives were developed to provide motorized use on all roads and trails because 

limiting factors that were considered such as: Executive Orders, the Travel Rule direction and 

criteria for designation, forest plan standards and direction, wildlife & fish habitats.

Designate Less Motorized Road Access. 

Following the scoping process the interdisciplinary team reviewed DEIS and SDEIS comments. 

Some comments suggested changing use on specific roads from motorized to non-motorized. 

The team developed an alternative with these proposed changes, draft version of Alternative 3. In 

reviewing the concept of this alternative, the line officers and team felt that this alternative would 

eliminate important access needed to manage the forest resources and revisit some past decisions 

made on access. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study, but DEIS and FEIS 

Alternative 3 based on criteria in the FEIS Chapter 2.

Designate Seasonal Use of Routes

Main Routes. 

Seasonal closure of main roads were considered to reduce the effect to wildlife habitats, but not 

carried forward into the SDEIS or FEIS Alternatives. A criteria developed by the Line Officer 

and IDT were used on these main routes to determine if a road would remain open for use 

yearlong or a seasonal use would be proposed in the SDEIS or included in the FEIS alternatives. 

The criteria included: main route with traditional yearlong use, main route and accessing area 

with yearlong traditionally use or primary access route identified on the forest visitor maps -

yellow highlighted. It was decided that some main routes should be maintained with their current 

access designations and not be considered in an alternative.

Close All Local Roads in MA 16 in Winter and No Forest Plan Amendment.

Management Area 16 includes Elk and Deer Winter Range as defined by the Forest Plan (Map 

51) (USDA-FS 1987b). Management Area, Wildlife/Fish Standard #1, directs the forest to closed 

roads in the winter time except for specially identified arterial and collector roads. The standard 

directs the forest to restrict use on roads in winter in MA 16 to reduce disturbance, harassment 

and poaching of animal life. After presenting the DEIS the forest recognized the need to address 

this standard better in the alternatives. Forest also recognized that there were some short local 

roads in MA 16 that accessed campgrounds, administrative sites or facilities or that did not 

provide much protection to wildlife. The Supplemental DEIS presented new seasonal closures of 

roads and trails in MA 16 to move toward the standard or proposed a Forest Plan Amendment to 

allow use on some local roads. Alternative 6 in the FEIS fully developed an alternative to 

response to this issue and some road and trail designation in other alternatives also meet the 

standard without a proposed Amendment. No alternative was developed to close all local roads 

in winter because the line officer felt the proposed FEIS alternatives provide a reasonable range 

of alternatives that meet the standard through the proposals for a winter seasonal closure of roads 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 57

in MA 16 or Amendment for Forest Plan to keep the local roads open for public use. See 

additional information in the FEIS Wildlife Section and Appendix D.

Change the Season of Use on Roads or Trails. 

Based on public comments on the DEIS and SDEIS, some recommendations were made to 

restrict road or trail use for a specific seasons such as: (1) A comment was made that motorized 

routes that enter or border elk calving areas should be closed from May 1 to August 1 (Letter 

S165a). (2) A comment was made to restrict winter travel on roads and trails by no later than 

October 1 to be consistent with big game objectives and hunting season dates (Letter S165a). 

(3) A comment was received to modify road opening dated from 11/4 to 11/15 (closed 11/15 to 

6/1) on the Coolwater Road 317, Fog Mountain Road 319, American-River Selway (Falls Point) 

443, and Swiftwater Road 470 (Letter 92). These alternatives were: already captured by within 

the range of alternatives in the FEIS; identified no specific routes for the proposal; would add 

additional restriction dates that would cause confusion by the public; or could not be matched to 

a specific hunting season because of the variety of tags and dates while providing protection for 

wildlife.

Designate All Idaho Roadless Area Trails as Non-motorized.

Following the scoping process the interdisciplinary team reviewed DEIS and SDEIS comments. 

Several general comments suggested the elimination of all motorized use within all Idaho 

Roadless Areas. Comments were also received on specific routes within IRA’s.

In 2007, the DEIS Alternative 3 was developed using the current IRA inventory that was from 

2005. When the Idaho Roadless Rule was approved in 2008 there were slight differences in the 

final Idaho Roadless Area boundaries. There were 16 Inventories Roadless Areas totaling 

503,162 acres identified in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Under the Idaho Roadless Rule Inventory there are 19 Idaho Roadless Areas totaling 

497,085 acres. Current use of roads within the 2005 inventory includes 5.2 miles of motorized 

roads and 2.4 miles of non-motorized roads. Trail miles include 332 motorized and 249.6 miles 

of non-motorized trail. Current use of roads under the 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule includes 7 

miles of motorized roads and 0.6 miles of non-motorized roads. Trail miles include 341.4 miles 

of motorized and 201.9 non-motorized trail. See Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Area section, 

FEIS Tables 3-2 and 3-3.

The SDEIS proposed and the FEIS developed into Alternative 6 to include the proposal for the 

Lynx Creek Trail 534 to be non-motorized in the East Meadow Creek Idaho Roadless Area. 

Trails on the boundary of the Idaho Roadless Areas were not proposed as closed to motorized 

use because there is no Forest Service regulation or policy, or within the Forest Plan that 

prohibits motorized use up to the boundary, adjacent to or within Idaho Roadless Areas. 

Alternative 3 and 6 included the proposals for non-motorized use within the 2005 Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. No other adjustments were made to Alternatives to designate all trails within the 

2008 Idaho Roadless Areas as non-motorized. This alternative represents Forest Policy, and 

Forest Plan direction relative to activities in IRAs.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 58

Change the Type of Use on Designated Trails.

Some comments the requested all non-motorized routes to be available for motorcycle use 

(Letter 230). Another comment was made that requested all trails outside of wilderness to be 

available for motorized use (Letter 73). One comment was made that requested only ATV and 

non-motorized use be available on Trail 1847.

These proposals were not developed into alternatives because Forest Plan Goals and 

Management Area direction provides for a variety of motorized and non-motorized uses, outside 

of wilderness. These alternatives would likely increase user conflicts on trails. The Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum Classes direct the Forest to provide a balance of motorized and nonmotorized uses on lands outside wilderness. Opening all routes, outside wilderness areas to 

motorized use or allowing motorized use (motorcycle) on all trails that are currently nonmotorized would not meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule, follow Forest Plan 

direction or meet the Purpose and Need of this project. See Chapter 3, Recreation Opportunities 

– Recreation Opportunity Spectrum analysis. Also, there are trails within non-wilderness that are 

not suitable nor can be maintained for motorcycle use because of terrain, visibility and steepness 

of grade. Motorcycle use would be designed on 19, 36, 16, 40, 121 and 20, miles of trail in 

Alternatives 1/1A, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; respectively (FEIS Table 2-19).

A comment on the Proposed Action requested that Trail 1847 be closed to all vehicles, except 

ATV use only. In the DEIS, Alternative 3, Trail 1847 was proposed to be designated for ATV 

and non-motorized use only (4.9 miles), seasonally in the DEIS. This designation was dropped 

from analysis in the FEIS Alternative 3 because the trail is coincident with Road 1847, which is 

open to full sized vehicles, vehicles less than 50 inches and motorcycles and was not limited to 

use by ATVs and non-motorized uses only. However, in Alternatives 5 and 6 this road/trail 

would be designated for seasonal use by vehicles less than 50 inches in width (OSS10 and OSS5, 

respectively). In Alternative 6, only a short section of Road 307 was proposed to be designated 

for ATV and non-motorized use only (OSS7, 0.37 miles). 

Include Road and Trail Construction, Reconstruction, or Decommissioning.

Comments were received to construct new routes or restore (decommission) unauthorized routes. 

Because of the potential resource impacts that can result from the construction of new roads and 

trails, or the reconstruction of existing routes, or during decommissioning those activities would 

be better analyzed in detail at the site-specific level. The decisionmaker chose not to include 

construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning in the alternatives that were analyzed in detail, 

with the exception of a few new routes that met the criteria outlined in the scoping letter in 2007.

Ideas for new system routes can be considered in future projects focused on smaller geographic 

areas. Projects of this scale, similar to many completed in the past, are far better able to consider 

the site-specific effects of trail construction or reconstruction and evaluate effects on things like 

threatened, endangered or sensitive species and heritage resources. The Nez Perce National 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 59

Forest is committed to considering public suggestions to improve or modify the motorized 

system in the future, consistent with the Forest Plan, and as budgets, available personnel and 

time permit.

Other Alternatives Developed but not Analyzed in Detail.

In September 2009, the forest developed a draft Alternative 5. This alternative was developed as 

a blend of the DEIS Alternatives 1A, 2, 3, and 4. After completing the Summer Elk Habitat 

Effectiveness Model, taking a closer looks at roads and trails in Elk/Deer (MA 16) and Moose 

(MA 21) winter range, reviewing access in Wall Creek watershed (MA 22) and completing a 

review other forest plan direction. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis in the 

FEIS

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 5-Modified and 6 would improve environmental conditions over current 

Forest Travel Management, and therefore would be environmentally preferable to Alternative 1 

(No Action).

Public Involvement

The Nez Perce National Forest developed an information page on its website to provide 

information about the DRAMVU project, process, and maps and sent news releases to various 

local and regional media contacts and political representatives. As they became available, letters 

and documents were also posted on the Forest website using the Planning, Appeals and 

Litigation System (PALS) database. See DRAMVU project webpage at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=17752

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and interested groups, the Interdisciplinary 

Team developed a list of issues and concerns to be addressed. These issues and concerns are 

further discussed in Chapter 2.

Scoping

The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2007. 

The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2007, and legal notices 

were published in the Idaho County Free Press and the Lewiston Morning Tribune on May 23, 

2007. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during the 

scoping period from May 17, 2007, to July 2, 2007. In addition, as part of the public involvement 

process, the agency held two sets of public meetings in various local communities. The first set 

was held during the end of May 2007. These meetings were structured to clarify the purpose and 

scope of this planning effort and describe the proposal and accept proposals for new routes. The 

second set of meetings was held in June 2007 and designed as “working meetings” where 

Nez Perce National Forest staff was available to look at specific proposals and help members of 

the public submit comments. The Nez Perce National Forest received 79 scoping comments, 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 60

including letters, emails, and comments on the Proposed Action. One form letter was included in 

the letters submitted. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

On December 19, 2008, the Nez Perce National Forest released the Designated Routes and Areas 

for Motor Vehicle Use Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for public comment. The 

Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2009, and legal 

notices were published in the Idaho County Free Press and the Lewiston Morning Tribune on 

December 28, 2009. The DEIS was available for public comment from January 2, 2009, to 

February 20, 2009. Due to high public interest, on March 20, 2009, the Nez Perce National 

Forest issued a 30-day extension to the comment period that ended April 20, 2009. Five public 

meetings were held in 2009 to present information about the DEIS: Grangeville (January 27), 

Riggins (January 29), Lewiston (February 3), Kooskia (February 4), and Elk City (February 5). 

These meetings focused on helping people understand the document and proposed alternatives. 

During the public comment period of the DEIS, the Nez Perce National Forest received 

32,000 letters, emails, or correspondence. There were 1,900 unique letters and 4 form letters 

(same content repeated). The form letters accounted for large number of letters received.

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Based on the comments on the DEIS and additional analysis completed by the forest the 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (SDEIS) was released for public comment on October 22, 2010. Coordination with 

adjacent forests, analysis related to forest plan direction drove the need to prepare a SDEIS for 

public comment. The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register, and legal 

notices were published in the Idaho County Free Press and the Lewiston Morning Tribune on 

October 22, 2010. The SDEIS was available for public comment until December 6, 2010. The 

Nez Perce National Forest held two public meetings in 2010 to present information about the 

SDEIS: Grangeville (October 26) and Elk City (November 9). These meetings focused on 

helping people understand the new information and alternatives presented in the SDEIS.

During the public comment period of the SDEIS, the Nez Perce National Forest received over 

250 letters, emails, or correspondence. Letters received included one form letter. 

Public Re-Engagement

In an effort to re-engage the public about the project and upcoming decision, the forest held 

public information meetings in June and July of 2015. News Releases about the public meetings 

and information was posted to the project webpage, an in the Idaho County Free Press and the 

Lewiston Morning Tribune. Meetings were held in Grangeville (June 23), Elk City (June 25), 

Riggins (June 30), Kamiah (July 20) and Lewiston (July 21). 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 61

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Based on the comments on the DEIS and SDEIS the forest completed analysis released the 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use - Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS).

Based on comments on the SDEIS, in the FEIS has two new alternatives were developed 

(Alternatives 5 and 6) and additional analysis was completed.

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments

As discussed above, comment documents were received during the scoping period and during the 

extended comment period for the DEIS and the comment period for the SDEIS. The IDT has 

prepared responses to the comments that were received for the DEIS and SDEIS, and they are 

available in Appendix G of the FEIS. It would be impractical to elaborate here about how each of 

the comments was considered, but I would like to provide a general overview.

Comments on the Proposed Action

During the comment period on the Proposed Action, the Forest held working meeting to clarify 

the purpose and scope of this planning effort and describe the proposal and to look at specific 

proposals and help members of the public submit comments. Seventy-nine comment documents 

were received during the scoping period, with comments on over 600 routes. Scoping comments 

ranged from comments asking that no motorized uses be allowed on the Nez Perce National 

Forests, to keep what is currently available or comments asking that the existing motorized 

system be dramatically expanded. From those comments the IDT developed an array of 

alternatives that would best address those issues while moving Forest resources toward Forest 

Plan goals and objectives. The proposed action is discussed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

Comments on the DEIS

To allow ample time for all interested parties to comment, the DEIS was advertised for public 

comment from January to April 2009. Over 31,000 comment documents were received during 

the comment period. Approximately 1,900 comment documents were unique. Comments on the 

DEIS, reiterated many of the issues that had been raised during scoping and were represented in 

Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, 3, and 4.Some comments that the Forest should complete analysis for 

Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness instead of a Forest Plan amendment. The comments on the 

DEIS were analyzed by the IDT.

Comments on the SDEIS

The IDT worked hard to consider the public comments on the DEIS and began analysis for the 

FEIS. The information that was compiled compelled the forest to prepare a Supplemental DEIS 

and present it to the public.

Analysis for Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness was completed for the SDEIS. In addition, 

proposed route designations were proposed in the SDEIS to move toward several management 

area goals, objects or standards including Management Areas 16, 21 and 22. Coordination with 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 62

adjacent land managers was completed and resulted in new route designation proposals, 

including parking and motorized access for dispersed camping. Route designation proposals 

were made if they were not already represented in the DEIS Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, 3 or 4. A 

forest plan amendment for Management Areas 16 and 22 was presented for comment.

Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4 were carried forward for analysis in the FEIS. Based on the issues 

raised in the DEIS and SDEIS, the IDT developed Alternative 5 and 6. Alternative 6 was 

developed to protect wildlife habitat and move Forest resources toward Forest Plan goals and 

objectives based on proposals in the SDEIS and Alternative 3. Alternative 5 was developed as a 

blend of other alternatives.

The variety of actions included in this array of alternatives meets the requirement under NEPA to 

analyze an adequate range of alternatives. The comments on the SDEIS were analyzed by the 

IDT. Many of the changes presented in the FEIS resulted from comments that were received for 

the DEIS and SDEIS.

Collaboration and Consultation

Consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and Federal 

Regulatory agencies was ongoing throughout the NEPA process. Collaboration with State and 

Local governments and local groups was an important part of the NEPA process as well. The 

public involvement log in the project file for the EIS documents many meetings with 

representatives from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation and Idaho County Commissioners that were held during the development of the EIS.

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 5, as Modified, includes one project-specific amendment to the Nez Perce Forest 

Plan. This amendment is described in detail in the ROD Attachment 4 and Final EIS, Appendix 

D. 

This amendment will exempt the DRAMVU project from the Management Area 16, Recreation 

Management Standard #5 on certain local roads to facilitate the use of the roads for motor 

vehicle use in winter (38 miles). The current Nez Perce Forest Plan standard specifies the forest

“.. to restrict all roads except specifically-identified arterials and collectors during winter to 

reduce disturbance, harassment, and poaching of animals. Roads to be open shall be identified on 

the motor vehicle use map.” The existing conditions of certain local roads in Management Area

16 do not meet this standard. Under Alternative 5, as Modified, more local roads will meet this 

standard than the existing condition, however some roads will continue to be managed as open in 

winter for motor vehicle use. This is a non-significant project-specific amendment, and applies 

only to the DRAMVU project selected alternative. 

This amendment is to become effective immediately, or at such time that any stay of this 

decision is lifted. This amendment applies until the Forest Plan is revised or the Motor Vehicle 

Use Map is updated following future NEPA analysis and decisions. The amendment does not 

alter management area boundaries or prescriptions or cause significant changes to multiple-use 

goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management, alter the desired future 

condition of the land, nor does it affect the level of goods and services. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 63

See FEIS Appendix G – Section 22000 for comments and responses to proposed forest plan 

amendments.

Related Decisions Not Superseded

The DRAMVU Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will 

address travel management and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use Forest-wide. However, the 

FEIS will not reanalyze travel planning decisions that have been made recently, or will be made 

soon, for these other projects on the Nez Perce National Forest: 

• Meadow Face Project Record of Decision - 2004.

• Peasley Creek Road Project, Decision Notice - 2011.

• Sourdough Access Project, Decision Notice – 2011.

• West Fork and South Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning Project, Decision Notice 

2011.

• Little Slate Project Record of Decision – 2012.

• Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration Project – Decision 2013.

• Doc Denny – Decision Notice 2013.

• Clear Ridge Non-system Road Decommission – Decision Notice.

• Clear Creek Integrated Project – Record of Decision – 2015.

The decision to select Alternative 5, as Modified, designates motorized use on roads, trails and 

areas within the Nez Perce National Forest. The FEIS discloses the potential environmental 

consequences of this alternative. The FEIS, in combination with public comments, legal 

requirements, and other information, will be used to create a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) 

that will be available to the public. For each road and trail, the MVUM will specify the types of 

motorized uses that are appropriate, including: full size vehicle use, vehicles less than 50 inches 

in width, and motorcycle use. The map will not include over-snow vehicle use or non-motorized 

use. The goal for the Nez Perce National Forest is to publish a MVUM to implement the 

decision.

In Attachment 1, ROD – Map 1a displays only Alternative 5, as Modified. ROD – Map 1,

displays the results of the combination of this decision and other recent decisions on motor 

vehicle access (ROD - Map 1 – Alternative 5, as Modified, with Other Decisions). 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 64

Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy

To the best of my knowledge, my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency 

policy relevant to the DRAMVU project. The following discussion is not an all-inclusive listing, 

but in intended to provide information on areas raised as issues or comments by the public or 

other agencies.

Delegation of Authority

Consistent with Forest Service Manual 1230, I have been delegated authority as Forest 

Supervisor of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, effective November 16, 2014. I am 

responsible to the Region One Regional Forester for management, development and 

administration of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.

Consistency with the Forest Plan

The National Forest Management Act implementing regulations require me to ensure that my 

decision is consistent with the Nez Perce Forest Plan (36 CFR 219.10(e); 1982). See 

Attachment 5 in this document for a brief summary of how the selected actions comply with 

Forest Plan standards and the FEIS, Chapter 3 in each resource section. In some cases the Forest 

Plan contains goals, objectives, and/or standards that might appear to be conflicting for different 

resources in the same management area. In those cases, I have described my interpretation of the 

intent of the Forest Plan in the project file and the rationale for my decision in this Record of 

Decision. Based on the analysis in the FEIS, I have concluded that, with the exception of the 

Forest Plan amendments described earlier in this document, my decision is consistent with the 

Forest Plan.

Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Use (36 CFR 212, 251, 

261); USDA Forest Service (2005)

The Forest Service regulations for travel management at 36 CFR 212.15 identify criteria for 

designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on 

National Forest System lands for motorized use. They require me to consider the following:

General Criteria for Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas

Effects on Cultural Resources

I considered the effects on both natural and cultural resources in the development of the 

DRAMVU project. In fact, the development of the National Travel Rule and this Travel Plan 

were based primarily on concern for these resources. The elimination of off-route motor vehicle 

use is a giant step in protecting resources of all types. The DRAMVU FEIS addresses the effects 

of seven alternatives (including No Action) on natural and cultural resources. Yearly monitoring 

will be performed along high use motorized routes to determine potential areas requiring 

protection from dispersed recreation activity. The Idaho State Historic Preservation Office would 

approve all protection measures. Refer to Chapters 2 and 3 of the FEIS.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 65

Public Safety

I considered public safety in the course of all route designations. Many safety issues were 

considered and addressed in the course of designing, constructing, and maintaining the roads and 

trails that form the transportation system. The three new routes will meet trail standards prior to 

being places on the MVUM map. With respect to route designation, the remaining issues about 

safety are mostly related to the types of traffic using a route and their seasons of use. The most 

common safety concern involves routes with heavy traffic travelling at vastly different speeds, 

and on narrow routes for one or more of the traffic types. Trails with motorized and nonmotorized traffic are another example and the selected alternative provides more trails that are 

strictly non-motorized thereby reducing the conflict. Though not a part of the DRAMVU 

decision, special short-term restrictions will be implemented in areas of where heavy truck traffic 

or logging operations conflict with safe use of specific roads or trails by the public.

Provision of Recreation Opportunities

Providing recreation opportunities is one of the primary purposes for the DRAMVU project. The 

analysis and this decision considered providing for a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities, except over-snow vehicles. Refer to the FEIS, Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for 

Action, and the recreation section of the rationale for my decision in this Record of Decision.

Access Needs

Access for the public, adjacent landowners, owners of private property within the Forest 

boundary, and holders of other valid existing rights was considered in the designation process. 

My decision provides for reasonable, legal access either directly as part of the designation or 

allows for it to be provided through other means specific to the situation such as via special use 

permits, plans of operation or other instruments.

Conflict among Uses of National Forest System Lands

My decision criteria, beginning on page ROD-5 of this ROD, demonstrate my desire to provide 

well-distributed opportunities for both motorizes use and non-motorized uses, including quiet 

recreation, of the Nez Perce National Forest trail system. My rationale for this decision, 

beginning on page ROD-8 of this ROD, also demonstrates my efforts to provide a balance of 

recreation opportunities in a variety of settings. The Recreation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

addresses conflicting uses under the heading of recreation opportunities.

The Need for Maintenance and Administration of Roads, Trails, and Areas that Would Arise if 

the Uses Under Consideration are Designated

This decision designates three short trails for motorized uses that are already open to such uses. 

No areas are designated for motorized use off of designated routes. As a result of adding these 

short connecting routes, the administration of the transportation system does not become any 

more complex than it is at present. Depending on the outcome of the proposed Lochsa Land 

Exchange, some roads or trails on lands exchanged may not be designated for public motorized 

use thereby changing their traffic generated maintenance workload. I have considered that 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 66

making some trails non-motorized may reduce the level of volunteer maintenance of the trail 

system. Transportation system implementability was considered.

The Availability of Resources for that Maintenance and Administration

I recognize the potential for declining budgets for road and trail maintenance and considered this 

in designating routes for motorized traffic. I addressed this by not designating some roads and 

trails that are known to be overgrown, and by an overall reduction in the number of roads and 

trails open to motorized traffic. But roads and trails that are restricted to motorized traffic, 

yearlong or seasonally, still generate a maintenance workload unrelated to traffic. I believe that 

significant road maintenance cost savings are more likely to be gained not with the DRAMVU 

project but with smaller scale projects that can evaluate road systems in the project area and 

identify surplus roads that can be decommissioned. The forest has and will continue to complete 

these evaluations and decommission surplus roads. I also noted from public comments and 

considered that resources for maintenance of some previously motorized trails may not be 

available once the trails are no longer designated for motorized use.

Specific Criteria for Designation of Trails and Areas

In addition to the general criteria discussed previously, for designation of trails and areas the 

travel rule requires that I consider the items below with the objective of minimizing effects.

Damage to Soil, Watershed, Vegetation and Other Forest Resources

By not designating areas for off-route use of motorized vehicles, my decision restricts motorized 

traffic to designated routes – and for purposes of this section that means trails. That limitation of 

itself minimizes the effects to most resources. The trail system, regardless of traffic type, still has 

the potential to affect these resources. My decision to restrict motorized traffic on several 

hundred miles of trail further reduces the effect on natural and cultural resources. I have 

considered the effects on a these resources as presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Harassment of Wildlife and Disruption of Wildlife Habitats

Effects on wildlife and their habitats and the Forest Plan goals and standards that address wildlife 

were the greatest consideration in deciding which roads and trails and how many should be 

designated for motorized use in most of the management areas. My decision addresses this issue 

by designating seasonal motorized use many trails in those areas with the highest Forest Plan 

goals or standards for wildlife. And, more important than just a reduction in motorized mileage, 

the decision restricts motorized travel completely or seasonally on routes of greatest importance 

to wildlife. The rationale for my decision is described in more detail earlier in this document, 

particularly for Forest Plan management areas, 16 and 21 which have a wildlife emphasis. The 

effects of the alternatives on wildlife and wildlife habitat were discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS.

Conflicts Between Motor Vehicle Use and Existing or Proposed Recreational Uses of National 

Forest System Roads

Refer to the Decision and Reasons for the Decision sections of this ROD. These sections 

demonstrate my desire to minimize effects on Forest resources while providing well distributed 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 67

opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized uses of the Nez Perce National Forest trail 

system. The rationale for my decision demonstrates my efforts to manage conflicts between 

motor vehicle use and other recreational uses. The Recreation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

also addresses effects to recreational uses. 

Conflict Among Different Classes or Motor Vehicle Uses of National Forest System Lands or 

Neighboring Federal Lands

A desire for additional motorized routes was often expressed in public comments but the 

construction or reconstruction needed to accommodate OHVs puts this suggestion outside the 

scope of the DRAMVU project. However, several trails were designated to change from nonmotorized to motorized or from single track to double track vehicles. A future decision about the 

specific effects of these actions must occur before reconstruction would happen. A potential 

vehicle conflict exists on trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches in width as they are open to 

different types of vehicles. I considered this potential in the designation process and believe it is 

minimized as most motorcyclists expressed a desire to travel on single track trails where other 

motorized vehicles are not permitted. Any vehicle conflicts associated with adjacent federal 

lands are minimal as no motorized trails cross from the Nez Perce onto adjacent National Forests 

and no areas are designated for off-route motor vehicle use on adjacent National Forests or near 

their boundary with the Nez Perce National Forest.

Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use With Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking Into 

Account Sound, Emissions, and Other Factors

Most of the Nez Perce National Forest is removed from population centers. There are no areas 

designated for off route motor vehicle use on the Forest and there are very few trails of any type 

near communities. Where those trails exist, the communities involved have been supportive of 

motorized trails and I have concluded that there are minimal if any effects on communities as a 

result of nearby motorized trail uses.

Specific Criteria for Designation of Roads

In addition to the general criteria discussed previously, the travel rule requires that I consider the 

specific criteria below in designating roads for motorized use.

Speed, Volume, Composition, and Distribution of Traffic on Roads; Compatibility of Vehicle 

Class with Road Geometry and Surfacing

My decision will result in a designated road system that provides for use by recreational, 

commercial, and administrative traffic and manages that traffic to protect resources as well as the 

road users themselves. Most roads on the forest were developed to provide access for timber 

harvest and so their design vehicle is typically a logging truck; or in the case of major roads, a 

lowboy. Smaller vehicles are capable of negotiating these roads unless restricted by regulation or 

vegetation. Most surfaced roads are open to full-size vehicles unless restricted for wildlife, fish 

or watershed issues. Most unsurfaced roads are either closed yearlong or seasonally to large 

vehicles to prevent surface damage. Some unsurfaced roads remain open to vehicles less than 50 

inches in width, including motorcycles because these lighter vehicles are less likely to damage 

the surface even in wet weather.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 68

Rights of Access

I recognized valid existing rights and rights of use of National Forest System roads and trails to 

access private property as part of the designation process. Existing access to intermingled and 

adjacent landowners is retained. Seasonal restrictions designed to protect resources associated 

with this access are retained though seasons may be slightly modified.

Other Laws and Regulations

Consistency with other laws and regulations have been evaluated are in the FEIS, Chapter 1 and 

3, by resource and summarized in Attachment 5.

Permits Required

There are no permits required with this decision. 

Best Available Science

I am confident that the analysis of this project was conducted using the best available science. 

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows my staff conducted a thorough 

review of relevant scientific information, considered responsible opposing views, and 

acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Please 

refer to the specialist reports in the Project Record for specific discussions of the science and 

methods used for analysis and for literature reviewed and referenced.

Implementation

Implementation of the Travel Plan is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2016 upon signing a 

special order pursuant to 36 CFR 261, and release of the Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Opportunities

This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218. 

As the Deciding Official, of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, I have prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) and draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

DRAMVU Project as described in this document. 

The Final EIS and draft ROD are available on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usdapop.php/?project=17752. These documents are also available for review at the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests offices: Supervisors Office at 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536; 

Forest office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 83530; Red River Ranger District, at 300 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 69

American River Road, Elk City, Idaho 83525; Salmon River Ranger District at 304 Slate Creek 

Road, White Bird, Idaho 83551; and Moose Creek Ranger District at 831 Selway Road, Kooskia, 

Idaho 83539.

How to file an Objection and Timeframe

Objections will be accepted only from individual and organizations who have previously 

submitted written comments specific to the proposed project during scoping or other opportunity 

for public comment (36 CFR 218.5(a)). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously 

submitted timely, specific written comments within the scope of the proposed action and have a 

direct relationship to the proposed action and must include supporting reasons for the responsible 

official to consider them (36 CFR 218.2).

The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in §218.8(d) and 

incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). At a 

minimum, an objection must include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)): 1)The objector’s name 

and address, with a telephone number if available; 2) signature or other verification of 

authorship upon request; 3)when multiple names are listed on the objection, identification of the 

lead objector; 4) the name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, 

and the name(s) of the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed 

project will be implemented; 5) a description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed 

by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; how the objector 

believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or 

policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the 

reviewing officer to consider and 6) a statement that demonstrates the connection between prior 

specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the 

objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity for 

comment. All objections will be open to public inspection during the objection process (36 CFR 

218.8).

A written objection must be filed by way of regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, or express 

delivery to the Objection Reviewing Officer.

Mailing Address: Hand Delivery or Express Delivery:

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region USDA Forest Service, Northern Region

P. O. Box 7669 26 Fort Missoula Road

Missoula, MT 59807 Missoula, Montana 59804

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered or express delivery objections are: 

7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time), Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 

An objection can be faxed to (406) 329-3411. 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 70

Electronic objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer via e-mail to: 

appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us with “DRAMVU Project Objection” in the subject 

line. Electronic submissions must be in a format that is readable with optical character 

recognition software (e.g. Word, PDF, Rich Text) and be searchable. An automated response will 

confirm the sender’s electronic objection has been received and acknowledge the agencies 

confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the 

receipt of comments, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. In 

cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity 

will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the 

legal notice in the Lewiston Morning Tribune, the newspaper of record. Attachments received 

after the 45-day objection period will not be considered. The publication date in the newspaper 

of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to 

object this project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other

source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the 

reviewing officer pursuant to §218.9.

If no objection is received, implementation of this Decision may occur on, but not before, 5 

business days from the close of the objection filing period. If an objection is received, informal 

resolution meetings and/or conference calls between the reviewing officer and the objector may 

occur prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer’s written response. Resolution meetings with 

the objector(s) will be scheduled by the reviewing officer. The responsible official should 

participate in this meeting. All such meetings are open to the public. If anyone is interested in 

attending any informal resolution discussions, please contact the responsible official or monitor 

the following website for postings about current objections and objection responses in the 

Northern Region of the Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/objections.

The reviewing officer must issue a written response to the objector(s) concerning their 

objection(s) within 45 days following the end of the objection filing period. A written response 

to the objection must set for the reasons for the response, but need not be a point-by-pint 

response and may contain instructions to the responsible official. Objections may be 

consolidated by the reviewing officer when issuing responses.

The responsible official may not sign a decision until the reviewing officer has responded in 

writing to all pending objections and until all concerns and instructions identified by the 

reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 71

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact:

• Ralph Rau, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce National Forest

Supervisor’s Office, 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536; 208-935-2513 or 208-935-

4257; or

• Jennie Fischer, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests 

office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 83530; 208-983-4048 or 208-983-1950.

Signature and Date

__________________________________ Date: ________________________

CHERLY F. PROBERT

Forest Supervisor

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 72

Attachments– Summary

• Attachment 1–Record of Decision Maps

• Attachment 2–Trail and Road Designations; Road Management Objectives

• Attachment 3–Consultation Correspondence

• Attachment 4–Forest Plan Amendment

• Attachment 5 – Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulations 
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

Draft Record of Decision

DRAMVU-ROD  PAGE 73
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 1 - Maps  PAGE 1

Attachment 1 – Record of Decision Maps

Maps can also be viewed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=17752

Map

Number Map Description

Map Crosswalk Codes

ROD Map 1 Alternative 5, as Modified, with other decisions (Large) 

ROD Map 1a Alternative 5, as Modified

ROD Map 2 Alternative 5, as Modified, with other decisions and Idaho Roadless Areas

ROD Map 2a Alternative 5, as Modified and Idaho Roadless Areas

ROD Map 2b Alternative 5, as Modified, with other decisions - Changes from Alternative 1

ROD Map 2c Alternative 5, as Modified, with other decisions - Changes from Alternative 2 (Large)

ROD Map 2d Alternative 5, as Modified, - Changes from Alternative 1

ROD Map 2e Alternative 5, as Modified, - Changes from Alternative 2

ROD Map 3 Proposed New Trail 1

ROD Map 4 Proposed New Trail 4

ROD Map 5 Proposed New Trail 5

ROD Map 6 Dispersed Camping Trail 207

ROD Map 7 Dispersed Camping Trails 301, 330, 349

ROD Map 8 Dispersed Camping Roads 243, 243G, 243GI, 479, 1856, 1870, 9323 Trails 480, 340

ROD Map 9 Dispersed Camping Roads 394, 643

ROD Map 10 Dispersed Camping Road 444

ROD Map 11 Dispersed Camping Roads 420, 420C, 672, 672E

ROD Map 12 Dispersed Camping Trails 82, 136, 118

ROD Map 14 Dispersed Camping Trail 387

ROD Map 14 Dispersed Camping Trail 107

ROD Map 15 Wall Creek Watershed

ROD Map 16 Earthquake Basin roads
Legend Map Code DEIS Codes INFRA SDEIS Code 

MVUM Code Legend Description Vehicles greater 

than 50" width

Vehicles less 

than 50" width Motorcycle NonMotorized

OPOTH NONFS HWY, 

ACCESS ROUTE 1 Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUM Open Open Open Open

OYA OPEN, JEEP 1, 5 Open to All Vehicles Yearlong Open Open Open Open

OYS1 Y4 7, 12 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width X Open Open Open

OYS2 Y7*, ATV_1 8 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width X Open Open Open

OYM MTR_1 9 Open Yearlong to Motorcycles only X X Open Open

OSF1 W4-A* 12 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 4/2 to 11/30 Open Open Open

OSF2 W3-C, W4-A1 2 Open 4/2-11/30 to Full Size and Mot, Yrlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 4/2 to 11/30 Open 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSF3 W4 12 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 11/30 Open Open Open

OSF4 W4-B 2 Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 11/4 Open Open Open

OSF5 C4 12 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 Open Open Open

OSF6 H4 12 Open 12/2 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 12/2 to 9/14 Open Open Open

OSA1 W2-C, W3-B 2 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSA2 W2-B 2 Open 5/16 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 Open

OSA9 2 Open 6/16 -11/4 to all vehicles 6/16-11/4 6/16-11/4 6/16-11/4 Open

OSA3 W2, W3 2 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSA4 C2-A, C3,C3-C 2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 Open

OSA5 C3-B 2 Open 7/16 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 7/16 to 9/14 7/16 to 9/14 7/16 to 9/14 Open

OSA6 S-1 2 Open 9/7 - 6/19 to All Vehicles 9/7 to 6/19 9/7 to 6/19 9/7 to 6/19 Open

OSA7 H2 2 Open 12/2 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 12/2 to 9/14 12/2 thru 9/14 12/2 thru 9/14 Open

OSA8 2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to >50" vehicle, 4/2-11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSA10 W4-B2 2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to >50" vehicle, 6/16-11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS9 12 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width, Seasonal Motorcycle X Open 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSS1 or OSS2 Y8* 8, 22 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width X 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSS3 or OSS13 Y10* 8, 22 Open 5/16 - 11/30 toVehicles less than 50 inches in width X 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS10 or OSS4 Y9*, ATV_3 8, 22 Open 6/16 -11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width X 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS5 or OSS6 Y6, Y6-B 8, 22 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width X 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 Open

OSS7 ATV_2 12 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to ATV only X 6/16 to 9/14 X Open

OSM1 MTR_2 10 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycle only X X 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSM2 MTR_3 10 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Motorcycle only X X 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSM3 MTR_6 10 Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Motorcycle only X X 6/16 to 11/4 Open

OSM4 MTR_4 10 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcycle only X X 6/16 to 9/14 Open

RYA Y1, Y2,Y2-B,Y3, Y5 0 Road - Restricted Yearlong to All Motor Vehicles X X X Open

RYA 0 Trail - Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles. X X X Open

B B Decommissioned X X X Open

NDOTH NON FS JURISD, 

NODISPLAY Non FS jurisdiction Roads - Not shown on MVUM X X X X

PVT PRIVATE JURISD Non FS jurisdiction Roads - Not shown on MVUM X X X X

Nez Perce NF DRAMVU Codes

Season Motorized Vehicle Use is Allowed.

â
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!!

! !

! !

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

â â â â â â â

ââ â ââ

â â â

â

â âââ â

â ââ â ââââ

ââ

ââ

â

ââ ââ

ââ â â

ââ â â

â â ââ â â â

â â â

â â â â â â â

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

95

14

221

12

222

13

468

223

1614

464

233

420

309

441

354

243

443

284

285

286

492

493

317

311

463

672

515

651

244

234

421

279

517

1858

444

2025

648

1842

1199

263

394

319

283

17

235

1106

241

650

1803

470

357

1190

1826

242

643

1188

1808

398

1172

9822

451

2038

95A2

471

1105

337

95A1

1112

1150

646

1852

479

469

649

423

642

1800

522

1129

290

624

2060

536

653

466

1183

2028

1103

487

1809

289

9550

240

1870

1805

1819

9527

1110 1119

1807

2009

1810

222F

484

1847

1851

9449 2002

2070

410

1832

2010

4600

1185

1818

1166

2000

307

9474

1114

1853

1859

1875

475

9814

1831

444A

2023

9315

9303

464G

9325

2114

1124

233I

222D

9905

2062

9301

9461

246

9541

9320

9911

1189

2549

2515

311F

9485

641

478

9917

1194

212

1857

1820

2102

2007

643B

9848

1856

9906

2109

9836

356

420D

478B

1131

9321

9402

9924

9913

9867

1182

1860

522B

643C 9918

2026

493B

1121

9431

2575

9919

9300

9922

1120

2078 247

9335

9903

9323

222I

9466

441A

9452

1164

9910

1894

9845

9422

9435

2109C

493A

451A

9433

642A

9305

2022

221G

9728

1151

1182D

1182A

9404

9314

9450

9916

9900

1170

9925

9308

9420

643D

244D

77323

643A

222C

9706

9901

2551

9322

9310

9419

9852

9705

9533

1129D

9334

2056

1810A

9846

9532

317A

2052

672F

9400

311A

243A

9560

9843

244A

9531

9424

1196

9330

652

9438

9875

1182C

2024

1810B

2541

1196B

1820A

222P

522I

2586

1870C

9937

440A

9823A

9550C

9523

9468

9720

243B

9866

2021

9316

76808

2110

423C

1103B

9815A

263A

9436

9426

9527B

444C

672E

263D

9439D

76049

9537

463E

279C

652B

2052A

244C

9337

1862

1196A

9711

2060A

1808B

1199A

76743A

309A

9800

420E

1826D

309B

2025C

2002D

1850

9314A

9719

9470

9924B

9857

2021A

468C

103046

9902

464A

241C

451B

2026A

420B

9313

76779

9560A

1190B

9439

420C

646A

2038H

9424B

9311

9706B

2038C

1808E

9301A

76065

9846A

2552

9334A

2065

247A

9836A

2009A

9915

471E

2116

9862

9800A

9919A

475A

1856D

9531A

394D

1809B

9432

1808D

479D

9551

624B

479F

286A

9940

487B

285A

9840

222G

9866A

2009C

1826F

9419A

244B

9300A

1196D

2038B

9522

286N

284A

451F

9309

309C

1831C

9303I

2102A

9523C

222D1

1107

247A1

222K

1831D

9909

441D

9503

464B

9440

2515A

536A

9868

221P

1810C

2028A

9307

9726

233B

9845A

522J

76124

1809C

522G

1826G

1122

517B

9910A

9321E

1190B2

317B

78528

1111 233A

9325C

1899

2052C

420H

651A

9848A

2005

76311

441J

76847

78550

9317

234M1

9477A

492B

233C

309Q

9722

1809B1

536B

2025I

9550B

9426A

1104

241

309B

9728

443

212

233

9337

9337

641

284

233

9337

311

233

233

307

233

233

9848

9337

643

1182

1103

641

2021

4

96

313

3

562

505

205

502

88

726

602

415

312

431

501

113

204

508

424

309

215

201

693

835

210

503

609

327

708

202

421

537

125

438

523

526

401

836

55

586

606

881

605

300

575

723

207

312-1

713

334

826

405

214

668

626

621

628

458

641

117

328

383

800

71

212

539

4

805

203

134

577

428

833

119

447

702

332

517

208

425

310

576

809

538

315

206

706

534

510

305

832

380

455

318

224

672

231

381

226

530 610

703

150

825

436

704

580

407

219

65

324

733

340

90

728

411

426

330

422

60

59

541

507

608

118

329

320

509

555

217

311

303

583 412

222

46

351

828

647

307

802

718

299

847

584

811

611

851

410

734

115

301

603

533

163

830

587

817

110

322

444

230

531

308

136

220

166

581

601

343

335

229

387

513

632

711

712

333

443

506

477

352

829

623

121

803

618

213

801

504

183

478

807

323

588

928

607

717

821

385

107

615

547

130

317

1847

234

321

209

338

476

91

105

363

236

116

854

414

336

585

423

819

848

319

137

200

416

887

619

413

837

349

62

846

85

227

123

72

716

103

812

1808

211

82

331

831

813

64

437

834

400

670

824

126

839

884

233

493

480

151

111

135

325

535

417

9867

139

76

481

127

418

326

197

818

844

350

384

450

75

155

147

NEW3

715

2026

43

420 386

808

429

820

228

77

815

9875

861

152

353

578

225

522.1

235

354

302

810

61

419

310/88

804

806

356

99

355

382

320A

357

133

NEW2

849

NEW4 641

88

641

88

325

163

230

121

502

541

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Rackliff Slide Cr

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

Race Creek

25 Mile Cg 25 Mile Cg Boyd Creek

O'hara Bar

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Spring Bar

Spring Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Selway Falls

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek

Meadow Creek John's Creek

Castle Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Fish Creek Cg

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

Florence Cemetary

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

 Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modified

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUMOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 4/2 - 11/30OSA2 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 5/16 - 11/30OSA3 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 11/30OSA5 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 7/16 - 9/14OSA4 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 9/14OSA7 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 12/2 - 9/14OSA6 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 9/7 - 6/19OSA9 - Open Seasonally to All Vehicles. 6/16 -11/4OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Greater than 50", Open YrlnOSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size and Motorcycle, Open YearloOSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LOSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LOYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less than 50" in WidthOSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" Width

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycles Only!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyles Only

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: November 2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

Map 1 - Alternative 5 Modified

Selected Alternative, and Other Decisions
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â â â â â â

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

â â ââ

â

ââ â â

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!! !!

! !

!!

! !! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !!! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!

!

!

! ! !

â â âââ

â â â â â â â â ââ â ââ â â â â â

â â â ââ ââ

ââ

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

â â â ââ â â â ââ â

â â

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

â

â â â

â

ââ â â â â â â

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

â â ââ â â â

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

14

12

13

492

493

311

672

221

515

651

233

95

648

284

319

235

17

1614

394

1199

1803

357

242

286

441

1172

95A2

95A1

443

420

421

1852

469

317

649

1826

243

1129

1858

290

444

279

536

653

1183

466

1103

522

487

244

1805

240

263

1112

643

1807

517

463

309

222F

1188

1847

1851

2009

9449 337

283

289

9527

479

2070

1106

1832

1800

410

650

1105

9474

468

1853

1859

307

624

9814

444A

475

2038

9315

464G

2114

222D

1124

233I

223

9485

9461

9541

246

9320

1185

9911

1189

2549

2515

311F

241

1194

1857

478

1810

1870

212

2102

643B

9848

420D

478B

646

9321

1131

9402

356

9913

1818

642

1182

1860

2000

1809

522B

643C

9303

493B

2026

1121

9431

2023

2575

9919

9922

1110

9435

2078

9335

1875

398

247

9466

222I

441A

1842

9452

1164

9903

1894

9845

2109C

9422

493A

221G

9305

1182D

9910

1190

1182A

1151

9325

354

9404

9314

1856

9900

77323

9308

451

9420

1170

244D

1820

643A

9706

9901

9322

9419

1129D

9705

9533

470

2002

9334

641

2060

1819

9846

317A

9532

9400

2052

672F

311A

243A

9560

244A

9424

1196

9438

9875

1831A

9849

471 9867

1196B

1820A

2541

222P

1870C

9300

440A

9937

2062

9550C

9523

1114

9328

285

9720

243B

1150

9866

1103B 2021

9852

423C

2110

234

263A

9323

646C

672E

76049

263D

279C

244C

76743A

2060A

9337

1808B

1862

1166

9905A

9711

9318

1826D

9426

2025C

420E

9314A

9924B

9301

103046

468C

652

9815E

9904

2026A

471B

451B

9313

423

1190B

420C

2007

463E

423A

1831

309A

9324

484

76065

2552

9836A

2065

471E

2038C

2021A2

2116

9712

394D

1808D

9551

624B

9316B

1120

285A

222G

642C

9728

9450

286N

284A

9924

309C

9310

9836

9534A

517F

222K

2010

441D

2025

464B

222

2109

464

451A

1810C

1182C

651A

9909

309B

9822

9550

241C

4600

2028

1119

2010

2028

223

468

2060

1150

463

398

1112

624

650

464

1842

1106

289

95

285

354

443

263

517

1614

492

650

2038

221

444

421

233

222

9310

317

221

463

233

1614

284

471

279

468

1842

522

470

643

1119

221

354

337

1150

1114

642

1870

441

398

284

1842

443

420

1105

443

241

233

420

421

2025

221

244

443

1188

643

244

2000

443

464

9822

222

233

222

9303

517

1858

284

233

641

286

283

221

223

9325

1106

1150

284

263

1810 1818

1826

1856

9337

233

1875

286

223

1614

2023

423

1119

484

1800

283

470

468

9301

263

451

464

1820

451

311

1190

263

420

243

309

354

394

479

468

309 650

234

463

212

9867

317

1809

517

2002

286

9728

4

96

3

562

602

312

501

502

693

88

201

668

113

726 605

529

71

523

215

415

313

626

505

835

55

125

805

526

204

210

708

621

438

300

405

327

421

537

836

723 

577

606

704

305

508

586

309

401

315

576

733

328

832

826

203

412

424

312-1

575

881

207

436

800

609

134

202

208

205

458

539

583

623

712

150

322

809

206

214

538

534

383

480

503

117

332

226

60

611

447

530

310

407

713

641

455

825

311

728

324

506

610

510

702

734

219

59

318

431

706

410

584

65

425

422

411

703

710

672

608

224

714

381

333

46

301

628

334

555

509

705

507

307

119

581

580

118

847

517

647

351

335

444

720

222

587

428

601

732

110

851

136

603

163

329

115

62

229

632

718

303

166

352

63

217

231

811

1847

585

531

547

477

830

588

803

513

330

711

618

801

828

717

724

183

829

212

443

541

130

807

343

821

299

478

930

234

308

90

380

707

841

236

85

230

802

107

340

338

504

476

716

363

607

827

349

317

319

211

533

615

848

414

423

819

111

209

619

67

846

321

719

220

213

725

426

139

200

831

91

72

227

400

350

82

76

481

416

852

137

855

233

887

420

417

387

123

709

127

857

812

839

135

437

103

535

813

670

385

822

223

64

429

155

331

929

884

126

197

418

854

151

325

326

384

114

824

844

818

450

NEW3

856

870

814

45

838

147

121

75

43

842

715

228

225

61

353

578

820

152

77

354

235

493

810

861

860

806

845

99

382

419

310/88

804

871

356

320A

355

NEW1

882

357

298

133

NEW2

NEW4

849

420-CG

541

502

88

668

340

Slims

14 Mile

Slide Cr

Rackliff

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

25 Mile Cg

O'hara Bar 25 Mile Cg

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey Creek

Carey Creek Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Cougar Creek

John's Creek

Meadow Creek

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

 

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modi

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show oOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All VehicOSA2 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA3 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA5 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA4 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA7 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA6 - Open Seasonally to All VehichOSA9 - Open Seasonally to All VehicOSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles GOSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size anOSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full SizeOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, OSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, OYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles LeOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles LOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles LOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles OSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles OSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to VehicleOSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles LOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles L

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcyc!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyle

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: 10/23/2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

Map 1D - Alternative 5 

Modified Selected Alternative
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!!

! !

! !

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

â â â â â â â

ââ â ââ

â â â

â

â âââ â

â ââ â ââââ

ââ

ââ

â

ââ ââ

ââ â â

ââ â â

â â ââ â â â

â â â

â â â â â â â

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

95

14

221

12

222

13

468

223

1614

464

233

420

309

441

354

243

443

284

285

286

492

493

317

311

463

672

515

651

244

234

421

279

517

1858

444

2025

648

1842

1199

263

394

319

283

17

235

1106

241

650

1803

470

357

1190

1826

242

643

1188

1808

398

1172

9822

451

2038

95A2

471

1105

337

95A1

1112

1150

646

1852

479

469

649

423

642

1800

522

1129

290

624

2060

536

653

466

1183

2028

1103

487

1809

289

9550

240

1870

1805

1819

9527

1110 1119

1807

2009

1810

222F

484

1847

1851

9449 2002

2070

410

1832

2010

4600

1185

1818

1166

2000

307

9474

1114

1853

1859

1875

475

9814

1831

444A

2023

9315

9303

464G

9325

2114

1124

233I

222D

9905

2062

9301

9461

246

9541

9320

9911

1189

2549

2515

311F

9485

641

478

9917

1194

212

1857

1820

2102

2007

643B

9848

1856

9906

2109

9836

356

420D

478B

1131

9321

9402

9924

9913

9867

1182

1860

522B

643C 9918

2026

493B

1121

9431

2575

9919

9300

9922

1120

2078 247

9335

9903

9323

222I

9466

441A

9452

1164

9910

1894

9845

9422

9435

2109C

493A

451A

9433

642A

9305

2022

221G

9728

1151

1182D

1182A

9404

9314

9450

9916

9900

1170

9925

9308

9420

643D

244D

77323

643A

222C

9706

9901

2551

9322

9310

9419

9852

9705

9533

1129D

9334

2056

1810A

9846

9532

317A

2052

672F

9400

311A

243A

9560

9843

244A

9531

9424

1196

9330

652

9438

9875

1182C

2024

1810B

2541

1196B

1820A

222P

522I

2586

1870C

9937

440A

9823A

9550C

9523

9468

9720

243B

9866

2021

9316

76808

2110

423C

1103B

9815A

263A

9436

9426

9527B

444C

672E

263D

9439D

76049

9537

463E

279C

652B

2052A

244C

9337

1862

1196A

9711

2060A

1808B

1199A

76743A

309A

9800

420E

1826D

309B

2025C

2002D

1850

9314A

9719

9470

9924B

9857

2021A

468C

103046

9902

464A

241C

451B

2026A

420B

9313

76779

9560A

1190B

9439

420C

646A

2038H

9424B

9311

9706B

2038C

1808E

9301A

76065

9846A

2552

9334A

2065

247A

9836A

2009A

9915

471E

2116

9862

9800A

9919A

475A

1856D

9531A

394D

1809B

9432

1808D

479D

9551

624B

479F

286A

9940

487B

285A

9840

222G

9866A

2009C

1826F

9419A

244B

9300A

1196D

2038B

9522

286N

284A

451F

9309

309C

1831C

9303I

2102A

9523C

222D1

1107

247A1

222K

1831D

9909

441D

9503

464B

9440

2515A

536A

9868

221P

1810C

2028A

9307

9726

233B

9845A

522J

76124

1809C

522G

1826G

1122

517B

9910A

9321E

1190B2

317B

78528

1111 233A

9325C

1899

2052C

420H

651A

9848A

2005

76311

441J

76847

78550

9317

234M1

9477A

492B

233C

309Q

9722

1809B1

536B

2025I

9550B

9426A

1104

241

309B

9728

443

212

233

9337

9337

641

284

233

9337

311

233

233

307

233

233

9848

9337

643

1182

1103

641

2021

4

96

313

3

562

505

205

502

88

726

602

415

312

431

501

113

204

508

424

309

215

201

693

835

210

503

609

327

708

202

421

537

125

438

523

526

401

836

55

586

606

881

605

300

575

723

207

312-1

713

334

826

405

214

668

626

621

628

458

641

117

328

383

800

71

212

539

4

805

203

134

577

428

833

119

447

702

332

517

208

425

310

576

809

538

315

206

706

534

510

305

832

380

455

318

224

672

231

381

226

530 610

703

150

825

436

704

580

407

219

65

324

733

340

90

728

411

426

330

422

60

59

541

507

608

118

329

320

509

555

217

311

303

583 412

222

46

351

828

647

307

802

718

299

847

584

811

611

851

410

734

115

301

603

533

163

830

587

817

110

322

444

230

531

308

136

220

166

581

601

343

335

229

387

513

632

711

712

333

443

506

477

352

829

623

121

803

618

213

801

504

183

478

807

323

588

928

607

717

821

385

107

615

547

130

317

1847

234

321

209

338

476

91

105

363

236

116

854

414

336

585

423

819

848

319

137

200

416

887

619

413

837

349

62

846

85

227

123

72

716

103

812

1808

211

82

331

831

813

64

437

834

400

670

824

126

839

884

233

493

480

151

111

135

325

535

417

9867

139

76

481

127

418

326

197

818

844

350

384

450

75

155

147

NEW3

715

2026

43

420 386

808

429

820

228

77

815

9875

861

152

353

578

225

522.1

235

354

302

810

61

419

310/88

804

806

356

99

355

382

320A

357

133

NEW2

849

NEW4 641

88

641

88

325

163

230

121

502

541

West Meadow Creek

East Meadow Creek

Gospel Hump

Rackliff - Gedney

Mallard

John Day

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Silver Creek - Pilot Knob

Rapid River

Clear Creek

Salmon Face

Little Slate Creek

Lick Point

North Fork Slate Creek

Rapid River

Dixie Summit - Nut Hill

Rapid River

O'Hara - Falls Creek

New - West Fork Crooked River

Little Slate Creek North

Rapid River

O'Hara - Falls Creek

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Adjacent to Gospel Hump Wilderness

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Little Slate Creek North

Rackliff - Gedney

Dixie Summit - Nut Hill

East Meadow Creek

Rackliff - Gedney

Rackliff - Gedney

West Meadow Creek

Rackliff - Gedney

Rackliff - Gedney

Rackliff - Gedney

West Meadow Creek

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

25 Mile Cg

25 Mile Cg

Boyd Creek

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Spring Bar

Spring Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek

Meadow Creek John's Creek

Castle Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Fish Creek Cg

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

Florence Cemetary

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

 Legend

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Idaho Roadless AreaROADLESS_N

Adjacent to Gospel Hump WildernessClear CreekDixie Summit - Nut HillEast Meadow CreekGospel HumpJohn DayLick PointLittle Slate CreekLittle Slate Creek NorthMallardNew - West Fork Crooked RiverNorth Fork Slate CreekO'Hara - Falls CreekRackliff - GedneyRapid RiverSalmon FaceSelway BitterrootSilver Creek - Pilot KnobWest Meadow Creek

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modified

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUMOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 4/2 - 11/3OSA2 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 5/16 - 11/3OSA3 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 11/3OSA5 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 7/16 - 9/14OSA4 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 9/14OSA7 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 12/2 - 9/14OSA6 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 9/7 - 6/19OSA9 - Open Seasonally to All Vehicles. 6/16 -11/4OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Greater than 50OSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size and Motorcycle, OSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open YearlonOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong OSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open YearlonOYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles Less Than 50" WOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" OSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" OSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less than 50OSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50OSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 5OSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" OSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" 

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycles Only!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyles Only

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: November 2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

52'Map  - Alternative 5 Modified

Selected Alternative, and Other Decisions
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â â â â â â

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

â â ââ

â

ââ â â

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!! !!

! !

!!

! !! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !!! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!

!

!

! ! !

â â âââ

â â â â â â â â ââ â ââ â â â â â

â â â ââ ââ

ââ

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

â â â ââ â â â ââ â

â â

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

â

â â â

â

ââ â â â â â â

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

â â ââ â â â

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

14

12

13

492

493

311

672

221

515

651

233

95

648

284

319

235

17

1614

394

1199

1803

357

242

286

441

1172

95A2

95A1

443

420

421

1852

469

317

649

1826

243

1129

1858

290

444

279

536

653

1183

466

1103

522

487

244

1805

240

263

1112

643

1807

517

463

309

222F

1188

1847

1851

2009

9449 337

283

289

9527

479

2070

1106

1832

1800

410

650

1105

9474

468

1853

1859

307

624

9814

444A

475

2038

9315

464G

2114

222D

1124

233I

223

9485

9461

9541

246

9320

1185

9911

1189

2549

2515

311F

241

1194

1857

478

1810

1870

212

2102

643B

9848

420D

478B

646

9321

1131

9402

356

9913

1818

642

1182

1860

2000

1809

522B

643C

9303

493B

2026

1121

9431

2023

2575

9919

9922

1110

9435

2078

9335

1875

398

247

9466

222I

441A

1842

9452

1164

9903

1894

9845

2109C

9422

493A

221G

9305

1182D

9910

1190

1182A

1151

9325

354

9404

9314

1856

9900

77323

9308

451

9420

1170

244D

1820

643A

9706

9901

9322

9419

1129D

9705

9533

470

2002

9334

641

2060

1819

9846

317A

9532

9400

2052

672F

311A

243A

9560

244A

9424

1196

9438

9875

1831A

9849

471 9867

1196B

1820A

2541

222P

1870C

9300

440A

9937

2062

9550C

9523

1114

9328

285

9720

243B

1150

9866

1103B 2021

9852

423C

2110

234

263A

9323

646C

672E

76049

263D

279C

244C

76743A

2060A

9337

1808B

1862

1166

9905A

9711

9318

1826D

9426

2025C

420E

9314A

9924B

9301

103046

468C

652

9815E

9904

2026A

471B

451B

9313

423

1190B

420C

2007

463E

423A

1831

309A

9324

484

76065

2552

9836A

2065

471E

2038C

2021A2

2116

9712

394D

1808D

9551

624B

9316B

1120

285A

222G

642C

9728

9450

286N

284A

9924

309C

9310

9836

9534A

517F

222K

2010

441D

2025

464B

222

2109

464

451A

1810C

1182C

651A

9909

309B

9822

9550

241C

4600

2028

1119

2010

2028

223

468

2060

1150

463

398

1112

624

650

464

1842

1106

289

95

285

354

443

263

517

1614

492

650

2038

221

444

421

233

222

9310

317

221

463

233

1614

284

471

279

468

1842

522

470

643

1119

221

354

337

1150

1114

642

1870

441

398

284

1842

443

420

1105

443

241

233

420

421

2025

221

244

443

1188

643

244

2000

443

464

9822

222

233

222

9303

517

1858

284

233

641

286

283

221

223

9325

1106

1150

284

263

1810 1818

1826

1856

9337

233

1875

286

223

1614

2023

423

1119

484

1800

283

470

468

9301

263

451

464

1820

451

311

1190

263

420

243

309

354

394

479

468

309 650

234

463

212

9867

317

1809

517

2002

286

9728

4

96

3

562

602

312

501

502

693

88

201

668

113

726 605

529

71

523

215

415

313

626

505

835

55

125

805

526

204

210

708

621

438

300

405

327

421

537

836

723 

577

606

704

305

508

586

309

401

315

576

733

328

832

826

203

412

424

312-1

575

881

207

436

800

609

134

202

208

205

458

539

583

623

712

150

322

809

206

214

538

534

383

480

503

117

332

226

60

611

447

530

310

407

713

641

455

825

311

728

324

506

610

510

702

734

219

59

318

431

706

410

584

65

425

422

411

703

710

672

608

224

714

381

333

46

301

628

334

555

509

705

507

307

119

581

580

118

847

517

647

351

335

444

720

222

587

428

601

732

110

851

136

603

163

329

115

62

229

632

718

303

166

352

63

217

231

811

1847

585

531

547

477

830

588

803

513

330

711

618

801

828

717

724

183

829

212

443

541

130

807

343

821

299

478

930

234

308

90

380

707

841

236

85

230

802

107

340

338

504

476

716

363

607

827

349

317

319

211

533

615

848

414

423

819

111

209

619

67

846

321

719

220

213

725

426

139

200

831

91

72

227

400

350

82

76

481

416

852

137

855

233

887

420

417

387

123

709

127

857

812

839

135

437

103

535

813

670

385

822

223

64

429

155

331

929

884

126

197

418

854

151

325

326

384

114

824

844

818

450

NEW3

856

870

814

45

838

147

121

75

43

842

715

228

225

61

353

578

820

152

77

354

235

493

810

861

860

806

845

99

382

419

310/88

804

871

356

320A

355

NEW1

882

357

298

133

NEW2

NEW4

849

420-CG

541

502

88

668

340

West Meadow Creek

East Meadow Creek

Gospel Hump

Rackliff - Gedney

Mallard

John Day

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Silver Creek - Pilot Knob

Rapid River

Clear Creek

Salmon Face

Little Slate Creek

Lick Point

North Fork Slate Creek

Rapid River

Dixie Summit - Nut Hill

Rapid River

O'Hara - Falls Creek

New - West Fork Crooked River

Little Slate Creek North

Rapid River

O'Hara - Falls Creek

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Adjacent to Gospel Hump Wilderness

O'Hara - Falls Creek

Little Slate Creek North

Rackliff - Gedney

Dixie Summit - Nut Hill

East Meadow Creek

Rackliff - Gedney

Rackliff - Gedney

West Meadow Creek

Rackliff - Gedney

Rackliff - Gedney

Slims

14 Mile

Slide Cr

Rackliff

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

25 Mile Cg

25 Mile Cg

Boyd Creek

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Indian Hill

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey Creek

Carey Creek Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Cougar Creek

John's Creek

Meadow Creek

Mallard Creek

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

 Legend

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modified

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUMOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 4/2 - 11/30OSA2 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 5/16 - 11/30OSA3 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 11/30OSA5 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 7/16 - 9/14OSA4 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 9/14OSA7 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 12/2 - 9/14OSA6 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 9/7 - 6/19OSA9 - Open Seasonally to All Vehicles. 6/16 -11/4OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Greater than 50", Open Yrlng to Vehicles Less than 5OSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size and Motorcycle, Open Yearlong Vehicles Less Than 5OSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less than 50" in WidthOSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" Width

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycles Only!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyles Only

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: 10/23/2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

52'Map D - Alternative 5 Modified

Selected Alternative:LWK,5$V
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!!

! !

! !

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! !!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

â â â â â â â

ââ â ââ

â â â

â

â âââ â

â ââ â ââââ

ââ

ââ

ââ â â

â âââ

â â ââ â â â

â â â

â â â â â â

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

221

444

443

394

283

1826

643

243

646

1852

451

1103

9822

9550

1150

1810

1847

1851

1808

479

354

1832

1800

1166

9474

9814

1831

444A

2023

464G

9461

1185

311F

9559

9738

9485

478

2028

1857

1820

398

643B

641

478B

76014

9867

1182

1899

222C1

9435

9318

1834

650D

9466

1164

1894

451A

9558

221G

1842

2010

1182A

440C

286H

1170

286I

9420

643D

77323

643A

2056

9706

9852

1810A

649A

9330

9438

9875

284K

2024

1810B

1820A

307H

284J

522I

1870C

9823A

9523

9468

243B

9866

1103B

2022

9815A

9436

9426

444C

9439D

76049 76802

463E

279C

2052A

244C

451I

284I

9735

1808B

1199A

76743A

309A

9905A

9800

1826D

78556

440D

9935 2002D

9423

307G

440B

337

1103H

2022A

1809

1899A

284C

471B

451B 451D

76779

1106A

9439

646A

9739

78359

78346

76808

423A

9706B

2038C

9313

9465

1856A

76065

650D2

1858F

471E

1106E

2116

9862

2070A

9800A

76810

2023B

1809B

9740

1808D

9328

624B

9865

9734

9815D

1808C

9452B

9322A

9469

394L

9866A 9811C

1826F

410

1112C3

1858B

9409

78351

2038B

284A

9322B

1856B

1807A

1831C

76803

76782

1858G

9523C

1106B

1831D

1199B

643K

4600B

9519A

78343

9321C

78387

77334

2114A

1106D

9868

522H1

643I

2021A

1810C

9309B

76124

9426B

9905

650H2

1826G

317B

76743C

221X

440E1

1111

440G

9315A

76847

284B

78550

1160D

650K

9427

1809B1

9331

76895

9935A

317C

643

1808

641

2028

505

88

835

327

609

537

708

508

605

723

207

713

668

726

117

328

205

334

539

805

119

702

641

809

534

832

224

530

703

825

704

733

340

517

411

426

330

422

541

507

118

329

320

509

303

46 828

647

628

307

502

718

847

611

324

734

115

603

163

529

110

322

531

136

581

335

387

513

632

711

333

506

829

308

801

504

183

807

323

928

717

385

107

615

1847

234

209

338

830

817

105

121

116

336

313

819

848

319

137

416

887

837

349

846

123

716

103

1808

82

425

831

834

824

493

480

111

325

535

417

839

212

533

418

197

214

818

844

45

301

715

2026

43

386

808

820

672

9867

90

815

821

9875

861

85

522.1

302

810

230

419

310/88

235

428

NEW5

320A

NEW1

133

849

NEW4

726

230

121

88

325

88

205

541

121

301

205

641

308

163

313

95

14

12

13

221

222

648

672

492

651

285

493

468

279

441

309

17

311

290

233

319

1803

517

286

443

464

244

515

394

1199

357

650

241

284

234

1614

649

263

354

444

235

242

1106

1172

420

95A2

1805

1105

423

451

223

317

2025

1858

1852

653

240

1129

421

1826

1842

1183

9822

410

243

95A1

470

2060

2515

1188

1112

642

475

466

9911

646

463

469

487

9315

1853

2038

1190

536

283

479

1847

1150

9845

2028

2052

522

624

398

1851

1832

2026

2109

222F

1194

9325

1807

1810

1857

307

9303

9320

1189

1196

1860

2009

9449

9321

9916

9450

9901

2023

222D

9906

289

4600

337

2549

1875

2007

9527

1110

247

9431

9541

2000

1131

1119

9452

1859

2114

464G

1818

471

9335

672F

9308

423C

1831

444A

1151

9919

9913

233I

246

1800

420D

9848

1124

9903

1809

1121

9301

1819

1870

9836

2062

1170

212

9924

9846

2575

9533

9560

9531

2078

9337

1894

243A

9300

9922

2102

9402

9711

222I

1114

244D

641

643B

9305

478B

9334

9705

1856

9404

2010

9905

9435

1182

356

522B

9438

484

9910

643C

9316

1166

9917

493B

9534

76049

9310

2109C

9477

9433

9866

9720

9918

9316B

2551

241C

1196A

1182D

441A

9400

317A

9465

9314

9728

9432

444C

9836A

493A

1810B

1182A

9419

451I

643A

1190B

2021

1129D

2002

263A

9719

311A

9314A

9532

468C

1810A

2060A

9550C

2552

9334A

9900

1850

9843

76743A

222P

1862

247A

394D

9925

9470

244A

9311

1196B

2024

9846A

9503

279C

2586

9522

9537

9419A

9424B

1826A

9815A

9902

1196C

2025C

642A

420I

2009C

2541

420C

263D

9849

475A

9425

2052A

9937

9906A

672E

1131A

646C

78560

9323

463E

9857

2110

1854

420B

9914

1182C

103046

2009A

9852

76742

1808E

9815E

222G

309B

9904

2515A

1196D

9848B

9532A

9300A

9551

420E

451G

1856D

9712

536A

9313

9703

464A

2025B

9531A

9919A

9470C

2038H

651A

247C

9909

9940

1107

222D1

9324

479D

9470A

9440

1196C1

642A1

487B

244B

9321D

221I

9866A1

9910A

9915

9840

9477A

9303I

9942

2065

2021A2

4600A

1857A

420H

76809

9303F

309C

9538

76656

286N

9335B

441D

222C3

9912

285A

642C

9902A

492B

76803

1103A

247A1

309Q

1809C

394I

9307

2102A

9859

9701

1182B

464B

9323B

2038E

9550B

9534A

2003

279L

9419B

1151B

517A

9466A

76788

9325A

9435A

420F

286A

1190B2

1151A

464G1

354G

9868

1104

1122

222K

221P

243G

9303C

2028A

493G

223N

243E

9848A

9537A

646B

522J

108010

420G

9726

522K

9320A

652

441J

9845A

672F1

9325C

1114C

9317

9303G

2005

1858C

233A 2025I

76311

311C

471E1

240A

9541C

234M1

241G

536B

233C

9306

1190M

9722

672F2

2109C1

286B

221C

9321B

2023A

9550

2107

1858A

9910A1

309F

9311A

9315B

283B

9814D

2109A

319A

1863

2052B

444D

493A2

222F1

309P

546

1819A

9320C

9832

1806

492D

222E

643A1

9308B

1129B

2006

78410

76886

2038I

2079

221Q

451G1

76310

2007B

9350

492A

9910B

1106N

9545

103026

223D

443B

354F

1826C

1182A1

108011

1826B

285B

1808A

463F

286D

1400

2000F

517C

244G

354B

9720A

9852B

223Q

223W

1190A

1101

223N1

1182D1

309D

1614D

1614A

2564

1614C

9534E

1123

443D

2108

1864

9448

2107C

290F

233E

444E

223T

444B

9405

76846

9325B

222A 421B

223Z

233D

468N

1863A

234D

103042

223G

233J

2113

223E

223I

222J

1402

1404

1614C1

468F

223M

1403

1108

223O

2108B

468E

223M1

1182

1870

9337

233

9337

9337

233

9728

309B

9337

443

2062

233

212

233

286

2021

284

9545

9337

9917

221

2038

233

233

241

233

311

233

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Slide Cr

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

Race Creek

25 Mile Cg 25 Mile Cg Boyd Creek O'hara Bar

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Kirks Fork

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Cotter Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Selway Falls

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek John's Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Fish Creek Cg

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway-Bitt

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modified Change

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUMOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 4/2 - 11/30OSA2 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 5/16 - 11/30OSA3 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 11/30OSA5 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 7/16 - 9/14OSA4 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 9/14OSA7 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 12/2 - 9/14OSA6 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 9/7 - 6/19OSA9 - Open Seasonally to All Vehicles. 6/16 -11/4OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Greater than 50", Open OSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size and Motorcycle, Open YeOSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong VehiclOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong VehicleOSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong VehicleOYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less than 50" in WidthOSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" Width

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycles Only!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyles Only

RYA - Restricted Yearlong to All Motor Vehciles

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: November 2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

52'Map E - Alternative 5 Modified

Changes From Alternative 1
!! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !! !

!!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!!

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!!

â â âââ

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

Dixie

221

444

443

394

283

1826

643

243

646

1852

451

1103

9822

9550

1150

1810

1847

1851

1808

479

1832

1800

1166

9474

286

9814

1831

444A

2023

464G

641

1185

311F

478

2028

1857

1820

398

643B

2056

478B

9867

1182

440

1120

9435

9318

650D

9466

1164

1894

9422

451A

221G

1842

1182A

440C

1170

9420

643D

643A

9852

1810A

649A

2010

9330

1834B

9438

284K

2024

1810B

1820A

307H

284J

522I

1870C

9523

243B

9866

1103B

2022

222K

9815A

9436

9527B

444C

9439D

76049 76802

463E

279C

2052A

244C

451I

284I

1808B

1199A

76743A

309A

9905A

9800

1826D

78556

440D

2002D

9423

307G

652

2022A

1809

471B

451B 451D

76779

1106A

9439

646A

78359

78346

235

76808

9313

9465

76065

650D2

1858F

471E

1106E

2116

9862

2070A

9800A

76810

1808D

1809B

9328

9865

9815D

1808C

9322A

394L

309P1

9866A 9811C

1826F

410

1858B

9409

9450

78351

284A

9322B

1807A

1831C

76803

76782

1858G

9523C

337

1831D

1199B

643K

4600B

9519A

78343

9321C

78387

1106D

9868

522H1

643I

2021A

1810C

9309B

76124

9905

650H2

1826G

317B

76743C

221X

440E1

1111

2052C

440G

9315A

76847

78550

1160D

650K

9427

1809B1

9331

317C

2028

1808

1103

505

88

835

708

723

207

508

117

328

428

702

809

703

704

334

733

340

426

422

541

118

329

320

509

828

307

502

847

611

734

163

303

136

668

308

335

513

333

506

121

504

807

717

385

107

726

1847

234

830

116

336

313

387

837

716

1808

82

713

425

831

493

517

480

135

325

212

844

330

824

301

2026

43

386

641

808

672

9867

821

810

310/88

NEW5

320A

NEW1

NEW4

641

88

726

541

301

325

641

163

88

313

303

95

14

12

13

221

222

648

672

492

651

285

493

468

279

441

309

17

311

290

233

319

1803

517

286

443

464

244

515

394

1199

357

650

241

284

234

1614

649

263

354

444

235

242

1106

1172

420

95A2

1805

1105

423

451

223

317

2025

1858

1852

653

240

1129

421

1826

1842

1183

9822

410

243

95A1

470

2060

2515

1188

1112

642

475

1103

466

9911

646

463

469

487

9315

1853

2038

1190

536

283

479

1847

1150

9845

2028

2052

522

624

398

1851

1832

2026

2109

222F

1194

9325

1807

1810

1857

307

9303

9320

1189

1196

1860

2009

9449

9321

9916

9450

9901

2023

222D

9906

289

4600

1185

337

2549

1875

2007

9527

1110

247

9431

9541

2000

1131

1119

9452

1859

2114

464G

1818

471

9335

672F

9308

423C

1831

444A

1151

9919

9913

233I

246

1800

420D

9848

1124

9903

1809

1121

9301

1819

1870

9836

2062

1170

212

9924

9846

2575

9533

9560

9531

2078

9337

1894

243A

9300

9922

2102

9402

9711

222I

1114

244D

641

643B

9305

478B

9334

9705

1856

9404

2010

9905

9435

1182

356

522B

9438

484

9910

643C

9316

1166

9917

493B

9534

76049

9310

2109C

9477

9433

9866

9720

9918

9316B

2551

241C

1196A

1182D

441A

9400

317A

9465

9314

9728

9432

444C

9836A

493A

1810B

1182A

9419

451I

643A

1190B

2021

1129D

2002

263A

9719

311A

9314A

9532

468C

1810A

9318

2060A

9550C

2552

9334A

9900

1850

9843

76743A

222P

1862

247A

9924B

394D

9925

9470

244A

9311

1196B

2024

9846A

9503

279C

2586

9522

9537

9419A

9424B

1826A

9815A

9902

1196C

2025C

642A

420I

2009C

2541

420C

263D

9849

475A

9425

2052A

9937

9906A

672E

1131A

646C

78560

9323

463E

9857

2110

1854

420B

9914

1182C

103046

2009A

9852

76742

1808E

9815E

222G

309B

9904

2515A

1196D

9848B

9532A

9300A

9551

420E

451G

1856D

9712

536A

9313

9703

464A

2025B

9531A

9919A

9470C

2038H

651A

247C

9909

9940

1107

222D1

9324

479D

9470A

9440

1196C1

642A1

487B

244B

9321D

9862A

221I

9866A1

9910A

9915

9840

9477A

9303I

9942

2065

2021A2

4600A

1857A

420H

76809

9303F

309C

9538

76656

286N

9335B

441D

222C3

9912

285A

642C

9902A

492B

76803

1103A

247A1

309Q

1809C

394I

9307

2102A

9859

9701

1182B

464B

4649

9323B

2038E

9550B

9534A

2003

279L

9419B

1151B

517A

9466A

76788

9325A

9435A

420F

286A

1190B2

1151A

464G1

354G

9868

1104

1122

222K

221P

243G

9303C

2028A

493G

223N

243E

9848A

9537A

646B

522J

108010

420G

9726

522K

233B

9320A

652

441J

9845A

672F1

9325C

1114C

9317

9303G

2005

1858C

233A 2025I

76311

311C

471E1

240A

9541C

234M1

241G

536B

233C

9306

1190M

9722

672F2

2109C1

286B

221C

9321B

2023A

9550

2107

1858A

9910A1

309F

9311A

9315B

283B

9814D

2109A

319A

1863

2052B

444D

493A2

222F1

546

9404B

1819A

9320C

9832

1806

492D

222E

643A1

9308B

1129B

2006

78410

76886

2038I

2079

221Q

451G1

76310

2007B

9350

492A

9910B

1106N

9545

103026

223D

443B

354F

1826C

1182A1

108011

1826B

285B

1808A

463F

286D

1400

2000F

517C

244G

354B

9720A

9852B

223Q

223W

1190A

1826G1

1101

1182D1

309D

2000A

1614D

1614A

2564

1116

1614C

9534E

1123

443D

2108

1864

9448

2107C

290F

233E

444E

223T

444B

9405

76846

9325B

222A 421B

223Z

233D

468N

1863A

234D

103042

223G

233J

222O

471D

2113

223E

223I

222J

1402

1404

1614C1

468F

223M

1403

1108

223O

2108B

468E

223M1

9728

233

233

443

9337

212

233 9337

233

9337

9545

2062

233

9337

311

2021

286

9337

233

241

233

2038

9848

1182

233

1870

9917

284

309B

221

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Slide Cr

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

Race Creek

25 Mile Cg 25 Mile Cg Boyd Creek O'hara Bar

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Kirks Fork

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Cotter Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Selway Falls

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek John's Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

North Fork Slate Creek

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Selway

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

 

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternatve 5 Modified Changes F

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUMOYA - Open to All Vehichles YearlongOSA1 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 4/2 - 11/30OSA2 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 5/16 - 11/30OSA3 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 11/30OSA5 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 7/16 - 9/14OSA4 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 6/16 - 9/14OSA7 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 12/2 - 9/14OSA6 - Open Seasonally to All Vehichles 9/7 - 6/19OSA9 - Open Seasonally to All Vehicles. 6/16 -11/4OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Greater than 50", Open Yrlng OSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to Full Size and Motorcycle, Open Yearlong OSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LesOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LesOSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles LesOYS1 - Open Yearlong to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less than 50" in WidthOSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" WidthOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles Less Than 50" Width

!!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycles Only!!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcyles Only

RYA - Restricted Yearlong to All Motor Vehicles

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: November 2015

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Record of Decision

52'Map F - Alternative 5 Modified Changes 

From Alternative :LWK2WKHU'HFLVLRQV
! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!! !!

! !

!!

! !!! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â âââ

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

95

14

12

222

13

468

223

1614

464

233

221

420

309

441

354

284

285

492

493

317

311

463

672

515 286

651

244

234

421

279

517

1858

243

2025

648

1199

263

394

319

1842

17 235

1106

241

650

1803

470

357

1190

242

1188

1172

95A2

471

443

1105

95A1

1112

337

451

469

649

423

642

522

1129

398

290

624

2060

536

653

466

1183

643

487

289

240

1805

1819

9527

1110

1119

1807

1809

222F

484

2009

9449

2002

2070

410

9822

4600

1818

2000

307

1114

1853

1859

1875

475

2038

9315

9303

9325

2114

1124

1870

233I

222D

9905

2062

9301

9461

246

9541

9320

9911

1189

2549

2515

479

9485

641

9917

1194

212

1808

2102

2007

643B

9848

1856

9906

2109

9836

356

420D

1131

9321

9402

9924

9913

9534

1860

522B

1800

643C 9918

2026

493B

1121

9431

2575

9919

9300

9922

2078

9318

247

9335

9903

9323

222I

441A

9452

2010

9910

9845

2109C

493A

9433

642A

9305

221G

9728

1151

1182D

1182

283

9404

9314

9916

9900

9925

9308

643D

244D

77323

643A

222C

9706

9901

2551

9322

9310

9419

9705

9533

1129D

9334

9450

9846

1150

9532

317A

9435

2052

672F

9400

311A

243A

9560

9843

244A

9531

9424

1196

9875

2022

9849

1182C

2541

1196B

222P

2586

9937

440A

9823A

9550C

9328

9468

9720

2021

9316

2110

423C

9477

263A

9426

672E

78560

263D

9537

9337

1131A

1862

2028

1196A

9711

2060A

9905A

420E

309B

2025C

1850

9314A

9719

9470

1185

9924B

9906A

9857

468C

103046

9902

9527D

9322A

9904

9425

464A

241C

2026A

420B

9313

1196C

9560A

1190B

420C

2038H

9470A

423A

9311

9324

9706B

2038C

9301A

9846A

2552

9334A

642A1

2065

247A

9836A

2009A

9915

9538

2021A2

9712

1856D

9531A

394D

9432

9321C

9551

624B

286A

9940

9316B

487B

285A

9840

222G 9528

9848B

2009C

9323B

642C

9703

9419A

9527E

394I

420B1

244B

9300A

1196D

2038B

652

1857A

9522

522H

9419B

286N

9322B

9309

309C

9303I

2102A

354G

222D1

1107

222K

2038E

517F

9534A

420F

9909

441D

9503 464B

9440

9419D

2515A

536A

9859

221P

9902A

2028A 9307

9726

76808

522J

517A

1151A

9426B

1809C

221I

1122

9470C

9910A

9912

243E

233A

9325C

1899

247C

1807B

651A

9848A

9315A

240A

2005

76311

1831B

441J

311C

1858C

9320A

9470B

234M1

9477A

1114C

492B

233C

9335B

309Q

9328B

9825A

9722

536B

672F1

2025I

279L

2109A

9315B

9429

9550

9527C

9527A

9550B

9313A1

9832

9320C

319A

222F1

9541C

1806

9426A

76305

286B

2070A1

1129B

9424A

1858I1

2038C1

76310

234A

2006

221Q

2003

1104

2052B

493G

223N

522K

420G

286

2021

221

9848

9859

233

9337

309B

641

284

233

9337

311

1150

233

233

2038

233

212

233

2010

9337

241

9728

443

641

9337

309B

221

443

643

1852

451

1826

444

1103

9550

1150

1847

1851

283

479

1832

1800

9474

9814

286

444A

464G

1185

311F

1857

1810

478

398

478B

646

1182

440

2023

9435

9466

1164

1894

9422

1182A

1842

243

9420

1170

1820

1810A

2056

641

649A

9438

1810B

1820A

9867

2024

1870C

522I

2010

9523

1103B

9866

9852

9815A

9527B

222K

646C

444C

9436

76049

76802

279C

76743A

244C

1808B

1199A

1166

1826D

451I

9800

9439

9423

1854

1809

471B

451B

76779

451D

646A

1858D

463E

1808E

1831

309A

76065

9800A

471E

76743 2116

9862

1808D

1809B

9815D

1120

309P1

1826F

2022

307

284A

1103A

410

76803

337

76788

643H

1810C

9868

643I

1826G

9330

78528

317B

1111

76847

9822

78550

643J

1807A

317C

2028

1808

9867

2056

646

283

1826

443

1182

1810

243

641

444

1820

643

9822

2023

1808

2028

1120

1103

1808

1831

9822

443

1166

88

505

835

708

723

704

508

733

328

207

809

480

611

506

702

734

422

320

703

333

502

334

509

307

118

847

335

428

136

163

303

668

1847

830

513

330

828

717

541

807

234

308

107

340

504

716

726

1808

837

808

426

82

387

713

385

301

313

212

517

135

325

824

844

425

641

2026

121

43

821

116

386

672

493

810

310/88

320A

NEW4

312

726

88

541

88

301

163

641

303

325

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Rackliff Slide Cr

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

Race Creek

25 Mile Cg 25 Mile Cg

O'hara Bar Boyd Creek

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Kirks Fork

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Spring Bar

Spring Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Selway Falls

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek John's Creek Meadow Creek Castle Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Fish Creek Cg

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

Florence Cemetary

North Fork Slate Creek

Nelson Creek Campground

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Fish Creek Pavilion Nordic

Selway-Bitte

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

117

641

534

222

329

88

431

712

209

301

817

854

319

416

887

821

413

349

205

214

9875

323

839 424

641 641

641

% %

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Final Environmental Impact Statement

52'Map G- Alternative 5 Mod 

Road and Trail Changes from Alternative 1

:

 Legend

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE

!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternative 5 CRoads - Alternative 5

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes - OYA - Open to All Vehichles YOSA1 - Open Seasonally to AOSA2 - Open Seasonally to AOSA3 - Open Seasonally to AOSA5 - Open Seasonally to AOSA4 - Open Seasonally to AOSA7 - Open Seasonally to AOSA6 - Open Seasonally to AOSA9 - Open Seasonally to AOSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to VeOSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to FulOSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to FOSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to FuOSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to FOYS1 - Open Yearlong to VeOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to VeOSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to VeOSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 to OSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to VOSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to OSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to VOSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to V

!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to M!!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to M

RYA - Restricted Yearlong to A

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: SMGrubb 09/25/14; Created CFahy 2011

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

Mothe To  witmocurSin off  ca traAga the Baror don circAny mo*Cu*Us*Cr*Pi

Mo30In of 
! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!! !!

! !

!!

! !!! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

â â âââ

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

9"

9"

5"

9" 9"

5"!E

!y

!y

!y

!Z

!E

9"

5"

5"

5"

9"9" 9" !E !E

9"

5"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

!E

!E

!E

!E

!y

9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

!E

9"

!E

!E

!E

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

9" 9" 9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

!E

9"

9"

!y

9"

9"

%

%

%

%

Kooskia

Grangeville

95

14

12

222

13

468

223

1614

464

233

221

420

309

441

354

284

285

492

493

317

311

463

672

515 286

651

244

234

421

279

517

1858

243

2025

648

1199

263

394

319

1842

17 235

1106

241

650

1803

470

357

1190

242

1188

1172

95A2

471

443

1105

95A1

1112

337

451

469

649

423

642

522

1129

398

290

624

2060

536

653

466

1183

643

487

289

240

1805

1819

9527

1110

1119

1807

1809

222F

484

2009

9449

2002

2070

410

9822

4600

1818

2000

307

1114

1853

1859

1875

475

2038

9315

9303

9325

2114

1124

1870

233I

222D

9905

2062

9301

9461

246

9541

9320

9911

1189

2549

2515

479

9485

641

9917

1194

212

1808

2102

2007

643B

9848

1856

9906

2109

9836

356

420D

1131

9321

9402

9924

9913

9534

1860

522B

1800

643C 9918

2026

493B

1121

9431

2575

9919

9300

9922

2078

9318

247

9335

9903

9323

222I

441A

9452

2010

9910

9845

2109C

493A

9433

642A

9305

221G

9728

1151

1182D

1182

283

9404

9314

9916

9900

9925

9308

643D

244D

77323

643A

222C

9706

9901

2551

9322

9310

9419

9705

9533

1129D

9334

9450

9846

1150

9532

317A

9435

2052

672F

9400

311A

243A

9560

9843

244A

9531

9424

1196

9875

2022

9849

1182C

2541

1196B

222P

2586

9937

440A

9823A

9550C

9328

9468

9720

2021

9316

2110

423C

9477

263A

9426

672E

78560

263D

9537

9337

1131A

1862

2028

1196A

9711

2060A

9905A

420E

309B

2025C

1850

9314A

9719

9470

1185

9924B

9906A

9857

468C

103046

9902

9527D

9322A

9904

9425

464A

241C

2026A

420B

9313

1196C

9560A

1190B

420C

2038H

9470A

423A

9311

9324

9706B

2038C

9301A

9846A

2552

9334A

642A1

2065

247A

9836A

2009A

9915

9538

2021A2

9712

1856D

9531A

394D

9432

9321C

9551

624B

286A

9940

9316B

487B

285A

9840

222G 9528

9848B

2009C

9323B

642C

9703

9419A

9527E

394I

420B1

244B

9300A

1196D

2038B

652

1857A

9522

522H

9419B

286N

9322B

9309

309C

9303I

2102A

354G

222D1

1107

222K

2038E

517F

9534A

420F

9909

441D

9503 464B

9440

9419D

2515A

536A

9859

221P

9902A

2028A 9307

9726

76808

522J

517A

1151A

9426B

1809C

221I

1122

9470C

9910A

9912

243E

233A

9325C

1899

247C

1807B

651A

9848A

9315A

240A

2005

76311

1831B

441J

311C

1858C

9320A

9470B

234M1

9477A

1114C

492B

233C

9335B

309Q

9328B

9825A

9722

536B

672F1

2025I

279L

2109A

9315B

9429

9550

9527C

9527A

9550B

9313A1

9832

9320C

319A

222F1

9541C

1806

9426A

76305

286B

2070A1

1129B

9424A

1858I1

2038C1

76310

234A

2006

221Q

2003

1104

2052B

493G

223N

522K

420G

286

2021

221

9848

9859

233

9337

309B

641

284

233

9337

311

1150

233

233

2038

233

212

233

2010

9337

241

9728

443

641

9337

309B

221

443

643

1852

451

1826

444

1103

9550

1150

1847

1851

283

479

1832

1800

9474

9814

286

444A

464G

1185

311F

1857

1810

478

398

478B

646

1182

440

2023

9435

9466

1164

1894

9422

1182A

1842

243

9420

1170

1820

1810A

2056

641

649A

9438

1810B

1820A

9867

2024

1870C

522I

2010

9523

1103B

9866

9852

9815A

9527B

222K

646C

444C

9436

76049

76802

279C

76743A

244C

1808B

1199A

1166

1826D

451I

9800

9439

9423

1854

1809

471B

451B

76779

451D

646A

1858D

463E

1808E

1831

309A

76065

9800A

471E

76743 2116

9862

1808D

1809B

9815D

1120

309P1

1826F

2022

307

284A

1103A

410

76803

337

76788

643H

1810C

9868

643I

1826G

9330

78528

317B

1111

76847

9822

78550

643J

1807A

317C

2028

1808

9867

2056

646

283

1826

443

1182

1810

243

641

444

1820

643

9822

2023

1808

2028

1120

1103

1808

1831

9822

443

1166

88

505

835

708

723

704

508

733

328

207

809

480

611

506

702

734

422

320

703

333

502

334

509

307

118

847

335

428

136

163

303

668

1847

830

513

330

828

717

541

807

234

308

107

340

504

716

726

1808

837

808

426

82

387

713

385

301

313

212

517

135

325

824

844

425

641

2026

121

43

821

116

386

672

493

810

310/88

320A

NEW4

312

726

88

541

88

301

163

641

303

325

Slims

Ox Bow

14 Mile

Ccc Camp

Rackliff Slide Cr

Ten Mile

Sing Lee

Red River

Wildhorse

Blackerby

Van Creek

Race Track

Race Creek

25 Mile Cg 25 Mile Cg

O'hara Bar Boyd Creek

Newsome Cg

Leggett Cr

Kirks Fork

Whitewater

Jumbo Camp

Lake Creek

Dry Saddle

Poet Creek

Mackay Bar

Sams Creek

South Fork

Mcallister

Cotter Bar

Spring Bar

Spring Bar

Johnson Bar

Indian Hill

Johnson Bar

Six Mile Cg

Six Mile Cg

Limber Luke

Flint Creek

Ditch Creek

Carey CreekCarey Creek

Carey Creek

Rocky Bluff

Selway Falls

Glover Creek

Rainy Day Cg

Five Mile Cg

Bridge Creek

Cougar Creek John's Creek Meadow Creek Castle Creek

Table Meadows

Mallard Creek

Halfway House

Fish Creek Cg

Vinegar Creek

Allison Creek

Big Fog Saddle

Moores Station

Orogrande (1-2)

Granite Springs

Corral Creek Cg

Sourdough Saddle

Orogrande Summit

Blue Mountain Cg

Florence Cemetary

North Fork Slate Creek

Nelson Creek Campground

Fog Mountain Road Junct.

Fish Creek Pavilion Nordic

Selway-Bitte

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

117

641

534

222

329

88

431

712

209

301

817

854

319

416

887

821

413

349

205

214

9875

323

839 424

641 641

641

% %

%

%

%

%

Washington

Montana

Idaho

Oregon

Orofino

Lewiston

Grangeville

Riggins

McCall

Elk City

£¤95

£¤12

£¤90

£¤13

£¤95

£¤14

£¤90

£¤12

£¤95

£¤93

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Final Environmental Impact Statement

52'Map H - Alternative 5 Mod 

Road and Trail Changes from Alternative 2

:

 Legend

Recreation Sites

!y BOATING SITE

9" CAMPGROUND

!Z DOCUMENTARY SITE

5" PICNIC SITE!E TRAILHEAD

Roads - Alternative 5 Roads - Alternative 5

OPOTH - Other NFS Routes OYA - Open to All Vehichles OSA1 - Open Seasonally to OSA2 - Open Seasonally to OSA3 - Open Seasonally to OSA5 - Open Seasonally to OSA4 - Open Seasonally to OSA7 - Open Seasonally to OSA6 - Open Seasonally to OSA9 - Open Seasonally to OSF1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to OSF2 - Open 4/2-11/20 to FOSF3 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to OSF4 - Open 6/16 - 11/4 to OSF5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to OYS1 - Open Yearlong to VOSS1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to OSS2 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to OSS3 - Open 5/16 - 11/30 tOSS4 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 to OSS10 - Open 6/16 - 11/30 OSS5 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to OSS6 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to 

!!!!!! OSM1 - Open 4/2 - 11/30 to !!!!!! OSM4 - Open 6/16 - 9/14 to 

RYA - Restricted Yearlong to 

0 6 12 3

Miles

Modified: SMGrubb 09/25/14; Created CFahy 2011

Disclaimer:This product is reproduced from geospatial information gathered and prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The purpose of this map product is to provide a generalized representation of Travel Management Planning issues and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Data and product accuracy may vary and use of this map product for any purposes or at any scales other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct,update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.For more information or if you need assistance in viewing this map, contact the Nez Perce National Forest at (208)-983-1950.

Mothe To  witmocurSin off  ca traAga the Baror don circAny mo*Cu*Us*Cr*Pi

Mo30In of 
9550

9560

9550C

468

9560A

1172

9550B

468N

468

NEW1

Trapper Creek

Big Mallard Cre ek

Schooner Creek

7

2 1 6

11

13

12

24

14

23

18

19

26 25 30

22

15

3

10

27

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Legend

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Roads - Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

Administrative Forest Boundary

New Trails

ROD - Alternative 5

With

New Trail # 1

CFahy/SMGrubb 3/16/12 : 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles
9449

9450

NEW4

Mill Creek

8

17

9

16

20

7

18

21 19

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Legend

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

New Trails

Highway

Administrative Forest Boundary

ROD - Alternative 5

With

New Trail # 4

CFahy/SMGrubb 03/16/12 : 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles
9"

279

9449

9452

9422

9423

9470

2023

2009

9420

2009A

2009C

2009B

9470C

9450

9470A

9470B

2022A

2023A

641

641

2009

9450

2023

641

NEW5

641

Castle Creek

Grouse Creek

Bully

Creek

Mill Creek

5

8

6

7

4

9

1

32 31

30 29

36

12

33

25 28

13 16

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

ROD - Alternative 5

With

New Trail # 5

Legend

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

New Trails

CFahy/SMGrubb 03/16/12 Administrative Forest Boundary : 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

*

Trail 207

Moose Meadows RNA

Big Creek

Vetter Creek

Hay Fork

South Fork Red River

Moose Meadow Creek

Middle Fork Red River

Quartz Creek

Eutopia Creek

West Fork Red River

West Fork Big Creek

3 4 6 5

8 9 7

22

27

34

28

33

21 20

32

29

31

30

19

10

2

23

26

35

11

1

12

36

18

25

17

24

13 16 15

311

1188

9527

311F

222

222

311

207

209

222

508

Trails - Alternative 5, As Modified

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Roads

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping - Trails

Research Natural Areas

Administrative District Boundary

Red River

Moose Creek

Clearwater

Salmon River

0 0.25 0.5 1

:

Miles

Dispersed Camping

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for 

CFahy/SMGrubb 3/16/12

Vicinity 

Nez Perce National Forest

Area of Interest
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

* Trail 301

Trail 330

Trail 349

No Business Cr. RNA

Slate Creek

Waterspout Creek

No Business Creek

Little Van Buren Creek

Slide Creek

Willow Creek

Deadhorse Creek

Hartm

an

Creek

1 6 5

8

7

2

36 32

12

31

11

35

25 30 29

13 18 17

4

9

26

14

33

28

16

354

2038

441A

2038H

2038C

2038E

2038C1

441

354B

2038C

2038

2038

2038C

301

349

330

117

320

323

329

323

Slate Point

Trails - Alternative 5, As Modified 

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Alt 5 Modified - No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping - Trails

Research Natural Areas

Roads - Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Administrative District Boundary

Moose Creek

Red River

Clearwater

Salmon River

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping

Area of Interest

Vicinity

Nez Perce National Forest

CFahy/SMGrubb 3/16/12
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

5" 

9"

R1870

R9323

R243

R479

R243G1

R243G

T480

T340

T325

T480

Fish Creek Cg

Fish Creek Pavilion

Fish

Creek

Pinnacle Creek

South Fork White Bird Creek

Goose Creek

North Fork White Bird Creek

Jimmie

Creek

Chapman Cre ek

Cove Creek

Little White Bird Creek

Blacktail Creek

Jungle Cre ek

Tollgate Creek

Bull Run Creek

Cascad e Creek

Camp Creek

Bully Creek

Good win Creek

Telcher Creek

Tepee Creek

Dump Creek

Twin

Cabins Creek

Baker Gulch

Little Fish Creek

Johns Creek

South Fork Dump Creek

Threemile Creek

Asbestos Creek

4 1 5 3 2 3 2

8

8 9

9

6

7

11 7 11

11

4

9

32 35

29

16

26

20

34

27

15

21

23

28

17

24

22

14 13

10

20

15

14

23

12

22

15

33

16

10

22

23

21

10

17

14

19

18

18

31

19

30

26 25 29 28 27 26 27 30

1

21

16

6 5 4 3 2

28

12

12

24

13

13

25

36

24

25

1

221

1103

1112

479

1870

235

642

279

2000

2026

1856

9419

2023

243A

9424

2024

95A1

1870C

9468

2021

1103B

9323

279C

9426

9439

9301

9425

2026A

9465

9301A

641

642A1

4600A

1856D

642A

479D

479F

4649

642C

9323B

9419A 9419B

4600B

9419D

4600

2000F

243

9323

243

1112

642A

279

2000

221

1856

243

479

9439

9301

641

641

4600

642

1103

1856

9426

221

1870

641

243

641

340

480

325

2026

Fish Creek Point

Goose Creek Point

Swartz Meadow Point

KORT-FM (Grangeville)

Administrative Forest Boundary

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping 

Idaho

Oregon

Montana

Grangeville

Elk City

Lewiston

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping 

Road 243, 479, 1870, 9323, 325, and Trail 340, 480

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/10/11

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Text

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest
! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! !!

! !

!! !

! !

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!!

! ! ! !

*

*

*

5"!y!E

!Z

R643

M

R394 il ler Creek

Hanover Creek

Meadow Creek

Halls Gulch

Sand

Creek

Ru b ie Creek

Rock

Creek

Grouse Creek

Greek Creek

West Fork Meadow Creek

Bullion Creek

Healy Creek

East Fork Meadow Creek

Forest Gulch

Gold Lake Creek

Hi Yu Creek

Kelly Creek

Robbins Creek

White Sand Creek

Summit Creek

Witsher Creek

Chessler Creek Ozark Creek

Pio neer Gulch

Lov ell Gulch

Wind River

Moon Creek

Last Chance Gulch

7 8 9

2 1 6 5 4 3

3

11

36

30

19

18

26

13

24

25

12

34

27

35

14

25

23

26

28

28

10

21

16

29

17

29

20

15

22

33 32

27

27

27

34

22

33

15

32 31

30

10

34

31

34 35 36

22 19

23

20

33

24 21

28

22

2

11

21

221

394

643

643B

643C

9913

9919

9922

9321

9924

9918

9314

643D

9917

1860

9315

9328

9316

9911

9318

9314A

9924B

9322A

9313

9915

9919A

9321C

9316B

394I

9321D

9322

9313A

643H

643I

9330

9916

221I

9912

9321E

9925

9328B

643J

394F

9313A1

643A1

76310

643E

643F

394

9925

9918

9924

643

9917

9917

643

643

9318

9318

88

163

308

303

333

Florence Cemetary

Marten Hill

Hanover Mountain

Looking Glass Butte

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Administrative Forest Boundary

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping 

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Wilderness

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho Montana

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping Road 394 and 643

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/10/11
*

*

*

*

*

*

9"

R444

Slate Creek

Gospel Creek

Wind River

Camp Creek

West Fork Gospel Creek

Bentz Creek

Hepner Creek

Fox

Creek

Corral Creek

Mill Creek

2 1 3

9

5 4

7 8

6

11

25

36

24

14 13

12

23

26

35

22

15

27

34

10

28

16

33

29

20 21

32

18 17

31

30

19

24

6

23

17 16

22

7

15

20 21

14 13 18

19

19

30

31

18

18

19

13

24

444

444A

9325

444C

9324

9325A

221

9326

221B

444E

444

9325

313

313

Rocky Bluff

Round Top

Gospel Hill

Gospel Peak

Pyramid Point

Umbrella Butte

Little Round Top

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Gospel-Hump Wilderness

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Wilderness

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for

Dispersed Camping Road 444

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/14/11
*

*

*

*

R672

R420

R420C

R672E

107

Cow Creek

China Creek

Sherwin Creek

Christie Creek

Rhett Creek

Joe Creek

Little China Creek

Salmon River

Lyon Creek

Johnson Creek

Poodle Creek

Dry Gulch

C

Sheep Gulch

abin Creek

Wet Gulch

North Fork Joe Creek

South Fork Joe Creek

South Fork Christie Creek

Salmon

River

Salmon Riv er

7

6 3

3

5 4 2

8 9

2 1

3 2

4

3 2 1 6 5

18

30

31

19

31

19

11

30

11

34 33

27

21

21

15

10

32

22

35

27

17 16

28

14

28

13

12

34

29 27

23

24

14

22

34

29

25

35

22 23 23

26

20

20

35

26

32

10

33

26

36

26

34

23

27

15

22

35

25

24

36

4

9

33

33

28

28

21

21

16

4 1

15 14 13 18 17

24

16

1

25

16 15

36

14

12

13

672

95

242

493

420

420D

9335

672F

9937

2062

9337

9902

241

420C

2065

247A

9337B

420F

9902A

76049

9909

672

F1

420G

103026

9909

2062

420

9337

9337

420

420

9337

9337

420

116

Wickiup Butte

Triangle Mountain

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for

Dispersed Camping Road 420, 420C, 672 and 672E

0 0.250.5 1

Miles

CFahy/SMGrubb 10/11/12
! ! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

*

*

*

*

*

*

9"

9"

!y

T136

T118

T82

Allison Creek

Fiddle Creek

Van Creek

John Day Creek

Chair Creek

Wet Gul ch

Salmon River

Sheep Gulch

Berg

Creek

Dry Gulch

West Fork Allison

Creek

Lightn ing Creek

Van Buren Creek

East Fork John Day Creek

Plant Creek

South Fork John Day Creek

Crawford Creek

Goat Creek

Cherry Creek

Little Berg

Creek

Spring

Creek

Carver Creek

Deadhorse Creek

China Creek

Victor Creek

Salm

on R iver

1

2 4 3 2 5

7 9

1

8

6

7

6

2

1

5 3 1 6 6 4 2

11

11

32 33 31 34

30

19

35

18

25

24 21

35

35

26

36

23 20

21

28 27

16 15

28

14

10

22

19

26

31

24

29 25

12

13

26

20

36

17 14

23

23

36

25

35

30

34

27

32

26

24

23

31

29

33

22

13

12

36

25

24 19

30

18

7

19

30

31

7 8 9 11 12

34

10

27

22

3

11 12

8

3

5

10

27

22

15

10

17

20

14

29

13

32

5

15 18 17 15

8

95

441

53

6

263

2007

9905

2070

221

2078

1164

221G

263D

9303

9940

9303F

9303I

9303C

536A

441J

9303G

2007B

9303E

2007

221

9303

263

263

263

263

263

221

117

118

136

336

82

307

Dead Point

Chair Point

Padrick Ridge

Southwest Butte

John Day Mountain

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for

Dispersed Camping Trails 82, 136, and 118

0 0.250.5 1

Miles

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/10/11
! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

!

! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

*

*

9"

T387

North Fork Slate Creek

Slate Creek

Slide Creek

McKinzie Creek

South Fork Skookumchuck Creek

Hurley Creek

Slipp y Cre ek

North Fork Slate Creek

Bear Gulch

Hartman

Creek

Waterspout Creek

Little Van Buren Creek

No

Business Creek

Willow Creek

2 1 5

1 5

6

8

3 2

3

6

7

4

9

4

9

4

4

11

36

13

12

35

24

15 14

10

23

26

20

17

32

22

29 27 25

34

30

19

18

31 33

16

28

21 21

28

16

33

9 10 11 12 7 8 9

33 34 35 36 31 32 33

9320

398

463

354

463E

2038C

2038H

9300

2025

2028A

2038D

2038

9320A

2038B

2025I

9320

C

76305

2038C1

354F

463F

354A

2028

2028

463E

2038

2038C

2028

463

463

2038C

354

2038

9300

2025

463

463

2028 3

2

0

387

34

9

301

323

330

320

Patrol Point

Dairy Mountain

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads Alternative 5

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

:

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for

Dispersed Camping Trail 387

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

CFahy/SMGrubb 9/19/11
*

*

420C

Deer Creek

Poe Creek

Cowen

Gulch

Howard Creek

Johnson Creek

Sotin Cree k

7

6 3 2 1 4

9

18

19

11

14

23

15

10

22

12

24

13

21

16

8

5

17

20

28 27 26 25 30 29

493

420

76049

672

1805

107

Wild Horse Butte

Haystack Mountain

Trails - Alternative 5

5 Trails Oen to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

No Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping - Trails

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! !

10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area

Elk City

Grangeville

Lewiston

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

:

T107

Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area

Nez Perce National Forest

Administrative Districts

Area of Interest

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/10/11

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

No Motorized Access for

Dispersed Camping Trail 107
*

*

24

13

12

1

8 9 

17 

20 21 

5

7

18

29 28 

30

31 32 33 

16

6 4

19

1106

1851

1852

284

284C

337

1106B

337A

9438

9440

244C

1104

1120

284B

1851A

284

284B

493

Wall Point

Green Creek Point

Wall Creek

Sill Creek

Meadow Creek

False Creek

North Meadow Creek

Storm

Creek

Green Creek

Sears Creek

Rabbit Cree

Nez Perce National Forest k

Designated Routes and Areas

for Motor Vehicle Use

Trails - Alternative 1

5 Trails Open to All Vehciles, Yearlong

6 Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonall

7 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 9 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Yearlong

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

Non Forest Service Lands Within Foresst Boundary

Wall Creek Municipal Watershed 

Administrative Forest Boundary

Roads Alternative 1

State Highways and Other Public Roads

1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

7 Trails Open to All Vehicles less than 50" in width, Yearlong

8 Trails Open to Vehicles 50" or less in width, Seasonal

! ! ! ! ! 10 Trails Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

11 Special Designation, Yearlong

12 Special Designation, Seasonal

Highway

Wall Creek Municpal Watershed

Management Area 22

Closed in Alts 2-6

Closed in Alt 5

Closed in Alt 5

CFahy/SMGrubb 11/10/11

0 0.25 0.5 0.125

:

Miles
k

Castle

Creek

Covert Creek

Big Canyon

Earthquake Creek

S heep

Creek

5 4 3 6

1

7 8

30

18

9 10

1

29 28

21 22

27 

2

33 34 

17 16

19 20 

32

31

15

279

451

9402

9466

9452

451A

76808

76743A

2021A

451B

76779

76743

2021A2

451G 451F

9466A

451E

76780

451J

1401

1400

1116

451G1

9448

546

3A

1100

1402

546A

76781

1108

CFahy/SMGrubb 9/27/11 : 0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas

For Motorized Use FEIS

Earthquake Basin

Alternative 5 Mod

Legend

Roads Alt 5 MOD

Highways, Other Jurisdiction Roads

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

Roads Open Seasonal to >50", Yearlong <50"

! ! ! ! ! Open to Motorcycle Only, Seasonal

Open to Vehicles <50" or less, Seasonal; OSS3

Open to Vehicles <50" or less, Yearlong

Earthquake Basin Elk Habitat Evaluation Area
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 2 – ROAD AND TRAIL DEISGNATIONS PAGE 1

Attachment 2- Trail and Road Designations for Alternative 5, as Modified

• Road and Trail Summary

• Cross walk for route designation codes

• Trail Designations

• Road Designations and Road Management Objectives.

• Access Management Analysis Worksheet 

Road and Trail Summary - Alternative 5, as Modified

Type of 

Vehicle Season and Vehicle Roads Trails Total OYa OSb Total OYa OSb Total

Full

Highways 40 0 40 0 0 0 40

Other Public Roads 

to show on MVUMc 84 0 84 0 0 0 84

Full Open to All Vehicles 640 749 1,389 9 24 33 1,422

Full/

<50 Inches

Seasonal Restrictions –

full size vehicles;

Open Yearlong - 

vehicles less than 50 

inches in width 

0 177 177 0 5 5 182

<50 Inches Open to vehicles less 

than 50 inches in width 82 189 272 50 152 202 474

Motorcycle 

Only

Open to Motorcycles 

Only 0 2 2 29 121 150 152

Motorized Total Motorized 846 1,117 1,963 88 302 390 2,353

NonMotorized

Non-motorized, outside 

wilderness 1,761 0 1,761 693 0 693 2,454

Non-motorized Trails in 

Wilderness 0 0 0 940 0 940 940

NonMotorized Total Non-Motorized 846 1,117 1,763 1,633 302 1,633 3,393

All Grand Total 

Miles by Season 2,607 1,117 3,724 1,721 302 2,023 5,747

(Note: numbers rounded to nearest mile)

a. OY—Open Yearlong

b. OS—Open Seasonally

c. MVUM—Motor Vehicle Use Map
Legend Map Code DEIS Codes INFRA SDEIS Code 

MVUM Code Legend Description Vehicles greater 

than 50" width

Vehicles less 

than 50" width Motorcycle NonMotorized

OPOTH NONFS HWY, 

ACCESS ROUTE

1 Other NFS Routes - Show on MVUM Open Open Open Open

OYA OPEN, JEEP 1, 5 Open to All Vehicles Yearlong Open Open Open Open

OYS1 Y4 7, 12 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width

X Open Open Open

OYS2 Y7*, ATV_1

8 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in widthX Open Open Open

OYM MTR_1

9 Open Yearlong to Motorcycles onlyXX Open Open

OSF1 W4-A* 12 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 4/2 to 11/30 Open Open Open

OSF2 W3-C, W4-A1

2 Open 4/2-11/30 to Full Size and Mot, Yrlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 4/2 to 11/30 Open 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSF3 W4 12 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 11/30 Open Open Open

OSF4 W4-B

2 Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 11/4 Open Open Open

OSF5 C4 12 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 Open Open Open

OSF6 H4 12 Open 12/2 - 9/14 to Full Size, Open Yearlong Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 12/2 to 9/14 Open Open Open

OSA1 W2-C, W3-B

2 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSA2 W2-B

2 Open 5/16 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 Open

OSA9

2 Open 6/16 -11/4 to all vehicles 6/16-11/4 6/16-11/4 6/16-11/4 Open

OSA3 W2, W3

2 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to All Vehicles 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSA4 C2-A, C3,C3-C

2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 Open

OSA5 C3-B

2 Open 7/16 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 7/16 to 9/14 7/16 to 9/14 7/16 to 9/14 Open

OSA6 S-1

2 Open 9/7 - 6/19 to All Vehicles 9/7 to 6/19 9/7 to 6/19 9/7 to 6/19 Open

OSA7 H2

2 Open 12/2 - 9/14 to All Vehicles 12/2 to 9/14 12/2 thru 9/14 12/2 thru 9/14 Open

OSA8

2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to >50" vehicle, 4/2-11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSA10 W4-B2

2 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to >50" vehicle, 6/16-11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS9 12 Open Yearlong to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width, Seasonal Motorcycle

X Open 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSS1 or OSS2 Y8* 8, 22 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width

X 4/2 to 11/30 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSS3 or OSS13 Y10* 8, 22 Open 5/16 - 11/30 toVehicles less than 50 inches in width

X 5/16 to 11/30 5/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS10 or OSS4 Y9*, ATV_3 8, 22 Open 6/16 -11/30 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width

X 6/16 to 11/30 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSS5 or OSS6 Y6, Y6-B 8, 22 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Vehicles less than 50 inches in width

X 6/16 to 9/14 6/16 to 9/14 Open

OSS7 ATV_2 12 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to ATV only

X 6/16 to 9/14X Open

OSM1 MTR_2 10 Open 4/2 - 11/30 to Motorcycle only

XX 4/2 to 11/30 Open

OSM2 MTR_3 10 Open 6/16 - 11/30 to Motorcycle only

XX 6/16 to 11/30 Open

OSM3 MTR_6 10 Open 6/16 - 11/4 to Motorcycle only

XX 6/16 to 11/4 Open

OSM4 MTR_4 10 Open 6/16 - 9/14 to Motorcycle only

XX 6/16 to 9/14 Open

RYA Y1, Y2,Y2-B,Y3, Y5

0 Road - Restricted Yearlong to All Motor VehiclesXXX Open

RYA

0 Trail - Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles.

XXX Open

B

B Decommissioned

XXX Open

NDOTH NON FS JURISD, 

NODISPLAY Non FS jurisdiction Roads - Not shown on MVUM

XXXX

PVT PRIVATE JURISD Non FS jurisdiction Roads - Not shown on MVUM

XXXX

Nez Perce NF DRAMVU Codes

Season Motorized Vehicle Use is Allowed.

â

DRAMVU ROD - ATTACHMENT B - ROAD AND TRAIL DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 2

CROSS WALK - MAP CODES
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 1 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

103 DEER CREEK 0.0 2.1 2.1 RYA RYA

105 CENTER RIDGE 0.0 2.6 2.4 RYA RYA

107 CAMP HOWARD 0.0 3.3 2.9 OYS2 OYS2

110 BALD MOUNTAIN 0.0 4.0 4.0 RYA RYA

111 MORRISON RIDGE 0.0 2.3 2.3 RYA RYA

113 WEST FORK RAPID RIVER 0.0 11.3 11.3 RYA RYA

115 BLUE MOUNTAIN 0.0 3.9 3.9 RYA RYA

116 SHERWIN CREEK 0.0 1.0 0.9 OSS6 OSS6

116 SHERWIN CREEK 1.0 1.4 0.3 OSS6 OSS6

116 SHERWIN CREEK 1.4 2.2 0.9 OSS6 OSS6

117 NUT BASIN 0.0 5.7 5.7 OYM OYM4

118 SOUTHWEST BUTTE 0.0 4.2 4.2 OYS2 OYS2

119 LOWER SALMON RIVER 0.0 0.9 0.9 RYA RYA

119 LOWER SALMON RIVER 0.9 5.3 4.4 RYA RYA

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 0.0 0.6 0.5 RYA RYA

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 0.6 1.4 0.8 PVT PVT

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 1.4 2.0 0.5 OSS6 OSS6

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 2.0 2.5 0.5 OSS6 OSS6

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 2.5 3.7 1.1 OSS5 OSS5

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 3.7 4.1 0.4 OSS5 OSS5

121 KELLY MOUNTAIN 4.1 5.0 1.1 OSS6 OSS6

122 S FORK SALMON 0.0 0.1 0.1 RYA RYA

123 VAN RIDGE 0.0 2.0 2.0 RYA RYA

130 SOUTH FORK CLEAR CREEK 0.0 3.3 3.3 RYA RYA

133 NUT BASIN LAKE 0.0 0.2 0.2 RYA RYA

134 NORTH TRAIL 0.0 6.8 6.8 RYA RYA

135 BRUSHY RIDGE 0.0 1.8 1.5 RYA RYA

136 JOHN DAY MOUNTAIN 0.0 4.2 4.2 OYS2 OYS2

137 LITTLE BERG 0.0 2.2 2.2 RYA RYA

139 MIDDLE FORK CLEAR CREEK 0.0 2.4 2.4 RYA RYA

147 KAY-TRAPPER 0.0 1.2 1.2 RYA RYA

150 CLEAR CREEK 0.0 7.6 7.6 RYA RYA

151 KAY CREEK 0.0 1.6 1.6 RYA RYA

152 BALDY MOUNTAIN 0.0 0.8 0.8 RYA RYA

155 MULE CORRAL 0.0 1.8 1.8 RYA RYA

163 MILNER 0.0 1.2 1.2 OSM4 OSM4

163 MILNER 1.2 2.2 1.0 PVT PVT

163 MILNER 2.2 6.4 4.2 OSS6 OYS1

163 MILNER 6.4 7.5 1.2 OSS4 OSS4

166 RATTLESNAKE 0.0 3.8 3.8 RYA RYA

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 2 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

1808 INDIAN TRAIL 0.0 6.1 3.5 OSA1 OSA1

183 PINE KNOB 0.0 3.3 3.3 RYA RYA

1847 1847 0.0 4.9 4.9 OSS10 OSS10

197 MIDDLE FORK SOLO CREEK 0.0 1.7 1.7 RYA RYA

2026 OId Trail 328 over Jungle Pt 0.0 1.5 1.5 OYS2 OYS2

204 LAKE CREEK 0.0 1.5 1.4 RYA RYA

205 COLUMBIA RIDGE 0.0 6.8 6.8 RYA RYA

205 COLUMBIA RIDGE 9.2 10.7 1.2 RYA RYA

205 COLUMBIA RIDGE 10.7 11.0 1.1 OYA OYA

205 COLUMBIA RIDGE 11.0 12.1 0.2 OYA OYA

205 COLUMBIA RIDGE 12.1 13.8 1.6 RYA RYA

207 MOOSE BUTTE 0.0 1.5 1.4 OSS4 OSS4

207 MOOSE BUTTE 1.5 8.4 7.0 OSS4 OSS4

208 NOBLE CREEK 0.0 6.8 6.8 RYA RYA

210 CHURCHILL 0.0 9.4 9.4 RYA RYA

211 BLOWOUT MOUNTAIN 0.0 2.6 2.6 RYA RYA

212 LEMHI 0.0 1.8 1.7 OSS2 OSS2

212 LEMHI 1.8 5.0 3.3 RYA RYA

213 PAINTER 0.0 1.5 1.5 RYA RYA

214 JERSEY RIDGE 0.0 0.2 0.4 RYA RYA

214 JERSEY RIDGE 0.2 1.5 1.0 OSA1 OSA1

215 CROOKED CREEK 0.0 0.6 0.5 RYA RYA

217 RABBIT POINT 0.0 4.0 3.7 RYA RYA

220 BOISE BAR 0.0 1.9 1.8 RYA RYA

222 OLD DIXIE WAGON ROAD 0.0 4.3 4.3 OSA1 OSA1

224 INDIAN CREEK 0.0 4.9 4.9 RYA RYA

230 JUMBO CANYON 0.0 0.8 0.8 RYA RYA

230 JUMBO CANYON 0.8 1.1 0.3 PVT PVT

230 JUMBO CANYON 1.1 1.3 0.2 RYA RYA

230 JUMBO CANYON 1.3 2.5 1.1 PVT PVT

230 JUMBO CANYON 2.5 2.9 0.4 RYA RYA

231 RHETT CREEK 0.0 3.6 3.5 RYA RYA

233 SWASTIKA 0.0 2.3 2.1 RYA RYA

234 BLOWOUT DIVIDE 0.0 3.1 3.1 OSS2 OSS2

235 BEAR LAKE 0.0 0.3 0.3 PVT PVT

235 BEAR LAKE 0.3 0.8 0.5 RYA RYA

299 CRYSTAL LAKE 2.5 6.0 2.7 RYA RYA

3 COVE LAKES 0.0 0.7 0.7 RYA RYA

301 DEAD HORSE RIDGE 0.0 1.8 1.8 OYS2 OYS2

301 DEAD HORSE RIDGE 1.8 2.0 0.2 OSF5 OSF5

301 DEAD HORSE RIDGE 2.0 6.8 4.8 OSF5 OSF5

301 DEAD HORSE RIDGE 6.8 8.2 1.3 OYS2 OYS2

302 RUBIE CREEK 0.0 0.6 0.6 RYA RYA

303 VAN BUREN CREEK 0.0 1.1 1.1 OYS2 OSS2

303 VAN BUREN CREEK 1.1 4.6 4.6 OYS2 OSS5
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 3 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

307 DEAD POINT 0.0 2.3 2.3 OYS2 OSM4

307 DEAD POINT 2.3 4.0 1.7 OYS2 OSS5

307 DEAD POINT 4.0 4.6 0.6 OYS2 RYA

308 BUNGALOW-FLORENCE 0.0 4.9 4.90 OYS2 OSS2

309 LITTLE SLATE 0.0 7..8 7.8 RYA RYA

309 LITTLE SLATE 7.8 7.9 0.1 RYA OSS2

309 LITTLE SLATE 7.9 11.2 3.3 RYA RYA

310/88 ROUND TOP 0.0 0.4 0.8 OSS2 OSS2

312 MOORES 0.0 0.1 0.1 RYA RYA

312-1 MOORES 10.9 11.5 0.6 RYA RYA

313 HUMP TRAIL 0.0 1.7 1.7 OSS2 OSS2

313 HUMP TRAIL 1.7 2.2 0.5 OSA1 OSA1

313 HUMP TRAIL 2.2 2.2 0.1 OSS2 OSS2

313 HUMP TRAIL 8.4 10.2 1.8 OSA1 OSA1

313 HUMP TRAIL 10.2 11.4 1.2 OSA1 OSA1

313 HUMP TRAIL 11.4 12.2 0.8 RYA RYA

313 HUMP TRAIL 12.2 14.1 1.9 RYA RYA

318 MILL CREEK 0.0 5.2 5.2 RYA RYA

319 DOC DENNY 0.0 2.7 2.7 OYM OYM

320 NORTH FORK SLATE CREEK 0.0 5.3 5.0 OSM2 OSM2

320 NORTH FORK SLATE CREEK 5.3 5.3 0.2 OSM2 OSM2

320 NORTH FORK SLATE CREEK 5.3 7.4 2.2 OSM1 OSS2

320A 0.0 0.5 0.5 OSM1 OSM1

321 PETER READY 0.0 2.5 2.5 RYA RYA

322 BOUNDRY BUFFORD 0.0 6.4 6.4 RYA RYA

323 WATERSPOUT CREEK 0.0 0.6 0.6 OYM OYM

323 WATERSPOUT CREEK 0.6 1.9 1.3 RYA RYA

323 WATERSPOUT CREEK 1.9 2.2 0.3 OSA4 OSA4

323 WATERSPOUT CREEK 2.2 2.6 0.4 OSA4 OSA4

323 WATERSPOUT CREEK 2.6 4.1 1.4 RYA RYA

324 TIMBERED BENCH 0.0 5.8 5.4 RYA RYA

324 TIMBERED BENCH 5.4 6.9 1.5 RYA RYA

325 PINNACLE RIDGE 0.00 0.42 0.43 RYA RYA

325 PINNACLE RIDGE 0.42 0.92 0.50 PVT PVT

325 PINNACLE RIDGE 0.92 2.39 1.46 OSS4 OSS9

326 PATROL POINT 0.0 1.5 1.5 RYA RYA

327 SOUTH FORK WHITE BIRD CK 0.0 9.0 8.5 RYA RYA

327 SOUTH FORK WHITE BIRD CK 9.0 9.1 0.5 PVT PVT

328 MARBLE POINT TRAIL 0.0 7.4 7.4 OSM1 OSM1

329 TELEPHONE RIDGE 0.0 0.4 0.5 OYS2 OSS5

329 TELEPHONE RIDGE 0.4 4.6 4.1 OYM OSS5

330 LITTLE VAN BUREN CREEK 0.0 3.5 3.5 RYA OYM

330 LITTLE VAN BUREN CREEK 3.5 4.9 1.4 OYM OYM

332-CUA MEADOW CR CAMP BRIDGE TRAIL 0.0 0.1 0.1 RYA RYA

333 YAKIMA MINE 0.0 4.8 4.8 OSM4 OSM4

333 YAKIMA MINE 4.8 5.0 0.2 OSM1 OSM1
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 4 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

334 HORSE POINT 0.0 0.8 0.8 RYA RYA

334 HORSE POINT 0.8 3.6 2.8 RYA RYA

334 HORSE POINT 3.6 8.3 4.7 OSS2 OSS2

335 STILLMAN RIDGE 0.0 4.3 4.3 RYA RYA

336 JOHN DAY CREEK 0.0 2.3 2.3 OSM4 OSM4

338 WEST FORK LOOKOUT 0.0 2.8 2.8 RYA RYA

340 BENTZ RIDGE 0.0 0.3 0.3 PVT PVT

340 BENTZ RIDGE 0.3 2.8 2.4 RYA RYA

340 BENTZ RIDGE 2.8 5.8 2.9 OSS4 OSS4

343 BIG FOG MOUNTAIN 0.0 0.8 0.8 RYA RYA

349 NO BUSINESS 0.0 2.8 2.8 OYM OYM

385 MILL CREEK CROSSING 0.0 1.9 1.8 OSS6 OSS1

385 MILL CREEK CROSSING 1.9 3.6 1.7 OSS2 OSS2

386 ASBESTOS CONNECTION 0.0 1.1 1.0 OSS2 OSS2

387 WILD HORSE CORRALS 0.0 3.3 1.2 RYA RYA

387 WILD HORSE CORRALS 0.0 3.3 2.0 OSS4 OSS4

4 SELWAY RIVER TRAIL 0.0 2.0 2.1 RYA RYA

4 SELWAY RIVER TRAIL 38.4 41.2 4.2

400 HAYES CREEK 0.0 2.3 2.3 RYA RYA

401 FRANK BROWN 0.0 8.2 7.8 RYA RYA

401 FRANK BROWN 8.2 10.6 2.8 RYA RYA

407 SNOOSE CREEK 0.0 10.6 10.6 RYA RYA

410 RAINBOLD RIDGE 0.0 5.2 5.2 RYA RYA

411 SOURDOUGH WING CREEK 0.0 4.8 4.8 RYA RYA

412 REED BAR 0.0 7.1 7.1 RYA RYA

413 COUGAR CREEK TRAIL 0.0 2.9 2.4 OSM2 OSM2

414 TWENTYMILE CREEK 0.0 2.6 2.6 RYA RYA

415 TENMILE 0.0 2.0 2.0 RYA RYA

416 OLD GOLDEN-NORTHILL 0.0 2.2 2.2 OYM OYM

417 BLACKTAIL CONNECTION 0.0 2.0 2.0 RYA RYA

418 BLACKTAIL BUTTE 0.0 1.7 1.7 RYA RYA

419 MEADOW CREEK 0.0 0.5 0.5 RYA RYA

420 CASTLE CREEK 0.0 1.6 2.1 RYA RYA

420 CASTLE CREEK 1.6 3.2 1.1 RYA RYA

420-CG CASTLE CREEK CG BRIDGE TRAIL 0.0 0.1 0.1 RYA RYA

421 EAST MOOSE CREEK 0.0 0.6 0.5 RYA RYA

422 BIG BURN POINT 0.0 4.5 5.0 OSS5 OSS5

423 SILVER DOME CONNECTION 0.0 2.6 2.6 RYA RYA
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 5 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

424 SILVER RIDGE 0.0 5.6 7.1 RYA RYA

424 SILVER RIDGE 5.6 5.9 0.3 OYA OYA

424 SILVER RIDGE 5.9 12.8 5.5 RYA RYA

425 NELLIE MOUNTAIN 0.0 5.1 5.1 RYA RYA

425 NELLIE MOUNTAIN 5.1 5.1 0.0 RYA RYA

425 NELLIE MOUNTAIN 5.1 5.5 0.4 RYA RYA

425 NELLIE MOUNTAIN 5.5 5.8 0.3 OSS4 OSS4

425 NELLIE MOUNTAIN 5.8 7.1 1.3 OSS4 OSS4

426 MACKEY MINE 0.0 2.4 2.4 RYA RYA

426 MACKEY MINE 2.4 2.7 0.3 RYA RYA

426 MACKEY MINE 2.7 3.7 1.0 OSM2 OSM2

426 MACKEY MINE 3.7 5.2 1.5 OSS4 OSS4

428 SWAN CREEK 0.0 4.0 3.9 OYS2 OYS2

428 SWAN CREEK 4.0 4.1 0.5 OYS2 OYS2

428 SWAN CREEK 4.1 8.6 4.2 OYS2 OYS2

429 WICKIUP CREEK 0.0 1.8 1.8 RYA RYA

43 KESSLER CREEK 0.0 0.8 0.8 OYS2 OYS2

431 DRIVEWAY 0.0 4.3 3.5 OSM4 OSM4

431 DRIVEWAY 9.0 12.5 5.2 RYA RYA

45 GRAVES CREEK 0.0 1.5 0.8 RYA RYA

46 INDIAN SPRINGS 0.0 3.2 3.2 RYA RYA

476 SILVER CREEK HEAD 0.0 2.8 2.8 RYA RYA

477 REED MOUNTAIN 0.0 3.6 3.6 RYA RYA

478 BLUE RIDGE 0.0 3.2 3.2 RYA RYA

480 FISH CREEK 0.0 11.0 11.0 OSS2 OSS2

481 EARTHQUAKE 0.0 2.8 2.3 RYA RYA

493 YEW RIDGE 0.0 3.3 3.3 OSS4 OSS4

502 BARGAMIN CREEK 0.0 5.0 4.9 RYA RYA

503 BAT POINT 3.5 6.9 3.2 RYA RYA

504 HOT SPRINGS 0.0 2.8 2.8 RYA RYA

505 DIVIDE 0.0 10.4 10.0 OSS2 OSS2

505 DIVIDE 10.4 16.2 5.6 OSS2 OSS2

505 DIVIDE 16.2 24.1 8.5 OSS2 OSS2

506 DAWSON CREEK 0.0 5.4 5.4 OSS4 OSS4

507 DITCH CREEK 0.0 4.6 4.6 RYA RYA

508 PORTERS 0.0 4.5 4.3 RYA RYA

508 PORTERS 4.5 5.0 0.5 RYA RYA

508 PORTERS 5.0 5.3 0.3 RYA RYA

508 PORTERS 5.3 6.0 0.7 OSS4 OSS4

508 PORTERS 6.0 13.7 8.0 OSM2 OSM2
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 6 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

509 OTTO 0.0 4.7 4.7 OSS6 OSS6

510 FLINT CREEK 0.0 5.3 5.3 RYA RYA

513 SPOOK CREEK 0.0 3.5 3.5 RYA RYA

517 BILK MOUNTAIN 1.0 5.5 4.4 RYA RYA

517 BILK MOUNTAIN 5.5 7.0 1.5 RYA RYA

522.1 COMPOUND FITNESS 0.0 1.3 1.3 RYA RYA

529 ARCHER 0.0 4.0 5.0 RYA RYA

530 GROUSE RIDGE 0.0 5.8 5.8 RYA RYA

531 PATROL RIDGE 0.0 3.6 3.6 RYA RYA

533 RUNNING CREEK 0.0 2.0 1.9 RYA RYA

534 LYNX CREEK 0.0 6.1 6.1 OSM1 OSM1

535 PARACHUTE RIDGE 0.0 1.9 1.9 RYA RYA

537 EAGLE RIDGE 0.0 8.4 8.4 RYA RYA

539 THREE PRONG 0.0 6.5 6.5 RYA RYA

541 GREEN MOUNTAIN 0.0 2.3 2.3 RYA RYA

541 GREEN MOUNTAIN 2.3 2.7 0.3 RYA RYA

541 GREEN MOUNTAIN 2.7 4.8 2.1 RYA RYA

541 GREEN MOUNTAIN 4.8 8.1 3.3 RYA RYA

55 CANNON BALL MOUNTAIN 0.0 6.5 6.5 RYA RYA

559 SPRUCE CREEK 0.0 0.9 0.8 RYA RYA

581 HOT SPRINGS CREEK 0.0 4.5 4.5 RYA RYA

585 BAT CREEK 0.0 3.6 3.6 RYA RYA

586 COOK RANCH 0.0 8.0 8.0 RYA RYA

587 TRAPPER CREEK 0.0 4.3 4.2 RYA RYA

588 OTTERSON 0.0 3.6 3.6 RYA RYA

59 RAPID RIVER 0.0 3.7 3.5 RYA RYA

60 POTTER TRAIL 0.0 3.9 3.9 RYA RYA

602 COPPER BUTTE 0.0 2.0 1.7 RYA RYA

602 COPPER BUTTE 2.0 4.3 2.0 RYA RYA

603 INDIAN HILL 0.0 4.2 4.2 RYA RYA

605 FIVE MILE CONTOUR 0.0 10.8 10.8 RYA RYA

608 DENT POINT 0.0 4.9 4.9 RYA RYA

609 DISGRACE BUTTE 1.6 8.5 6.8 RYA RYA

609 DISGRACE BUTTE 8.5 11.6 3.1 RYA RYA

609 DISGRACE BUTTE 11.6 13.4 1.8 RYA RYA

61 FRANK WURL 0.0 2.3 0.6 RYA RYA

610 SIMMONS RIDGE 0.0 5.3 5.3 RYA RYA

611 SABLE HILL 0.0 5.5 5.5 OSM4 OSM4

613 BEAR LAKE 0.0 1.0 1.0 RYA RYA

613 BEAR LAKE 1.0 1.4 0.4 RYA RYA

615 MATTESON RIDGE 0.0 2.6 2.6 RYA RYA

62 DOG RIDGE 0.0 2.7 2.7 RYA RYA

621 OTTER CREEK 0.0 1.0 1.2 RYA RYA

628 UPPER BUCK LAKE 2.4 7.2 4.8 RYA RYA

632 PROSPECT RIDGE 0.0 3.9 3.9 RYA RYA

64 ALDER SPRINGS 0.0 1.2 1.2 RYA RYA
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 7 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

641 MILNER TRAIL 0.0 0.1 0.1 OYA OYA

641 MILNER TRAIL 0.1 1.0 0.8 PVT PVT

641 MILNER TRAIL 1.0 2.2 1.2 OSA1 OSA1

641 MILNER TRAIL 2.2 2.4 0.3 OSA1 OSA1

641 MILNER TRAIL 2.4 3.6 1.2 OSA1 OSA1

641 MILNER TRAIL 3.6 3.8 0.2 OSS2 OSS2

641 MILNER TRAIL 3.8 4.8 1.0 OSS1 OSS1

641 MILNER TRAIL 4.8 5.2 0.4 OSS1 OSS1

641 MILNER TRAIL 5.2 5.5 0.3 OYA OYA

641 MILNER TRAIL 5.5 6.7 1.2 OYA OYA

641 MILNER TRAIL 6.7 7.7 1.0 OYA OYA

641 MILNER TRAIL 7.7 7.9 0.2 PVT PVT

641 MILNER TRAIL 7.9 8.9 1.0 OYA OYA

641 MILNER TRAIL 8.9 14.5 5.6 OSS1 OSS1

647 GRANITE PEAK 0.0 4.4 4.4 RYA RYA

65 SAMPSON SPRING 0.0 3.4 3.4 RYA RYA

668 PARALLEL 0.0 3.8 3.8 OSM4 OSM4

668 PARALLEL 3.8 21.1 16.8 RYA RYA

670 PARALLEL - DIVIDE 0.0 1.8 1.8 RYA RYA

672 WEST FORK SABLE CREEK 0.0 1.2 0.9 RYA RYA

672 WEST FORK SABLE CREEK 1.2 5.8 4.9 RYA RYA

676 UPPER RHODA CREEK 0.0 5.5 5.5 RYA RYA

693 BIG ROCK 0.0 1.2 1.1 RYA RYA

701 O'HARA NATURE LOOP 0.0 0.5 0.5 RYA RYA

702 RACKCLIFF 0.0 5.3 5.3 OSM3 OSM3

703 EAST BOYD 0.0 4.9 4.9 OSM3 OSM3

704 GLOVER TRAIL 0.0 8.1 8.1 OSM3 OSM3

706 HOT POINT 0.0 5.2 5.2 RYA RYA

708 GEDNEY 0.0 8.7 9.1 RYA RYA

71 OXBOW TRAIL 0.0 7.0 6.9 RYA RYA

711 GREEN RIDGE 0.0 3.4 3.4 RYA RYA

712 PETERSON POINT 5.3 10.0 3.6 OYS1 OYS1

713 O'HARA 0.0 2.1 2.0 RYA RYA

713 O'HARA 2.1 7.6 5.6 RYA RYA

715 PETERSON BURN 0.0 1.1 1.1 RYA RYA

716 SWIFTWATER CROSSCUT 0.0 2.8 2.8 OSM2 OSM2

717 WEST FORK CROSSCUT 0.0 3.4 3.4 OSM2 OSM2

718 HORSE CREEK CONNECTOR 0.0 3.9 3.9 RYA RYA

72 SMOKY SPRINGS 0.0 1.5 1.5 RYA RYA

723 CLEAR CREEK 0.0 8.2 8.3 OSM2 OSM2

726 MEADOW CREEK 0.0 3.0 2.7 RYA RYA

726 MEADOW CREEK 3.0 14.8 10.8 RYA RYA

726 MEADOW CREEK 14.8 15.0 0.2 RYA RYA

726 MEADOW CREEK 15.0 15.0 0.0 RYA RYA

726 MEADOW CREEK 15.0 22.0 8.2 RYA RYA
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 8 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

728 TRAPPER CREEK 0.0 5.5 5.5 RYA RYA

733 HORSE CREEK 0.0 7.6 7.6 OSM4 OSM4

734 CCC TRAIL 0.0 5.3 5.2 OSM3 OSM3

75 LIME BLUFF 0.0 0.8 0.8 RYA RYA

76 THORN GULCH 0.0 1.6 1.5 RYA RYA

77 JACKLEY MTN. 0.0 0.6 0.5 RYA RYA

801 UMATILLA CREEK 0.0 3.5 3.5 RYA RYA

802 WILLIAMS CREEK 0.0 2.0 1.8 RYA RYA

804 LOST LAKE 0.0 0.4 0.4 RYA RYA

805 MINERS DITCH 0.0 11.8 11.4 RYA RYA

807 FIVE MILE 0.0 3.3 3.3 OYS2 OYS2

808 ELK CITY LOOP 0.0 2.4 2.4 RYA RYA

808 ELK CITY LOOP 2.4 4.0 1.6 RYA RYA

809 BUTTE CREEK 0.0 6.3 6.3 OSM4 OSM4

810 BLACKHAWK CONNECT 0.0 0.7 0.7 OSS6 OSS6

811 LICK CREEK 0.0 3.5 3.5 RYA RYA

812 WEST FORK 20 MILE 0.0 2.0 2.0 RYA RYA

813 LIMBER LUKE 0.0 1.9 1.9 RYA RYA

815 ELK SUMMIT - MONROE CREEK 0.0 1.1 1.1 RYA RYA

817 CENTER STAR 0.0 1.9 1.9 RYA RYA

817 CENTER STAR 1.9 4.8 2.8 OSM4 OSM4

817 CENTER STAR 4.8 5.5 0.8 OSS5 OSS5

818 BAKER GULCH 0.0 1.3 1.3 RYA RYA

819 MULE CREEK 0.0 4.2 3.4 RYA RYA

82 MARTIN SPRINGS 0.0 1.5 1.5 OYM OYS2

820 PORTER SPUR 0.0 0.9 0.8 RYA RYA

821 SILVER CREEK 0.0 1.1 1.1 OSS4 OSS4

821 SILVER CREEK 1.1 4.3 3.2 OYA OYA

824 EASTER MINE 0.0 2.0 2.0 OSS4 OSS4

825 SING LEE 0.0 5.5 5.5 RYA RYA

826 NEWSOME CREEK 0.0 7.2 7.2 RYA RYA

828 NUGGETT POINT 0.0 4.9 4.9 OSS4 OSS4

829 RADCLIFF CREEK 0.0 3.3 3.3 RYA RYA

830 KIRKS FORK 0.0 1.8 1.5 OYM OYM

830 KIRKS FORK 1.8 5.1 3.6 OSM4 OSM4

831 FLAT IRON RIDGE 0.0 2.4 2.3 OSM4 OSM4

832 E. FK. AMERICAN RIVER 0.0 7.2 7.2 RYA RYA

833 ALTEMONT 0.0 6.0 6.0 RYA RYA

834 FRENCH GULCH 0.0 1.8 1.8 RYA RYA

835 BOUNDARY TRAIL 0.0 10.2 10.0 OSS2 OSS2

836 AMERICAN RIVER 0.0 8.3 8.3 RYA RYA

837 W FK AMERICAN RIVER 0.0 2.5 2.5 OSM2 OSM2

839 TABLE MEADOWS 0.0 0.4 0.5 OYA OYA

839 TABLE MEADOWS 0.4 1.9 2.0 RYA RYA

839 TABLE MEADOWS 1.9 2.0 0.2 OSS5 OSS5
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Trail Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - Trail Designations Page 9 of 9 ROD Attachment 2- Trails

ID TRAIL NAME BMP EMP GIS 

Miles

Alt 5 in 

FEIS

Selected Alternative 

5 Modified 

No change in any Alternative in FEIS - in Dark grey.

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Trail Designations 

Alternative 5, as Modified - in BOLD ITALICS & Light grey

Other Recent Access Decisions - in BOLD & Light grey

839 TABLE MEADOWS 2.0 4.1 1.9 RYA RYA

844 RELIEF CREEK 0.0 1.4 1.4 OYS2 OYS2

846 LOWER KIRKS FORK 0.0 2.5 2.5 RYA RYA

847 BEAVER CREEK 0.0 4.4 4.4 OSS4 OSS4

848 RED HORSE RIDGE 0.0 2.6 2.6 RYA RYA

849 DENT CUTOFF 0.0 0.1 0.1 RYA RYA

85 LOVELL GULCH 0.0 0.3 0.4 RYA RYA

851 SHEEP DRIVE RDG. 0.0 4.2 4.2 RYA RYA

854 FRANKLIN - BUCKHORN CUTOFF 0.0 1.7 1.7 OSS5 OSS5

854 FRANKLIN - BUCKHORN CUTOFF 1.7 1.9 0.2 OSS5 OSS5

854 FRANKLIN - BUCKHORN CUTOFF 1.9 2.9 1.0 OSS5 OSS5

861 WALKER CABIN 0.0 0.7 0.7 RYA RYA

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0.0 1.9 1.9 OSM4 OSM4

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 1.9 6.1 4.2 OSS6 OSS6

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 6.1 8.5 2.4 OSA1 OSA1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 8.5 9.7 1.8 OSS2 OSS1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 9.7 10.3 1.8 OSS2 OSS1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 10.3 11.4 1.1 OSS2 OSS1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 11.4 11.6 0.2 OSS2 OSF1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 11.6 12.3 0.7 OSS2 OSS2

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 12.3 17.7 5.4 OSS2 OSS10

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 17.7 17.9 0.2 OSA1 OSF1

88 IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 18.8 22.4 4.5 OSS2 OSS1

881 DRIVEWAY EXTENSION 0.0 1.8 1.7 RYA RYA

882 TWENTY MILE BUTTE 0.0 0.3 0.3 B B

884 20 MILE CUTOFF 0.0 1.7 1.7 RYA RYA

887 BOX SING 0.0 2.1 2.1 OYM OYM

90 HANOVER CREEK 0.0 0.5 0.5 RYA RYA

928 PELL CABIN 0.0 3.0 3.0 RYA RYA

9867 DUTCH OVEN 0.0 1.1 1.0 OSS6 OYS2

9867 DUTCH OVEN 1.1 2.3 1.2 OSS6 OSS6

9875 CENTER STAR MINE ROAD 0.0 1.4 1.3 OSM4 OSM4

NEW1 NEW1 0.0 0.5 0.5 OSS6 OSS6

NEW4 NEW4 0.0 0.3 0.3 OYS2 OYS2

NEW5 NEW5 0.0 0.3 0.3 OSS4 OSS4
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 1 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

107018 2.20 2.50 0.30 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

1100 0.00 0.22 0.22 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1101 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1102 0.00 3.50 3.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1103 0.00 0.68 0.68 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1103/641 0.68 0.96 0.28 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1103 0.96 6.30 5.34 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1103A 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1103B 0.00 1.30 1.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1103B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1103D 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1103H 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1103H1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1104 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1104 0.40 2.60 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1104 2.60 3.70 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1104A 0.00 3.20 3.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1104B 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1104C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105 0.00 10.08 10.08 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1105 10.08 18.67 8.59 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1105A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105B 0.00 1.63 1.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1105B 1.63 2.63 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105E 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105E1 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105F 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105G 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105I 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1105I 0.29 1.00 0.71 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105I1 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1105J 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1105K 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1106 0.00 9.19 9.19 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1106 9.19 15.15 5.96 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1106 15.15 19.35 4.20 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106B 0.00 1.75 1.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106C 0.00 3.80 3.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106D 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106E 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106F 0.00 2.81 2.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1106F1 0.00 0.76 0.76 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1106G 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106H 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106I 0.00 0.37 0.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1106I 0.37 1.00 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106I1 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1106J 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106K 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106L 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106M 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1106N 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

1106N1 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

1106O 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1107 0.00 0.75 0.75 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1107A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1107B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1107C1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 2 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1108 0.00 0.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1110 0.00 2.19 2.19 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1110 2.19 5.72 3.53 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110 5.72 6.80 1.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110A 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110B 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110D 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110E 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110F 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1110H 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1111 0.00 0.27 0.27 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1111 0.27 0.82 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1111 0.82 1.62 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1112A 1.80 2.20 0.40 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

1112C 1.50 2.40 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1112C3 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1113 0.00 1.31 1.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1113A 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1114 0.00 1.70 1.70 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1114 1.70 5.30 3.60 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1114C 0.00 0.45 0.45 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1116 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1117 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1117A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1119 0.00 2.00 2.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1119 2.00 2.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1119 2.06 4.49 2.43 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1119 4.49 7.69 3.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1119A 0.00 2.43 2.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1119A1 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1119B 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1119C 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1119C 0.48 0.68 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1120 0.00 1.90 1.90 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1121 0.00 2.87 2.87 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1121 2.87 3.80 0.93 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1121 3.80 5.00 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1121A 0.00 2.62 2.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1122 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1123 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1124 0.00 2.80 2.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1125 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1125B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1125B1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1127 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1127 1.40 1.70 0.30 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

1129 0.00 8.23 8.23 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1129B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1129D 0.00 2.00 2.00 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1129D1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1131 0.00 2.80 2.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1131A 0.00 2.00 2.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1150 0.00 1.17 1.17 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1150 1.17 5.30 4.131 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1150 5.30 5.97 0.67 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1150 5.97 8.45 2.48 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1150 8.45 10.57 2.12 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1150A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 3 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1150B 0.00 3.30 3.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150C 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150D 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150E 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150E1 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150F 0.00 1.87 1.87 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150G 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1150G1 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1151 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1151A 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1151B 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1160 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160 1.20 1.52 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160 1.52 2.82 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160A 0.00 1.14 1.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160A 1.14 1.70 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160A2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160A3 0.00 0.97 0.97 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160D 0.00 1.45 1.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160D 1.45 2.40 0.95 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160D 2.40 3.60 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160D1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160E 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1160F 0.00 0.34 0.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1160F1 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1163 0.00 4.40 4.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1164 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1164A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1164B 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1166 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

1166 0.80 2.70 1.90 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

1166 2.70 4.70 2.00 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1166A 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1166A 2.20 2.70 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1166A 2.70 2.90 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1170 0.00 3.70 3.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1170A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1170C 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1172 0.00 9.60 9.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1172A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1172C 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1172E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1182 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1182 0.10 1.70 1.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1182 2.30 5.60 3.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1182A 1.10 3.15 2.05 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1182A1 0.00 0.22 0.22 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1182B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1182C 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1182C 0.60 1.70 1.10 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1182D 0.00 2.55 2.55 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1182D1 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1183 0.00 6.61 6.61 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1183 6.61 8.84 2.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1183A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1183B 0.00 1.35 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1183C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 4 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1183D 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1183E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1184 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1184A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1185 0.00 0.55 0.55 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1185 0.55 0.85 0.30 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1185 0.85 4.50 3.65 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1185A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1187 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1188 0.00 10.87 10.87 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1188A 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1188A1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1189 0.00 4.30 4.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1189 4.30 4.40 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1189 4.40 4.46 0.06 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1189 4.46 8.70 4.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1189A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190 0.00 2.70 2.70 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1190 2.70 4.50 1.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1190 4.50 9.43 4.93 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1190A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1190B 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1190B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1190B2 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1190B3 0.00 1.05 1.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190E 0.00 3.10 3.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1190E2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190F 0.00 0.96 0.96 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190F1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1190M 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1190N 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1194 0.00 4.15 4.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1194A 0.00 2.81 2.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1194A1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1194B 0.00 2.60 2.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1194B1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1195 0.00 2.60 2.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1195A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1195B 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1195B1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1196 0.00 4.32 4.32 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1196A 0.00 2.30 2.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1196B 0.00 1.85 1.85 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1196C 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1196C1 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1196D 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1199 2.86 16.92 14.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1199A 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199A1 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199B 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199D 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199E 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1199F 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1400 0.00 0.14 0.14 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1401 0.00 0.12 0.12 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1402 0.00 0.03 0.03 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AC L

1402 0.03 0.08 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1403 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 5 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1404 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1614A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1614B 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1614C 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1614C1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1614D 0.00 0.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1800 0.00 3.00 3.00 OSA5 OSA5 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1800 3.00 10.27 7.27 OSA5 OSA5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1800 10.27 11.80 1.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1800 11.80 14.41 2.61 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1800A 0.00 3.20 3.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800A1 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800A2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800A3 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800B 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800C 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800C1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800C2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800D 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800D 0.55 0.80 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800D1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800E 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800E1 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800F 0.00 1.24 1.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800F1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800G 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800G1 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800G1 0.26 0.80 0.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800G2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800H 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800H1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800I 0.00 3.70 3.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800J 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800K 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1800L 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1800W 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1803 0.00 15.39 15.39 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1803 15.39 19.20 3.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1803B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1803C 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1803D 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1803E 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1806 0.20 5.85 5.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806A 0.00 3.30 3.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806A1 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806B 0.00 4.10 4.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806B1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806C 0.00 3.91 3.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1806C1 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1807 0.00 4.20 4.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1807A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA PVT FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1807A 0.20 0.40 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1807B 0.00 0.54 0.54 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1808 0.00 2.88 2.88 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1808 2.88 8.09 5.21 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1808 8.09 8.10 0.01 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1808 8.10 8.53 0.43 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1808 8.53 10.42 1.89 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

1808A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 6 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1808B 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1808B2 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1808C 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1808D 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1808E 0.00 1.20 1.20 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1808F 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1809 0.00 2.62 2.62 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1809 2.62 3.08 0.46 OSA4 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1809 3.08 6.00 2.92 OSS5 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1809 6.00 6.81 0.81 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1809B 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1809B1 0.00 0.75 0.75 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1809C 0.00 0.78 0.78 OSS5 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1809F 0.00 0.74 0.74 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1810 0.00 4.28 4.28 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1810 4.28 6.40 2.12 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1810A 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1810B 0.00 2.12 2.12 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1810C 0.00 0.92 0.92 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1810G 0.00 0.86 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1819 0.00 2.10 2.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1819 2.10 4.30 2.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1820 0.00 4.80 4.80 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1820A 0.00 1.70 1.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1820B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826 0.00 3.60 3.60 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1826 3.60 11.50 7.90 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826A 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826B 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826C 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826C 1.80 2.00 0.20 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826D 0.00 1.80 1.80 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826D1 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826E 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826F 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826G 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1826G1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1831 0.00 2.60 2.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1831 2.60 4.50 1.90 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1831A 0.00 1.40 1.78 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1831B 0.00 0.56 0.56 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1831C 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1831D 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1832 0.00 4.21 4.21 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1832C 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1834 0.00 6.60 6.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1834A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1834B 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1834C 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1842 13.30 15.65 2.35 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 3 2 AGG L

1847 0.00 4.80 4.80 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1850 0.00 1.48 1.48 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1851 0.00 4.45 4.45 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1851A 0.00 0.06 0.06 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1851C 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

1852 0.00 9.01 9.01 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1852A 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1852C 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1852D 0.00 1.55 1.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1853 0.00 4.88 4.88 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 7 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1853 4.88 6.98 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

1853A 0.00 0.97 0.97 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1853A1 0.00 0.78 0.78 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1853B 0.00 0.49 0.49 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1853C 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1853D 0.00 1.07 1.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1854 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1854A 0.00 1.45 1.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1854B 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1854C 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1855 0.00 9.91 9.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1855A 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1855B 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1855C 0.00 0.09 0.09 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1855D 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1855E 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1855F 0.00 1.01 1.01 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1856 0.00 0.79 0.79 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1856 0.79 3.10 2.31 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856 3.10 3.58 0.48 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856B 0.00 1.18 1.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1856D 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1857 0.00 4.31 4.31 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1857A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858 0.00 8.65 8.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1858 8.65 15.35 6.70 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

1858A 0.00 0.33 0.33 OYA B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858C 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858D 0.00 0.14 0.14 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858D 0.14 2.10 1.36 OSA3 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858E 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858F 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858F1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858F2 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858F3 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858G 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1858H 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA3 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858I 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1858I1 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1860 0.00 5.00 5.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

1860A 0.00 1.42 1.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1861 0.00 5.75 5.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1861A 0.00 0.13 0.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1861B 0.00 0.86 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1861C 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1862 0.00 1.30 1.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1862 1.30 6.10 4.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1862 6.10 9.46 3.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1863 0.00 0.01 0.01 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1863 0.01 0.26 0.25 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1863A 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

1864 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1864 0.90 1.50 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1864 1.50 2.98 1.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1866 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1866 0.04 2.70 2.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 8 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

1866 2.70 2.84 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1866 2.84 9.08 6.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1866A 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1866C 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1866E 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1866F 0.00 1.67 1.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1867 1.30 4.50 3.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867B 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867B1 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867C 0.00 1.25 1.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867D 0.00 0.98 0.98 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867D1 0.00 0.13 0.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867D2 0.00 0.78 0.78 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867E 0.00 1.38 1.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867E1 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867E2 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1867H 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1870 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSF1 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1870 0.60 5.20 4.60 OSA3 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1870B 0.00 1.25 1.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1870C 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1875 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

1875 1.00 4.90 3.90 OSA7 OSA7 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

1875 4.90 19.56 14.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1875C 0.00 2.03 2.03 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1876 0.00 3.90 3.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

1876E 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1876E1 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1876F 0.00 2.19 2.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1876G 0.00 1.67 1.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1876G1 0.00 0.06 0.06 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

1894 0.00 2.64 2.64 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1894A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1894B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1899 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

1899 2.35 4.70 2.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

1899A 0.00 1.57 1.57 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000 0.00 6.73 6.73 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

2000A 0.00 0.11 0.11 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2000A 0.11 0.32 0.21 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2000B 0.00 0.84 0.84 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000B1 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000D 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000E 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2000F 0.00 0.19 0.19 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2002 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

2002 1.00 3.30 2.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 IMP C

2002 3.30 4.99 1.69 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

2002 4.99 9.90 4.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

2002A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002A2 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002C 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002C1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002D 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002D1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 9 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

2002D2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002E 0.00 3.00 3.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002F 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002G 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002H 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002H1 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002I 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002J 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002K 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002K1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2002L 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2003 0.00 0.43 0.43 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 2 AGG L

2004 0.00 3.90 3.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2004A 0.00 2.31 2.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2005 0.00 0.28 0.28 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

2006A 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2007 0.00 3.60 3.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

2007 3.60 4.45 0.85 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2007A 0.00 0.42 0.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2007B 0.00 0.15 0.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2007C 0.00 0.88 0.88 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2009 0.00 5.29 5.29 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2009A 0.00 1.05 1.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2009B 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2009C 0.00 1.40 1.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2010 0.00 1.97 1.97 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2010 1.97 2.35 0.38 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2010 2.35 3.40 1.05 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2010 3.40 3.80 0.40 OSS6 OSS6 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2010A 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2010B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2010C 0.00 1.02 1.02 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2021 0.00 1.50 1.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2021 4.50 5.80 1.30 OSA3 OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2021A 0.00 0.69 0.69 OSA3 OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

2021A 0.69 1.35 0.66 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

2021A1 0.00 1.01 1.01 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2021A2 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA3 OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2022 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSA3 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2022 1.50 2.10 0.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 IMP L

2022 2.10 3.10 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 IMP L

2022A 0.00 1.18 1.18 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

2022B 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2022B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2023 0.00 3.60 3.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2023 3.60 5.00 1.40 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 IMP L

2023A 0.00 0.42 0.42 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

2023B 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

2023B1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2023C 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2023D 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2024 0.00 1.11 1.11 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2025 8.90 13.80 4.90 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

2025 13.80 14.10 0.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2025 14.10 19.60 5.50 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2025A 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025B 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2025C 0.00 1.51 1.51 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2025C1 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 10 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

2025C2 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2025D 0.00 0.41 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025E 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025F 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025G 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025H 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2025I 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2025J 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2026 0.00 5.15 5.15 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2026A 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2026B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2026C 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2026C1 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028 0.00 4.70 4.70 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2028 4.70 5.10 0.40 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2028 5.10 5.72 0.62 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2028 5.72 6.10 0.38 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

2028 6.10 10.30 4.20 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

2028A 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2028B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028C 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028G 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028G1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028H 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028I 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028J 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028K 0.00 2.15 2.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2028K1 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2029 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2038 0.00 4.99 4.99 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

2038 4.99 5.13 0.14 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

2038 5.13 6.35 1.22 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

2038 6.35 6.70 0.35 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

2038 6.70 11.70 5.00 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

2038B 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038C 0.00 3.10 3.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038C1 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038D 0.00 0.61 0.61 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038E 0.00 0.64 0.64 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038F 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2038G 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2038H 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2038I 0.00 0.28 0.28 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2052 0.00 5.70 5.70 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2052A 0.00 1.30 1.30 OSS6 OSS6 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2052B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2052C 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2054 0.00 1.48 1.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

2054A 0.00 0.98 0.98 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2054B 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056 0.00 2.80 2.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056 2.80 6.25 3.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2056 6.25 7.36 1.11 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2056 7.96 8.16 0.20 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

2056 8.46 8.56 0.10 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

2056A 0.00 1.06 1.06 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056A1 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056C 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056C1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056C2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 11 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

2056C3 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056D 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2056E 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2065 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2070 0.00 5.00 5.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2070A 0.00 0.17 0.17 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2070A 0.17 1.27 0.78 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2070A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2070B 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2078 0.00 4.50 4.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

2078A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2078B 0.00 0.57 0.57 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2079 0.00 0.17 0.17 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2079A 0.00 0.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2081 0.00 5.99 5.99 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2081A 0.00 1.32 1.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2081B 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2081C 0.00 0.34 0.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2081D 0.00 1.18 1.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2092 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2092 0.20 0.50 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2102 0.00 2.40 2.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

2102A 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2103 0.00 2.98 2.98 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2107 0.00 0.21 0.21 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

2107A 0.00 0.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2107B 0.00 0.13 0.13 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2107C 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2107C1 0.00 0.03 0.03 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2107C2 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2107D 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2108 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

2108 0.05 0.24 0.19 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2108A 0.00 0.08 0.08 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

2108B 0.00 0.13 0.13 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2108C 0.00 0.07 0.07 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2108D 0.00 0.12 0.12 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

2109 0.00 4.39 4.39 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2109 4.39 5.60 1.21 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2109A 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2109C 0.00 2.70 2.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2109C1 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

2110 0.00 0.90 0.90 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

2113 0.00 0.07 0.07 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

2114A 0.00 0.14 0.14 OYS1 OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2114A 0.14 0.17 0.03 OYS1 RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2114A 0.17 0.45 0.28 PVT NDOTH PVT PVT 1 1 NAT L

2114A 0.45 1.00 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

2116 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

2116 0.90 5.10 4.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

212 0.00 2.13 2.13 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

212 3.34 4.80 1.46 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

212A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

212B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221 6.80 7.90 1.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC A

221 7.90 23.08 14.90 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 5 5 AC A

221 23.08 35.67 12.70 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 5 5 AC A

221 36.67 36.55 0.88 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 5 5 AC A

221 36.55 51.26 14.12 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A

221 51.26 59.00 8.62 OYA OSF1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 12 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

221 59.00 59.60 2.92 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A

221 63.00 66.05 3.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A

221B 0.00 0.22 0.22 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

221B1 0.00 0.09 0.09 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

221C 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 IMP L

221D 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221E 0.00 1.85 1.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221F 0.00 1.67 1.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221G 0.00 1.70 1.70 OSA3 OSF1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

221H 0.00 1.04 1.04 OSS2 OSS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221I 0.00 0.62 0.62 OSA1 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

221K 0.00 1.13 1.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221K1 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221L 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

221M 0.00 0.08 0.08 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

221N 0.00 0.04 0.04 OSA1 OSA1 FS P 2 2 NAT L

221P 0.00 0.19 0.19 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

221Q 0.00 0.19 0.19 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

221W 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

221X 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

222 32.72 56.80 24.08 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222A 0.00 0.09 0.09 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

222B1 0.00 0.12 0.12 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

222B2 0.00 0.16 0.16 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

222C 0.00 2.00 2.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222C1 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

222C1 2.30 4.30 2.00 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

222C2 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222C3 0.00 0.69 0.69 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222D 4.20 4.40 0.20 RYA RYA FS L

222D1 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

222D1 0.30 1.10 0.80 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

222E 0.00 0.22 0.22 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

222F 0.00 4.50 4.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222F1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222G 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222H 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222I 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222J 0.00 0.27 0.27 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

222K 0.00 0.45 0.45 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222K 0.45 1.60 1.15 OSA6 OSA6 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

222K 1.60 2.95 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

222L 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

222M 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

222N 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

222N1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

222O 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

222P 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

223 6.69 11.00 4.31 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

223 11.00 17.62 6.62 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

223 17.62 19.50 1.88 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

223A 0.00 0.15 0.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

223A 0.15 0.53 0.38 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

223B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

223C 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

223C 0.26 0.50 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

223D 0.00 0.35 0.35 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

223E 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

223E1 0.00 0.02 0.02 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 13 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

223F 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223G 0.00 0.13 0.13 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

223H 0.00 0.14 0.14 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223I 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

223I1 0.00 0.03 0.03 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

223J 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

223K 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223L 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223M 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223M1 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223N 0.00 0.31 0.31 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

223N1 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223O 0.00 0.01 0.01 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223P 0.00 0.04 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223P1 0.00 0.06 0.06 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

223Q 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223T 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

223W 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

223Z 0.00 0.48 0.48 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

233 12.21 18.17 5.96 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

233 18.17 28.10 9.93 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233A 0.27 0.50 0.23 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233B 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233C 0.67 1.00 0.33 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

233D 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233E 0.00 0.11 0.11 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233I 0.00 2.70 2.70 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 2 NAT L

233J 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

233K 0.00 0.21 0.21 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

234A 0.00 0.17 0.17 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

234D 0.00 0.12 0.12 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

234D1 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

234M 0.00 0.16 0.16 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

234M1 0.00 0.41 0.41 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

234M2 0.00 0.15 0.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

235 7.80 8.30 0.50 RYA TH FS C 3 3 AGG C

240 0.00 6.40 6.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

240A 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

240C 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

240C1 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

240C2 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

240D 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241 1.75 3.06 1.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

241 3.06 13.21 10.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

241A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

241B 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

241C 0.00 2.10 2.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

241C 2.10 2.60 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

241C1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241C2 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241C3 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241E 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241F 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241F1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

241G 0.00 0.30 0.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

243 7.30 11.54 4.24 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

243 11.54 15.64 4.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

243 15.64 16.90 1.26 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

243A 0.00 2.21 2.21 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

243A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 14 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

243B 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

243C 0.00 0.82 0.82 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

243D 0.00 1.32 1.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

243D1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

243E 0.00 0.29 0.29 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

243F 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

243G 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

243G1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

244 1.82 7.01 5.19 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A 

244 7.01 18.01 11.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

244 18.01 23.30 5.29 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

244A 0.00 1.50 1.50 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244B 0.00 0.80 0.80 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244C 0.00 1.21 1.21 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244D 0.00 2.64 2.64 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244E 0.00 3.20 3.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

244E1 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244E2 0.00 1.01 1.01 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

244G 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

244J 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

244S 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

245 0.00 3.10 3.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

245A 0.00 0.78 0.78 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245B 0.00 1.16 1.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245B1 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245B2 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245C 0.00 0.71 0.71 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245D 0.00 1.65 1.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245D1 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245D2 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

245D3 0.00 0.13 0.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

246 0.00 2.30 2.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

247 0.00 1.96 1.96 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

247A 0.00 1.36 1.36 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

247A1 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

247C 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

257 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263 0.00 8.80 8.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

263 8.80 9.10 0.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

263 9.10 16.20 7.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

263 16.20 16.60 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

263 16.60 20.95 4.35 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

263 20.95 26.50 5.55 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

263 26.50 30.93 4.43 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

263A 0.00 3.71 3.71 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

263B 0.00 0.82 0.82 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

263B2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263C 0.00 3.29 3.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263C1 0.00 0.76 0.76 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263D 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

263E 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263G 0.00 2.48 2.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263G1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263H 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263I 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263L 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

263M 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279 4.90 20.20 15.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

279C 0.00 1.30 1.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

279D 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 15 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

279E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

279F 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279G 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279G2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279H1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279J 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279K 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279L 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

279M 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279N 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279P 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279P1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

279P2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

283 0.00 1.09 1.09 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

283 1.09 4.79 3.70 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

283 4.79 8.39 3.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

283A 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS P 1 1 NAT L

283B 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

284 7.80 12.05 4.25 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

284 12.05 14.55 2.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

284 14.55 14.95 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

284 14.95 17.25 2.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

284 17.25 27.03 9.78 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

284A 0.00 0.65 0.65 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

284B 0.34 0.64 0.30 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

284B 1.00 1.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

284C 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

284D 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284E 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284F 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284I 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284J 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284K 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284L 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

284M 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

284N 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

285 0.00 17.72 17.72 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

285A 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

285B 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

286 6.84 11.70 4.86 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG A

286 11.70 23.10 11.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

286 23.10 28.20 5.10 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

286 28.20 31.00 2.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

286A 0.00 0.66 0.66 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

286A 0.66 3.22 2.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

286A1 0.00 0.97 0.97 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

286A2 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

286B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

286D 0.00 0.15 0.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

286H 0.00 1.69 1.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

286I 0.00 2.21 2.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

286M 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

286N 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

289 0.00 0.80 0.80 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

289 0.80 3.80 3.00 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

290 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

290 0.20 12.91 12.71 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

290F 0.00 0.14 0.14 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

307 0.00 3.13 3.13 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

307 3.13 3.50 0.38 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 16 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

307.2 3.50 7.00 3.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307A 0.00 2.50 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307A1 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307A2 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307B 0.00 2.50 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307C 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307D 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307G 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307H 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

307I 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

309 0.00 3.15 3.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

309 3.15 8.58 5.43 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

309 8.58 15.10 6.52 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

309 15.10 23.15 8.05 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

309A 0.00 0.57 0.57 OSM1 OSM1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309A 0.57 0.80 0.23 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

309B 1.30 1.60 0.30 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

309B 2.00 2.90 0.90 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

309C 0.00 0.74 0.74 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309D 0.00 0.12 0.12 OSA4 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

309E 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309F 0.00 0.18 0.18 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309G 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309H 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309H1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309J 0.00 1.43 1.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309J1 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309K 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309L 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309M 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309N 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309O 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309O1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309P 0.00 0.19 0.19 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309P 0.19 0.70 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309P1 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309P2 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

309Q 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

309S 0.00 0.06 0.06 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

309S 0.40 0.50 0.10 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

311 0.00 4.31 4.31 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311 4.44 16.50 12.06 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311A 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311B 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311C 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311C 0.37 0.60 0.23 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

311D 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

311E 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

311F 0.00 2.50 2.50 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

311F1 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

317 0.00 4.50 4.50 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

317 4.50 11.00 6.50 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

317 11.00 15.00 4.00 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

317A 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

317B 0.00 0.35 0.35 OSA9 OSA9 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

317C 0.00 0.35 0.35 OSA9 OSA9 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

319 0.00 12.10 12.10 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

319A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

337 0.00 2.60 2.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 17 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

337 2.60 4.50 1.90 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

337 4.50 5.30 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

337A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

354 4.40 12.60 8.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

354 12.60 16.85 4.25 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

354A 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

354A 0.05 0.32 0.27 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

354B 0.00 0.09 0.09 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

354D 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

354E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

354F 0.00 0.21 0.21 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

354G 0.00 0.47 0.47 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

356 0.00 1.41 1.41 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

356 1.41 1.69 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

356 1.69 3.20 1.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

357 0.00 10.45 10.45 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

394 0.00 5.60 5.60 OSF2 OSF1 FS NFSR 3 3 IMP C

394 5.60 16.35 10.75 OSF2 OSF1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

394A 0.00 1.27 1.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394B 0.00 0.84 0.84 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394C 0.00 1.42 1.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394D 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

394E 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394F 0.00 0.17 0.17 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

394F 0.17 0.50 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

394G 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394H 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

394I 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

394L 0.00 0.06 0.06 RYA OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

394L 0.06 0.57 0.51 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

398 0.00 2.10 2.10 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

398 2.10 5.50 3.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

398 5.50 8.46 2.96 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

398G 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

410 2.70 3.04 0.34 RYA PVT FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

410 3.04 8.60 5.56 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

410B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

410C 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

410D 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

420 0.00 6.50 6.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

420 14.10 21.57 7.47 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

420A 0.00 0.94 0.94 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

420A1 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

420B 0.00 1.15 1.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

420B1 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

420C 0.00 1.21 1.21 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

420E 0.00 0.93 0.93 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

420H 0.00 0.78 0.78 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

420I 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

421 0.00 6.11 6.11 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

421 6.11 11.00 4.89 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

421 11.00 17.10 6.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

421B 0.00 0.25 0.25 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

423 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

423 0.80 7.85 7.05 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

423A 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

423B 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

423C 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

423C 0.70 3.20 2.50 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

423D 0.00 0.85 0.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 18 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

423E 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

440 1.90 5.70 3.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440A 0.00 1.22 1.22 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

440A 1.22 1.90 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440B 0.00 1.37 1.37 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440C 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440C1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440C2 0.00 0.07 0.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440C2 0.07 1.40 1.33 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440D 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440D1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440D2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440E 0.00 2.00 2.00 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440E1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440F 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440G 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

440H 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441 8.35 23.75 15.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

441A 0.00 1.99 1.99 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

441B 0.00 1.17 1.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441B1 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441D 0.00 0.65 0.65 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

441E 0.00 0.31 0.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441G 0.00 0.49 0.49 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441H 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

441J 0.00 0.35 0.35 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

443 6.11 17.48 11.37 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

443 17.48 22.80 5.32 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

443 22.80 23.20 0.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

443 23.20 29.75 6.55 OSF4 OSF4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

443 29.75 31.30 1.55 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

443B 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

443D 0.00 0.30 0.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

443E 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

443H 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

443H1 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

443I 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

444 0.00 8.40 8.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

444 8.40 14.05 5.65 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

444A 0.00 3.30 3.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

444B 0.00 0.12 0.12 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

444C 0.00 2.40 2.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

444D 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

444D1 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

444E 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451 0.00 1.30 1.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

451 1.30 5.30 4.00 OSA3 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

451 5.30 8.30 3.00 OSA3 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

451 8.30 8.90 0.60 OSA3 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

451 8.90 14.00 5.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

451A 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451A 1.00 6.50 5.50 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451B 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451D 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451E 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451F 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451F1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 19 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

451F2 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451G 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451G1 0.00 0.25 0.25 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451H 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451I 0.00 1.48 1.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

451J 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

4600 0.00 0.12 0.12 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC C

4600 0.12 3.80 3.68 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

4600A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

4600B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

4600C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

4600D 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463 3.81 8.07 4.26 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

463 8.07 12.00 3.93 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

463 12.00 12.48 0.48 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

463 12.48 15.72 3.24 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

463A 0.00 1.44 1.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463A1 0.00 0.09 0.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463B 0.00 2.29 2.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463C 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463C1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463D 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463E 0.00 1.75 1.75 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463E1 0.00 0.79 0.79 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

463F 0.00 0.13 0.13 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

464 0.00 8.40 8.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

464 8.40 19.40 11.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

464 19.40 27.50 8.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

464 27.50 30.01 2.51 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

4649 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

464A 0.00 0.78 0.78 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

464B 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

464B 0.40 2.70 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

464B1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464B2 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464C 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464D 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464D1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464D2 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464E 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464E1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464F 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

464G 0.00 3.60 3.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

464G1 0.00 0.58 0.58 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

464J 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

464L 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

465 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

465A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

466 0.00 4.45 4.45 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

468 0.00 3.00 3.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

468 3.00 13.67 10.67 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

468 13.67 17.30 3.63 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

468 17.30 19.10 1.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

468 19.10 34.41 15.31 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

468A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468C 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

468D 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468E 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

468F 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 20 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

468H 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468I 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468J 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468K 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468L 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468N 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

468V 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468W 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468X 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

468Y 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

469 0.00 4.05 4.05 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

470 0.00 10.62 10.62 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

470A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

470B 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

470C 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

470D 0.00 0.74 0.74 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

470D1 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

470D2 0.00 0.17 0.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

470E 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

471 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

471 0.50 2.80 2.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471 2.80 4.10 1.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

471 4.10 4.94 0.84 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

471A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

471B 0.00 0.05 0.05 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471B 0.05 0.80 0.75 OSA3 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471C 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA3 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471D 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471E 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

471E1 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

475 0.00 4.00 4.00 OSA2 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

475A 0.00 1.30 1.30 OSA2 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

475B 0.60 0.80 0.20 RYA RYA FS NA NA NAT L

475B 1.00 1.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

475C 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR NAT L

478 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

478 1.90 3.70 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

478A 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

478B 0.00 2.30 2.30 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

478C 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

478D 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479 0.00 2.71 2.71 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

479 2.71 6.50 3.79 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

479B 0.00 2.46 2.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479B1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479B2 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479C 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479D 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

479E 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479F 0.00 0.71 0.71 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

479G 0.00 0.82 0.82 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479G1 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479G2 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

479G3 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

484 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

484 0.50 2.20 1.70 OSA1 OYA FS NFSR 3 3 IMP L

484 2.20 3.89 1.69 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

487 0.00 4.00 4.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

487 4.00 7.55 3.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

487 7.55 11.00 3.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 21 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

487A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

487B 0.00 0.70 0.70 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

487C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

487D 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

492 0.00 6.65 6.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

492 6.65 27.30 20.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

492A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

492B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

492C 0.00 3.10 3.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

492D 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

492H 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

493E 0.30 0.55 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

493F 0.55 0.80 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

517 4.72 11.52 6.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

517 11.52 16.41 4.89 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

517A 0.00 0.33 0.33 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

517C 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

517D 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

517F 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

517F 0.40 0.81 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

522 0.70 1.35 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522 1.35 5.50 4.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

522B 0.00 2.20 2.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522B1 0.00 1.11 1.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522B2 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS P 1 1 NAT L

522C 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522E 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522E1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522F 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

522G 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522G1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522H 0.00 0.80 0.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522H1 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522I 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522J 0.00 0.34 0.34 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522K 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

522K1 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

536 0.00 3.87 3.87 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

536A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

536B 0.00 0.90 0.90 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

546 0.00 0.15 0.15 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

546A 0.00 0.07 0.07 OYA OYA FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

546A 0.07 0.09 0.02 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

624 0.75 1.40 0.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

624 1.40 5.00 3.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT C

624 5.00 7.20 2.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 NAT L

624 7.20 9.90 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

624A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

624B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641 0.00 0.16 0.16 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

641 1.00 2.70 1.70 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

641 3.00 4.58 1.58 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641 4.58 5.70 1.12 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

641 5.70 6.73 1.03 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641 6.94 6.98 0.04 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

641C 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641C1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641D 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

641D1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

642 0.00 5.60 5.60 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 22 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

642 5.60 7.22 1.62 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

642A 0.00 1.80 1.80 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

642A1 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

642B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

642C 0.00 0.33 0.33 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

643 0.00 3.35 3.35 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643 3.35 4.95 1.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

643 4.95 12.77 7.82 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643A 0.00 1.61 1.61 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643A1 0.00 0.07 0.07 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643B 0.00 2.50 2.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643C 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643D 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643D1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643E 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

643F 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643G 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

643H 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643H 0.00 0.42 0.42 OSA1 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643I 0.00 0.38 0.38 OSA3 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643J 0.00 0.23 0.23 OSA1 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

643K 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

643K 0.15 0.38 0.23 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

646 0.00 2.40 2.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

646 2.40 6.80 4.40 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

646A 0.00 0.75 0.75 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

646B 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

646C 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

647 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

647A 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648 0.00 23.18 23.18 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

648 23.18 24.25 1.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

648 24.25 27.20 2.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

648A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

648A1 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

648B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

648C 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648D 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648D1 0.00 0.58 0.58 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648E 0.00 0.86 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648F 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648G 0.00 0.91 0.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

648H 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

649 0.00 9.40 9.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

649A 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

649B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

649G 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

649H 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

649I 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650 3.66 5.14 1.48 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

650 5.14 15.45 10.31 OSF3 OSF3 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

650A 0.00 1.09 1.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650A1 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650B 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650C 0.00 1.28 1.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650C1 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650D 0.00 3.20 3.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650D1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650D2 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650E 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 23 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

650F 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650G 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650H 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650H 1.00 1.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650H1 0.00 1.05 1.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650H2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650H3 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650I 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650I 0.11 0.30 0.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650I1 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650K 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

650L 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650M 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

650N 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

651 0.00 16.65 16.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

651A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

651A 0.80 0.90 0.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 5 5 AC L

651B 0.00 0.81 0.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

652 0.00 0.14 0.14 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

652 0.14 0.40 0.26 OPOTH OPOTH FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

652 0.40 1.00 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

652B 0.00 0.38 0.38 OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

652B 0.38 0.87 0.49 OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

653 0.00 6.60 6.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C 

653B 0.00 1.11 1.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

672 0.00 21.36 21.36 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG C

672A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672C 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672C1 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672C2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672D 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672E 0.00 1.18 1.18 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

672E1 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

672F 0.00 3.13 3.13 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

672F1 0.00 0.41 0.41 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

672F2 0.00 0.31 0.31 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

672G 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672H 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672I 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672I1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672J 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672K 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672L 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

672M 0.00 0.42 0.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

673 0.00 1.58 1.58 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

673A 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

673B 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76000 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76001 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76002 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76003 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76004 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76004A 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76005 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76006 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76007 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76008 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76009 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76010 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 24 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76011 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76012 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76013 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76014 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76015 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76016 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76017 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76018 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76018A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76018B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76020 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76021 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76023 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76023A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76024 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76027 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76029 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76035 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76037 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76037A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76037B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76044 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76046 0.00 1.51 1.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76047 0.00 0.88 0.88 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76048 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76049 0.00 2.57 2.57 OSF3 OSF3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76050 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76050A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76051 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76052 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76053 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76054 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76055 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76056 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76057 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76058 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76059 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76060 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76061 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76062 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76063 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76063A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76064 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76064A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76065 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSS6 OSS6 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76066 0.00 0.54 0.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76067 0.00 0.85 0.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76068 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76069 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76070 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76071 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76072 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76073 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76074 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76075 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76077 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76077A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76078 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76079 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76080 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 25 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76081 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76083 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76085 0.00 1.11 1.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76085A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76086 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76087 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76087A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76088 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76088A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76088B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76088C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76089 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76090 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76091 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76092 0.00 1.46 1.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76093 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76094 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095 0.00 2.39 2.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095A 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095B 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095C 0.00 0.49 0.49 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095D 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76095E 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76096 0.00 1.48 1.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76097 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76098 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76099 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76099A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76100 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76101 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76101A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76101B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76101C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76101C1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76102 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76102A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76102A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76103 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76104 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76105 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76110 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76112 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76113 0.00 0.67 0.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76114 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76114A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76115 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76115A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76115A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76115A2 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76115B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76116 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76117 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76118 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76119 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76120 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76121 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76122 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76122A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76122B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76123 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 26 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76124 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76125 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76126 0.00 1.85 1.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76127 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76128 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76129 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76130 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76131 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76132 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76133 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76134 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76135 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76136 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76137 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76138 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76139 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76140 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76141 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76142 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76142 0.18 0.50 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76143 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76144 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76145 0.00 0.13 0.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76146 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76147 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76148 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76149 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76150 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76150A 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76151 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76152 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76153 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76154 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76155 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76156 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76156A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76156B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76157 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76158 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76159 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76160 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76161 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76162 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76163 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76164 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76164A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76165 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76166 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76166A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76167 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76168 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76169 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76170 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76171 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76173 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76173A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76175 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76175A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76176 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76177 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 27 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76178 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76179 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76180A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76181 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76183 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76185 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76186 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76187 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76187A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76188 0.00 0.31 0.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76195 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76199 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76200 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76201 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76202 0.00 0.07 0.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76203 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76208 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76210 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76214 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76216 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76224 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76225 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76226 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76227 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76227A 0.00 1.47 1.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76227B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76228 0.00 1.21 1.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76228A 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76228B 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76228B1 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76228C 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76229 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76230 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76231 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76232 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76233 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76234 0.00 0.56 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76235 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76236 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76237 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76238 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76239 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76240 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76241 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76241A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76242 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76243 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76244 0.00 1.52 1.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76244A 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245B 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245B1 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245C 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76245D 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76246 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76248 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76250 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76251 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76251A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 28 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76252 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76253 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76253A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76256 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76257 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76258 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76259 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76260 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76261 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76262 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76263 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76264 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76266 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76267 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76268 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76268A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76268B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76269 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76270 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76271 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76272 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76273 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76273A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76277 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76278 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76279 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76280 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76281 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76282 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76283 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76283A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76284 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76284A 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76285 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76286 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76287 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76288 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76289 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76290 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76291 0.00 0.34 0.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76292 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76292A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76293 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76295 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76296 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76296A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76297 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76297A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76301 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76302 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76303 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76304 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76305 0.00 0.32 0.32 OYS1 OYS1 FS P NA NA NAT L

76306 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76306A 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76307 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76308 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76309 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76309A 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76310 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 29 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76311 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS P 1 1 NAT L

76312 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76313 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76314 0.00 0.83 0.83 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76314A 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76314B 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76315 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76316 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76316A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76316A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76317 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76317A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76318 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76319 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76320 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76321 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76321A 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76322A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76323 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76324 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76325 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76327 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76328 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76329 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76331 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76332 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76333 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76334 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76335 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76336 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76337 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76338 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76339 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76340 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76341 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76342 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76343A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76344 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76345A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76346 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76350 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76351 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76354 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76367 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76368 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76369 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76369A 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76370 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76371 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76373 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76374 0.00 0.42 0.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76375 0.00 1.05 1.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76376 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76377 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76378 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76379 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76380 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76381 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76382 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76383 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 30 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76384 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76385 0.00 0.13 0.13 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76386 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76597 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76598 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76599 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76600 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76607 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76614 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76615 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76616 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76616A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76616A1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76616A2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76620 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76620A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76627 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76627A 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76631 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76642 0.00 0.37 0.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76654 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76656 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76656A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76657 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76658 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76658A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76658B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76659 0.00 1.34 1.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76660 0.00 1.51 1.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76661 0.00 1.53 1.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76661A 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76661B 0.00 0.91 0.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76662 0.00 0.89 0.89 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76663 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76664 0.00 0.91 0.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76665 0.00 0.19 0.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76666 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76667 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76668 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76669 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76669A 0.00 1.05 1.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76669B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76669C 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76669D 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76672 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76673 0.00 0.41 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76674 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76675 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76676 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76677 0.00 0.85 0.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76678 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76679 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76681 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76681A 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76682 0.00 0.36 0.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76682A 0.00 0.41 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76683 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76684 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76685 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76686 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 31 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76688 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76689 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76690 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76690A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76691 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76692 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76692A 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76694 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76695 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76696 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76696A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76701 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76702 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76703 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76704 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76705 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76705A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76705B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76707 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76707A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76709 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76710 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76711 0.00 1.57 1.57 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76711A 0.00 1.09 1.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76711A1 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76711A2 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76712 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76713 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76714 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76715 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76715A 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76716 0.00 0.34 0.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76717 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76718 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76719 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76720 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76721 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76722 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76723 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76724 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76725 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76726 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76727 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76728 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76728A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76729 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76729A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76730 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76730A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76731 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76731A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76732 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76733 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76734 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76734A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76735 0.00 1.34 1.34 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76735A 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76736 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76742 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76742A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 32 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76742A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76742A2 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76742B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743A 0.00 2.10 2.10 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743A1 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743A2 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743A3 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743B 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743B1 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743C 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743D 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76743E 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76744 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76745 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76746 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76747 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76748 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76749 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76750 0.00 1.02 1.02 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76751 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76752 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76753 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76754 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76754A 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76755 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76757 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76758 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76759 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76760 0.60 3.10 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76761 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76762 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76763 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76764 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76765 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76765A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76766 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76767 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76767A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76767B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76767B1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76777 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76779 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76779A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76779B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76780 0.00 0.25 0.25 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76780 0.25 0.50 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76780A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76780B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76781 0.00 0.06 0.06 OSS3 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76781 0.06 0.70 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76782 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76782A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76783 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76783A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76783B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76784 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76785 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76786 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76788 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 33 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76788A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76789 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76791 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76792 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76793 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76794 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76795 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76802 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76802A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76803 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76804 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76805 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76805A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76807 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76808 0.00 0.43 0.43 OSS4 OSA2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76808 0.43 1.20 0.77 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76808A 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76809 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76809A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76810 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76811 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76818 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76818A 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76818A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76819 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76820 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76821 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76821A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76822 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76823 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76824 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76825 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76826 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76826A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76827 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76829 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76830 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76831 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76832 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76833 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76834 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76835 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76836 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76837 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76837A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76838 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76839 0.00 0.83 0.83 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76840 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76841 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76842 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76843 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76844 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76844A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76846 0.10 0.20 0.10 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

76847 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76848 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76852 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76853 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76854 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76854A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 34 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

76855 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76857 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76858 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76859 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76860 0.00 0.20 0.20 PVT PVT FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76861 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76862 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76864 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

76866 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76867 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76868 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76873 1.20 1.50 0.30 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

76875 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76884 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76885 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76886 0.00 0.18 0.18 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

76894 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76895 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76896 0.00 0.84 0.84 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76899 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76900 0.00 1.53 1.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76901 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76902 0.00 0.37 0.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76903 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76904 0.00 0.31 0.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76905 0.00 0.09 0.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76906 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76907 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76908 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76909 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

76910 0.00 0.17 0.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77161 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77162 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77163 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77164 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77165 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77165A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77167 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77168 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77170 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77171 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77172 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77173 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77174 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77175 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77176 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77176A 0.00 0.17 0.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77177 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77177A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77178 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77180 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77181 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77182 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77183 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77183A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77184 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77185 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77186 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77186A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77187 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 35 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

77188 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77189 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77190 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77191 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77191A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77192 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77193 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77194 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77195 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77196 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77198 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77199 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77201 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77202 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77203 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77204 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77205 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77206 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77207 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77208 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77209 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77210 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77210A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77212 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77212A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77212B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77212C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77213 0.00 1.03 1.03 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77214 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77215 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77216 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77217 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77218 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77219 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77220 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77220A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77220B 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77221 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77221A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77222 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77222A 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77223 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77224 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77225 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77226 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77227 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77228 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77229 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77230 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77231 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77232 0.00 0.42 0.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77234 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77235 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77235A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77237 0.00 0.89 0.89 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77238 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77238A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77238A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77241 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77242 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 36 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

77243 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77244 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77245 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77246 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77247 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77248 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77249 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77251 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77251A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77255 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77256 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77257 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77258 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77259 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77261 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77261A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77262 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77265 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77267 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77269 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77270A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77271 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77272 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77273 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77274 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77276 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77277 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77284 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77285 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77286 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77287 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77289 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77290 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77291 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77295 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

77295A 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

77300 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

77301 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77302 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77303 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77304 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77305 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77306 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77307 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77307A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77310 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77317 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77320 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77322 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

77323 0.00 1.75 1.75 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77323A 0.00 0.12 0.12 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

77324 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77325 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77327 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77329 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77329A 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77330 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77331 0.00 0.38 0.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77332 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77333 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS P 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 37 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

77333A 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA RYA FS P 1 1 NAT L

77334 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77335 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77741 0.00 1.19 1.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77741A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77741A1 0.00 0.17 0.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77741A2 0.00 1.15 1.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77742 0.00 0.31 0.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77742A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77742B 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77743 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77744 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77745 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77746 0.00 0.42 0.42 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77748 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

77749 0.00 0.46 0.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77750 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77752 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77755 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77755A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77755B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77755B1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77755B2 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77756 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77757 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77758 0.00 0.56 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77759 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77760 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77761 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77762 0.00 0.57 0.57 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77763 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77763A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77764 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77765 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77766 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77766A 0.00 1.03 1.03 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77766A1 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77767 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77768 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77769 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77769A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77770 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77771 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77771A 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77772 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77773 0.00 0.85 0.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77773A 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77774 0.00 0.98 0.98 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77774A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77774B 0.00 0.98 0.98 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77775 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77776 0.00 0.19 0.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77777 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77777A 0.00 0.66 0.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77777B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77778 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77779 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77780 0.00 0.19 0.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77781 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77782 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 38 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

77783 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77784 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77784A 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77785 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77786 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77788 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77788A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77788B 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77788C 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77789 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77789A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77789A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77790 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77794 0.00 0.33 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77795 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77796 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77797 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77799 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77801 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77802 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77803 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77804 0.00 1.49 1.49 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77805 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77813 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77814 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77815 0.00 0.64 0.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77816 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77817 0.00 0.19 0.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77818 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77819 0.00 0.31 0.31 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77824 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77827 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77827A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77828 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77830 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77831 0.00 0.71 0.71 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77832 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77833 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77834 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77837 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77838 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77839 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

77840 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78321 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78322 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78323 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78324 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78325 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78325A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78326 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78327 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78328 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78329 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78330 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78331 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78332 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78333 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78334 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78335 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78336 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 39 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

78337 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78338 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78339 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78340 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78341 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78342 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78343 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78343A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78344 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78345 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78345A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78346 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78347 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78349 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78350 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78351 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78352 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78353 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78354 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78355 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78356 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78358 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78359 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78359A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78360 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78361 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78362 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78363 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78364 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78364A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78365 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78366 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78366A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78366A1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78366B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78366C 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78367 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78368 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78369 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78369A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78370 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78371 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78371A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78371A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78372 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78372A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78372B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78373 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78373A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78374 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78375 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78375A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78376 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78377 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78378 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78380 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78381 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78382 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78382A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78385 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 40 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

78386 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78387 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78388 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78388A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78388A1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78389 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78390 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78391 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78392 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78393 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78399 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78399A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78400 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78401 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78402 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78403 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78406 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78408 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78408A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78408B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78409 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78410 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78411 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78412 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78412A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78412A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78412A2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78416 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78418 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78419 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78421 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78422 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78423 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78423A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78424 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78431 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78432 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78432A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78436 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78437 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78438 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78439 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78440 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78442 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78443 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78444 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78445 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78445A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78446 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78447 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78448 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78449 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78450 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78450A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78451 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78452 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78453 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78454 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78455 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78456 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 41 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

78457 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78458 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78459 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78460 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78461 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78462 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78463 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78464 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78464A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78464A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78465 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78466 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78467 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78467A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78468 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78469 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78471 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78473 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78474 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78475 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78476 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78477 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78477A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78478 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78479 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78480 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78481 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78482 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78483 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78489 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78489A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78489B 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78496 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78496A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78496D 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78498 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78499 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78499A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78499A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78501 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78502 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78503 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78504 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78505 0.00 0.28 0.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78505A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78507 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78508 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78508A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78509 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78509A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78509B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78510 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78512 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78513 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78516 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78517 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78522 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78523 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78524 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78525 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 42 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

78526 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78528 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSS5 OSS5 FS P 1 1 NAT L

78529 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78530 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78531 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78535 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78536 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78537 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78539 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78540 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78541 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78542 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78542A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78543 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78548 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78549 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78550 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78551 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78552 0.00 0.21 0.21 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78553 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78554 0.00 0.54 0.54 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78555 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78556 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78557 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78558 0.00 0.19 0.19 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78559 0.00 0.17 0.17 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78560 0.00 1.21 1.21 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78586 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78732 0.00 0.23 0.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

78733 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9300 0.00 0.79 0.79 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9300 0.79 3.40 2.61 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9300 3.40 3.74 0.34 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9300A 0.00 1.28 1.28 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9300A 1.28 2.08 0.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9300B 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9301 1.31 3.78 2.47 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9301A 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9301B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9301C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9302 0.00 3.50 3.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9302A 0.00 1.64 1.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9302A1 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9302A2 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9302B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9303 0.00 6.56 6.56 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9303C 0.00 0.52 0.52 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9303E 0.00 0.21 0.21 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9303F 0.00 0.84 0.84 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9303G 0.00 0.73 0.73 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9303I 0.00 0.85 0.85 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9305 0.00 1.95 1.95 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9306 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9307 0.00 1.50 1.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9308 0.00 3.80 3.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9308A 0.00 1.56 1.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9308B 0.00 0.14 0.14 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9309 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9309A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9309B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 43 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9310 0.00 1.80 1.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9310 1.80 2.20 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9310A 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9310B 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9310C 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9311 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9311A 0.00 0.18 0.18 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9313 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9313 0.70 1.35 0.65 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9313A 0.00 0.65 0.65 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9313A1 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9313A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9314 0.00 1.21 1.21 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9314A 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9315 0.00 4.70 4.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9315A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9315A 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9315B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9316 0.00 2.10 2.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9316B 0.00 2.00 2.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9317 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9318 0.00 1.21 1.21 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9318 1.21 1.50 0.29 OSF5 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9318 1.50 2.50 1.00 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9319 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9320 0.00 4.40 4.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9320A 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9320B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9320B1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9320B2 0.00 0.05 0.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9320C 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9321 0.00 3.90 3.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9321B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9321C 0.00 0.10 0.19 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9321C 0.19 0.50 0.31 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9321D 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9321E 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9322 0.00 2.30 2.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9322A 0.00 0.34 0.34 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9322A 0.34 1.21 0.87 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9322B 0.00 0.95 0.95 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9323 0.00 1.85 1.85 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9323A 0.00 0.15 0.15 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9323B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSF2 OSF2 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9323C 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9324 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSA4 RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9325 0.00 4.60 4.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9325 4.60 7.50 2.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9325A 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9325B 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9325C 0.00 0.35 0.35 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9325D 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9325E 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9326 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9327 0.00 0.51 0.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9328 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9328 0.60 2.60 2.00 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9328B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9329 0.00 0.91 0.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9330 0.00 1.76 1.76 OSS2 OSS2 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 44 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9330 1.76 2.42 0.56 OSS2 RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9331 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9331A 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9332 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9333 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9333A 0.00 0.12 0.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9334 0.00 2.40 2.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9334A 0.00 1.81 1.81 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9335 0.00 3.49 3.49 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9335A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9335B 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9335C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337 1.50 1.90 0.40 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 4.20 4.80 0.60 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 8.30 9.30 1.00 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 11.80 14.30 2.50 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 14.55 14.75 0.20 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 15.30 15.60 0.30 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337 15.88 16.15 0.27 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9337A 0.00 3.10 3.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337B 0.00 0.57 0.57 OSS6 OSS6 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337B 0.57 2.20 1.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337C 0.00 3.18 3.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337C 3.18 3.20 0.02 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337C1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9337C2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9339 0.00 2.00 2.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9339A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9339A1 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9339B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9340 0.00 2.72 2.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9342 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9342A 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9343 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9344 0.00 1.06 1.06 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9344A 0.00 0.67 0.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9346 0.00 1.26 1.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9346A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9346B 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9346C 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9346C1 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9347 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9347A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9348 0.00 0.78 0.78 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9350 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9400 0.00 1.77 1.77 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9400 1.77 3.40 1.63 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9400A 0.00 1.61 1.61 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9400A2 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9400B 0.00 1.18 1.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9400B 1.18 2.48 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9401 0.00 4.21 4.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9401B 0.00 1.15 1.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9401D 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9402 0.00 2.60 2.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9403 0.00 2.45 2.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9403A 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9403A 0.53 0.68 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9403B 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9403C 0.00 1.35 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 45 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9403D 0.00 1.55 1.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR NA NA AGG L

9403E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9404 0.00 2.73 2.73 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9404A 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9404B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9405 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9405 0.10 0.96 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9406 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9406A 0.00 0.52 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9406A1 0.00 0.11 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9407 0.00 0.73 0.73 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9408 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9409 0.00 1.36 1.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9409 1.36 1.86 0.50 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9409A 0.00 0.04 0.04 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9409B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9410 0.00 3.01 3.01 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9411 0.00 1.58 1.58 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9412 0.00 2.04 2.04 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9413 0.00 1.59 1.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9414 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9415 0.00 0.54 0.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9416 0.00 1.25 1.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9416A 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9417 0.00 1.26 1.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9419 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9419 1.60 2.41 0.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9419A 0.00 1.61 1.61 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9419B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9419C 0.00 0.19 0.19 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9419D 0.00 0.72 0.72 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9419E 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9420 0.00 1.88 1.88 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9421 0.00 1.75 1.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9421A 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9421B 0.00 1.35 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9421C 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9422 0.00 1.86 1.86 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9423 0.00 1.07 1.07 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9424 0.00 3.79 3.79 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 IMP L

9424A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9424B 0.00 1.38 1.38 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9425 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9426 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9426 0.90 2.90 2.00 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9426A 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9426B 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9427 0.00 2.00 2.00 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9427A 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9428 0.00 2.64 2.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9429 0.00 0.36 0.36 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9429 0.36 2.44 2.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9429A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9429B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9429C 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9429C1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9430 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9431 0.00 3.29 3.29 OSF3 OSF3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9432 0.00 1.71 1.71 OSF3 OSF3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9433 0.00 1.91 1.91 OSF3 OSF3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 46 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9435 0.00 1.31 1.31 OYA OYA FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

9435 1.31 3.36 2.05 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9435A 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9435B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9435C 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9435D 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9435D1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9436 0.00 1.45 1.45 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9437 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9438 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9439 0.00 2.55 2.55 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9439A 0.00 0.48 0.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9439B 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9439C 0.00 0.37 0.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9439D 0.00 1.20 1.20 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9439E 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9440 0.00 0.67 0.67 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9440 0.67 1.00 0.33 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9441 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9441A 0.00 1.21 1.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9441A 1.21 1.30 0.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9441A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9441A2 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9442 0.00 2.38 2.38 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9442A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9444 0.00 1.79 1.79 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9448 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9449 0.00 4.18 4.18 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9449A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9450 0.00 0.41 0.41 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9450 0.41 4.18 3.77 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9451 0.00 1.88 1.88 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9452 0.00 3.73 3.73 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9452B 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9452C 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9453 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9454 0.00 1.84 1.84 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9456 0.00 0.56 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9457 0.00 0.81 0.81 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9458 0.00 1.16 1.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9458A 0.00 0.47 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9461 0.00 2.50 2.50 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9461A 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9463 0.00 2.35 2.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9465 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSF5 OSF5 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9466 0.00 2.60 2.60 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9466A 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9467 0.00 1.11 1.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9467A 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9467A1 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9468 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9468A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9468A1 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9468B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9468C 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9469 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9469A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9469B 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9470 0.45 1.70 1.25 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9470A 0.00 0.90 0.90 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 47 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9470B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9470C 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9472 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9472A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9474 0.00 4.20 4.20 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9475 0.00 2.23 2.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9475 2.23 2.70 0.47 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9475B 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9477 0.00 1.90 1.90 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9477A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9478 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9478A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9478A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9482 0.00 1.12 1.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9482B 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9483 0.00 1.56 1.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9484 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9484B 0.00 0.83 0.83 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9485 0.00 0.22 0.22 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485 0.22 2.90 2.68 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485B 0.00 0.63 0.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485C 0.00 0.49 0.49 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485C 0.49 2.43 1.94 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485D 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485E 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9485F 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9500 0.00 3.87 3.87 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9500B 0.00 0.32 0.32 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9500C 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9500C1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9502 0.00 3.70 3.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9502A 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9502B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9503 0.00 1.39 1.39 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9503A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9503A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9503A2 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9503A3 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9504 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9505 0.00 7.10 7.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9505A 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9505B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9505C 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9505E 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9506 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9507 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9507A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9508 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9509 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9510 0.00 3.51 3.51 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9510A 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9511 0.00 2.00 2.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9512 0.00 5.60 5.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9512A 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9513 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9514 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9514A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9515 0.00 1.46 1.46 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9515A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 48 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9516 0.00 2.50 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9516A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9517 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9517A 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9517A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9518 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9518A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9518B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9519 0.00 6.60 6.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9519A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9519B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9520 0.00 3.40 3.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9521 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9521 0.20 1.00 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9521A 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9521B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9521B1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9522 0.00 0.49 0.49 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9523 0.00 1.20 1.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9523B 0.00 1.07 1.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9523C 0.00 0.37 0.37 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9523C 0.37 1.50 1.13 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9524 0.00 1.64 1.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9524 1.64 2.50 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9525 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9526 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9526B 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527 0.00 4.20 4.20 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527A 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527B 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSS4 OSS4 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527C 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527C1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527D 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9527D1 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSS2 OSS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527E 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSS1 OSS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9527F 0.00 0.54 0.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9528 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9529 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9529A 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9530 0.00 4.20 4.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9530A 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9530A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9531 0.00 2.90 2.90 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9531A 0.00 1.80 1.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9531A1 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9532 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9532A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9532B 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9532B1 0.00 0.72 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9532B2 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9533 0.00 2.30 2.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9533A 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9533B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534 0.00 2.20 2.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534A 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534C 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534D 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534E 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9534F 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 49 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9535 0.00 7.60 7.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535A 0.00 2.60 2.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535B 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535B1 0.00 0.45 0.45 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9535E 0.00 2.00 2.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535E1 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535E2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535F 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535G 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9535H 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9536 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9537 0.00 1.40 1.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9537A 0.00 0.40 0.40 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9538 0.00 0.60 0.60 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9539 0.00 0.20 0.20 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9540 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9541 0.00 3.37 3.37 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9541C 0.00 0.36 0.36 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9542 0.00 4.60 4.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9543 0.00 2.52 2.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9543A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9544 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9544A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9545 0.00 0.05 0.05 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9545 0.47 0.65 0.18 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9545 0.74 0.85 0.11 OYA OYA FS P 2 2 NAT L

9550 0.00 0.23 0.23 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9550 0.23 7.11 6.88 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9550A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9550B 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9550C 0.00 1.90 1.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9551 0.00 0.82 0.82 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9552 0.00 0.18 0.18 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9552 0.18 0.29 0.11 OYS2 OYS2 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9552 0.29 1.50 1.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9553 0.00 7.30 7.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9553A 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9553C 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9554 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9554 1.70 2.40 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9555 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9555 1.80 2.50 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9555A 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9556 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9558 0.00 2.90 2.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9558A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9558A 0.30 1.20 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9558C 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9559 0.00 3.00 3.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9559 3.00 5.22 2.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9559 5.22 5.30 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9560 0.00 2.70 2.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9560A 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9562 0.00 2.85 2.85 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9562A 0.00 1.62 1.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9700 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9700A 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9700B 0.00 0.43 0.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9700B1 0.00 0.27 0.27 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9701 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 50 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9701 0.50 0.59 0.09 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9701 0.59 1.31 0.72 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9701 1.31 7.95 6.64 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9701B 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9701C 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9701D 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9701F 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9702 0.00 2.11 2.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9702A 0.00 1.17 1.17 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9702A1 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9703 0.00 0.43 0.43 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9704 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9705 0.00 2.20 2.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9705A 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9705B 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9706 0.00 2.80 2.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9706B 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9707 0.00 0.56 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9708 0.00 1.28 1.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9708A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9709 0.00 3.40 3.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9709A 0.00 1.69 1.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9711 0.00 2.38 2.38 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9712 0.00 0.84 0.84 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9712A 0.00 0.31 0.31 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9713 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9714 0.00 5.50 5.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9714A 0.00 0.53 0.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9714B 0.00 0.49 0.49 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9714B1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9715 0.00 3.36 3.36 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9715A 0.00 0.14 0.14 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9715B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9716 0.00 5.23 5.23 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9716A 0.00 2.39 2.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9716B 0.00 2.19 2.19 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9716B1 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9716D 0.00 1.21 1.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9717 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP C

9717 1.40 3.35 1.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9719 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9719 1.60 2.00 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9720 0.00 1.89 1.89 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9720A 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9721 0.00 3.25 3.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9721A 0.00 0.39 0.39 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9721D 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 IMP L

9722 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9723 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9723 1.30 4.20 2.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B 0.00 2.68 2.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B1 0.00 0.65 0.65 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B2 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B3 0.00 0.07 0.07 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B4 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B5 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B6 0.00 0.09 0.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723B7 0.00 0.16 0.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9723C 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9726 0.00 0.24 0.24 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 51 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9728 1.90 2.10 0.20 OYA OYA FS P 3 3 AGG L

9728 2.90 3.50 0.60 OYA OYA FS P 3 3 AGG L

9730 0.00 6.40 6.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9730A 0.00 0.24 0.24 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730A 0.24 0.35 0.11 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9730B 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730D 0.00 0.75 0.75 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730E 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730H 0.00 0.41 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730J 0.00 1.28 1.28 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9730K 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9731 0.00 2.70 2.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9732 0.00 1.97 1.97 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9732A 0.00 2.43 2.43 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9734 0.00 1.12 1.12 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9734A 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9735 0.00 1.62 1.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9735A 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9737 0.00 0.68 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9737A 0.00 0.44 0.44 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9738 0.00 2.26 2.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9739 0.00 0.96 0.96 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9740 0.00 0.84 0.84 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9800 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9800 0.70 1.10 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9800A 0.00 0.10 0.10 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9800A 0.90 1.00 0.90 OSA3 OSA3 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9800B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9800C 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803 0.00 8.10 8.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803B 0.00 5.00 5.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803B1 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803B2 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803B3 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803C 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803C1 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803D 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803E 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9803F 0.00 2.50 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9804 0.00 4.60 4.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9804A 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9805 0.00 1.83 1.83 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9805A 0.00 0.91 0.91 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9806 0.00 4.20 4.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9807 0.00 2.25 2.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9807A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9807A1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9807B 0.00 1.83 1.83 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9807B1 0.00 0.04 0.04 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9808 0.00 1.68 1.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9808 1.68 2.68 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9809 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9809A 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9810 0.00 1.53 1.53 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9810A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9811 0.00 3.00 3.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9811 3.00 7.20 4.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9811A 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9811B 0.00 0.70 0.70 B RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9811C 0.00 1.20 1.20 B RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 52 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9812 0.00 5.50 5.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

9812 5.50 9.30 3.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812B 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812C 0.00 0.41 0.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812E 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812E1 0.00 0.10 0.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812G 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9812H 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9813 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9814 0.00 4.50 4.50 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9814A 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9814B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9814C 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9814D 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9815 0.00 1.43 1.43 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9815 1.43 6.20 4.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9815A 0.00 1.43 1.43 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9815B 0.00 1.41 1.41 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9815C 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9815D 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9815E 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9816 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9816 1.60 5.20 3.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816A 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816A1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816B 0.00 0.95 0.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816B1 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816C 0.00 1.92 1.92 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816C1 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816D 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9816H 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9816H1 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9817 0.00 6.40 6.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9817B 0.00 1.37 1.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9818 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9818A 0.00 0.22 0.22 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9819 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9819A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9819A1 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9819A2 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9821 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9821A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9821B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9822 0.00 6.77 6.77 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

9822 6.77 11.80 5.03 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG C

9822 11.80 12.11 0.31 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9822 12.11 14.20 2.09 RYA RYA FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9822A 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9822B 0.00 0.08 0.08 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9822B 0.08 1.00 0.92 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9822C 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9823 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9823A 0.00 1.70 1.70 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9823A2 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9824 0.00 5.00 5.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9824 5.00 6.48 1.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9824A 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9825 0.00 0.25 0.25 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9825 0.25 2.40 2.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9825A 0.00 0.61 0.61 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 53 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9825A 0.61 2.47 1.86 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9826 0.00 1.00 1.00 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9826A 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9827 0.00 1.16 1.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9827 1.16 1.83 0.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9829 0.00 2.92 2.92 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9829C 0.00 0.69 0.69 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9829D 0.00 1.63 1.63 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9831 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9832 0.00 0.22 0.22 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT C

9832 0.22 4.00 3.78 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

9832B 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9833 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9834 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9834A 0.00 1.60 1.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9834B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9835 0.00 1.90 1.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9836 0.00 3.30 3.30 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9836A 0.00 1.90 1.90 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9837 0.00 3.20 3.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9838 0.00 6.30 6.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9838A 0.00 0.61 0.61 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9839 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9840 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9840 0.50 2.98 2.48 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9840 2.98 3.50 0.52 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT C

9841 0.00 0.14 0.14 OYA OYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9841 0.14 3.40 3.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG C

9841 3.40 3.70 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9842 0.00 0.58 0.58 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9842 0.58 1.26 0.68 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9843 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9844 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9845 0.00 4.87 4.87 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9845A 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9846 0.00 2.43 2.43 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9846A 0.00 1.55 1.55 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9846A1 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9847 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9848 0.00 2.74 2.74 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9848 2.98 3.40 0.42 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9848A 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9848B 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9849 0.00 1.10 1.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9849A 0.00 0.10 0.10 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9850 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9851 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9851A 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9852 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9852A 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9852B 0.00 0.30 0.30 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9853 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9853A 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9854 0.00 0.54 0.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9855 0.00 2.95 2.95 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9855A 0.00 1.05 1.05 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9856 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9856A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9857 0.00 1.00 1.00 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9858 0.00 1.10 1.10 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 54 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9859 0.00 0.50 0.50 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9859 0.60 0.70 0.10 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9859 0.80 1.05 0.25 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9860 0.00 1.66 1.66 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9861 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9862 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9862A 0.00 1.10 1.10 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9862A1 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSS10 OSS10 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9863 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9863A 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9863A1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9863B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9864 0.00 2.40 2.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9864A 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9864B 0.00 1.70 1.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9864B1 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9865 0.00 2.10 2.10 RYA B FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9866 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9866A 0.00 1.00 1.00 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9866A1 0.00 0.80 0.80 OSS5 OSS5 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9867 0.00 1.35 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9867 1.35 2.90 1.55 OSS6 OSS6 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9867 2.90 4.20 1.30 OSS6 OYS2 P P NA NA NAT L

9867A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9867B 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9867B 0.40 0.50 0.10 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9868 0.00 0.17 0.17 OYS1 OPOTH FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9868 0.17 0.26 0.09 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9868 0.26 2.62 2.36 OYS1 OPOTH FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9868 2.17 3.38 1.21 OYS1 OYS1 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9869 0.00 0.29 0.29 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9870 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9870 0.50 1.70 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9870A 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9871 0.00 1.20 1.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9874 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9875 0.00 1.70 1.70 OSM4 OSM4 FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9876 0.00 2.80 2.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9877 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9900 0.00 1.40 1.40 OYA OYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9901 0.00 4.30 4.30 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9901A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9901B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9902 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9902A 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9902B 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9903 0.00 4.40 4.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9904 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9905 0.00 0.25 0.25 OYA OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9905 0.25 0.26 0.01 OYA OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9905 0.26 2.10 1.84 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9905A 0.00 1.40 1.40 OSA4 B FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9906 0.00 4.20 4.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9906A 0.00 1.20 1.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9906B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9906C 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9906D 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9907 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 AGG L

9907A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9908 0.00 2.30 2.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 55 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9908A 0.00 2.20 2.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9908B 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9908D 0.00 1.50 1.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9909 0.00 0.45 0.45 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 3 3 AGG L

9909 0.45 1.18 0.73 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9910 0.00 0.11 0.11 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9910 0.11 2.10 1.99 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9910A 0.00 0.90 0.90 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9910A1 0.00 0.38 0.38 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9910B 0.00 0.20 0.20 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9911 0.00 5.75 5.75 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9912 0.00 0.40 0.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9913 0.00 3.35 3.35 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9914 0.00 0.91 0.91 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9914 0.91 1.20 0.29 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9915 0.00 0.70 0.70 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9916 0.00 3.83 3.83 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9916A 0.00 0.62 0.62 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9916A1 0.00 0.15 0.15 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9916B 0.00 0.56 0.56 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9916C 0.00 0.67 0.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9916D 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9917 0.00 3.70 3.70 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9918 0.00 0.41 0.41 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9918 0.41 2.25 1.84 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9918A 0.00 0.26 0.26 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9918B 0.00 1.80 1.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9919 0.00 3.15 3.15 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9919A 0.00 1.42 1.42 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9921 0.00 3.67 3.67 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9921A 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9921B 0.00 1.30 1.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9922 0.00 2.50 2.50 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9922A 0.00 0.50 0.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9922B 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9922C 0.00 0.82 0.82 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9922D 0.00 0.59 0.59 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9922D1 0.00 0.70 0.70 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9923 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9923A 0.00 0.37 0.37 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9924 0.00 0.50 0.50 OSA1 OSA1 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9924 0.50 2.90 2.40 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9924A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9924B 0.00 1.80 1.80 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9924B1 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9924C 0.00 0.80 0.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9925 0.00 1.60 1.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 AGG L

9925B 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9926 0.00 3.50 3.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9926A 0.00 0.30 0.30 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9926B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9927 0.00 0.86 0.86 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9928 0.00 0.25 0.25 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9929 0.00 1.16 1.16 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9929A 0.00 0.35 0.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9930 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9931 0.00 1.40 1.40 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9932 0.00 5.80 5.80 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9934 0.00 1.54 1.54 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9934A 0.00 0.55 0.55 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L
Nez Perce National Forest

DRAMVU - Road Management Objectives - Alternative 5, as Modified

DRAMVU ROD - RMOs Page 56 of 56 ROD Attachment 2 - Road Designations

DRAMVU Draft Record of Decision - Road Management Objectives

Alternative 5, as Modified in BOLD ITALIC - Light Grey

Other Recent Access Decisions in BOLD - Light Grey

Road NumberRte BMPRte EMPSegment Length (mi)Alternative 5 in FEISSelected Alternative Prescription Alt 5 ModifiedJuris- dictionSystemObj Mtce LevelOper Mtce LevelSurface TypeFunction Class A, C, L

9935 0.00 1.21 1.21 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9935A 0.00 0.77 0.77 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9936 0.00 1.35 1.35 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9936A 0.00 1.58 1.58 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9939 0.00 2.50 2.50 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9939A 0.00 0.20 0.20 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9939B 0.00 0.60 0.60 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9939C 0.00 0.90 0.90 RYA RYA FS NFSR 1 1 NAT L

9940 0.00 0.60 0.60 OSA4 OSA4 FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L

9941 0.00 0.40 0.40 RYA RYA FS P NA NA NAT L

9942 0.00 0.65 0.65 OYA OYA FS NFSR 2 2 NAT L
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDE

CHAPTER II—ANALYSIS PROCEDURE (USDA-FS 1988; pages II-27 to II-30).

NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST

ACCESS MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

for the Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) project FEIS and ROD.

Part I – BASIC FACILITY INFORMATION

Road/Trail Id. No.: See DRAMVU, 

 FEIS Appendix B Date of Analysis: 2007-2015 

Section: See DRAMVU, FEIS, Appendix B, Road and Trail list.

Evaluation Area: Nez Perce National Forest ATP Area: Forestwide

Existing Facility ( X ) Proposed Facility ( ) Reconstruction ( )

Long Term Strategy ( ) Project Period Strategy ( X ) Project Name: DRAMVU

Analysis Conducted By: See FEIS, Chapter 4, List of Preparers

Rights of Way Existing ___X____ Needed ___X____ Add One Year to Proposal

System Classification:

Facility Class Y/N Footnote Facility Code

Arterial Road Y FR1

Collector Road

 Multi Purpose Collector Y FR2

 Single Purpose Collector Y FR3

Special Purpose Road Y FR4

Local Road Y FR5

Mainline Trail

 Wilderness N FT1

 Non-Wilderness Y FT2

Secondary Trails

 Wilderness N FT3

 Non-Wilderness Y FT4

Primitive Trails

 Wilderness N FT5

 Non-Wilderness Y FT6
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDE

CHAPTER II—ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Part II – REASONS FOR USE RESTRICTION OR TRAFFIC TYPE RESTRICTION:

Reason for Restriction Y/N Footnote Code

Wildlife Habitat 080 Y

Winter Range (Elk-calving)

 Winter Range Y MA 15, MA 16, MA 21 WL1WL1

 Summer Security Y Summer Elk Habitat Areas WL2

 Fall Security Y MA 21 WL3

 Special Habitat Component Y MA 11 WL4

Water Quality 090

 Direct Sedimentation Y MA 22, MA 23 WQ1

Facility Protection 130 Y

 Damage to Facility Y FP1

 Reduced Maint. Costs Y FP2

 Contractor Liability N FP3

Public Safety 130 Y

 Design of Facility Y PS1

 Hazard N

 Natural Causes 121/131 N PS2

 Mining 060 N PS3

 Conflicting Uses Y PS4

Recreation Opportunity 070 Y

 Conflicting Uses Y RO1

 Semiprimitive NonMotorized Y MA 8.3, MA 11 RO2

 Fall Hunting Experience Y RO3

Wilderness Management 070 N

 Motorized/Mechanized Use N WM1

 Resource Protection N WM2

 Experience Objective N WM3
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDE

CHAPTER II—ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Part III – ACCESS NEEDS FOR ROADS AND TRAILS:

Reason for Access Y/N Footnote Code

Timber Management Y LT1

Recreation Use

 Distribution of Users

 (ie. hunting/wilderness)

Y Main routes and access to 

recreation facilities and portals LT2

 Other Uses (ie. Historical) Y Main Routes LT3

Access To Inholdings N Permitted through road use 

permits LT4

Access To Mineral Claims N Permitted. Plan of Operation LT5

Motorized Recreation Opport. Y Forestwide LT6

Tribal Treaty Rights Y Forestwide LT7

Range Use N Permitted. Grazing Permit LT8

Fire Detection (Lookouts) N Administrative Access LT9

Other Access Needs N Case specific LT10

Part IV – ACCESS PRESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVES (From Exhibit F):

 

See Access Guide, Exhibit D/F; and DRAMVU FEIS Appendix B for access codes.

MA 6 MA 8.1 MA 8.2 MA 8.3

Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions

Y-1, C-2

OYA, OSA3, OSA4, 

OSA5, OSF5, OYS1, 

OYS2, OSS1, OSS2, 

OSS5, OSS6, OSS7, 

OSS8, OYM, OSM4, 

RYA.

Discourage/forbid 

recreation which 

impair research or 

educational values

(except where 

access pre-existed) 

Research Natural 

Areas

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, 

Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are 

applicable

Semi-primitive 

Motorized and Semiprimitive

Non-motorized 

Recreation

Salmon River WSR

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

Recreation WSR - All DRAMVU codes 

applicable

 

Wild WSR - RYA 

Recreation WSR – Roaded Natural or 

Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation.

Wild WSR – Primitive and Semiprimitive Non-motorized Recreation

Middle Fork Clearwater River & 

Selway WSR

Y-1, Y-2

RYA

Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized 

recreation

Rapid River 

WSR
MA 9.1 MA 9.2 MA 9.3 MA 11

Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions

Y-1, Y-2

RYA

Selway Bitterroot 

Wilderness.

Y-1, Y-2

RYA

Gospel-Hump 

Wilderness.

Y-1, Y-2

RYA

Frank Church RNR 

Wilderness.

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are applicable

Semi-primitive Motorized or

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 

recreation

East Meadow, Silver Creek drainage, 

Rapid River

MA 12 MA 13 MA 14 MA 15

Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions

Open, H-2, H-3, H-4, 

Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes 

are applicable

Roaded Natural 

Recreation

Open, H-2, H-3, H-4, 

Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes 

are applicable

Roaded Natural 

Recreation

Open, H-2, H-3, H-4, 

Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes 

are applicable

Roaded Natural 

Recreation

Open, H-2, H-3, H-4, W-2, W-4, Y-1, 

Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are applicable

Seasonal Motorized recreation 

managed for timber production and 

improved winter range conditions

MA 16 MA 17 MA 18 MA 19

Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions

Open, W-2, W-4

Arterial/collector identified: 

OYA.

Other roads: OSA3, OSA4, 

OSA5, OSA8, OSA9, OSA10, 

OSF3, OSF4, OSF5, OYS1, 

OYS2; all OSS, OYM, all 

OSM, RYA.

Restrict all roads in winter, 

except identified 

arterial/collector roads.

Open, H-2, H-3, H-4, Y1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are 

applicable

Roaded Natural 

Recreation

W-2, W-4

OSA3, OSA4, 

OSA5, OSA8, 

OSA9, OSA10, 

OSF3, OSF4, 

OSF5, OYS1, 

OYS2; all OSS, 

OYM, all OSM, 

RYA. 

Seasonal 

Motorized 

recreation

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are 

applicable

Full array of recreation 

opportunities

MA 20 MA 21 MA 22 MA 23

Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions Prescriptions

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3, Y-4

All DRAMVU codes are 

applicable

 

Restrict road use after 

management activities 

end

Open or C-2

OYA or OSA4, OSA5, 

OSS5, OSS6, OSS7, 

OSS8, OSM4, OSM5

Close all but specifically 

identified roads during fall 

and winter

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3

Local roads: RYA.

Collector roads: All 

DRAMVU codes are 

applicable. 

Motorized Recreation on 

designated routes in 

Wall Creek Municipal 

Watershed

Open, Y-1, Y-2, Y-3

All DRAMVU codes are 

applicable. 

Motorized Recreation 

on designated routes in 

Elk Creek Municipal 

Watershed
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDE

CHAPTER II—ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Part V – EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PRESCRIPTIONS:

See DRAMVU FEIS Chapter 2 and Appendix B for alternative description.

See DRAMVU FEIS Chapter 1 and 3 for evaluation of road prescriptions.

Alternative 5, as Modified, changes motorized access for dispersed camping from roads and trails;

access to private lands, designations for some roads and trails. See ROD for detailed list. All other 

road and trail designations are the same as Alternative 5.

Part VI – SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:

PREFERRED ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED:

 ROD, Alternative 5, as Modified.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: 2015-2025 Could change with future decisions

 PROJECT TERM LONG TERM

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

 DESIGN STANDARD: (1A-4C) See ROD, Appendix B, RMO and Trail Tables Design Code

 PLACEMENT GUIDE LINES: See ROD, Appendix B, RMO and Trail Tables See Text

 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS NEEDS/FACILITIES: (5A-5C) See ROD, Appendix B, 

RMO and Trail Tables

 BYPASS: Varies by Road. See ROD, Appendix B, RMO and Trail Tables

 PARKING: Varies by Road. See ROD, Appendix B, RMO and Trail Tables

 UNLOADING, ETC.: Varies by Road. See ROD, RMO and Trail Tables

COMMENTS:

See DRAMVU ROD – Alternative 5, as Modified, for justification for road or trail to be open for 

motorized use. See DRAMVU ROD Attachment 4 or FEIS – Appendix D for amendments that 

allow use by management area.

REVIEWED BY: DATE: .

 FOREST ENGINEER

APPROVED BY: DATE: .

 FOREST SUPERVISOR
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE  PAGE 1

Attachment 3 – Consultation Correspondence

• Summary of Determinations for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

• Consultation Correspondence

o Letter from Rick Brazell to NOAA to conclude formal consultation

o Letter from Rick Brazell to USFWS to conclude formal consultation.

o Biological Opinion from USFWS

o Biological Opinion from NOAA

o Letter of Concurrence – USFWS - Lynx

o Biological Assessments and Evaluations for DRAMVU Project for Federally 

Listed Fish, Plant and Wildlife Species

Federally listed (Threatened-T) Species Determination:

NE = No Effect; 

BE = Beneficial Effect; 

NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect; 

LAA = Likely to adversely affect; 

NLJ = NLJCE Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; 

LJ = Likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Sensitive (S) Species Determination:

NI = No Impact; 

BI = Beneficial Impact; 

MI or MIIH= May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward 

federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species; 

LI = Likely to impact individuals or habitat with the consequence that the action may 

contribute towards federal listing or result in reduced viability for the population or 

species.

Management Indicator Species (MIS).

No determination required.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE  PAGE 2

Summary of Determinations for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Fish Species Status

Known 

Occurrence

in Analysis 

Area

Habitat 

Present

Determination

Alt 5

Modified

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Endangered No Yes NE

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Threatened Yes Yes NE

Snake River Spring/Summer 

Chinook Salmon

ThreatenedSalmon BasinYes Yes LAA

Snake River Steelhead Trout Threatened Yes Yes LAA

Columbia River Bull Trout Threatened Yes Yes LAA

Spring Chinook Salmon SensitiveClearwater Basin

Yes Yes MI

Interior Redband Trout Sensitive Yes Yes MI

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Sensitive Yes Yes MI

Pacific Lamprey Sensitive Yes Yes NE

Western Pearlshell Mussel Sensitive Yes Yes NE

Wildlife Species Status

Known 

Occurrence in 

Analysis Area

Habitat 

Present

Effects 

Determination

Alt. 5

Modified

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel T No No NE

Canada Lynx T Yes Yes NLAA

Wolverine S Yes Yes MIIH

Gray Wolf S/MIS Yes Yes MIIH

WesternToad S Yes Yes MIIH

Black Swift S No Yes NI

Townsend's Big-eared Bat S Yes Yes MIIH

Ringneck snake S Yes Yes MIIH

Peregrine falcon S/MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Bald Eagle S/MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Harlequin Duck S Yes Yes MIIH

Fisher S/MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Fringed Myotis S Yes Yes MIIH

Long-eared Myotis S Yes Yes MIIH

Long-legged Myotis S Yes Yes MIIH

Mountain Quail S Yes Yes MIIH

Flammulated Owl S Yes Yes MIIH

White-headed Woodpecker S Yes Yes MIIH

Black-Backed Woodpecker S Yes Yes MIIH

Coeur d' Alene Salamnder S Yes Yes MIIH

Pygmy nuthatch S Yes Yes MIIH

Bighorn Sheep S/MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Common Loon S No No NI

Long-billed Curlew S No No NI

American Marten MIS Yes Yes MIIH
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE  PAGE 3

Wildlife Species Status

Known 

Occurrence in 

Analysis Area

Habitat 

Present

Effects 

Determination

Alt. 5

Modified

Pileated Woodpecker MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Northern Goshawk MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Rocky Mountain Elk MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Shira’s Moose MIS Yes Yes MIIH

Grizzly Bear MIS No Yes NI

Plant Species Status

Known 

Occurrence in 

Analysis Area

Effects Determination

Alt. 5

Modified

Macfarlane’s four-o’clock T Potential NLAA

Spalding’s catchfly T Known NLAA

Payson's milkvetch S Known MI

Deerfern S Known MI

Lance-leaf moonwort S Known MI

Linear-leaf moonwort S Potential MI

Mingan moonwort S Potential MI

Northern moonwort S Known MI

Least moonwort S Known MI

Leafless bug-on-a stick S Known MI

Green bug-on-a-stick S Known MI

Broadfruit mariposa S Known MI

Constance's bittercress S Known MI

Buxbaum's sedge S Known NI

Many headed sedge* S Known NI

Pacific dogwood S Known MI

Clustered ladyslipper S Known MI

Dasynotus S Known MI

Idaho douglasia S Known MI

Giant helleborine S Known MI

Puzzling halimolobos S Known MI

Light hookeria S Potential MI

Spacious monkeyflower S Known MI

Thin sepal monkeyflower* S Potential NI

Gold-back fern S Potential MI

Whitebark pine S Known MI

Naked-stem rhizomnium S Known MI

Mendocino sphagnum S Known MI

Evergreen kittentail S Known MI

Short style toefieldia S Potential MI

Douglas clover S Potential MI

Plumed clover S Known MI

Idaho barren strawberry S Known MI
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE  PAGE 4

Consultation Correspondence

Letter from Rick Brazell to NOAA to conclude formal consultation

Letter from Rick Brazell to USFWS to conclude formal consultation.

Biological Opinion from USFWS

Biological Opinion from NOAA

Letter of Concurrence – USFWS - Lynx

Biological Assessments and Evaluations for DRAMVU Project for Federally Listed Species
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Nez Perce National Forest

104 Airport Road

Grangeville, ID 83530

208-983-1950

Clearwater National Forest

12730 Highway 12

Orofino, ID 83544

208-476-4541

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 2670

Date: March 19, 2012

David Mabe

Idaho State Director

NOAA - National Marine Fisheries Service

10095 W. Emerald

Boise, ID 83709

Dear Mr. Mabe: 

Enclosed is the biological assessment for the Nez Perce National Forest Designated Routes and 

Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) Project. 

As regulated by 50 CFR 402.14, please consider this a request for formal consultation. The 

biological assessment concludes that the action is “likely to adversely affect” ESA listed Snake 

River steelhead and their designated critical habitat. It has also been determined that this action 

is “likely to adversely affect” Snake River spring/summer chinook. As required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have determined that this proposed action “would not adversely 

affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for spring chinook and coho salmon. 

This action has been addressed by the Level 1 interagency team under the guidance of the 

streamlining process. If you have any questions or need further information regarding the 

activities submitted for consultation, please contact Scott Russell, Staff Officer, at (208) 983-

1950. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Scott Russell (for)

RICK BRAZELL

Forest Supervisor

Enclosure 

Cc: 

District Rangers 

Dale Brege, NMFS, Grangeville 

Bob Ries, NMFS, Moscow 

Clay Fletcher, USFWS, Boise 

Jennie Fisher 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 5
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Nez Perce National Forest

104 Airport Road

Grangeville, ID 83530

208-983-1950

Clearwater National Forest

12730 Highway 12

Orofino, ID 83544

208-476-4541

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 2670

Date: March 19, 2012

Brian T. Kelly

State Supervisor

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise, ID 83709

Dear Mr. Kelly: 

Enclosed are the biological assessments for the Nez Perce National Forest Designated Routes 

and Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) Project. 

As regulated by 50 CFR 402.14, please consider this a request for formal consultation. The 

biological assessment concludes that the action is “likely to adversely affect” ESA listed 

Colombia River bull trout. We have determined that this proposed action is “not likely to 

adversely affect” bull trout designated critical habitat.

As regulated by 50 CFR 402.13, we are also requesting concurrence on the “not likely to 

adversely affect” determination for MacFarlane’s four o’clock and Spalding’s catchfly.

This action has been addressed by the Level 1 interagency team under the guidance of the 

streamlining process. If you have any questions or need further information regarding the 

activities submitted for consultation, please contact Scott Russell, Staff Officer, at (208) 983-

1950.

Sincerely, 

/s/ Scott Russell (for)

RICK BRAZELL

Forest Supervisor

Enclosures 

Cc: 

District Rangers 

Dale Brege, NMFS, Grangeville 

Bob Ries, NMFS, Moscow 

Clay Fletcher, USFWS, Boise 

Jennie Fisher 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 6
Refer to NMFS No. 2013/9921 

Rick Brazell 

Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce National Forest 

l 04 Airport Road 

Grangeville, Idaho 83530 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Northwest Region 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 

Seattle, WA 98115 

July 2, 2013 

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Nez Perce 

National Forest Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, Clearwater River 

Drainage; Hydrologic units: 17060301 - Upper Selway, 17060302 - Lower Selway, 

17060304 - Middle Fork Clearwater, 17060305 - South Fork Clearwater River; Salmon 

River Drainage; Hydrologic units: 17060207 - Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, 17060209 -

Lower Salmon, 17060210 - Little Salmon; Idaho County, Idaho (One Project) 

Dear Mr. Brazell: 

The enclosed document contains a biological opinion (Opinion) prepared by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on 

the effects of the Nez Perce National Forest's (NPNF) proposed Designated Routes and Areas for 

Motor Vehicle Use Travel Plan Project. In this Opinion, NMFS concludes that the action, as 

proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River Basin steel head, and 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat for these species. 

The NPNF also determined the proposed action would have "no effect" on Snake River sockeye 

salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and designated critical habitat for these species. The 

regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA do not require NMFS to review or concur with 

"no effect" determinations; therefore, NMFS will not address effects to these species or their 

designated critical habitat in the attached Opinion. 

As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS provided an incidental take statement with the 

Opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS 

considers necessary or appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with this action. The 

take statement sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting 

requirements, that the NPNF and any person who performs the action must comply with to carry 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 7
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 8
- 2 -

out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and 

conditions are exempt from the ESA take prohibition. 

This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's likely effects on essential 

fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), and includes two conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, 

or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. These conservation recommendations are 

an identical set of the ESA Terms and Conditions. Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires 

Federal agencies to provide a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 clays after receiving 

these recommendations. 

If the response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the NPNF must 

explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the justification for any 

disagreements over the effects of the action and the reconunendations. In response to the 

increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and 

Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many 

conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are 

adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this 

consultation, we ask that you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations 

accepted. 

If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Bob Ries, Fishery Biologist, at 

208-882-6148. 

Enclosure 

cc: R. Holder - USFWS 

R. Hennekey - IDFG 

M. Lopez - NPT 

William W. Stelle, 

~ Jr. 

Regional Administrator 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 9
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 10
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion 

and 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat 

Consultation 

Nez Perce National Forest 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) 

Clearwater River Drainage; Hydrologic units: 17060301 - Upper Selway, 17060302 - Lower 

Selway, 17060304 - Middle Fork Clearwater, 17060305 - South Fork Clearwater River; 

Salmon River Drainage; Hydrologic units: 17060207 - Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, 17060209 -

Lower Salmon, 170602 10 - Little Salmon; Idaho County, Idaho 

NMFS Consultation Number: 2013/9921 

Lead Action Agency: U.S. Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest 

Affected Species and Determinations: 

Is Action Likely Is Action Is Action Likely To 

ESA-Listed Species Status to Adversely Likely To Destroy or 

Affect Species or Jeopardize the Adversely Modify 

Critical Habitat? Species? Critical Habitat? 

Snake River steelhead 

( 011corhy11c/111s Threatened Yes No No 

mykiss) 

Snake River 

spring/summer Threatened Yes No No Chinook 

(0. tshmvi1tsclw) 

Fishery Management Plan Does Action Have an Are EFH Conservation That Describes EFH in the 

Project Area Adverse Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? 

Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes 

Consultation 

Conducted By: 

Issued by: 

Date 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

'\ - Regional Administrator 

~ July 2, 2013 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 11
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 12
Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ............ ....................... ............................. ...................................................... I 

I. I. Background ..................................................... .................................... .................. ............... l 

1.2. Consultation History ........ ......................................................... .. ........ ............................ ..... 1 

1.3. Proposed Action ............................ .. .. ................................................................................... 2 

1.3.1. Area Restrictions .................................................................................................... .. ..... 4 

1.3.2. Motorized Use of Designated Roads and Trails ................ ........................................... 5 

1.3.3. Motorized Travel to Dispersed Campsites .................................................................... 5 

1.3.4. Monitoring ..... .......................... .......................................... ........................................... 6 

1.3.5. Interrelated or Interdependent Actions ......................................................................... 7 

1.4. Action Area .... ...................................................................................................................... 7 

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT and INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ...................... ..... 8 

2.1. Approach to the Analysis .................................................................................................... 8 

2.2. Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat.. .................................................. ... 10 

2.2.1. Status of the Species ...................................................... ............................................. 11 

2.2.1.1. Status of Snake River Basin Steelhead ................................................................ 12 

2.2.1.2. Status of Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon .................................... 17 

2.2.2. Status of Critical Habitat for Steelhead and Spring/summer Chinook Salmon .......... 20 

2.2.2.1 . Cli1nate Change Effects ....................................................................................... 25 

2.3. Environ1nental Baseline ................... ......................................................... ......................... 26 

2.4. Effects of the Action on Designated Critical Habitat and Listed Species ......................... 33 

2.4.1. Effects of the Action on Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Designated Critical Habitat 

......................... ...................................................................................................................... 34 

2.4.1.1. Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 35 

2.4.1.2. Stream Channel Substrate ................................ .................................................... 37 

2.4.1.3. Spawning Habitat. .............. ........................... : ...................................................... 40 

2.4.1.4. Rearing Habitat, Cover, and Shelter .. ................................................................. .40 

2.4.1.5. Migration, Habitat Connectivity, Accessibility, and Safe Passage .................... .41 

2.4.1.6. Water Quantity and Water Velocity ....... ................ .................................. .......... .41 

2.4.1.7. Forage and Food .......................................................................... ........................ 41 

2.4.1.8. Riparian Vegetation ................... .......................................................................... 42 

2.4.1.9. Living Space .............................. .................................................. ........................ 42 

2.4.1 .10. Summary of Critical Habitat Effects ......................................... ........................ 42 

2.4.2. Effects on Listed Species .......................................................................... .................. 43 

2.4.2.1. Effects on Steelhead and Spring/summer Chinook Salmon ................................ 43 

2.6. Cun1ulative Effects .......................................................................................... .................. 52 

2.7. Integration and Synthesis ....... ......... ................................................................................... 53 

2.8. Conclusion .................................................................. ... .................................................... 55 

2.9. Incidental Take Staten1ent .................................................................................... ... .......... 61 

2.9.1. An1ount or Extent of Take ....... ........ ........................................................................... 61 

2.9.2. Effect of the Take .. ........................ ... ...................... .................... ........ ....... ....... .......... 63 

2.9.3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions ........ .. ........................ 63 

2.9.3.1. Reasonable and Prudent Measures ...................................... ............... .... ............. 64 

2.9.3.2. Tern1s and Conditions ....... ......... ..... .. ................ ............ ............... ........................ 64 

2.10. Conservation Recommendations .. ................................................................................... 65 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 13
2.11. Reinitiation of Consultation ............................................................................................. 66 

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ...... 66 

3.1. Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project.. ................................................................ 67 

3.2. Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat.. ....................................................................... 67 

3.3. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations ................................................... 68 

3.4. Statutory Response Requirement ....................................................................................... 69 

3.5. Supplemental Consultation ................................................................................................ 69 

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .... 69 

4.1 . Utility ................................................................................................................................. 69 

4.2. Integrity .......................... ......... ....................................... .................................................... 70 

4.3. Objectivity ........................................................................................... ....................... ....... 70 

5. LITERATURE CITED ...................................................... ....................................................... 71 

TABLES 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel - existing 

condition versus condition under DRAMVU .................................................................................. 3 

Table 2. Fords Open to Motorized Use in Streams with Steelhead and/or Salmon Critical Habitat 

.............................. ........................................................................................................................... 4 

Table 3. New Proposed Routes ....................................................................................................... 4 

Table 4 Federal Register notices for final rules that list threatened and endangered species, 

designate critical habitats, or apply protective regulations to listed species considered in this 

consultation .. .................................................................................................................................... 8 

Table 5. Current status ratings using ICTRT viability criteria for Snake River Steelhead 

populations ............................................................................ .. .................................................. ..... 14 

Table 6. Summary of viable salmonid population (VSP) parameter risks and overall current 

status for each population in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU ................... 19 

Table 7. Types of freshwater sites and essential physical and biological features designated as 

PCEs, and the species life stage each PCE supports (70 FR 52630 and 58 FR 68543 ............. ..... 21 

Table 8. Existing Watershed and Stream Conditions ............ ............ .. .................................... ..... 29 

Table 9. Miles of Motorized Streamside Routes (Roads and Trails) Combined Adjacent to 

Known or Suspected Occupied Habitat of Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Steel head ...... .48 

Table 10. Estimated number of fish to be exposed to sediment effects at stream fords ............... 57 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Annual returns of wild adult steel head* counted at Lower Granite Dam 1989-2012 ... 16 

Appendix A 

Aquatic Monitoring Plan, Travel Planning Project, Nez Perce National Forest 

Appendix B 

Trail Ford Locations Within Steelhead and Salmon Habitat In the Action Area 

11 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 14
Assessment 

ATV 

BA 

CHART 

COE 

DNA 

DPS 

DQA 

DRAMVU 

EFH 

EO 

ESA 

ESU 

FCRPS 

g/l 

HUC 

ICTRT 

ISAB 

ITS 

LGD 

m2 

mg/L 

MPG 

MSA 

MVUM 

NEPA 

NMFS 

NPNF 

NTU 

Opinion 

PAH 

PCE 

RCAs 

RHCA 

RPA 

RPM 

ACRONYMS 

Final Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Designated Routes and Motor 

Vehicle Use 

All Terrain Vehicles 

Biological Assessment 

Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Deoxyribonucleic Acid 

Distinct Population Segment 

Data Quality Act 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Executive Order 

Endangered Species Act 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

Federal Columbia River Power System 

grams per liter 

Hydrologic Units 

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board 

Incidental Take Statement 

Lower Granite Dam 

meter squared 

milligrams per liter 

Major Population Group 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Motor Vehicle Use Map 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Nez Perce National Forest 

Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

Biological Opinion 

Poly-cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Primary Constituent Elements 

Riparian Conservation Areas 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

111 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 15
SRB 

VSP 

USFS 

Snake River Basin 

Viable Salmonid Populations 

U.S. Forest Service 

IV 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 16
1. INTRODUCTION 

This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document 

and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 

1.1. Background 

The biological opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement (ITS) portions of this 

consultation were prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with 

section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et 

seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. 

NMFS also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation. It was prepared in 

accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSAY (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. 

The Opinion and EFH conservation recommendations are both in compliance with section 515 of 

the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-5444) 

("Data Quality Act") and underwent pre-dissemination review. 

1.2. Consultation History 

This Opinion is based on the travel plan draft environmental impact statement; biological 

assessment, and literature cited. The Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) Designated Routes and 

Areas of Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) project was first described to NMFS at a consultation 

team meeting at Level l meeting February 23, 2009. On October 5, 2009, the consultation team 

discussed potential adverse effects to listed fish from motorized use of stream fords and activities 

enabled by motorized access to undeveloped recreation sites within Riparian Conservation Areas 

(RCA's). The team agreed that the proposed action needed to include mechanisms to identify 

and fix problems associated with stream fords and undeveloped campsites. 

A draft biological assessment (BA) prepared by the NPNF was sent to NMFS via email on 

September 23, 2011. The contents of the BA were discussed at a consultation team meeting on 

October 18, 2011. Discussions at the meeting focused on the BA's analysis of the effects of 

motorized vehicles traveling across stream fords and using off-route access to undeveloped 

camping sites located next to streams. On October 24, 2011 , NMFS sent comments on 

September 23, 2011 draft BA to NPNF. 

The NPNF sent revised draft BA to NMFS January 20, 2012. The revisions to the BA addressed 

the issues raised in the consultation meetings and NMFS' comments on the previous draft BA. 

The revisions to the BA were discussed at a consultation team meeting on Jan 24, 2012, and 

proposed rules for roadside parking were clarified. On February 10, 2012, NMFS received a 

new draft BA from the NPNF and on February 15, 2012, NMFS notified the NPNF that the BA 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 17
was complete and ready for submittal pending several minor edits. On March 21 , 2012, NMFS 

received a final BA and letter requesting formal consultation and consultation was initiated on 

this date. 

Because DRAMVU will affect Tribal trust resources, pursuant to the Secretarial Order 

(June 5, 1997), NMFS provided a copy of the draft proposed action and terms and conditions to 

the Nez Perce Tribe on January 31, 2013. The Tribe did not respond with comments. The draft 

proposed action and terms and conditions were also sent to the NPNF at the same time. On 

February 26, 2013, the NPNF suggested several modifications to monitoring provisions in the 

terms and conditions and EFH conservation recommendations to clarify their purpose and the 

situations where monitoring would be required. NMFS revised the terms and conditions and 

EFH conservation recommendations in consideration of the comments received. 

A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Idaho State Habitat Office in Boise, Idaho. 

1.3. Proposed Action 

"Action" means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in 

whole or in part, by Federal agencies. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger 

action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those 

that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. 

The DRAMVU is a travel planning action proposed by the NPNF that designates routes (roads 

and trails) that are open or closed to motorized vehicle or bicycle uses, establishes seasons when 

routes can be used by various types of vehicles, and establishes limitations on off-route use of 

motorized vehicles. In developing the DRAMVU proposal, the NPNF intended to respond to the 

Travel Management Rule (70 FR 68264; November 9, 2005) which states that routes and areas 

on National Forest lands are closed to motorized travel unless designated open. Also in 

developing the DRAMVU proposal, the NPNF followed Executive Order (EO) 11644 

(February 8, 1972), "Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands," as amended by EO 11989 

(May 24, 1977), directing Federal agencies to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public 

lands will be managed to protect resources, to promote the safety of forest users, and to minimize 

conflicts among the various forest users. The primary change in travel management from the 

prior travel plan under the proposed action is closure of the NPNF to cross-country travel by 

motorized vehicles with an exception allowing roadside parking and use of motorized vehicles to 

reach campsites in dispersed camping areas. The proposed action does not change existing rules 

allowing limited use of motorized over-the-snow vehicles and the prohibition of off-route use of 

motorized vehicles to retrieve big game. 

The following description of the proposed action has been adapted from the NPNF's Final 

Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Designated Routes and Motor Vehicle Use (Assessment) 

dated March 14, 2012. Refer to the Assessment for a complete DRAMVU project description. 

The DRAMVU will close the forest to all cross-country motorized travel. The proposal will 

retain 2,350 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized use (Table 1 ). 

Routes open to motorized use will include 1,963 miles of road and 387 miles of trails. Routes 

2 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 18
open to non-motorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 miles of trails outside of wilderness 

areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. The designated routes include 232 stream 

fords where motorized vehicles may be driven across streams; however (Table 2) only 19 fords 

are located in streams where listed anadromous fish might occur. Motorized access for dispersed 

camping will be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 300 feet from trails, following the 

conditions of use described below ( 1.3.3), with the exception of 18 miles of road and 28 miles of 

trail that will have no motorized access for dispersed camping to protect heritage sites, high 

elevation grasslands, and Research Natural Areas. 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel - existing 

condition versus condition under DRAMVU 

Plan Component Existing DRAMVU (miles) (miles) 

Roads 

Open Year long 1,103 825 

Open Seasonally 923 1, 138 

Non-motorized 1,700 1,763 

Trails 

Open Y carlong 568 78 

Open Seasonally 118 309 

Non-motorized 1,336 1,636 

Roads & Trails - Total 

Motorized Total 2,712 2,350 

Open Y carlong 1,671 903 

Open Seasonally 1,041 1,447 

Non-motorized Total 3,036 3,399 

Off-Route Usage 

Acres open to cross 1,004,428 0 country travel 

Motorized access for Unrestricted 300 feet from route dispersed camping 

The DRAMVU trail-use designations and changes in the season of use will reduce the number of 

miles open to motorized vehicles. Three new motorized trail routes where all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs) have been using abandoned roads or trails will be formally added to the NPNF 

transportation system (Table 3). These new routes are short trail segments that will be open to 

ATVs and motorcycles. No physical construction of new trails would be necessary because the 

trails already exist and are presently in use. 

All roads and trails proposed for motorized use have either been assessed or are in the process of 

being assessed to determine if the current condition of the route is at a standard that may 

accommodate motorized use without resource damage. Additional ground disturbing activities 

may be needed to bring these trails up to a standard for motorized use, but no physical changes to 

trails are part of DRAMVU. Under DRAMVU, any trails that require physical changes to bring 

them up to some particular standard will not be open to motorized use until the necessary work is 

completed through a separate action. 

3 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 19
Table 2. Fords Open to Motorized Use in Streams with Steelhead and/or Salmon Critical Habitat 

61

h HUC Watershed Stream Name Gradient Trail Use Type Season of Designated Critical 

(%) Number Use Habitat at Crosslna 

Upper Little Slate C. Little Slate Creek 2.0 303 Motorcycles, A TVs Yearlong Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Little Slate C. Deadhorse Creek 7.7 301 Motorcycles, ATVs Yearlong Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Little Slate C. Deadhorse Creek 6.7 329 Motorcycles, ATVs Yearlong Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Little Slate C. Deadhorse Creek 7.1 329 Motorcycles, ATVs Yearlong Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Slate C. N Fork Slate Creek 7.9 320 Motorcycles 6/16 ·11/30 Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Slate C. N Fork Slate Creek 7.9 320 Motorcycles 6/16 ·11/30 Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Slate C. N Fork Slate Creek 7.9 320 Motorcycles 6/16 ·11/30 Chinook, steelhead 

Lower Slate C. N Fork Slate Creek 7.9 320 Motorcycles 6/16 ·11/30 Chinook, steelhead 

Goddard Creek Swiftwater Creek 5.9 716 Motorcycles 6/16-11/30 steel head 

Upper Clear Creek Pine Knob Creek 7.5 723 Motorcycles 6/16-11/30 steelhead 

Upper American A. W Fork American A. 2.0 837 Motorcycles 6/16 -11 /30 steel head 

Lower American A. Kirks Fork 4.6 830 Motorcycles 6/16- 9/14 steelhead 

Lower American A. Box Sing Creek 12.7 887 Motorcycles Yearlong steel head 

Lower American A. Box Sing Creek 12.7 887 Motorcycles Yearlong steel head 

Lower Johns Creek American Creek 1.0 328 Motorcycles 4/2 ·11/30 steelhead 

Mill Creek Hunt Creek 6.9 431 Motorcycles, ATVs 6/16· 9/14 steelhead 

Mill Creek Miii Creek 3.3 313 Motorcycles, ATVs 4/2 -11/30 steel head 

Mill Creek Mill Creek 2.3 319 Motorcycles Yearlong steel head 

Mill Creek Mill Creek 2.8 385 Motorcycles, ATVs 6/ 16 -9/ 14 steelhead 

Table 3. New Proposed Routes 

New Route Length 5th HUC Ora Inge # Stream Type of Stream 

Number (mi) Crossings Crossing 

NEW1 0.52 Red River Trapper Creek 1 Bridge 

NEW4 0.3 Middle SF Clearwater Mill Creek 1 Ford 

NEWS 0.27 Middle SF Clearwater Grouse Creek 0 No crossing 

1.3.1. Area Restrictions 

Cross-country motorized travel on the forest will not be permitted. Unauthorized routes (i.e., 

routes not on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)) will not be available for motorized use, 

except for access to dispersed campsites within 300 feet of roads or trails. 

4 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 20
1.3.2. Motorized Use of Designated Roads and Trails 

Key components of the proposed action include the following: 

• All roads, trails, and areas will be closed to motorized use unless designated as open. 

Motorized use will be allowed on designated roads, trails, and areas as displayed on the 

MVUM, based on a specified type of vehicle and season of use. A designation for a road or 

trail includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the 

designated road or trail. 

• Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route will be permitted 

from the edge of the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a trailer 

(e.g. boat, horse, or camper). Use will be allowed when it is safe to do so, does not create 

resource damage, and where the use follows forest orders or prohibitions. 

• Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood would not be allowed per the terms of standard 

personal use firewood permits. 

• All areas and routes in the project area will be open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain 

bike, or stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons, such as safety, or otherwise 

posted. Mountain bikes will be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness areas, 

unless otherwise posted. No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as a 

mountain bike) is allowed within wilderness areas. The project will post informational signs 

along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access for dispersed camping is limited by the 

Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 

• This project will not supersede motorized use as authorized under permit or by a line officer, 

on any road or trail. Such forest activities may include grazing permits, weed treatment, 

mineral activities, firewood cutting permits, special use permits, and authorizations for 

administrative use. If a permit was issued for motorized activities not included under this 

decision, a separate decjsion (and consultation if needed) will be made. 

1.3.3. Motorized Travel to Dispersed Campsites 

Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes will be allowed as long as 

conditions described below are met. When the conditions below are not met, the motorized 

travel will be illegal. Off-route travel for dispersed camping will be prohibited along 18 miles of 

roads and 30 miles of trails to protect heritage sites, high elevation grasslands, and Research 

Natural Areas. 

• Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes will be permitted within 

300 feet of a designated route during the period when that route is open to motorized traffic. 

The 300-foot distance is measured perpendicular to the designated route. 

5 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 21
• Campsites, even where they currently exist, that are beyond the 300-foot distance, will be 

off-limits to motor vehicles. 

• Use of a motor vehicle off the designated route while looking for a campsite is prohibited. 

Campers are expected to explore and evaluate campsites by non-motorized means and travel 

to them with their vehicle using the most clearly defined existing track. Cutting corners on 

the established track or taking shortcuts back to the main road or trail will not be permitted. 

Repetitive recreational riding around in the campsite or along the access route will not be 

permitted. 

• Barriers of logs, rocks, earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to restrict 

vehicles from sensitive or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to eliminate 

motorized traffic in wet areas, streamside zones, on redundant tracks or for other resource 

protection purposes. Moving, going over, going around, or in any way circumventing these 

restriction devices will not be permitted. 

• Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of resource 

damage associated with motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but are not limited 

to: 

• Cutting, harming, or unreasonably disturbing vegetation; 

• Using more than one track to access the campsite; 

• Crossing streams, driving on streambanks, or riding anywhere off the established track 

where rutting occurs; or, 

• Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track. 

1.3.4. Monitoring 

The following monitoring activities will be completed during the first two complete field seasons 

following the authorization of the DRAMVU. A report will be prepared the second field season. 

The report will note any existing and potential problems, immediate actions taken during the 

interim to minimize or avoid adverse effects, and any pending or potential actions that the forest 

will address administratively or through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 

If monitoring finds adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat are occurring, the action 

will be immediately curtailed until a remedial plan is formed and subsequent section 7 

consultation is completed. The aquatic monitoring plan is in Appendix A of this Opinion. 

• Continue to monitor selected motorized trail crossings to determine if travel is causing 

direct or indirect adverse effects to listed species, designated critical habitat, or other 

aquatic resources (e.g., sensitive species, unoccupied stream habitat, wetlands, etc.). 

6 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 22
• Determine if existing dispersed recreational sites located within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and within drainages that support listed fish species are 

meeting standards and guidelines regarding PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. 

l.3.5. Interrelated or Interdependent Actions 

There are no interrelated or interdependent actions associated with the travel plan rules. NMFS 

considered whether road and trail maintenance activities depend on DRAMVU for their 

justification or if maintenance activities have no independent utility apart from activities 

authorized by DRAMVU. The DRAMVU rules pertain only to public use of roads, trails, and 

off-route areas. Roads, trails, and off-route areas are also used for administrative purposes and 

for use by people holding individual permits or rights-of way. These uses are not subject to 

DRAMVU rules. Since roads and trails are needed for purposes other than public use, road 

maintenance is necessary for these other purposes. Therefore, road maintenance does not depend 

on DRAMVU for its justification or utility. Various levels of road and trail maintenance are also 

independent of DRAMVU. Road and trail maintenance levels are dictated by a variety of 

considerations such as the hierarchical role of a road or trail within the transportation network 

(i.e. local roads, collectors, highways, etc.), access to private property and public safety. Since 

road maintenance levels are based on considerations and uses apart public uses authorized by 

DRAMVU, road and trial maintenance levels have an independent utility apart from DRAMVU. 

1.4. Action Area 

"Action area" means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not 

merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The project is located on the 

NPNF in its entirety. This forest encompasses more than 2.2 million acres within Idaho County 

in north central Idaho. The forest is bordered by Oregon on the west, Montana on the east, the 

Clearwater National Forest on the north, and the Payette National Forest on the south. Over 40% 

of the forest involves Congressionally designated wilderness (the entire Gospel-Hump, portions 

of the Selway-Bitterroot, and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Areas). Also 

included within the forest boundary is a portion of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

and Wilderness which are administered by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has previously addressed travel management in the portion of 

the NPNF located within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and .therefore, this 

DRAMVU proposal does not apply. 

Since DRAMVU is chiefly an administrative action, its effects coincide with the rivers and 

streams that lie within the forest boundary, except where authorized travel activities create 

sediment or contribute water pollutants downstream. Considering downstream effects, the action 

area includes all Clearwater and Salmon River tributaries within the NPNF boundary (excluding 

areas administered by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest), extending downstream to their 

mouths. No effects are expected beyond the mouths of the tributaries affected by NPNF road 

use, as potential sediment and water pollution effects are expected to be localized. 

7 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 23
Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead, Snake River spring/sununer Chinook salmon, and Snake 

River fall Chinook salmon all occur within the action area and use various portions of the action 

area for spawning, rearing, and migration. The action area includes designated critical habitat 

for all three species (Table 4). Listed SRB steelhead and their critical habitat occur throughout 

the action area. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in the action area are listed only in 

the Salmon River Basin and the mainstem Snake River and its tributaries. The Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon listing includes the mainstems of the Clearwater and Salmon rivers. Fall 

Chinook salmon historically spawned and reared only in large mainstem rivers. Critical habitat 

for Snake River fall Chinook salmon includes all river reaches presently or historically 

accessible to Snake River fall Chinook salmon in the Clearwater and Lower Salmon River 

hydrologic units. 

Table 4 Federal Register notices for final rules that list threatened and endangered species, 

designate critical habitats, or apply protective regulations to listed species considered in this 

consultation 

Species Listing Status Critical Habitat Protective Regulations 

Chinook salmon ( 011corhy11c/rns lshawylscha) 

Snake River spring/summer nm T 6/28/05; 70 FR 37160 I 0/25/99; 64 FR57399 6/28/05; 70 FR 37160 

Stcclhead (0. mykiss) 

Snake River Basin T 1105106; 71 FR 834 

Note: listing status: 'T' means listed as threatened 11nder the ESA 

9102105; 70 FR 52630 6/28/05; 70 FR 37160 

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT and INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of 

fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat on which they depend. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, or both, to ensure 

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened 

species or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Section 7(b)(3) requires 

that at the conclusion of consultation, the services provide an opinion stating how the agency's 

actions will affect ESA-listed species or their critical habitat. If incidental take is expected, 

section 7(b)(4) requires the provision of an ITS specifying the impact of any incidental taking, 

and including reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) to minimize such impacts. 

2.1. Approach to the Analysis 

The listed species and critical habitat affected by the proposed action and which are evaluated in 

this Opinion include SRB steelhead, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and critical 

habitat for each species. This Opinion includes a jeopardy analysis that considers the effects of 

the proposed action on both survival and recovery of the species. This Opinion also includes an 

adverse modification analysis that considers the impacts of the proposed action to the 

conservation value of the designated critical habitat. 

8 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 24
"To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species" means to engage in an action that 

would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the 

survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). This Opinion does not rely on the regulatory 

definition of destruction or adverse modification' of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, 

we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the ESA to complete the following analysis with 

respect to critical habitat1

• 

We will use the following approach to determine if the proposed action described in Section 1.3 

is likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat: 

• Identify the ra11gewide status of the species and critical habitat likely to be adversely 

affected by the proposed action. This section describes the current status of each listed 

species and its critical habitat relative to the conditions needed for recovery. For listed 

salmon and steelhead, NMFS has developed specific guidance for analyzing the status of 

the listed species' component populations in a "viable salmonid populations" (VSP) 

paper (McElhany et al. 2000). The VSP approach considers the abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity of each population as part of the overall review of a 

species' status. For listed salmon and steelhead, the VSP criteria therefore encompass the 

specie's "reproduction, numbers, or distribution" (50 CFR 402.02). In describing the 

range-wide status of listed species, we rely on viability assessments and criteria in 

technical recovery team documents and recovery plans, where available, that describe 

how VSP criteria are applied to specific populations, major population groups (MPGs), 

and species. We determine the rangewide status of critical habitat by examining the 

condition of its physical or biological features (also called "primary constituent elements" 

or PCEs in some designations) - which were identified when the critical habitat was 

designated. Species and critical habitat status are discussed in Section 2.2 of this 

Opinion. 

• Describe the e11viro11111e11tal baseline for the proposed action. The environmental 

baseline includes the past and present impacts of Federal, state, or private actions and 

other human activities i11 the action area. It includes the anticipated impacts of proposed 

Federal projects that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation and 

the impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

process. The environmental baseline is discussed in Section 2.3 of this Opinion. 

• Analyze the effects of the proposed actions. In this step, NMFS considers how the 

proposed action would affect the specie's reproduction, numbers, and distribution or, in 

the case of salmon and steelhead, their VSP characteristics. NMFS also evaluates the 

proposed action's effects on critical habitat features. The effects of the action are 

described in Section 2.4 of this Opinion. 

1 Memorandum from William T. Hogarth to Regional Administrators, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

(Application of the "Destruction or Adverse Modification" Standard Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act) (November 7, 2005). 

9 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 25
• Describe a11y cumulative effects. Cumulative effects, as defined in NMFS' implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 402.02), are the effects of future state or private activities, not 

involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. 

Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered 

because they require separate section 7 consultation. Cumulative effects are considered 

in Section 2.5 of this Opinion. 

• Integrate a11d sy11thesize the above factors to assess the risk that the proposed actio11 

poses to species a11d critical habitat. In this step, NMFS adds the effects of the action 

(Section 2.4) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.3) and the cumulative effects 

(Section 2.5) to assess whether the action could reasonably be expected to: 

( 1) Appreciably reduce the likelihood of both survival and recovery of the species in the 

wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) reduce the value of 

designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. These 

assessments are made in full consideration of the status of the species and critical habitat 

(Section 2.2). Integration and synthesis occurs in Section 2.6 of this Opinion. 

• Reach jeopardy and adverse modification conclusions. Conclusions regarding jeopardy 

and the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat are presented in Section 2.7 

of this Opinion. These conclusions flow from the logic and rationale presented in the 

Integration and Synthesis Section (2.6). 

• If necessary, define a reasonable and prudent altemative to the proposed action. If, in 

completing the last step in the analysis, NMFS determines that the action under 

consultation is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat, NMFS must identify a reasonable and 

prudent alternative (RPA) to the action in Section 2.8. The RPA must not be likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of BSA-listed species nor adversely modify their 

designated critical habitat and it must meet other regulatory requirements. 

2.2. Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat 

This Opinion examines the status of each species that would be affected by the proposed action. 

The status is the level of risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in 

documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. The species status 

section helps to inform the description of the species' current "reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. The opinion also examines the condition of critical 

habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various 

watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses 

the current function of the essential physical and biological features that help to form that 

conservation value. One factor affecting the status of salmonid fishes, and aquatic habitat at 

large is climate change. 

10 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 26
2.2.1. Status of the Species 

On August 15, 2011, NMFS published the results of the agency's most recent 5-year review of 

ESA-listed Pacific salmonid species, including the four listed anadromous species in Idaho 

(Ford 2011). NMFS defines the salmon species as "evolutionarily significant units" (ESUs) and 

the steelhead species as a "distinct population segment" (DPS). When evaluating the status of a 

listed species, the parameters considered in recovery plans, status reviews, and listing de~isions 

are relevant. 

For Pacific salmon and steelhead, viability of the populations that comprise the species can be 

assessed using four parameters - spatial structure, diversity, abundance, and productivity 

(McElhany et al. 2000). These VSP criteria therefore encompass the species' "reproduction, 

numbers, or distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. When these parameters are at 

appropriate levels, collectively, they maintain a population's capacity to adapt to various 

environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural environment. These 

attributes are influenced by survival, behavior, and experiences throughout the entire life cycle, 

characteristics that are influenced, in turn, by habitat and other environmental conditions. 

"Spatial structure" refers both to the spatial distributions of individuals in the population and the 

processes that generate that distribution. A population's spatial structure depends fundamentally 

on habitat quality and spatial configuration, and the dynamics and dispersal characteristics of 

individuals in the population. 

"Diversity" refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations. These range in scale 

from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence variation at single genes to complex life history 

traits (McElhany et al. 2000). 

"Abundance" generally refers to the number of naturally-produced adults (i.e., the progeny of 

naturally-spawning parents) in the natural environment (e.g., on spawning grounds). 

"Productivity" as applied to viability factors refers to the entire life cycle; i.e., the number of 

naturally-spawning adults produced per parent. When progeny replace or exceed the number of 

parents, a population is stable or increasing. When progeny fail to replace the number of parents, 

the population is declining. McElhany et al. (2000) use the terms "population growth rate" and 

"productivity" interchangeably when referring to production over the entire life cycle. They also 

refer to "trend in abundance," which is the manifestation of long-term population growth rate. 

Once the biological status of a species' populations has been determined, NMFS assesses the 

status of the entire species using criteria for groups of populations, as described in recovery plans 

and guidance from technical recovery teams. Considerations for species viability include having 

multiple populations that are viable, ensuring that populations with unique life histories and 

phenotypes are viable, and that some viable populations are both widespread to avoid concurrent 

extinctions from mass catastrophes and spatially close to allow functioning as metapopulations 

(McElhany et al. 2000). 

11 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 27
2.2.1.1. Status of Snake River Basin Steel11ead 

The SRB steelhead was listed as a threatened ESU on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). The 

listing was revised on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834), after a review of relationship of wild 

steelhead with hatchery fish and resident 0. mykiss. The revised SRB steelhead DPS includes all 

wild populations of steelhead in the SRB of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho, 

and six hatchery stocks, including fish from the Dworshak National Fish Hatchery and the 

rearing facilities in Lolo Creek. The SRB steelhead DPS includes all anadromous populations 

that spawn and rear in the mainstem Snake River from mouth to Hells Canyon Dam, and all 

tributaries except the North Fork Clearwater River, which is blocked by the Dworshak Dam. 

The SRB steelhead occur over a wid_e range of elevations from roughly 550 feet in the Tucannon 

River to more than 6,500 feet in tributaries to the Salmon River. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity. Anadromous fish populations develop a spatial structure that is 

organized hierarchically (in decreasing size) by basins, subbasins, watersheds, and streams. 

Within each of these spatial units, genotypes and life history traits reflect spatial patterns in local 

environmental characteristics such as stream size, temperature, streamflow, and presence or 

absence of competitors and predators. In general, spatial structure is maintained as long as 

migratory corridors between freshwater spawning areas and the ocean remain passable, and 

freshwater spawning and rearing areas remain self-sustaining. 

The spatial structure of SRB steelhead has changed substantially from historic conditions due to 

impassable mainstem dams, and the DPS is now a remnant of a much larger area. This species 

includes all naturally-spawning steelhead populations below natural and manmade impassable 

barriers in streams in the SRB of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho, as well as 

the progeny of six artificial propagation programs (71FR834). The hatchery programs include 

Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater River, East Fork Salmon 

River, Tucannon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/lmnaha River steelhead hatchery programs. 

The SRB steelhead listing does not include resident forms of 0. mykiss (rainbow trout) cooccurring with steelhead. 

The SRB steelhead DPS is organized in six MPGs that are further subdivided into 26 populations 

(Table 5). The MPGs are defined by the following drainage basins: (1) Grande Ronde River; 

(2) Imnaha River; (3) Clearwater River; (4) Salmon River; (5) Hells Canyon (Snake River); and 

(6) Lower Snake River. The Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) also 

identified a number of potential historical populations associated with watersheds above the 

Hells Canyon Dam complex on the mainstem Snake River which have been extirpated by the 

impassable dams. This action takes place in areas supporting portions of the Clearwater and 

Salmon River MPGs. Steelhead are presently widely distributed throughout the DPS, such that 

spatial structure risk is generally low. However, none of the MPGs are likely to meet population 

viability due to apparent low abundance or low productivity. 

Genetic Diversity. The mountain streams occupied by steelhead can exhibit extreme natural 

fluctuations in environmental conditions from events such as droughts, floods, temperature 

extremes, and wildfires. A diversity of genetic traits maximizes the likelihood that at least some 

fish will survive and reproduce under nearly any natural condition. The primary threat to genetic 

12 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 28
diversity in SRB steelhead has been the replacement of wild stocks with hatchery stocks, which 

can occur when an extirpated wild stock is replaced by hatchery fish or when hatchery fish are 

produced at numbers that significantly overwhelm and displace wild fish. In some basins, 

hatchery stocks have caused homogenization within the basins, and some hatchery stocks exhibit 

high stray rates, both of which alter the genetic diversity of the population. There has been some 

displacement of wild fish by hatchery fish in certain populations, and hatchery production during 

1980s and early 1990s was significantly greater than natural production for much of the time. 

The proportion of wild fish in adult returns to Ice Harbor Dam has increased from 10% to 15% in 

the mid-l 990s, to present numbers that have fluctuated around 25 % over the past decade. 

Although some loss of genetic diversity has likely occurred in the DPS, the genetic pool 

provided by resident redband rainbow trout and wild fish has apparently been sufficient to 

maintain genetically-distinct populations. 

13 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 29
Table 5. Current status ratings using ICTRT viability criteria for Snake River Steelhead 

populations 

Abundance/Productivity Metrics Spatial Structure and 

Diversity Metrics Overall Viability 

Population lCTRT Natural ICTRT Integrated Natural Diversity Integrated Rating 

Minimum Spawning Processes 

Threshold Abundance Productivity NP Risk Risk Risk SSID Risk 

Tucannon Ri,·er l,000 ND ND High?? Low Moderate Moderate High risk?? 

Asotin Creek 500 ND ND Maintained Low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

(High risk??) 

Lower Grande 

Ronde 1,000 ND ND Low rvloderate Moderate Maintained? 

River 

Joseph Creek 

2186 1.94 

2000-2009 500 ( 1212-475 l) ( 1.52-2.46) Very low Very low low l ow Highly Viable 

1995-2004 1878 2.91 

(573-4751) (2.21-3.82) 

Upper Grande 1340 2.13 

Ronde River (673-1943) ( 1.20-3.77) Viable 2000-2009 1500 (l'vloderate) Very Low Moderate Moderate f\faintained 

1240 2.70 

1995-2004 (673-2277) (1.65-4.41) 

Wallowa River 1,000 ND High?? Very Low l ow low High risk?? 

Lower Main. l,500 ND ND Moderate? Very Low low Low Maintained? Clearwater R. 

South Fork 1,000 ND ND High Low Moderate Moderate High risk? Clearwater R. 

Lolo Creek 500 ND ND High Low Moderate Moderate High risk? 

Selway R. 1,000 ND ND High Very low low low High risk? 

lochsa R. 1,000 ND ND High Very low Low Low High risk? 

little Salmon R. 500 ND ND Moderate low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

S.F. Salmon R. 1,000 ND ND High Very Low low low High risk? 

Secesh R. 500 ND ND High Low Low Low High risk? 

Chamberlain Creek 500 ND ND High Low low l ow High risk? 

Lower Middle Fork l,000 ND ND High Very Low low low High risk? Salmon R. 

Upper Middle Fork 1,000 ND ND High Very Low low low High risk? Salmon R. 

Panther Cn:ek 500 ND ND Moderate High Moderate High High risk? 

N.F. Salmon R. 500 ND ND Moderate low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

Lemhi R. 1,000 ND ND Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

Pahsimeroi R. 1,000 ND ND Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

East Fork Salmon R. 1,000 ND ND Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

Up Main. Salmon R. 1,000 ND ND Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained? 

The SRB steelhead DPS exhibit a diversity of life-history strategies, including variations in 

fresh-water and ocean residence times. The diversity risk of all SRB steelhead populations is 

characterized as "low" or "moderate" for all populations (Ford 2011 ). Moderate diversity risks 

for some populations are caused by the high proportion of hatchery fish on natural spawning 

14 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 30
grounds. The current moderate diversity risks for populations in Idaho do not preclude those 

populations from achieving viability goals under the draft recovery plan for Idaho's salmon and 

steelhead (NMFS 201 la). 

Fisheries managers have typically classified SRB steelhead as A- and B-runs based primarily on 

the number of years spent in the ocean and adult size upon return to the Columbia River. A-run 

steelhead enter the Columbia River in early summer after spending 1 year in the ocean before 

returning to spawn, and B-run steelhead enter freshwater in late summer after spending 2 years in 

the ocean. More than half of the SRB steelhead exhibit either an A-run or B-nm life-history 

pattern, but new information is showing that life history patterns are often more intermixed than 

the A-run and B-nm classification considered. Bowersox (2011) summarized data from scale 

samples of adult steelhead returning to Asotin Creek, Potlatch River tributaries, and Fish Creek 

(tributary to the Clearwater River), and found that the fish exhibited a spectrum of various 

lengths of ocean and freshwater residence, including patterns that are not characteristic of either 

A-run or B-nm fish . Maintaining the full range of life history diversity is important for the 

recovery of the species and A- and B-run characteristics appear to be only a minor piece of the 

variability in phenotypes and life history characteristics that exist across the DPS. 

Abundance and Productivity. Steelheacl were once very abundant in the SRB, but there are no 

accurate estimates of natural abundance before urban, industrial, and agricultural development 

began in the Pacific Northwest. Prior to development, adult steelhead returned to the SRB at 

numbers that are likely to have been at least several times higher than the number of wild 

steelheacl returning in 2009 and 2010, but the absolute historic abundance is uncertain. As stated 

previously, construction of hyclropower clams, timber harvest, water diversion, mining, 

development of floodplains and conunercial fishing are among the many activities that began 

altering steelhead habitat and driving numbers downward before information regarding steelhead 

abundance were recorded. Historical estimates of steelheacl production for the entire SRB are 

not available, but the basin is believed to have supported more than half the total steelheacl 

production from the Columbia River basin (Good et al. 2005). Oral histories expressed by 

Native Americans indicate a vast abundance of salmon and steelheacl in the SRB prior to 

development. 

Historical abundance estimates do not exist for individual populations within the SRB. 

Contemporary population-specific abundance estimates are available for only two populations, 

neither of which occur in the action area. However, steelhead appear to be well distributed 

within the portion of the SRB that are still accessible to anadromous fishes. Estimates of 

steelheacl passing Lewiston Dam (removed in 1973) on the lower Clearwater River are 40,000 to 

60,000 adults (Ecovista et al. 2003). Based on relative drainage areas, the Salmon River basin 

likely supported substantial production as well (Good et al. 2005). In contrast, at the time of 

listing the 5-year (1991 to 1996) mean abundance for wild steelhead passing Lower Granite Dam 

(LGD) was 11,462 adults (Ford 2011). Steelheacl passing LGD include those returning to the 

Grande Ronde and Imnaha Rivers in Oregon and Asotin Creek in Washington as well as the 

Clearwater and Salmon Rivers in Idaho. With the exception of the Tucannon population, all 

SRB steelhead spawn and rear upstream from LGD where a complete count of adult fish is 

possible as they pass over the dam. Numbers of wild adult steelhead counted at LGD have 

shown a generally upward trend since 1999; however, the populations exhibit large oscillations 

15 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 31
which can rapidly reverse present trends (Figure 1). In addition, counts of wild adults at the 

dams are inflated by hatchery fish counted as wild. Hatchery fish are distinguished from wild 

fish by clipped adipose fins, but not all hatchery fish are fin-clipped. The percentage of wild fish 

counted at Lower Granite Dam (based on an intact adipose fin) has varied with no apparent 

trend, but according to Ford (2011) the number of hatchery returns has apparently increased at a 

faster rate than wild fish when counts at dams are adjusted for hatchery fish that do not have 

clipped fins. 

Figure I. Annual returns of wild adult steelhead* counted at Lower Granite Dam 1989-2012 

80,000 

70,000 -Annual return - --

Ill - 5-yr geomean 

.:: 

::s 60,000 "'C 

<2: 

b.O 

c: 50,000 

c: 

.... 

::s 

.... 

QJ 40,000 0::: 

"'C 

l1l 

QJ 30,000 

.l: 

Qi 

QJ 20,000 - .... 

V'l 

"'C 

§ 10,000 

0 

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 

Year 

*Number of wild adults returns as distinguished by an intact adipose fin. The numbers in the figure are not adjusted 

to account for hatchery fish with unclipped fins that may have been counted as wild. 

Despite recent increases in steelhead abundance, population-level wild abundance and 

productivity inferred from aggregate data indicate that many populations in the DPS are likely 

below the viability targets necessary for species recovery (ICTRT 20 lOd). Population-specific 

abundance estimates are not available for most SRB steelhead populations, including all 

populations in Idaho. In the absence of population-specific data, the ICTRT estimated average 

population abundance and productivity using annual counts of wild steelhead passing LGD, 

generating separate estimates for a surrogate A-run and B-run population. Abundance and 

productivity risks for all populations in Idaho are currently either high or moderate except for the 

Grande Ronde River, Asotin Creek, and Joseph Creek populations. Joseph Creek in Oregon, for 

which population-specific abundance information is available, is the only population in the DPS 

currently rated as viable (Ford 2011). 

16 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 32
Limiting Factors. In a natural state, SRB steelhead spawning and rearing habitats would be 

limited primarily by the availability of suitable habitat that is dependent on geomorphology, 

basin area, temperature, and riparian conditions. Ocean conditions also have a significant effect 

on the number of adult returns. In addition to natural limitations, many additional limitations 

have been created by human alterations. A significant cause for the decline of this species 

involves substantial modification of the seaward migration corridor by hydroelectric power 

development on the Snake and mainstem Columbia Rivers. Hydropower dams have increased 

predation by pinnipeds, birds, and piscivorous fish in the mainstem rivers and estuaries. More 

than 40% of the historic habitat range has been lost due to impassable clams. In tributary 

streams, much of the remaining accessible freshwater habitat has been degraded from combined 

effects of agriculture, mining, forestry, road-building, and development. These activities have 

caused widespread deposition of excess fine sediment, diminished floodplain connectivity and 

function, and reduced channel complexity. Low streamflows and high water temperatures in 

summer are common problems where water is diverted from streams and at lower elevations 

where winter snows have shifted toward rain in the past 50 years. 

Summary - Viability of the SRB steelhead DPS. The viability of the populations in the SRB 

steelhead DPS is unknown for all of the populations except Joseph Creek, which is the only 

population known to meet viability criteria. The remaining populations appear unlikely to meet 

viability criteria due to moderate or high abundance or productivity (Table 5). Aggregate counts 

of SRB steelhead at Lower Granite Dam suggest that some populations maybe be approaching 

abundance goals; however, much of the increased abundance is due to hatchery production, 

which raises uncertainty about trends in natural production. Natural productivity has generally 

been increasing in the past decade but at a much slower rate than hatchery production. In spite 

of increases in natural production, few populations are likely to meet thresholds for natural 

production. 

2.2.1.2. Status of Snake River Spri11g/Su111111er Chinook Sa/111011 

The Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU was listed as threatened on 

April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653). This ESU occupies the SRB, which drains portions of 

southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and north/central Idaho. Adult spring and 

summer Chinook destined for the Snake River enter the Columbia River on their upstream 

spawning migration from February through March and arrive at their natal tributaries between 

June and August. Spawning occurs in August and September. Eggs incubate over the winter and 

hatch in late winter and early spring of the following year. Juveniles exhibit a river-type life 

history strategy, rearing in tributary streams during their first year of life before migrating to the 

ocean the following spring. Depending on the tributary and the specific habitat conditions, 

juveniles may migrate extensively from natal reaches into alternative summer-rearing or 

overwintering areas. After reaching the ocean as smolts, the fish typically spend 2 to 3 years in 

the ocean before beginning their migration back to their natal freshwater streams. 

17 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 33
Evolutionarily Significant Unit Viability. Species ESU viability is a measure of the likelihood 

that a species will persist for a certain amount of time into the future. As stated above, long-term 

survival of a species or any population segment is dependent on factors such as abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and genetic diversity. Each of the viability factors are discussed 

below, and the information is synthesized to present the current ESU status in the context of 

reproductive and demographic characteristics that would be necessary to achieve a negligible 

risk of extinction over 100-year time period. 

Spatial Strncture and Diversity. The Snake River ESU includes all naturally spawning 

populations of spring/summer Chinook in the mainstem Snake River (below Hells Canyon Dam) 

and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, and Salmon River subbasins 

(57 FR 23458), as well as the progeny of 15 artificial propagation programs (70 FR 37160). The 

hatchery programs include the South Fork Salmon River (McCall Hatchery), Johnson Creek, 

Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Salmon River, West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River, 

and Upper Salmon River (Sawtooth Hatchery) programs in Idaho; and the Tucannon River 

(conventional and captive broodstock programs), Lostine River, Catherine Creek, Looking Glass 

Creek, Upper Grande Ronde River, lmnaha River, and Big Sheep Creek programs in Oregon. 

The historical Snake River spring/summer Chinook ESU likely also included populations in the 

Clearwater River drainage and extended above the Hells Canyon Dam complex. 

Within the Snake River ESU, the ICTRT identified 28 extant and four extirpated or functionally 

extirpated populations of spring/summer-run Chinook salmon (Table 6). The ICTRT aggregated 

these populations into five MPGs, of which the South Fork Salmon, Middle Fork Salmon, and 

Upper Salmon River MPGs are in central Idaho. All populations in Idaho are extant with the 

exception of Panther Creek, which the ICTRT classified as functionally extirpated due to severe 

water quality and habitat degradation in Lower Panther Creek during the 1950s and 1960s from 

Blackbird Mine operations (ICTRT 2003). In general, current spatial structure risk is low in this 

ESU and is not preventing the recovery of the species. Spring/summer Chinook spawners are 

distributed throughout the ESU albeit at very low numbers. Diversity risk, on the other hand, is 

somewhat higher. In the Upper Salmon, high diversity risks are caused by chronically high 

proportions of hatchery spawners in natural areas, and by loss of access to tributary spawning 

and rearing habitats and the associated reduction in life history diversity (Ford 2011 ). Diversity 

risk will need to be lowered in multiple populations in order for the ESU to recover. 

Abundance and Productivity. Historically, the SRB drainage is thought to have produced more 

than 1.5 million adult spring/ summer Chinook salmon in some years (Matthews and Waples 

1991), yet by the mid-1990s counts of wild fish passing LGD dropped to less than 10,000 (IDFG 

2007). Wild returns have since increased somewhat but remain highly variable and a fraction of 

historic estimates (Ford 2011). For individual populations, abundance remains below viability 

thresholds for all populations. Relatively low natural production rates and spawning levels 

remain a major concern across the ESU, and each population in the ESU currently faces a high 

risk of extinction over the next 100 years (Ford 2011). For some populations, mean abundance 

from 2000 to 2009 is critically low, such as the Yankee Fork and Camas Creek populations, 

which have recent mean abundances of just 21 and 30 natural spawners, respectively, compared 

to minimum viability targets of at least 500 spawners (Ford 2011 ). 

18 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 34
Table 6. Summary of viable salmonid population (VSP) parameter risks and overall current 

status f or eac h l . h popu at10n rn t e S na k e R' iver spring. I summer Cl 11noo . k sa I mon ESU 

VSP Parameter Risk O\•erall Viability MPG Population Abundance/ Spatial Rating 

Productivity Stt·ucture/Diversity 

Little Salmon River High High High Risk 

South Fork 

Salmon River South Fork Salmon River High Moderate High Risk 

(Idaho) Secesh River High Low High Risk 

East Fork South Fork Salmon River High Low High Risk 

Chamberlain Creek High Low High Risk 

Middle Fork Middle Fork Salmon River below High Moderate High Risk Indian Creek Salmon River 

Big Creek High Moderate High Risk 

(Idaho) Camas Creek High Moderate High Risk 

Loon Creek High Moderate High Risk 

Middle Fork Salmon River above High Moderate High Risk Indian Creek 

Sulphur Creek High Moderate High Risk 

Bear Valley Creek High Low High Risk 

Marsh Creek High Low High Risk 

North Fork Salmon River High Low High Risk 

Upper Salmon Lemhi River High High High Risk 

River Salmon River Lower Mainstem High Low High Risk 

(Idaho) Pahsimeroi River High High High Risk 

East Fork Salmon River High High High Risk 

Yankee Fork Salmon River High High High Risk 

Valley Creek High Moderate High Risk 

Salmon River Upper Mainstem High Moderate High Risk 

Panther Creek Extirpated 

Lower Snake Tucannon River High Moderate High Risk 

(Washington) Asotin River Extirpated 

Wenaha River High Moderate High Risk 

Grande Ronde Lostine/Wallowa River High Moderate High Risk 

and Inmaha Minam River High Moderate High Risk 

Rivers Catherine Creek High Moderate High Risk 

(Oregon and Upper Grande Ronde R. High High High Risk 

Washington) lnrnaha River High Moderate High Risk 

Big Sheep Creek Extirpated 

Lookingglass Creek Extirpated 

19 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 35
Limiting Factors. Limiting factors for Chinook salmon are largely the same as those for 

steelhead, except that spring/summer Chinook salmon are affected more strongly by reduced 

streamflows caused by surface water diversions. Low flows and high water temperatures from 

water withdrawals are the principal limiting factor for Chinook salmon in portions of the Upper 

Salmon River Basin. 

Summary - Viability of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. All of the Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook populations are either extirpated or have a high risk of extinction 

(Table 6). Relatively low natural production rates and low number of returning adults remain a 

concern across the ESU, and some populations face additional risks from low genetic diversity 

where populations are influenced significantly by hatchery fish. 

2.2.2. Status of Critical Habitat for Steelhead and Spring/summer Chinook Salmon 

The status of critical habitat for steel head and Chinook salmon is discussed jointly since the 

critical habitats share most of the same characteristics and they largely overlap in areas where 

both fish are listed. In brief, designated critical habitats for listed SRB steelhead and salmon 

include most accessible streams used by anadromous fish in the mainstem Lower Snake River, 

and the Salmon, Clearwater, Imnaha, Tucannon, and Grande Ronde River basins. The NPNF 

DRAMVU action area includes designated critical habitat for SRB steelhead and Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

Critical habitat for SRB Steelhead was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630), and 

protective regulations prohibiting take were promulgated on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). 

Designated critical habitat for the SRB steelhead DPS includes all Columbia River estuarine 

areas and river reaches proceeding upstream to the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers 

as well as specific stream reaches in the following subbasins: Hells Canyon, Imnaha River, 

Lower Snake/Asotin, Upper Grande Ronde River, Wallowa River, Lower Grande Ronde, Lower 

Snakeffucannon, Lower Snake River, Upper Salmon, Pahsimeroi, Middle Salmon-Panther, 

Lemhi, Upper Middle Fork Salmon, Lower Middle Fork Salmon, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, 

South Fork Salmon, Lower Salmon, Little Salmon, Upper Selway, Lower Selway, Lochsa, 

Middle Fork Clearwater, South Fork Clearwater, and Clearwater (70 FR52630). There are 

289 watersheds within the range of this DPS. Based on the quality and quantity of the PCEs 

(NMFS 2008; Table 4.2-2), 14 watersheds received~ low rating, 44 received a medium rating, 

and 231 received a high rating of conservation value to the DPS. The migration corridor in the 

Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers downstream of the spawning range is considered to have a 

high conservation value and is the only habitat area designated in 15 of the high value 

watersheds identified above. This corridor connects every population with the ocean and is used 

for migration by juveniles and adults. The Columbia River estuary is a unique and essential area 

for juveniles and adults making the physiological transition between life in freshwater and 

marine habitats. Of the 8,225 miles of habitat areas eligible for designation, 8,049 miles of 

stream are designated critical habitat. 

20 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 36
Critical habitat was designated for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon on 

December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543), and was revised on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57399). This 

critical habitat encompasses the waters, waterway bottoms, and adjacent riparian zones of river 

reaches of the Columbia, Snake, and Salmon Rivers, and all tributaries of the Snake and Salmon 

Rivers that are or were accessible to listed Snake River salmon (except reaches above impassible 

falls, and Dworshak and Hells Canyons Dams). 

NMFS reviews the status of designated critical habitat affected by the proposed action by 

examining the condition and trends of essential physical and biological features throughout the 

designated area. These features are essential to the conservation of the listed species because 

they support one or more life stages of the species. NMFS refers to these features as the PCBs of 

critical habitat. Since the BSA-listed species addressed in this Opinion occupy many of the same 

geographic areas and have similar life history characteristics, PCBs are also similar (Table 7). 

To minimize redundancy of information in this Opinion, the following sections address status of 

critical habitat for both steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon. In general, these PCEs 

include sites essential to support one or more life stages of the BSA-listed species (e.g., 

spawning, rearing, or migration), and contain physical or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the listed species (e.g., spawning gravels, water quality and quantity, side 

channels, or food). Where significant differences exist in the PCE's for steelhead and 

spring/summer Chinook salmon, distinctions are provided and explained in this Opinion. 

Table 7. Types of freshwater sites and essential physical and biological features designated as 

PCB s, anc I th e species l'f 1 es t h age eac PCB supports (70 FR 52630 an cl 58 FR 68543 

Site Type Essential Physical and Biological Features Species Life Stage 

Snake River Steelhead 

Freshwater spawning Water quality, water quantity, and substrate Adult spawning, embryo incubation, 

and larval development 

Freshwater rearing Floodplain connectivity, forage", natural coverb, Fry emergence from gravel, juvenile 

water quality, and water quantity growth and development 

Freshwater migration Free of artificial obstructions, water quality and Juvenile migration, adult migration 

quantity, and natural coverb and holding 

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Spawning and juvenile Spawning gravel, water quality and quantity, Adult spawning, embryo incubation, 

rearing cover/shelter, food, riparian vegetation, space and juvenile growth and 

(Chinook), and access development 

Substrate, water quality and quantity, water Juvenile migration, adult migration Migration temperature, water velocity, cover/shelter, food\ 

riparian vegetation, space, safe passage 

and holding 

a. Forage includes aquatic invertebrate and fish species that support growth and maturation. 

b. Natural cover includes shade, large wood , log jams, beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and 

boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. 

c. Food applies to juvenile migration only. 

21 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 37
In many parts of the Columbia River Basin, including the SRB, land management and 

development activities have: (1) Reduced connectivity (i.e., the flow of energy, organisms, and 

materials) between streams, riparian areas, floodplains, and uplands; (2) elevated fine sediment 

yields, degrading spawning and rearing habitat; (3) reduced large woody material that traps 

sediment, stabilizes streambanks, and helps form pools; (4) reduced vegetative canopy that 

minimizes solar heating of streams; (5) caused streams to become straighter, wider, and 

shallower, thereby reducing rearing habitat and increasing water temperature fluctuations; 

(6) altered peak flow volume and timing, leading to channel changes and potentially altering fish 

migration behavior; and (7) altered floodplain function, water tables and base flows (Henjum et 

al. 1994; Mcintosh et al. 1994; Rhodes et al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; NRC 1996; Spence et 

al. 1996; Lee et al. 1997; and Ecovista et al. 2003). 

Freshwater critical habitats for steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon provide an 

extensive network of migration corridors, and spawning and rearing areas that support at least 

one of the PCEs. The quality of the PCEs varies throughout the designated area, from streams 

that marginally support one or more elements, to streams that fully support all three freshwater 

elements (spawning, rearing, and migration) with minor to moderate impairments. The 

biological requirements of salmon and steelhead in the action area vary depending on the life 

history stage present and the natural range of variation present within that system (Groot and 

Margolis 1991; NRC 1996; Spence et al. 1996). 

As stated previously, migration habitat quality for SRB steelhead and salmon has been severely 

degraded, primarily by the development and operation of dams and reservoirs on the mainstem 

Columbia and Snake Rivers (NMFS 2008). Hydroelectric development has modified natural 

flow regimes in the migration corridor, resulting in higher water temperatures, changes in fish 

community structure leading to increased rates of piscivorous and avian predation on juvenile 

salmon and steelhead, and delayed migration for both adult and juveniles. Physical features of 

dams such as turbines can also kill migrating fish. 

More than half of the designated critical habitats for steelhead and spring/summer Chinook 

salmon in Idaho occur on U.S. Forest Service (USPS) or Bureau of Land Management lands that 

are largely intact and are predominately forest and range lands with streams that are in fair to 

excellent condition. Spawning and rearing habitat quality in tributary streams in the Snake River 

varies from excellent in wilderness and roadless areas to poor in areas subject to intensive human 

land uses (NMFS 2011 b). Reduced summer streamflows, impaired water quality, and reduction 

of habitat complexity are common problems for critical habitat in non-wilderness areas. Where 

PCEs are impaired on Federal lands, the primary causes have been timber harvests in riparian 

areas and landslide-prone slopes; road systems developed for timber harvest and other 

management activities; over-grazed riparian areas; and isolated instances of intensive alteration 

of streams and valley bottoms by mining. 

The critical habitat designated on non-Federal lands tends to be located in large valleys where 

the majority of people in the region live and work; consequently, many of the PCEs on nonFederal lands are impaired by effects of urban or agricultural activities and road networks. 

Critical habitat within private lands throughout much of the SRB have been degraded by 

intensive agriculture, alteration of stream morphology (i.e., channel modifications and diking), 

22 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 38
riparian vegetation disturbance, wetland draining and conversion, livestock grazing, dredging, 

road construction and maintenance, logging, mining, and urbanization. Human land uses 

throughout the basin have caused streams to become straighter, wider, and shallower, thereby 

reducing rearing habitat and increasing water temperature fluctuations. 

In many stream reaches designated as critical habitat in the SRB, streamflows are substantially 

reduced by water diversions (NMFS 2011 b). Withdrawal of water, particularly during low-flow 

periods that commonly overlap with agricultural withdrawals, often increases summer stream 

temperatures, blocks fish migration, strands fish, and alters sediment transport (Spence et al. 

1996). Reduced tributary streamflow has been identified as a major limiting factor for Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook in particular (NMFS 2011 b ). 

Many stream reaches designated as critical habitat are listed on the state of Idaho's Clean Water 

Act section 303(d) list for impaired water quality, such as elevated water temperature 

(IDEQ 2011). Many areas that were historically suitable rearing and spawning habitat are now 

unsuitable clue to high summer stream temperatures. Removal of riparian vegetation, alteration 

of natural stream morphology, and withdrawal of water for agricultural or municipal use all 

contribute to elevated stream temperatures. Water quality in spawning and rearing areas has also 

been impaired by high levels of sedimentation and by heavy metal contamination from mine 

waste (e.g., IDEQ and USEPA 2003, IDEQ 2001). 

For many listed species of steelhead and salmon in the Pacific Northwest, NMFS convened a 

critical habitat analytical review team (CHART) to assess the conservation value of each 

watershed with designated critical habitat (NMFS 2005). Of the four listed Snake River 

anadromous fish species, a CHART assessment has only been completed for SRB steelhead. 

However, the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat for each Snake River 

species are similar, and there is considerable overlap in the geographic extent of critical habitat 

areas. The CHART results presented below for steelhead therefore give an approximation of the 

conservation value of each watershed for spring/summer Chinook salmon as well, keeping in 

mind that spring/summer Chinook salmon do not occupy all of the tributaries occupied by 

steelhead. 

Many factors, both human-caused and natural, have contributed to the decline of salmon and 

steelhead over the past century, as well as affecting the conservation value of designated critical 

habitat. The condition of PCEs in spawning and rearing areas and juvenile and adult migration 

corridors is described below. 

Migratory Corridors. During spawning migrations, adult steelhead and salmon generally require 

clean water with cool temperatures and access to thermal refugia, dissolved oxygen near 100% 

saturation, low turbidity, adequate flows and depths to allow passage over barriers to reach 

spawning sites, and sufficient holding and resting sites. Migration of juveniles to rearing areas, 

whether the ocean, lakes, or other stream reaches, requires unobstructed access to these habitats. 

Physical, chemical, and thermal conditions may all impede migrations of adult or juvenile fish. 

Factors limiting the functioning and conservation value of PCEs in juvenile and adult migration 

corridors (e.g. affecting safe passage) are: 

23 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 39
• Tributary barriers (push-up dams, culverts, water withdrawals that dewater streams, 

unscreened water diversions that entrain juveniles) 

• Juvenile and adult passage mortality (hydropower projects in the mainstem Lower Snake 

and Columbia Rivers) 

• Temperature barriers (timing of adult entry into and migration through the Lower Snake 

River in late summer and early fall is delayed because of elevated mainstem 

temperatures) 

• Juvenile mortality clue to habitat changes in the estuary that increased the number of 

avian predators (Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants). 

In the mainstem Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) corridor, action agencies have 

improved safe passage for juvenile steelhead and salmon with the construction and operation of 

surface bypass routes at Lower Granite, Ice Harbor, and Bonneville Dams and other 

configuration improvements listed in section 7.3. l. l. in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE) et al. (2007). The safe passage of juvenile steelhead and salmon through the Columbia 

River estuary improved beginning in 1999 when Caspian terns were relocated from Rice Island 

to East Sand Island. The double crested cormorant colony has grown since that time. For 

steelhead, with a stream-type juvenile life history, projects that have protected or restored 

riparian areas and breached or lowered dikes and levees in the tidally influenced zone of the 

estuary (between Bonneville Dam and approximately river mile 40 have improved the function 

of the juvenile migration corridor. The FCRPS action agencies recently implemented 18 estuary 

habitat projects that removed passage barriers, providing access to good quality habitat (see 

section 7.3.1.3 in COE et al. 2007). 

Spawning and Rearing Areas. The SRB steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon spawn 

in tributaries to the Snake River in southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho. Adult 

SRB steelhead enter fresh water from June to October and spawn the following spring from 

March to June (Thurow 1987). Adult Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon destined for 

the Snake River enter the Columbia River from February through March and arrive at their natal 

tributaries between June and August. Spawning occurs in August and September. Fish select 

spawning areas based on species-specific requirements of flow, water quality, substrate size, and 

groundwater upwelling. Embryo survival and fry emergence depend on substrate conditions 

(e.g., gravel size, porosity, permeability, and oxygen concentrations), substrate stability during 

high flows, and cold water temperatures (i.e., 55°F or less for most species). For SRB steelhead, 

emergence occurs by early June in low elevation streams and as late as mid-July at higher 

elevations. The SRB steelhead usually rear in the natal tributaries for 2 to 3 years before 

beginning their seaward migration. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon eggs incubate 

over the winter and hatch in late winter and early spring of the following year. Habitat 

requirements for juvenile rearing include seasonally suitable microhabitats for holding, feeding, 

and resting. 

24 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 40
The following are the major factors that limit the function and thus the conservation value of 

habitat used by SRB steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon for these purposes (i.e., 

spawning and juvenile rearing areas with spawning gravel, water quality, water quantity, 

cover/shelter, food, riparian vegetation, and space): 

• Degraded tributary channel morphology (bank hardening for roads or other development; 

livestock on soft riparian soils and streambanks); 

• Physical passage barriers (culverts; pushup dams; low flows); 

• Excess sediment in gravel (roads; agricultural and silvicultural practices; livestock on soft 

riparian soils and streambanks; recreation); 

• Degraded riparian condition (roads and grazing); 

• Reduced tributary streamflow, which limits usable stream area and alters channel 

morphology by reducing the likelihood of scouring flows (water withdrawals); 

• Degraded tributary water quality, including elevated summer temperatures (water 

withdrawals; groundwater depletion; degraded riparian condition). 

In recent years, the FCRPS action agencies, in cooperation with numerous non-Federal partners, 

have implemented actions to address limiting factors and threats to steelhead and salmon 

spawning and rearing areas. Some projects provided immediate benefits and some will result in 

long-term benefits with survival improvements accruing into the future. These include acquiring 

water to increase streamflow, installing or improving fish screens at irrigation facilities to 

prevent entrainment, removing passage barriers and improving access, improving mainstem and 

channel habitat, and protecting and enhancing riparian areas to improve water quality and other 

habitat conditions. 

2.2.2.1. Climate Change Effects 

Climate change is likely to have negative implications for the conservation value of designated 

critical habitats in the Pacific Northwest (CIG 2004; Scheuerell and Williams 2005; 

Zabel et al. 2006; ISAB 2007). Average annual Northwest air temperatures have increased by 

approximately l °C since 1900, or about 50% more than the global average warming over the 

same period (ISAB 2007). The latest climate models project a warming of 0.1°C to 0.6 °C per 

decade over the next century. According to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), 

these effects may have the following physical impacts within the next 40 or so years: 

• Warmer air temperatures will result in a shift to more winter/spring rain and runoff, 

rather than snow that is stored until the spring/summer melt season. 

• With a shift to more rain and less snow, the snowpacks will diminish in those areas that 

typically accumulate and store water until the spring freshet. 

25 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 41
• With a smaller snowpack, these watersheds will see their runoff diminished and 

exhausted earlier in the season, resulting in lower streamflows in the June through 

September period. 

• River flows in general and peak river flows are likely to increase during the winter due to 

more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. 

Water temperatures will continue to rise, especially during the summer months when lower 

stream.flow and warmer air temperatures will contribute to the warming regional waters. These 

changes will not be spatially homogenous. Areas with elevations high enough to maintain 

temperatures well below freezing for most of the winter and early spring would be less affected. 

Low-lying areas that historically have received scant precipitation contribute little to total 

streamflow and are likely to be more affected. These long-term effects may include, but are not 

limited to, depletion of cold water habitat, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing 

habitat, alterations to migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence 

of fry, and increased competition among species. 

2.3. Environmental Baseline 

The "environmental baseline" includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or 

private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early 

section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with 

the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). 

NMFS describes the environmental baseline in terms of the biological requirements for habitat 

features and processes necessary to support all life stages of each listed species within the action 

area. Each listed species considered in this Opinion resides in or migrates through the action 

area. Thus, for this action area, the biological requirements for SRB steelhead and Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon are the habitat characteristics that support successful completion 

of spawning, rearing, and freshwater migration life stages. An environmental baseline that does 

not meet the biological requirements of a listed species may increase the likelihood that adverse 

effects of the proposed action will result in jeopardy to a listed species or in destruction or 

adverse modification of a designated critical habitat. 

Numerous anthropogenic activities have altered aquatic habitats or affected native fish 

populations in the action area through stream channelization, elimination of wetlands, 

construction of roads (many with impassable culverts), timber harvest, legacy effects of past 

activities, mines, water withdrawals, unscreened water diversions, agriculture, livestock grazing, 

outdoor recreation, fire exclusion/suppression, artificial fish propagation, fish harvest, and 

introduction of non-native species (Henjum et al. 1994; Rhodes et al. 1994; NRC 1996; Spence 

et al. 1996; Lee et al. 1997; NMFS 2004). Impairments common to fish habitat in the action 

area include elevated levels of fine sediment delivery and deposition; a reduction in the number 

and size of pools from streamside developments and riparian timber harvest; reduced vegetative 

26 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 42
canopy that minimizes solar heating of streams; loss of habitat complexity from streambank 

stabilization and stream rerouting; altered timing and volume peak flows from changes in 

climate, land cover and creation of impervious surfaces (particularly roads); altered floodplain 

function, water tables and base flows as a net effect of climate change and additive effect of 

hydrologic alterations in developed watersheds; and passage barriers in tributary streams caused 

by culverts. 

Throughout the action area, fish habitats have been altered to various degrees, with the severity 

of alteration roughly corresponding to the intensity of human activities that have occurred in the 

watershed. The Clearwater and Salmon basins are somewhat unique compared to many river 

basins in that large sections of riparian and floodplain habitats have retained their composition, 

structure, and function due to wilderness designations or other protective management. A large 

portion of the action area encompasses three wilderness areas (portions of the Selway-Bitterroot 

Wilderness, Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, and all of the Gospel-Hump 

Wilderness) as well as inventoried or designated roadless areas where there are no motorized 

routes. Streams in unroaded watersheds closely resemble natural conditions, with some 

alterations from climate change, fire suppression, introduction of non-native species, and 

livestock grazing (in some locations). Watersheds with high road densities, residential or 

industrial developments, agriculture, and present or past mining activities typically have the 

largest amount of habitat alteration. 

Major drainages in the action area that are accessible to anadromous fish or involve designated 

critical habitat for SRB steelhead and/or spring/summer Chinook salmon include portions of the 

Upper and Lower Selway River, Middle Fork Clearwater River, Middle Salmon RiverChamberlain Creek, Lower Salmon River, Little Salmon River, and South Fork Clearwater 

River. The environmental baseline and stream condition ratings (from 1999) are summarized in 

Table 8 and described below for each of these major drainages. Stream and watershed 

conditions in 2012 may be slightly better or worse, depending on numerous factors, including but 

not limited to large scale disturbances (e.g. wildfires) and watershed restoration efforts 

implemented since 1999. 

Lower Selway Subbasin 

A large portion of this subbasin is located in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, and 

roadless areas encompass much of the watershed as well. Watershed and stream conditions were 

rated high for 5111 code Hydrologic Units (HUCs) located within wilderness and roadless areas, 

and high to moderate for those outside of wilderness and roadless areas. There are portions of 

moderate to high road density in the O'Hara Creek drainage, which is part of the Gedney CreekSelway 5111 HUC, and areas within this watershed involve degraded stream habitat. 

Baseline conditions in this subbasin may have been affected by wildfires in the 2000s, most 

notably the Slims Fire in 2003, which burned in the Meadow Creek watershed. This watershed 

would still be expected to be rated high for most instream indicators, however. 

27 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 43
Unregulated off-route motorized use was identified in 1999 as one factor that was causing stream 

degradation in upper Meadow Creek, specifically off-route use associated with Trail 541 in 

adjacent meadows. The ford where this trail crosses main Meadow Creek has also been 

identified as problematic for aquatic resources, as was an off-route ford across Butter Creek. 

Adverse effects from motorized use were not noted in other watersheds in the 1999 watershed 

assessment for this subbasin. 

28 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 44
Table 8. Existing Watershed and Stream Conditions. 

Watershed condition ratings are based on watershed road density, streamside road density, landslide prone road 

density, and sediment yield. Stream condition ratings are based on cobble embeddedness, percent surface fines, 

percent fines by depth, large woody debris, and pool frequency. From: USDA-Forest Service (2012). 

5th Code HUC Principal Named Streams Watershed Stream 

Condition Condition 

Middle Salmon- Chamberlain 

Sabe Creek Hamilton, Upper Sabe, Lower Sabe Good Good 

Bargamin Creek Uooer Bargamin, Middle Bargamin, Lower Bargamin Good Good 

Middle Salmon Big Mallard, Little Mallard, Rhett, Jersey, Lemhi, Fivemile Good Fair - Good - Big Mallard 

Middle Salmon Sheep, Indian, Bull, Bear, California Good Good - Sheep Creek 

Crooked Creek Upper Crooked, Big, Lake, Lower Crooked Good - Fair Fair - Good 

Wind River Wind River, Meadow Good- Fair Good 

Lower Salmon 

Salmon River - Kelly, Allison, Berg Fair Poor Partridge 

Lower Salmon Fiddle, Race, China, Cow, John Day, Sherwin Fair Fair - Poor River - Race 

Lower Salmon 

River- McKinzie, Skookumchuck, Deer, Sotin Fair - Poor Poor 

Skookumchuck 

White Bird South Fork White Bird, North Fork White Bird, Lower Fair Fair Creek White Bird 

Slate Creek Slate, North Fork Slate, Little Slate, Van Buren Fair Fair - Poor 

Little Salmon 

Rapid River Upper Rapid River, Copper Creek, West Fork Rapid River, Good Good Lower Rapid River 

Lower Little Elk, Boulder, Sheep, Hailey, Squaw Fair Fair Salmon River 

Uoocr Selway 

Upper Selway - Elk, Goat, Ditch, Dog, Pettibone Good Good Pettibone 

Running Creek Upper Running, Lower Running, Eagle Good Good 

Bear Creek Upper Bear, Wahoo, Middle Bear, Lower Cub, Upper Cub, Good Good Paradise, Lower Bear 

Lower Selway 

Moose Creek East Moose, Cedar, North Moose, West Moose, Rhoda Good Good 

Lower SelwayThree Links Three Links, Meeker, Martin, Mink, Pinchot, Otter Good Good 

Creek 

Meadow Creek Upper Meadow, East Meadow, Sable, Buck Lake, Horse Good Good 

Lower Selway - Gedney Good Good 

O'Hara, Swiftwater Fair Poor Gedney Creek Goddard Fair Fair 

Middle Fork Clearwater 

M.F. Clearwater Big Smith, Suttler, Maggie, Lodge Fair Fair River 

Clear Creek Upper Clear, South Fork Clear, Lower Clear Fair Fair - Poor 

South Fork Clearwater 

Red River Upper Red River, South Fork Red River, Middle Red Poor Fair - Poor River, Lower Red River 

29 

I 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 45
East Fork American River, Lower American River, Elk Fair Fair - Poor American River Creek 

Upper American River Good Good 

Crooked River Lower Crooked River, Deadwood Creek Fair Fair - Poor 

Upper Crooked River Good Good 

Newsome Upper Newsome Creek, Lower Newsome Creek Fair Poor Creek 

Upper South Tenmile, Twentymile Creeks Good Fair - Good 

Le!!!!etl, Peasley, Cougar, Wing Fair- Poor Poor Fork Clearwater Silver Fair - Good Fair River 

Mainstem and face drainages Fair - Poor Fair - Poor 

Johns Creek Upper Johns Creek, Lower Johns Creek, Gospel Creek Good Good- Fair 

Middle S.F. 

Meadow Poor - Fair Poor 

Mill Fair Fair Clearwater R. Mainstem and face drainages Fair - Poor Fair - Poor 

Lower S.F. Butcher, Rabbit, Threemile Creeks Poor Poor Clearwater R. 

Middle Fork Clearwater River 

The Middle Fork Clearwater River begins at the confluence of the Selway and Lochsa Rivers 

and forms a portion of the NPNF northern boundary. The Middle Fork Clearwater River 

functions as a critically important migration corridor for SRB steelhead with moderate to high 

habitat potential to support aquatic species. The NPNF includes roughly 8 miles of the mainstem 

river as well as several smaller watersheds that drain into the Middle Fork Clearwater River. 

Most notable of these drainages is Clear Creek of which the headwaters are located within the 

NPNF but lower reaches occur on private lands. Watershed and stream conditions were rated 

moderate to low in 1999, due to moderate to high road densities and degraded habitat in Clear 

Creek. Pine Knob Creek is a tributary to Clear Creek that was most recently surveyed in 1989. 

Density of juvenile steel head trout was estimated at about IO fish/ 100m2

. Due to lack of largescale disturbance since 1999, baseline conditions would be expected to be the same. Although 

motorized trail use may have increased since 1999, steep terrain probably limits off-route use. 

U.S. Highway 12 runs adjacent to the Middle Fork Clearwater River and it affects fish habitat 

through encroachment of fill into the floodplain, loss of trees (in places) from the roadway, and 

vegetation removal along the road shoulders. Encroachment by the road, residential and 

commercial buildings, and reduction in mature riparian trees are impacts with relatively minor 

effects on fish habitat in the mainstem Middle Fork Clearwater River because the river is too 

large for logs to function as pool-forming elements and too large for water temperatures to be 

significantly altered by the partial reduction in shade caused by the road and other riparian 

developments. Due to the steep terrain, the tributary streams retain relatively low amounts of 

sediment. Woody debris has been reduced in some of the upper portions of the drainage, but 

there is little riparian alteration in the lower reaches except where the streams cross U.S. 

Highway 12. Levels of pool-forming large woody debris are lower than desired in most of these 

streams. Fish use is limited by both natural and anthropogenic migration barriers, including 

culverts, bedrock steps, or boulder cascades. 

30 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 46
Within the action area, the Middle Fork Clearwater River is functioning near, but below its full 

potential. Sediment carried by the Selway River has reduced the quality of spawning and rearing 

areas, and high water temperatures in summer limit suitable habitat for steelhead to deeper pools 

with a cooler ground water influx. The Selway River carries relatively high levels of fine 

sediment, due in part to naturally high rates of erosion in the granitic lithologies that are 

prevalent in the drainage, but also due to accelerated erosion caused by logging and roads within 

NPNF (and adjacent Clearwater National Forest) lands. Wildfires have likely contributed 

additional sediment to the river in the past decade. 

Many streams in the Middle Fork Clearwater River subbasin, including the portion within the 

action area, are designated by the state of Idaho as water quality limited bodies under 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with the primary pollutant identified as elevated levels of 

sediment. In spite of the elevated sediment, the river provides significant over-wintering habitat 

for both anadromous and resident species since suitable conditions exist while many of the 

tributary streams are likely too small to sustain fish in winter. With coarse substrate size and 

high amounts of sediment in the Middle Fork Clearwater River reaches within the action area, 

little or no steelhead spawning occurs. Tributary streams outside the action area provide 

spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and cold water refuge during the summer. 

Middle Salmon - Chamberlain Subbasin 

In a biological assessment completed inl999, watershed and stream conditions in the 5th HUC 

watersheds were rated moderate to high, depending mostly on road density and amount of 

sediment in the streams. Crooked Creek in particular is characterized with areas of high road 

density in the headwater tributaries near the historic mining town of Dixie, Idaho. Some streams 

in the Middle Salmon - Big Mallard watershed were rated with moderate instream conditions 

due to moderate to high levels of deposited sediment, which was present even in some streams 

without roads. 

Since 1999, baseline stream conditions in some watersheds may have been affected by largescale wildfires that occurred in the mid to late 2000s, particularly in 2007. Off-route motorized 

travel was not identified as a variable affecting conditions in 1999. It is possible establishment 

of off-route trails has affected current conditions, although any effects would be expected to be 

localized and not within steelhead or Chinook salmon habitats. 

Lower Salmon Subbasin 

Watershed and stream conditions in the 5th HUC watersheds in this subbasin were rated high to 

low, depending on road density, past vegetation management, past and ongoing livestock 

grazing, and past and ongoing mining activity. Many streams in this subbasin have been 

degraded by various ground disturbing activities, including historic mining efforts. The GospelHump Wilderness Area which extends 206,053 acres constitutes a significant portion of this 

subbasin. Unregulated motorized use was identified as a factor affecting the existing condition 

of streams in 1999 in some areas, and this activity is thus included in the baseline. 

31 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 47
Since 1999, baseline stream conditions in some watersheds may have been affected by largescale wildfires in some areas that occurred in the mid to late 2000s, particularly in 2007. In 

addition, motorized use of trails and off-route motorized use may have increased, resulting in 

effects to streambanks and increased sediment delivery, as well as establishment of user-created 

trails. Density data for juvenile steel head trout are not available because the stream has not been 

comprehensively surveyed, but densities of juvenile steelhead in similar reaches in North Fork · 

Slate Creek ranged from 4.1 to 7.2 fish/100m2

. Swiftwater Creek in the Goddard Creek 6th field 

HUC watershed was most recently surveyed in 1989. Density of juvenile steelhead trout was 

estimated at about 21 fish/100m2

. 

Little Salmon Subbasin 

Watershed and stream conditions in the 5

111 HUC watersheds were rated high to low. The NPNF 

administers only a small portion of this subbasin, the majority of which is located in the Rapid 

River 5th HUC. A portion of Rapid River is located in the Hells Canyon Wilderness and much of 

the Rapid River corridor is protected by Wild and Scenic River designation. No adverse effects 

from motorized use were noted in the biological assessment completed for this subbasin in 1999. 

South Fork Clearwater Subbasin 

The NPNF administers a large portion of this sub basin that is located at the center of this 

national forest. Watershed and stream conditions were rated from high to low, depending on 

subwatershed. Many watersheds in this subbasin have been degraded from past actions, 

including in-channel dredge mining, road construction, and various other ground-disturbing 

activities. The density of streamside roads is highest in this subbasin when compared to others 

on the NPNF, with roads extending along the mainstem portions of nearly every large tributary 

flowing into the South Fork and many smaller streams as well. Fifth-field HUC watersheds 

showing the most degradation include Red River, Crooked River, Newsome Creek, and Middle 

South Fork Clearwater, which contains subwatersheds such as Mill and Meadow Creeks. 

Watershed and stream conditions were mostly rated low in the Middle South Fork Clearwater 

River subbasin in 1999, reflecting a poor existing condition. Since then, baseline conditions in 

several degraded watersheds, including portions of Red River, Crooked River, Newsome Creek, 

and Meadow Creek, have been improved by implementation of large scale watershed restoration 

projects, including road decommissioning, and in-channel improvements such as channel 

reconstruction, addition of large woody debris, and crossing upgrades. 'The Johns Creek 5th HUC 

watershed was rated high in 1999, reflecting its largely roadless character. Density of juvenile 

steelhead trout during basinwide surveys in Lower Mill Creek conducted in the 1990s averaged 

28 fish /100m2

. Parr monitoring data collected by Idaho Department of Fish and Game in the 

1980s and 1990s in American River suggested mean density of steelhead trout ranged from 

2 to 14 fish/m2 (14 fish/100m2

). 

32 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 48
Environmental Baseline Conditions Affected by Travel-Related Activities 

Travel-related activities that have occurred under the environmental baseline include use of 

motorized vehicles on roads and trails, and largely unrestricted off-road travel outside 

inventoried roadless and wilderness areas, and other places specifically closed to off-road travel. 

Roads and trails that lack hardened asphalt or concrete surfaces have had a significant negative 

impact on fish habitat throughout the action area by increasing soil erosion and promoting rapid 

delivery of sediment to streams through road-drainage ditches that function as extensions of 

natural drainge networks. In addition, many roads and some trails have been built in floodplains 

and sometimes occupy a portion of the natural stream channel. Large woody debris, channel 

sinuosity, and shade are often compromised in locations where roads or trails encroach on 

floodplains or the natural channel. Where roads are adjacent to streams or rivers, forest users 

have often established makeshift camping areas and access roads that have damaged riparian 

vegetation. Non-commercial use of roads and trails has added to the effects caused by the 

existence of road and trail facilities, but the majority of travel-related effects stem from the 

physical presence of roads, trails, and pioneered camping sites located in riparian areas. Crosscountry vehicular use has generally not caused widespread impacts to fish habitat in the past due 

to the prevalence of steep topography and trees that preclude cross-country travel in many 

places. A few isolated streamside areas are accessible to off-road vehicles that have caused 

damage to streambanks or riparian areas. 

2.4. Effects of the Action on Designated Critical Habitat and Listed Species 

'Effects of the action' considers the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species 

and/or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or 

interdependent with that action. These effects and the predicted cumulative effects will be added 

to the environmental baseline to determine the overall effects to the species (50 CFR 402.02). 

Direct effects are defined as those that result from the proposed action and directly or 

immediately impact the species or its habitat. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the 

proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. An interrelated 

activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for 

its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart 

from the action under consultation. Effects of the action that reduce the ability of a listed species 

to meet its biological requirements may increase the likelihood that the proposed action will 

result in jeopardy to that listed species or in destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. 

The effects of the action considered in this opinion are those caused by or enabled by authorized 

use of motorized vehicles. This proposed action authorizes the use by the public of existing 

roads and trails by motorized vehicles (and bicycles) at a reduced level than authorized under the 

baseline. It does not change the existence of any roads or trails themselves. The DRAMVU 

pertains only to public use of the existing roads and trails in the NPNF. The entire road system 

33 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 49
in the NPNF, including roads closed to public use is open to administrative use; therefore, effects 

of the road system itself exist regardless of rules pertaining to public use. The proposed action 

affects listed fish and critical habitat from trail use, road use, and motorized access to dispersed 

campsites, roadside parking and especially motorized use of stream ford crossings. 

2.4.1 . Effects of the Action on Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Designated Critical Habitat 

Implementing the DRAMVU proposal is likely to cause indirect effects to critical habitat from 

the effects of motor vehicles on recreational impacts, erosion of materials from road surfaces, 

and risks of water contamination. Transportation and travel management direction in the 

DRAMVU restricts where and when people can travel with motorized vehicles, and these 

restrictions will generally reduce impacts of motorized travel from existing levels. 

The total amount of road and trail traffic within the action area is not likely to change 

appreciably as a result of the action since the physical road and trail network in the action area is 

not affected by the proposed action and none of the roads that will be closed to public use under 

DRAMVU are primary transportation routes. There could be a slight reduction in traffic on 

forest roads in some locations since trips that were made strictly to use trails or destinations that 

are now closed will no longer occur. Where traffic shifts to other routes, environmental effects 

may increase from the additional traffic in those areas. The roads that will be closed to 

motorized use are largely secondary routes that did not experience high traffic loads to begin 

with, so significant shifts in traffic loads are not expected to occur. 

DRAMVU closes 1,004,428 acres of the NPNF to unregulated cross-country motorized travel 

outside of existing wilderness areas (Selway-Bitterroot, Frank Church River of No Return, and 

Gospel Hump) that have already been closed to motorized travel since their designation as 

wilderness. Prohibitions on cross-country travel are likely to significantly reduce ground 

disturbance and erosion in certain parcels of flat or open stream-side areas that receive a high 

level of dispersed motorized use. Most impacts to fish habitat from off-route motorized vehicle 

use have been limited to streamside areas that are used for camping. 

The proposed action will result in impacts of motorized vehicle use on critical habitat at a lower 

level than under current travel rules but PCEs in most locations are likely to remain in a 

condition similar to present conditions. Motorized use of roads and trails will continue to have 

an impact, but it has not been a major factor affecting the quality of critical habitat in the action 

area. Significant improvements in PCEs of critical habitat are likely to occur in scattered 

locations where vehicles are presently impairing critical habitat from unrestricted off-route travel 

or from traveling on gravel or dirt roads when they are susceptible to damage by wheel ruts. The 

effects of DRAMVU on PCEs of critical habitat are discussed below for each of the PCEs. 

34 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 50
2.4.1.1. Water Quality 

Motor vehicle use can affect water quality through creation of sediment and introduction of 

chemical pollutants such as fuel, oil, and lubricants. Motorized traffic can generate sediment by 

increasing erosion from road and trail surfaces when vehicles create ruts, and vehicles can 

mobilize sediment that is already deposited in a stream when they are driven across streams at 

fords. Sediment affects the characteristic of the channel substrate when it is deposited in the 

stream channel, and it affects water quality when it is carried in suspension. 

Suspe11ded sedime11t. Motor vehicles create suspended sediment indirectly by accelerating 

erosion of road and trail surfaces and they create suspended sediment directly when vehicles are 

driven across a stream. Road and trail use is unlikely to have an appreciable effect on sediment 

when surface drainage does not flow directly into a stream. Vegetated areas between trails and 

streams buffer the streams from chemical pollutants and sediment-laden runoff from road and 

trail surfaces. Vegetative buffers are an effective mechanism for preventing or reducing the 

amount of sediment reaching streams from trail or road runoff, and their effectiveness increases 

with the width of the buffer (Walter 2009, Belt et al. 1992, Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004 ). 

Where roads and trails do not have a sufficiently wide vegetative buffer to filter sediment, 

surface runoff is likely to carry sediment from roads and trails into streams. Each time that 

precipitation or snowmelt causes runoff from road or trail surfaces, sediment reaching streams 

will increase turbidity from fine sediments that become suspended in the water. The incremental 

increase in turbidity from erosion of roads and trail surfaces caused by motorized travel is 

unlikely to be significant beyond the point where runoff enters a stream since the background 

levels of suspended sediment from the combination of all other sediment sources is vastly greater 

than the contribution from runoff caused by motorized travel on roads and trails. Where 

motorized vehicles cross streams at fords, they are likely to create suspended sediment that is far 

above background levels. 

The proposed action authorizes the use of motorized vehicles where trails cross streams at fords. 

There are 19 fords in streams designated as critical habitat for steelhead, and 8 fords in streams 

designated as critical habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon (Tables 2 and 3). There are no 

roads with fords that would affect critical habitat. Seven fords are located on trails open to 

ATVs and motorcycles and the remainder of the fords are open to motorcycles only. When 

vehicles cross a ford, the wheels stir up sediment deposited at the crossing. Some of the 

sediment that is stirred up will become suspended in the water column and cause turbidity for 

varying distances as the sediment is carried downstream. Motorcycle use of fords generally 

produces less sediment than ford use by 4-wheeled and tracked A TVs. Motorcycles have fewer 

wheels and the wheels are not as wide; therefore, they do not displace as much sediment or 

water. 

Vehicles crossing streams at fords may cause adverse effects by creating turbidity and 

streambank erosion. Motorized vehicles crossing fords through streams with flowing water are 

likely to cause temporary and episodic pulses in turbidity and suspended sediment each time a 

vehicle crosses a ford. Tornatore (Toratore et al. 1996) found that vehicles crossing fords caused 

significant increases in suspended sediment, and peak turbidity from different off-road 

recreational vehicle crossings spanned three orders of magnitude in a study by (Deiter 2006). In 

35 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 51
streams that are forded regularly, or where stream fords are armored with coarse rock, minor 

pulses of turbidity for a short duration are likely. Where fords are crossed infrequently, fine 

sediments are likely to accumulate between crossing events; consequently, significant levels of 

turbidity may occur. In a study by Sample et al. ( 1998), fords constructed in channels composed 

of relatively fine materials (silt/clay/loam soils) produced roughly 15 times more suspended 

material than fords hardened by rocks. Thompson et al. ( 1996) found that fords that have 

approaches and streambeds hardened by rock produce substantially less sediment than fords with 

earthen banks and fine bed materials. Most fords in the action area have characteristics similar 

to the hardened fords in the Thompson et al. (1996) study. 

The downstream extent of sediment plumes and duration of sediment pulses from a ford varies 

substantially in different settings, depending on numerous physical variables including the 

abundance of fine particles in the stream channel, stream size, and discharge. Large sediment 

particles rapidly drop out of suspension, while finer particles may remain in suspension for a 

considerable distance downstream. In most instances, turbidity caused by stream crossing is not 

likely to remain beyond several minutes since most fords are hardened with coarse gravel or 

small rocks, and plumes are unlikely to extend downstream more than 100 feet. In a Kansas 

river with much finer substrate than the materials present in most Idaho mountain streams, 

Sample et al. ( 1998) found that most sediment mobilized during a vehicle crossing is redeposited 

within 30 meters (93% settled out from earthen ford; 75% from hardened ford). The fords where 

steelhead occur in the action area are considerably steeper and have coarser substrate than 

Kansas streams, which would cause sediment to settle out sooner. 

Chemical pollutants. Chemical pollutants that leak from vehicles can reach streams when 

chemicals are washed from road and trail surfaces by runoff, and when vehicles cross streams at 

fords. Chemicals leaked from motor vehicles that reach streams through surface runoff are 

generally unlikely to reach concentrations that cause adverse effects because the volume of 

traffic on forest roads is too low to provide a significant source of chemical contaminants. 

Vehicles that are driven across streams can also contaminate water directly from fuel leaks and 

lubricants or other automotive fluids that wash off the vehicle or drip into the water. Trace 

amounts of these chemicals are likely to be introduced to stream with most crossings, but the 

expected low concentrations of contaminants are not likely to pose a significant risk to fish or 

other aquatic species. Petroleum-based contaminants such as fuel, oil, and some hydraulic fluids 

contain poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which can cause chronic sublethal effects to 

aquatic organisms (Neff 1985); however, nearly all PAH compounds in automotive fluids are 

much lighter than water and they do not readily mix with water. Consequently, fish are not 

likely to be exposed to significant concentrations of PAH contaminants from vehicles because 

PAH contaminants are likely to disperse while they remain near the water surface and dissipate 

before significant exposure occurs. Motorcycles and ATVs do not have water-cooled radiators; 

consequently they do not pose for leakage of anti-freeze that exists with cars and trucks. 

Ethylene glycol (the primary ingredient in antifreeze) has been observed to cause sublethal 

effects to rainbow trout at concentrations of 20 g/L (Staples et al. 2001 ), but this is such a high 

concentration that adverse effects would be highly unlikely in flowing water. Brake fluid is also 

a mixture of glycols and glycol ethers, and has about the same toxicity as antifreeze. 

36 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 52
A low concentration of hydrocarbons and other road-related chemicals are likely to exist in 

streams throughout roaded areas of the forest, but water pollution from chemicals leaked by or 

spilled from motorized vehicles is not an apparent problem affecting fish habitat in the NPNF. 

Chemical pollutants from vehicles are most likely to reach streams where paved roads have a 

direct hydrologic connection to adjacent streams (Furniss et al. 2000). Paved roads generate 

surface runoff rapidly and the road surface has limited potential to trap or absorb chemicals in 

comparison to native surface or gravel roads. Hydrocarbons or other pollutants associated with 

motorized vehicles are not identified by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality as a 

pollutant of concern in any drainage within the NPNF. The potential for water contamination 

from vehicle use in the NPNF is extremely low since forest roads have low traffic volumes. 

Chemical pollutants from motorized vehicle use authorized by the proposed action are likely to 

remain at levels that are unlikely to be harmful to fish or aquatic organisms. · 

Chemical contamination from vehicle accidents in circumstances where the vehicles end up 

leaking chemicals into a stream is an exceptional circumstance where pollutants might reach 

concentrations that would be potentially harmful to fish. Nearly all accidents in the action area 

where vehicles have crashed into streams have involved commercial vehicles which are not 

authorized by DRAMVU. Accidents involving non-commercial vehicles that result in chemical 

pollutants reaching water are rare occasions that are not certain to occur at any particular 

frequency, nor would such accidents have a meaningful effect on water quality. They are too 

rare and the volume of fuel carried in non-conunercial vehicles is too small to cause more than 

minor, temporary effects. 

2.4.1.2. Stream Cha1111el Substrate 

Motor vehicles indirectly affect stream channel substrate by increasing the erosion from gravel 

and dirt road and trail surfaces. Off-route vehicle use to reach undeveloped campsites may also 

cause erosion; however, the amount of sediment produced from off-route travel to campsites is 

likely to be small since sites used for camping are relatively level surfaces that do not readily 

transport sediment, and the surface area all of the undeveloped campsites combined is orders of 

magnitude smaller than the road surfaces in the action area. Larger 4-wheeled vehicles have a 

much greater effect on surface erosion than 2-wheeled vehicles and smaller ATVs. Research by 

Wilson and Seney ( 1994) indicates that the effects of 2-wheeled vehicles (bicycles and 

motorcycles) on trail erosion are generally less than the impact of foot traffic. On gravel and 

native surfaces, motorized vehicles can concentrate water and accelerate erosion when wheels 

create ruts in the travel surface; flatten crowns, water bars, or dips designed to dissipate runoff; 

or when traffic expands the width of the travel surface when driving along the edges. Motorized 

vehicles also compact the travel surface of unpaved roads which can decrease water infiltration 

rates, increase surface runoff (Foltz 2006; Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and increase sediment 

production rates relative to undisturbed areas or uncompacted surfaces (Foltz 2006; 

Welsh 2008). 

Routes open to public motorized use when the travel surface is susceptible to developing ruts 

will produce more sediment than a road that is closed at times when ruts are likely to develop. 

Ruts are likely to develop when vehicles are driven on roads or trails that are muddy or when 

37 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 53
soils lose their cohesion from extremely low soil moisture. Under DRAMVU, 278 miles of road 

and 490 miles of trails are changed from open yearlong to open seasonally or closed to motorized 

use. These changes will reduce the amount of erosion attributable to motorized traffic compared 

to existing conditions by reducing the amount of motorized usage during times of the year when 

roads are most likely to muddy or extremely dry. Since DRAMVU reduces the mileage of routes 

designated for motorized use and routes open year-round, an incremental reduction in sediment 

remlting from road and trail use is likely to occur. 

Sediment eroded from road and trail surfaces adds sediment to streams in locations where 

surface drainage runoff empties directly into a stream channel without a sufficient amount of 

vegetation to filter sediment from the runoff or where road drainage ditches are connected to the 

channel network. Vegetated areas between travel ways and streams buffer streams from 

chemical pollutants and sediment-laden runoff. Vegetative buffers are an effective mechanism 

for preventing or reducing the amount of sediment reaching streams from trail or road runoff, 

and their effectiveness increases with the width of the buffer (Walter 1999; Belt et al. 1992; 

Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004). Most sediment is trapped near the beginning edge of a buffer. 

Vegetated buffers as narrow as 15 to 30 feet wide are likely to reduce sediment by one-half or 

more (Wenger 1999), while buffers from 100 to 300 feet might be required to reduce the 

sediment by 90% or more (Castelle et al. 1994; Davies and Nelson 1994; Pete1john and Correll 

1984 ). Much of the eroded sediment caused by vehicle use will be captured by vegetation. 

Sediment that is carried to streams in runoff will either be deposited in the channel somewhere 

near the point of entry or be transported and dispersed downstream. Excess sediment alters the 

physical characteristics of fish irnbit when it is deposited in a stream channel in different amounts 

than would occur naturally. Increased sediment deposition can impair spawning gravels, reduce 

cover, and reduce production of invertebrate prey species by filling pools and voids in between 

gravels. Excessively large amounts of sediment deposition can cause channel instability and 

contribute to higher stream temperatures in summer by making stream channels become wider 

and shallower. 

Sediment generated by road and trail surfaces can alter physical characteristics of the stream 

channel substrate when the sediment is carried to streams in amounts that are higher than would 

occur naturally. When sediment delivery increases above natural background rates, sediment 

begins to fill the interstitial spaces between larger rocks and gravels, and, if the supply is large 

enough, sediment may eventually completely cover large rocks. Accumulated sediment in 

spawning gravels can restrict intergravel flow and block emergence of fry (Lisle and Lewis, 

1992). In juvenile rearing areas, accumulated sediment can decrease growth and survival of 

juvenile fish by filling areas used as cover and by decreasi ng the availability of invertebrate prey 

species (Alexander and Hansen 1986). 

Sediment from motorized traffic comprises a small increment of sediment that comes from road 

and trail systems when roads and trails are regularly maintained. Without maintenance, road 

segments damaged by vehicle use can produce large amounts of sediment when vehicle damage 

causes gullies or rills to develop in the road surface. Maintenance practices are determined by 

the criteria in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 7709.58) and budget constraints. A road 

system analysis report for the NPNF (NPNF 2006) found funding to be inadequate to maintain 

38 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 54
the current road system on the forest. Road maintenance levels are independent of DRAMVU, 

but maintenance levels on gravel-surface and native-surface roads influence the impact of 

motorized travel on these types of roads. Motor vehicle use is less likely to cause erosion on 

well-maintained roads. Vehicles that drive on roads with poorly-maintained clrainge features are 

apt to accelerate erosion of the road surface by creating ruts that concentrate water 

Overall, the amount of sediment created directly or indirectly by motorized vehicle use is likely 

to be reduced by the DRAMVU, but the changes are likely to be relatively minor. Taken 

together with all other sediment sources, sediment from the proposed action is likely to cause 

nearly the same effects that have occurred under the baseline. Stream conditions described in the 

baseline and in Table 8 are likely to continue in the future with or without the additional 

sediment caused by the proposed action. The proposed action has limited effects on the sediment 

in streams because no roads or trails are physically removed by the action, and sediment is 

generated by existing roads and trail facilities regardless of whether those facilities are open or 

closed to public motorized use. The vast majority of sediment produced from road and trail 

systems is related to physical effects of the facilities and not from vehicle use. Sediment from a 

road is produced from bare soils on fillslopes, road prisms, cutslopes, and drainage ditches, with 

the majority coming from the cutslopes (Burroughs and King 1989). Roads can also produce 

massive volumes of sediment from landslides that are triggered when hillslopes become 

saturated by excessive volumes of runoff from the road surface (Wisher 1998; Platts et al. 1989). 

The amount of sediment produced from roads is related to the slope of the road, topography, road 

surface materials, soil properties, and the design and function of the drainage features. 

Motorized traffic affects the amount of sediment from roads primarily by altering drainage 

features. Trails produce sediment in the same way, but they generally have a lesser effect than 

roads because there are fewer miles of trails; trails are narrower than roads; and trails more 

closely follow the natural surface contours, which does not require construction of large cut or 

fill slopes that are used in road construction to minimize· curves and elevation changes. 

Sediment caused by motor vehicle usage is likely to have two types of effects on channel 

substrate: (1) Temporary, localized accumulations of sediment near the sediment source; and 

(2) widely dispersed deposition of minor amounts of sediment transported downstream during 

high streamflow events. Sediment in a stream originates from a variety of sources besides the 

proposed action, including the natural processes of weathering and sediment transport, and the 

erosion of burned areas, existing roads and other ground disturbances. Excess sediment from all 

sources combined will continue to be an important factor impairing fish habitat in many stream 

reaches in the action area. The volume of sediment added by motorized travel is unlikely to be 

large enough to significantly affect channel substrate as a whole, although travel-related 

sediment may accumulate enough in small areas to alter channel substrate in a manner that might 

impair the usage of the area by fish or invertebrate prey species. Localized changes in habitat 

quality from travel-related sediment deposition are likely to be limited to circumstances where a 

road surface segment is significantly damaged by motor vehicle traffic where roads or trails are 

adjacent to streams or where road or trail drainage flows directly into a stream. These isolated 

areas are unlikely to be large enough or numerous enough to have a meaningful effect on PCEs. 

39 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 55
2.4.1.3. Spawning Habitat 

Salmon and steelhead spawning sites are distributed throughout the action area wherever stream 

gradient, flow, water quality, and substrate size are suitable. Motor vehicles can potentially 

affect spawning areas by introducing sediment and chemical pollutants to a stream. Localized 

patches of sediment deposition described above may occur in areas used by salmon or steelhead 

for spawning. Some spawning sites in the NPNF may also be susceptible to mobilization of 

suspended sediment or chemical contamination from use of fords. In most cases, substrate size 

within the vicinity of fords will not change through implementation of the proposed action. Most 

ford locations presently do not involve preferred spawning habitat in the vicinity of the stream 

crossings. 

Freshwater spawning sites that might presently be impaired by vehicle impacts to streambanks or 

stream channel at dispersed camping sites would likely improve from proposed restrictions on 

use of vehicles for cross-country travel, parking, and dispersed camping. These motorized uses 

would continue to supply a minor amount of sediment and chemical pollutants that would have 

no more than minor localized effects on spawning areas since existing unrestricted uses generally 

do not have large effects on spawning areas. 

Sediment and chemical pollution from off-route vehicle use under the baseline is not a 

significant impact to spawning; therefore, off-route use under the proposed action is not likely to 

cause significant impacts since the impacts would be reduced from the baseline. In most cases, 

riparian recreation sites are located along the mainstem rivers (e.g. Selway River, South Fork 

Clearwater River, Salmon River) or larger streams which do not have spawning adjacent to the 

sites. Where sites are located on moderate to smaller streams with potential steelhead spawning 

habitat, high streamflows during spawning through incubation reduce the risk of redd 

disturbance since the flows preclude wading in the streams. 

Under the environmental baseline excess amounts of fine sediment are believed to be a limiting 

factor in many streams in the action area. Sediment from motorized traffic would continue to 

have a minor negative effect on freshwater spawning areas as it has under the baseline by 

increasing the proportion of sediment in the channel substrate, but the amount of sediment 

attributable to motorized travel is minor and would likely be reduced from present levels. No 

significant change in quality or quantity of freshwater spawning sites is likely to occur from the 

proposed action. 

2.4.1.4. Rearing Habitat, Cover, and Shelter 

The proposed action would cause minor physical changes in areas used for rearing, cover, and 

shelter occur through the effects of sediment described above. Small patches of habitat may be 

impaired by sediment deposition in the same manner as spawning habitat is affected. The 

amount of rearing habitat affected is likely to be inconsequential since sediment effects would be 

localized occurrences that would not change substrate or channel characteristics enough to alter 

the use of the affected areas. The increment of sediment added by motorized travel is too small a 

fraction of the total sediment load to cause more than a minor effect. 

40 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 56
Chemical pollutants in general also have potential to affect these habitat elements, but chemical 

contamination from DRAMVU is unlikely to reach concentrations that are high enough or that 

persist long enough to impair the use of the areas for rearing, cover, or shelter. Chemical 

pollutants from DRAMVU are unlikely to enter water anywhere in significant amounts. The 

highest concentrations would occur at stream fords, but the brief amount of time that vehicles 

require to cross a ford limits the amount of contaminants leaking or washing off vehicles to brief 

pulses that would only have momentary effects. 

Motorized travel is unlikely to affect habitat features such as overhanging vegetation and 

undercut banks since off-route vehicle use is limited to existing vehicle tracks, and travel 

activities causing damage to streambanks or vegetation is prohibited. 

2.4.1.5. Migration, Habitat Connectivity, Accessibility, and Safe Passage 

Salmon and steelhead movement and accessibility is affected by an activity when it causes 

conditions that inhibit or prevent fish from migrating, or when it creates conditions that increase 

mortality when fish are migrating. Notable circumstances that negatively affect migration, 

habitat connectivity, accessibility and safe passage are reduced streamflows, passage barriers 

created by culverts and bridges, and activities that create temperature or water quality conditions 

that discourage or prevent fish from using the stream. Motorcycle and ATV vehicles driven 

across fords have limited potential to affect fish movement near the fords. Vehicles driven 

through fords create turbidity and may disrupt fish movement when vehicles are driven through 

streams. Effects of stream fords on critical habitat are limited to 18 stream segments Vehicles 

using fords could create turbidity that might discourage movement of adult or juvenile salmon 

and steel head for brief periods while the water remains turbid after a vehicle crossing. Turbidity 

is unlikely to persist long enough to cause more than temporary disruptions to fish movement. 

2.4.1.6. Water Quantity and Water Velocity 

The DRAMVU has virtually no potential to change water quantity or water velocity. Changes to 

water velocity occur when an action changes stream channel morphology or when it adds or 

removes water from a stream. Water quantity is changed by an action when the timing or 

volume of water delivered to a stream is changed or when water is removed from a stream. 

There is no mechanism whereby vehicles using roads or trails could cause physical changes in 

channel morphology or cause an observable effect on water quantity or velocity. Ruts created by 

vehicles could potentially accelerate runoff from damaged road segments, but the effect would 

be so minor that it would not be noticeable. 

2.4.1.7. Forage and Food 

Motorized vehicles in general could indirectly affect forage and food by increasing erosion or 

from chemical contaminants that leak from vehicles. Both of the water quality effects are 

41 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 57
discussed above and neither effect is likely to large enough to affect the amount of food or forage 

available to listed fish. 

2.4.1.8. Riparian Vegetation 

Motorized travel on roads and trails is unlikely to affect riparian vegetation since these travel 

surfaces are devoid of vegetation. Roadside parking and off-route travel to undeveloped 

camping areas presently affects growth of riparian vegetation where vehicles have established 

tracks and where camping enabled by motor vehicle access has killed or damaged riparian 

vegetation. The proposed action is likely to discourage additional loss of riparian vegetation 

from off-route travel to campsites, but some additional damage is still likely to occur in locations 

where people accidently or purposely establish new tracks in camping areas. 

Proposed monitoring is likely to detect expansion of off-route vehicle tracks in riparian areas 

during the first 2 years of DRAMVU implementation, and it would provide an inventory of all 

existing dispersed sites in riparian areas. This initial effort will provide sufficient information to 

track future changes; however, monitoring activities beyond the first 2 years are uncertain. 

Monitoring is only proposed for the initial 2 years after DRAMVU is implemented. Problems 

detected during the initial monitoring period would be identified, but any remedial actions that 

might be taken would rely on future decisions. 

Impacts to riparian vegetation from off-route vehicle use under existing rules is sometimes 

locally significant, but the affected sites affect a relatively small area in total. Undeveloped 

riparian recreation sites are concentrated in places where roads provide easy access to relatively 

flat floodplains that lack natural obstructions to vehicle use. Most sites that are potentially 

usable by motorized vehicles already have pioneered vehicle tracks. With limited opportunities 

to develop additional off-route recreation sites and restrictions on developing new sites, the 

proposed rules for off-route use are likely to maintain riparian vegetation in a condition that is 

similar to present. 

2.4.1.9. Living Space 

Actions that might affect living space are those that alter the amount of wetted area in a stream or 

alter the suitability of wetted areas. The proposed action has no mechanisms that would affect 

the amount of living space available for listed fish since the action does not affect the amount of 

water in the streams and it does not meaningfully alter the suitability of areas used for spawning, 

rearing, or migration (as described above). 

2.4.1.10. Summary of Critical Habitat Effects 

Effects of DRAMVU on critical habitat were examined by describing the types of effects caused 

by DRAMVU and the changes to the environmental baseline that are likely to occur from those 

effects. Motorized vehicle use has a limited number of pathways where the activity can affect 

42 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 58
critical habitat. Motorized traffic affects critical habitat indirectly by increasing erosion from 

gravel and dirt surfaces or by damaging riparian vegetation or streambanks in riparian areas used 

for recreation. Motorized traffic directly affects water quality where vehicles are driven across 

stream at fords. Motorized travel under past rules has not had a major effect on critical habitat as 

a whole, but there are localized areas where travel activities have added sediment and chemical 

pollutants to streams or damaged riparian vegetation. Travel authorized by DRAMVU will 

cause the same types of effects, but it will reduce the impacts that have been caused by 

motorized travel under existing rules. None of the impacts from travel under DRAMVU are 

severe enough to alter the PCEs in a manner that would change the conservation value of critical 

habitat. This is supported by the fact that past rules have not had a major effect on the PCEs and 

the new rules under DRAMVU would cause lesser impacts. 

2.4.2. Effects on Listed Species 

As stated previously in Section 2.2 of this Opinion, both SRB steelhead and spring/summer 

Chinook salmon occur within the action area. The SRB steelhead are distributed throughout the 

action area in watersheds associated both with the Clearwater River and Salmon River drainages. 

Spring/summer Chinook salmon also occupy many of the same tributaries where steelhead 

occur, but spring/summer Chinook salmon are listed in the Salmon River drainage not in the' 

Clearwater River drainage, so both listed and unlisted Chinook salmon are found in the action 

area. Due to the differences in distribution of these two species, quantitative indicators such as 

miles of roads and trails sometimes differ for the two species and the indicators are sometimes 

quantified separately for each species in the following sections. However, the type of effects 

(i.e., increased suspended sediment, other habitat alterations, and disturbance) caused by the 

action and the biological consequences of those effects are virtually identical. Therefore, effects 

of the action on SRB steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon are discussed together in a 

single analysis. 

2.4.2.1. Effects on Steel head and Spring/summer Chi11ook Salmon 

General Road and Trail Motorized Use Effects 011 SRB Steel/zead and Spring/summer 

Chinook Sa/111011. Potential ways that motorized vehicle uses would affect fish include creating 

sediment, contaminating water from petroleum products, disturbing fish when operating vehicles 

in or near water, or injuring fish when crossing a stream ford. 

Sediment Effects 

Under the proposed action, sediment is likely to be generated by vehicular use of unpaved roads 

and trails. Sediment is likely to be generated from road and trail surfaces that become rutted by 

motorized vehicles and at stream fords where vehicles mobilize sediment deposited in the stream 

channel. The effects of sediment differ for early life stages inside the redd, and the juvenile 

rearing stage after steelhead emerge from the redd. Eggs or larval fish in redds are primarily 

43 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 59
susceptible to deposition of fine sediment that fills spaces between gravel particles. Juvenile 

salmonids and adults are affected by sediment while it is in suspension and after it is deposited 

after dropping out of suspension. 

Suspended Sediment. Suspended sediment from motor vehicle use is like ly to occur 

sporadically during snow melt or precipitation events that generate surface runoff from whee l ruts 

created by motori zed traffic and at stream fords following each vehicle crossing. On roads and 

trails open to seasonal use, runoff events where wheel ruts generate erosion are generally 

localized, sporadic, short-term events associated with high intensity storms. Roads and trails 

open year-round will also be subject to runoff from snowmelt and seasonal rains. When surface 

runoff is large enough to deliver sediment to streams, the runoff events are generally coupled 

with higher streamflows since streamflows increase during rain or snowmelt events. During 

runoff events, streams typically carry increased amounts of suspended sediment as sediment 

previously deposited in stream channels is mobilized and new sediment is carried to the streams. 

During these events, the additional sediment from effects of vehicle use would be a small 

fraction of the total sediment load carried in the water, and the added sediment would be 

indistinguishable from background concentration of suspended sediment beyond a short distance 

from the point where road or trail surface runoff enters a stream. Suspended sediment from road 

and trail surface runoff (apart from stream fords) adds a small increment of sediment that 

contributes to adverse effects to juvenile fish the combined effect of all sources of suspended 

sediment, but the severity of effects is not likely to increase significantly. 

The combined effect of suspended sediments, with or without the proposed action is likely to 

cause a variety of sublethal effects on juvenile fish. The severity of effects caused by suspended 

sediment can span a wide range depending on the concentration of sediment and duration of 

exposure (Newcombe and Jenson 1996). Suspended sediment from travel-related runoff adds to 

the concentration but does not have much effect on the duration of exposure; while sediment 

mobilized from vehicles crossing fords affects both the concentration and duration of exposure. 

Increased concentrations of suspended sediment can displace fish from preferred habitat or cause 

behavioral changes such as gill flaring, coughing, avoidance, decreased feeding rates, and 

increase in blood sugar levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982; Sigler et al. 1984; Berg and Northcote 

1985; Servizi and Marten 1992; and others). Most of these behavioral changes would be 

disruptive to normal behavior, but have little effect on fish growth or survival if the disruptions 

occur infrequently. Persistent turbidity can decrease feeding and growth rates due to decreases 

in the visual field (Barrett et al. 1992), and increased energy expenditures to locate and capture 

prey (Sweka and Hartman 2001). 

At stream fords, vehicles crossing the stream are likely to generate amounts of suspended 

sediment that are well above background levels at times when high levels of suspended sediment 

would not normally be present. Motorcycles and ATVs crossing fords are likely to create 

plumes of suspended sediment lasting no more than 30 minutes, based on findings by Thompson 

et al. ( 1996), where suspended sediment concentrations returned to near-background levels 

(95% reduction in peak) within 30 minutes after a vehicle crossed a gravel ford. Fish present 

downstream from fords are like ly to be exposed to these pulses of suspended sediment each time 

a vehicle crosses a ford if they are located within the distance sediment travels before settling out 

of suspension. The majority of suspended sediment rapidly drops out of suspension in a short 

44 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 60
distance, with coarser particles settling sooner than finer particles. Sample et al. ( 1998) found 

that 75% to 93% of the suspended sediment mobilized during a vehicle crossing is redeposited 

within roughly 100 feet. The sediment that remains suspended beyond 100 feet is typically a 

small volume of very fine sediment that can create various amounts of turbidity that vary with 

the types soil particles that are carried in suspension. The amount of turbidity expected from 

fords in the action area is low because all of the fords are located in streams that have relatively 

coarse substrate. 

Turbidity is an optical property that affects a fish's visual acuity. Turbidity is created by the 

scattering, absorption, and reflection of light by sediment particles. The effects of turbidity on 

fish occur from primarily from changes in visibility of objects rather exposure to the sediment 

itself. Deiter (2006) found that turbidity at stream crossings decreased by 50% within 150 feet, 

and roughly 70% within 275 feet. The remainder dissipates over varied distances as the 

concentration declines. At a distance of approximately 275 feet from a ford, turbidity is likely to 

have attenuated to the point where the effects on fish are inconsequential. Fish that are located 

within 275 feet from a stream ford have a choice of suspending activities until the turbidity 

passes or swiming out of the turbidity. Within several weeks after salmon and steelhead have 

emerged from redds, they are capable of swimming out of turbid areas to minimize exposm:e. If 

turbidity levels at fords are high enough or persistent enough to cause more than minor adverse 

effects, a review by Bash et al. (2001) indicates that juvenile salmonids are likely to move a 

short distance to avoid the turbidity. Lloyd et al. ( 1987) observed that coho abandoned their 

position when exposed to turbidity of 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs). In studies 

where fish either chose to remain in turbid water or have no means of escape, turbidity between 

30 NTUs and 60 NTUs caused juvenile coho salmon in a laboratory experiment to reduce prey 

consumption by 50% to 65% (Berg 1982; Berg and Northcote 1985). Berg and Northcote (1985) 

observed that sudden increases of 60 NTUs, which might occur from a vehicle crossing ford, 

caused an alarm response in coho salmon, which indicates that more often than not, fish are 

likely to move away from fords during vehicle crossings. 

Each vehicle crossing by itself is not likely to affect behavior enough to cause a reduction in 

growth or survival; therefore, occasional or infrequent use of fords is not likely to cause serious 

effects. Only frequent or persistent exposures are likely to cause reduced growth. Studies 

examining effects of suspended sediment indicate that only persistent exposures (or exposures to 

extreme amounts of suspended sediment) caused harmful effects, even at low concentrations of 

sediment. Sigler et al. (1984) found that salmonid feeding and growth are affected by a 14 day 

continuous exposure to turbidity over 25 NTUs. Shaw and Richardson (2001) found that 

juvenile rainbow repeatedly exposed (10 times) to turbidity of 23 NTUs for 4 to 5 hours were 

shorter than fish in the control group, and significant differences in weight gain occurred with 

multiple exposures at durations of 5 to 6 hours. Although sublethal effects can occur at 

relatively low sediment concentrations with exposures lasting several hours, lethal effects are 

unlikely. Newcombe and MacDonald ( 1991) reviewed a wide range of studies on sediment 

effects and did not report any lethal effects of suspended sediment on salmonids at durations less 

than 24 hours, except for exposures to highly concentrated sediment in runoff (e.g. Mount St. 

Helens volcanic eruption). The lowest sediment concentration cited by Newcombe and 

45 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 61
MacDonald ( 1991) that caused mortality of juvenile trout or salmon was 270 mg/L with 

continuous exposure exceeding 400 hours, which is a duration and concentration unlikely to 

occur under the proposed action. 

The proposed action authorizes motorcycles (and in some locations ATVs) to use 19 fords in 

stream reaches potentially occupied by steelhead, and eight of the 19 fords in stream reaches also 

potentially occupied by Chinook salmon. There are many other fords in the action area; 

however, all but these 19 fords are located in areas where suspended sediment is not likely to 

reach areas designated as critical habitat or areas where listed fish are likely to be present. Field 

reviews of the fords indicate that suspended sediment from motorcycle and A TV crossings 

would likely produce only minor amounts of suspended sediment due to the coarse substrate and 

small stream sizes (see Appendix B). If motor vehicles only use the fords occasionally, 

suspended sediment and turbidity are unlikely to reach levels that harm juvenile fish. Suspended 

sediment generated at these fords from vehicle crossings may reach levels that are injurious to 

fish rearing downstream if fish do not abandon the affected area and if motor vehicle traffic use 

creates chronic or frequent turbidity. When multiple crossings occur in the same day, fish may 

experience more significant effects such as short-term reduction in feeding rates and various 

degrees of physiological stress that becomes more severe with increasing duration of exposure 

(Newcombe and Jenson 1996). No data are available concerning the volume and frequency of 

motorized vehicles using the fords in the action area, but frequent stream crossings and chronic 

turbidity could occur. If motor vehicle use occurs regularly with multiple vehicle crossings on 

many days, turbidity is likely to force fish to move away from the fords or harm fish if they 

remain near the fords. Fish that remain in the vicinity of a ford may not grow as rapidly as fish in 

areas unaffected by stream fords. Turbidity sufficient to reduce fish growth or displace fish is 

likely to affect an area no more than 275 feet downstream from a ford if trail use reaches levels 

that cause chronic turbidity (e.g. 4 to 6 hours of continuous exposure on multiple clays). 

Reduced growth has mixed effects on survival. Small body size sometimes confers an energetic 

advantage to juvenile steelhead and salmon that increases survival over the winter (Connolly and 

Petersen 2003), but other factors such as the amount of body fat, food availability, and water 

temperature can mask the effects of body size on freshwater survival and growth. Fish size also 

affects the number of fish that can survive when a fish population is limited by competition for 

food or space. The number of individuals per unit of area that can be supported is generally 

inversely related to the average body size (Bohlin et al. 1994), so a reduced body size may . 

enable a larger number of fish to survive when resources are limited. Consequently, reduced 

body size during the freshwater life stages may translate into higher or lower rates of production 

under different environmental conditions. When salmon or steelhead smelts reach the ocean, 

smaller fish tend to have lower survival rates than their counterparts (Tipping 1997; Ward and 

Slaney 1988), but small size does not consistently decrease the likelihood of ocean survival 

under different circulation and temperature patterns. Holtby et al. ( 1990) found that large 

salmon smolts had higher survi val rates in only years when ocean conditions were relatively 

poor. 

Sediment Deposition. Sediment deposition from motorized vehicle use occurs when suspended 

sediment settles out of suspension downstream from fords or locations where road surface 

drainage enters streams. Fords have an insignificant role in sediment deposition since vehicles 

46 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 62
merely move deposited sediment from the ford to a downstream location without adding any 

additional sediment to the stream. Sediment from motorized vehicle adds to effects of excess 

sediment deposition that presently exists in many of the tributary streams in the action area as 

previously described in the environmental baseline. Areas where sediment deposition from 

motorized travel is likely to accumulate is primarily near road and trail segments that are in close 

proximity to fish-bearing streams, which is indicated by the miles of roads and trails that are 

located in RHCAs, which are streamside buffers that vary from a 100-foot distance from 

intermittent streams to 300 feet from fish-bearing perennial streams (Table 9). 

47 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 63
Table 9. Miles of Motorized Streamside Routes (Roads and Trails) Combined Adjacent to 

K S d nown or uspecte 0 ccup1. d H b e a t 't a t 0 f S ,pnng IS um mer Cl 1111 . 00 k S I a mon an d St ee 11 1ea d 

Watershed Chinook Salmon* Steel head/ 

Redband Trout 

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong 

Upper Selway 

Running 0.6* 0 1.8 0 

Upper Selway- Petlibone 0 0 0 0 

Bear 0 0 0 0 

Subbasin Total 0.6* 0 1.8 0 

Lower Selway 

Lower Selway - 3 Links 0 0.8* 0 0.8 

Meadow Cr 1.6* 1.8* 1.6 1.8 

Lower Selway - Gedney 0.7* 21* 1.2 22 

Subbasin Total 2.3* 24* 2.8 25 

MF Clearwater 

Clear Creek 3.4* 0.82* 3.4 1.0 

MF Clearwater River 0 0.05* 0 0.05 

Subbasin Total 3.4* 0.9* 3.4 1.1 

Middle Salmon Chamberlain 

Sabe Creek 0 0 0 0 

Bargamin Creek 0.5 0 0.5 0 

Big Mallard - Salmon River 0 0 0 0 

Crooked Creek 0 0.1 14** 4.2 

Wind River 0 0 0 0 

Sheep Creek - Salmon River 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 

Subbasin Total 0.5 0.2 14.5 4.3 

Lower Salmon 

Partridge Creek - Salmon River 0.05 9.4 0.05 13.5 

Slate Creek 0.01 10.3 5.8 11.9 

Race Creek - Salmon River 0 0.1 0 0.7 

Skookumchuck - Salmon River 0 0 0 0 

White Bird Creek 0 0 9.0 3.6 

Subbasin Total 0.1 20 15 30 

Little Salmon 

Rapid River 0 1.4 0 1.4 

Lower Little Salmon 0 0 0.13 1.8 

Subbasin Total 0 1.4 0.13 3.2 

South Fork Clearwater River 

Red River 3.5 23 7.9 3 1.4 

American River 5.4 2.5 5.6 2.5 

Crooked River 0.2 10.2 0.9 13.8 

Newsome Creek 0.8 8.7 0.8 8.7 

Upper South Fork Clearwater 1.6 33 2.1 33 

Johns Creek 0 0 0 0 

Middle South Fork Clearwater 2.7 22.3 6.1 23.8 

Lower South Fork Clearwater 0 0 0 0 

Sub basin Total 14 99 27 113 

Grand Total 20.9 145.5 64.6 74.9 

*Spnng/summcr Chmook salmon are ESA-hsted only 111 Middle Salmon-Chambcrlmn, Lower Salmon, and Little Salmon subbasms of the action 

area.. 

** The majority of the Crooked Creek drainage is upstream from an impassable barrier to anadromousj/sil 

48 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 64
The severity of effects from deposition of excess sediment are roughly in direct proportion to the 

amount of fine sediment deposition (Suttle et al. 2004). Excessive amounts of fine sediment in 

spawning gravels reduces survival of eggs in redds (Young et al. 1990; Tappe! and Bjornn 1983; 

Cordone and Kelley 1961; and others), and in rearing areas, excess sediment reduces the growth 

and survival of juveniles by reducing spaces available for invertebrate production and cover 

(Harvey et al. 2009; Suttle et al. 2004; Newcombe and MacDonald 1991; and others). Given the 

minor amounts of sediment and localized nature of sediment deposition from motorized travel, 

sediment deposition caused by DRAMVU is unlikely to be large enough to change substrate 

characteristics of spawning or rearing habitat to an extent that fish survival, growth, or 

production would be affected. However, local exceptions may occur in spawning and rearing 

areas immediately downstream from points where runoff from a road or trail surface directly 

enters a fish-bearing stream, and travel activity is causing erosion of the travel surfaces. If 

occupied redds are located in stream reaches affected by travel-related road or trail surface 

·runoff, localized sediment deposits near the sediment source may reach levels that reduce the 

survival of eggs or larval fish. This is likely to occur in very limited circumstances, on native 

surface roads that have sloped segments that run a relatively long distance without a relief drain 

and where vehicle traffic causes significant rutting to develop. Segments like this are likely to be 

uncommon since vehicles are likely to have difficulty driving on a sloped road surface that is soft 

enough to cause significant ruts to develop, and problem areas like this are generally fixed by 

road maintenance. 

Table 9 shows that six percent of the roads and trails open to public use under DRAMVU are 

adjacent to fish-bearing streams that are likely to support SRB steelhead, and seven percent of 

the roads and trails are adjacent to fish-bearing streams likely to support spring/summer Chinook 

salmon. Sediment deposition from motorized travel use is unlikely to cause adverse effects on 

roads segments that are not adjacent to streams. With sediment from motorized travel being a 

small fraction of the total amount of sediment delivered from roads, trails, and natural sediment 

sources; and with the majority of roads being too far from streams to drain directly into stream 

channels, motorized trail use is not likely to add significantly to the effects of excess sediment 

deposition. Inputs of sediment from the proposed action may to contribute to localized sediment 

deposits in limited circumstances where motorized travel causes ruts to develop on sloped road 

segments that have little or vegetation between the road and stream to filter sediment out of the 

surface runoff. 

Stream Fords. Stream fords in general can cause additional effects besides sediment. Vehicles 

crossing fords can startle juveniles and disrupt adult spawning if fish are present in close 

proximity to a ford. Vehicle crossings can also crush eggs deposited in redds, or crush juvenile 

fish located in gravel spaces, and chemicals dripped or leaked from vehicles could potentially 

cause toxic effects. The life stages where fish are most prone to effects of vehicles are during 

adult spawning and incubation periods, followed by periods when juvenile fish might use a 

stream crossing for feeding or cover. Adults are vulnerable because it is difficult for large fish to 

escape from shallow spawning areas, and eggs and alevins are immobile and subject to 

trampling. A study of redd trampling by Roberts and White ( 1992) found that a person stepping 

on a redd just before hatching killed up to 43% of eggs. Field evaluations conducted by the 

NPNF found that the 19 fords that are open to motorcycle use in streams potentially occupied by 

49 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 65
steelhead are generally not suitable for redd construction, making trampling unlikely. In 

addition, the fords would generally be unusable at high flows when adult steelhead spawn and 

throughout most or all of the incubation period. 

Based on stream characteristics observed in the field, only three of the eight fords located in 

streams that support listed spring/summer Chinook salmon are likely to be occupied by listed 

juvenile spring/summer Chinook salmon. None of the fords are usable for spawning, but salmon 

might spawn downstream. Spring/summer Chinook salmon spawn during late summer or early 

fall when fords are likely to be in use by motorized vehicles. Although Chinook salmon are not 

known to occupy the general areas where the trail fords are located, if Chinook salmon were 

present at the fords or in redds immediately downstream, fish might be harmed by suspended 

sediment. Chinook salmon redds are unlikely to be trampled at fords since the fords do not 

contain suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon. 

Chemicals from motor vehicles may contaminate the water at stream fords from drippage or 

from grease or oils that wash off the vehicles. Petroleum-based contaminants such as fuel, oil, 

and some hydraulic fluids contain PAHs that can cause chronic sublethal effects to aquatic 

organisms. Motorcycles and ATVs carry limited amounts of fuel, have limited surface area 

where greases are used, and the majority of these vehicles do not use coolants, brake fluid, or 

transmission fluid. The volume of PAH chemicals likely to be introduced into a stream from 

motorcycles and ATVs is unlikely to be large enough to affect fish either directly or through bioconcentration. Vehicles crossing fords would typically remain in water for no more than several 

seconds, which provides little time for pollutants to wash off or drip off the vehicle. In studies of 

PAH effects on fish cited by Eisler ( 1987), the duration of exposures causing toxic effects were 

on the order of clays to weeks, which is much longer than the durations than would be likely to 

occur from incidental fuel drippage or contaminants washing off a motor vehicle into a flowing 

stream. At stream fords, exposures to chemical dl'ippage would be on the order of seconds to 

minutes. As the pollutants disperse downstream, the duration of exposure would increase, but 

the concentration of the pollutants would rapidly diminish to insignificant amounts. 

Off-Route Travel to Undeveloped Campsites. Off-route travel to underdeveloped campsites can 

affect listed fish indirectly through habitat effects as described above, or from harassment or 

disturbance caused by recreational activities in streams and riparian areas. Camping in riparian 

areas is a common recreational activity that may be facilitated by the proposed action when 

people would not use an area if it were not accessible by motorized vehicles. Use of motorized 

vehicles to reach riparian campsites may affect listed fish indirectly through habitat effects 

described previously, or affect fish directly by disturbing fish when recreating in or near the 

water. The proposed action generally does not change impacts from recreational use of 

dispersed camping areas that exist under the baseline. Impacts of recreational activities enabled 

by off-route travel include startling or harassing fish and spilling or dumping detergents or other 

chemical products into water. Pollutants such as detergents, soaps, and other cleaning products 

may enter water from bathing or washing dishes, but the exposures are unlikely to persist long 

enough to harm fish, and the chemical concentrations are unlikely to be high enough to cause 

more than momentary irritation. 

50 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 66
Recreational activities in and near a stream are likely to disturb fish in the immediate area where 

the activities occur. Effects of disturbance on fish are likely to vary by life stage and species. 

Newly-emerged fish with poor swimming ability and eggs or alevins in redds have no means of 

avoiding impacts; therefore, these life stages can vulnerable to water recreation activities if the 

activities coincide with spawning or emergence. Steelhead adults, eggs, and alevins are unlikely 

to experience adverse effects from off-route travel to undeveloped campsites since steelhead 

migrate and spawn in the spring when high flows provide cover and protection for the fish, water 

temperatures are too cold for swimming, and few people are camping at this time. 

Spring/summer Chinook eggs and alevins are more vulnerable than steelhead to adverse effects 

of activities associated with off-route travel to undeveloped campsites. Chinook spawn in late 

summer or early fall when water levels are often near their lowest point, which makes the fish 

more visible and it is also the time of year when most water recreation occurs. Where Chinook 

salmon redds occur adjacent to ·undeveloped camping areas, eggs and alevins may be killed by 

trampling, and adult Chinook are vulnerable to injuries or harassment by people wading in 

streams or from children or dogs playing in the water 

These potential recreational impacts have been reduced through on-going efforts by the NPNF to 

close off riparian areas to vehicle access where problems have been observed or are likely to 

occur. The number of campsites located next to areas used by Chinook salmon for spawning is 

uncertain, but the number is likely to be low since the NPNF has eliminated or restricted access 

to many areas where impacts from undeveloped camping areas have been found, and potential 

spawning areas for listed spring/summer Chinook salmon are suspected to occur in only two 

drainages in the action area where undeveloped campsites are accessible by off-route travel. 

Spring/summer Chinook salmon spawning areas that may be accessible by off-route travel are 

known to occur in portions of the Slate Creek and White Bird Creek drainages. There may be 

several undeveloped campsites on private property in the North and South Forks of White Bird 

Creek, but there are no known sites within National Forest lands in this drainage that are readily 

accessible to undeveloped camping due to lack of road access or steep terrain. There are at least 

two undeveloped campsites in the Slate Creek drainge where the stream is readily accessible to 

motorists using the sites. These camping areas appear to lack suitable habitat characteristics 

necessary for spawning, but the lack of suitable characteristics has not been confirmed (G. 

Seloske, pers. comm.). 

The potential number of spring/summer Chinook salmon adults, eggs, and alevins that might be 

killed, injured, or harmed from use of undeveloped campsites is unknown, but is likely to be an 

insignificant number since there are no known places on US Forest Service lands where 

spawning areas used by listed Chinook salmon and streamside camping are likely to coincide; 

not all campers engage in activities that are harmful to fish. All riparian campsites accessed by 

off-route motor travel will be inspected within two years of implementing DRAMVU to assess 

impacts and identify any remedial actions necessary to mitigate effects of off-route travel. 

Effects of Roadside Parking. Following implementation of the DRAMVU, motorized vehicles 

will be allowed to park adjacent to or within one vehicle length of the designated route. 

Roadside parking under the DRAMVU rules is unlikely to affect listed fish or their habitats, but 

there are possible avenues where roadside parking in general could cause minor effects through 

51 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 67
disturbance of fish, creations of sediment, or destroying riparian vegetation. Roadside parking 

can damage or kill low-growing riparian vegetation, but would be unlikely to affect shrubs or 

mature trees that might provide shade or cover for fish. 

Disturbance of fish is unlikely. Roads that are near streams typically have shoulders, fill 

material, or vegetation that physically separates roads from streams. The physical separation 

generally keeps vehicles far enough from a stream so that fish do not react to vehicles or to their 

occupants. If fish did react to vehicles or passengers, disruptions would likely be brief and have 

little effect on fish behavior, other than fish moving a short distance to avoid encounters. 

The amount of sediment likely to be produced from roadside parking is unlikely to reach levels 

that harm fish since parking is only possible in areas that are relatively flat and erosion potential 

from flat surfaces is nil. Any vegetation between the parking area and stream would also filter 

varying amounts of sediment out of runoff from the parking areas. 

2.6. Cumulative Effects 

"Cumulative effects" are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal 

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject 

to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action 

are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 

of the ESA. 

The vast majority of the action area is Federal land where activities require Federal 

authorization. As such, there are no cumulative effects on these lands. On non-Federal lands in 

the action area, on-going activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, local industries, road 

maintenance and construction, and building construction are likely to continue and perpetuate 

habitat conditions similar to those described under the environmental baseline. There are no 

specific cumulative effects known to NMFS that would differ from the effects of on-going 

actions that are likely to continue in the future. The Idaho Department of Lands has identified 

13 future timber sales in the action area vicinity, but there are no details or specifications that 

could be used to assess the environmental effects. Effects of the proposed timber sales are 

assumed to be similar to effects of previous sales in the action area. The lclaho Department of 

Transportation 5-Year Plan (ITD 2011) lists numerous road maintenance activities in the action 

area, but no new road construction projects are identified. Road maintenance activities are likely 

to have same effects in the future as they have had under the environmental baseline. County 

building permits cover activities that would occur within the next year, while building 

construction is likely to continue in perpetuity. Since there is no information available on 

construction permits beyond the present year, effects of future construction activities in the 

action area are assumed to be similar to effects of previous construction activities. Considering 

past effects of non-Federal activities in the action area, and the similar nature of future actions, 

the cumulative effects of non-Federal activities in the action area are likely to perpetuate existing 

hydrologic alterations, stream channel alterations, flood plain losses, and water quality problems 

that are described in the environmental baseline. 

52 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 68
2.7. Integration and Synthesis 

The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step of NMFS' assessment of the risk posed to 

species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we 

add the effects of the action (Section 2.4) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.3) and the 

cumulative effects (Section 2.5) to formulate the agency's biological opinion as to whether the 

proposed action is likely to: ( 1) Result in appreciable reductions in the likelihood of both 

survival and recovery of the species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or 

distribution; or (2) reduce the value of designated or proposed critical habitat for the 

conservation of the species. These assessments are made in full consideration of the status of the 

species and critical habitat (Section 2.2). 

Compared to the baseline, the proposed action reduces the motorized travel on roads by 

approximately 63 miles across the forest, with 1,963 miles of road remaining available for 

motorized uses at least seasonally. Motorized trail use is reduced by approximately 300 miles 

across the forest, with 387 miles of trail remaining available for motorized uses at least 

seasonally. The overall effect of the action is a reduced impact to critical habitat and listed fish 

by restricting off-route motor vehicle use and reducing the number of roads and trails open to 

motorized use. The action does not change the physical effects of the road and trail systems that 

are a significant source of sediment in action area streams apart from the added effect of 

motorized traffic. Excess sediment from the existence of roads is a common problem reducing 

habitat quality in many portions of the action area. 

The proposed action eliminates off-route use of motorized vehicles, with limited exceptions for 

roadside parking and access to undeveloped camping sites. With the exception of environmental 

effects of off-route vehicle use, the environmental effects of motorized traffic that exist under the 

environmental baseline are likely to be similar under the proposed action. No significant 

changes to critical habitat or listed fish populations are likely to occur as a result of DRAMVU 

implementation. 

There are limited circumstances where salmon and steelhead and their habitat can be affected by 

motorized use of roads. Motorized travel on roads generally has little effect on fish or their 

habitat unless vehicles create ruts that generate sediment-laden runoff or vehicles are driven in or 

near the water. In this National Forest, six percent of the roads and trails are located within 

100 to 300 feet from streams (Table 9). With the exception of stream crossings, and road 

segments that are located immediately next to a stream, roads and trails are buffered by varying 

amounts of vegetation that traps sediment. Sediment resulting from road and trail use is likely to 

reachstreams in limited to circumstances where vehicle use creates ruts in road and trail 

segments that lack a vegetative buffer. Significant road damage is unlikely due to seasonal 

closures that prohibit the use of roads and trails at the times of year when weather conditions are 

most conducive to road damage and the resulting sediment delivery. In short, the likelihood of 

impacts to listed fish or their critical habitat from the use of roads and trails by motorized 

vehicles is minimal. 

Adverse effects of the action may harm or kill listed fish in isolated circumstances. These 

circumstances consist of 20 stream fords and locations where the action enables use of riparian 

53 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 69
campgrounds next to stream segments occupied by listed fish. Impacts from the ford crossings 

are likely to be non-lethal disruptions in fish behavior and transient inputs of sediment. Juvenile 

salmon and steelhead may be harmed by repeated exposure to suspended sediment at stream 

fords, and Chinook salmon adults, eggs, and alevins may be harmed or killed by recreational 

activities enabled by vehicle access to undeveloped camp sites located adjacent to areas used for 

spawning. Few fish, if any, are likely to be harmed or killed by motorized use of fords because 

the number of fords is limited and fish are capable of avoiding adverse effects of fords by 

moving to a different location. The number of Chinook salmon harmed or killed, if any, by 

activities enabled by off-route motorized access to camp sites adjacent to spawning areas is 

limited by the following: 

• DRAMVU rules that restrict off-route use to existing routes and which prohibit resource 

damage are expected to prevent significant erosion or other habitat impacts that might 

harm fish; 

• the likelihood of sediment from camping areas is self-limiting since sites used for 

camping are relatively level surfaces; 

• most people do not engage in recreational activities at campsites that would harm or kill 

Chinook salmon; 

• there are only two drainages in the action area that have roads within 300 feet of streams 

occupied by Chinook salmon, and few areas are suitable for camping in these drainages; 

and, 

• the two campsites known to occur in the above-described drainages appear to be in 

locations that are unlikely to be used for spawning, but the lack of suitable spawning 

habitat has yet to be confirmed. 

Given the limited scope of effects from proposed road and trail use, and closure of the majority 

of the NPNF to off-route travel, the proposed action is unlikely to affect the survival, 

reproduction, or growth of individual steelhead and Chinook salmon in the majority of the action 

area. As described above, small numbers of individual fish and small amounts of critical habitat 

may be affected by stream crossings and activities at campsites. 

Cumulative effects from on-going activities on non-Federal lands in the action area will likely 

continue as described in the environmental baseline. Because the effects of the proposed action 

are minor, adding effects of the proposed action to the cumulative effects and environmental 

baseline is not likely to change the status of listed fish or critical habitat in the action area, as 

explained in more detail below. 

54 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 70
2.8. Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS' biological 

opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SRB 

steelhead and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, nor destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat designated for these species. These conclusions are based on the following 

considerations. 

Jeopardy Determination and Rationale 

An action jeopardizes a species if it would be reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to 

reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). 

The proposed action is an administrative rule that affects where and when motorized vehicles can 

be used by the public in the NPNF. The proposed rules restrict motorized uses to roads, trails, 

roadside parking, and established routes to camping areas within 300 feet of a road or trail. 

Given this limited scope of the action, motorized travel has few mechanisms where it might 

affect fish since waterways are separated from roads and trails by some distance except where 

routes cross streams at fords. Motorized vehicles traveling on roads surfaced with asphalt have 

little potential to affect streams or fish since the travel surface is not readily altered by vehicle 

use. Motorized travel authorized by the proposed action potentially affects fish when vehicles 

operating on native surface or gravel-surfaced road create ruts that concentrate surface rnnoff, 

and when vehicles are driven across streams. Concentrated runoff from tire ruts increases 

surface erosion. Fish can be exposed to effects of sediment when sediment generated by tire ruts 

is carried directly into streams without the benefit of filtering by vegetation or debris. These 

circumstances exist only where roads and trails are in close proximity to stream channels. 

Sediment input resulting from motorized travel on roads and trails close to stream channels is not 

expected to take listed steelhead and spring/summer Chinook because the proposed action 

contains seasonal closures on roads and trails that are not designed for use during months of the 

year when they are likely to become saturated and damaged by motorized use. Motorized 

vehicle crossings at fords may result in turbidity that could take listed fish. Motorized travel 

may also affect fish indirectly from recreational activities that are enabled by motorized access to 

streams. 

As described in the baseline, motorized traffic has not been a significant factor affecting 

steelhead and Chinook salmon survival or production under past travel rules. The proposed rules 

would cause lesser effects than past rules, but potential adverse effects of travel-related activities 

remain at fords and possibly at undeveloped riparian campsites accessible by off-route travel. At 

fords, salmon and steelhead are unlikely to be exposed to chemical pollutants from motorized 

vehicles in amounts or durations that are likely to harm or kill fish and the brief displacements of 

fish fleeing vehicles crossing streams are also unlikely to harm or kill fish. None of the fords 

55 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 71
are located in stream reaches that are likely to be used by Chinook or steelhead for spawning, so 

redds and newly-emerged fry are unlikely to be crushed or injured directly by vehicles crossing a 

ford. 

The possibility that listed fish might be harmed, harassed, or killed by travel-related effects exists 

in isolated circumstances where listed salmon or steelhead cannot escape from repeated exposure 

to suspended sediment at stream fords or where spring/summer Chinook salmon may be harassed 

or harmed by recreational activities in or near spawning areas that are accessible by off-route 

travel. There are 19 stream fords where juvenile steelhead are likely to occur; three stream fords 

where juvenile spring/summer Chinook salmon are likely to occur; and two known undeveloped 

campsite in the Slate Creek drainge that are located next to stream segments that are unlikely to 

be used by spring/summer Chinook salmon for spawning, but the lack of suitability for spawning 

has not been confirmed. Although travel-related activities at fords and undeveloped campsites 

could possibly harm, harass, or kill fish, juvenile and adult fish are generally capable of avoiding 

clanger by moving away from the area of impact. Only in circumstances where fish are incapable 

of fleeing the area are fish likely to be harmed or killed. 

Spring/summer Chinook salmon adults, eggs, and alevins are the species and life stages that are 

likely to be incapable of escaping situations where they cannot avoid harm from travel-related 

impacts by fleeing. Adult salmon may be incapable of moving away from danger in a timely 

manner at spawning sites where the water is not deep enough to completely cover the fish, or 

where suitable cover is not readily available nearby. Eggs and alevins cannot move because they 

are encased in immobile redds. These three Chinook salmon life stages are vulnerable to injuries 

from recreational activities such as wading and swimming in streams near undeveloped 

campsites and driving across three stream fords, should any of these sites be used by Chinook for 

spawning. Analysis of the stream fords indicates that none of the fords have characteristics 

suitable for spawning; consequently Chinook redds and adult Chinook in general are unlikely to 

be harmed or killed by vehicles crossing streams. However, Chinook salmon sometimes use 

suboptimal areas for spawning, and there may be rare occasions where Chinook adults or early 

life stages might be harmed or killed at stream fords. 

The number of spring/summer Chinook salmon adults, eggs, and alevins likely to be killed, 

injured, or harmed from use of undeveloped campsites is limited by provisions of the planning 

rule and apparent lack of circumstances where undeveloped campsites are located close to 

spawning areas used by listed spring/summer Chinook salmon. The vast majority of 

undeveloped campsites in the action area are in watersheds where listed spring/summer Chinook 

salmon do not occur. There are only two undeveloped campsites accessible by off-route travel 

that are known to occur on NPNF lands adjacent to streams where listed spring/summer Chinook 

salmon occur, and neither site is likely to support spawning. The planning rule limits potential 

harm from activities enabled by off-route travel by committing to inspect all undeveloped 

campsites within 2 years of implementing DRAMVU to assess impacts to fish and identify any 

remedial actions needed to protect fish. 

56 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 72
Steelhead are unlikely to encounter the same problems at spawning sites as Chinook salmon 

because steelhead spawn in the spring when streamflows are near their highest, and streamflows 

generally remain high enough throughout the entire incubation to discourage or prevent wading 

or swimming. 

The effect of take from turbidity on listed salmon and steelhead populations locally and at larger 

scales is likely to be insignificant since the area affected by turbidity is limited to a small portion 

of the action area and the likelihood of take from exposure to turbidity is low because fish will 

generally avoid harm by moving out of areas with excessive turbidity. The number of juvenile 

fish likely to occur annually in a 275-foot distance of stream fords open to motorized travel is 

estimated to be a maximum of 589 steel head and three spring/summer Chinook salmon based on 

estimated fish densities (from the BA) and the amount of stream area affected at each ford 

(Table I 0). Assuming that all fish exposed to effects of sediment at fords experienced reduced 

growth rates, which is a conservative assumption, this non-lethal form of take is not likely to 

have an appreciable effect on the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of SRB steelhead and 

Chinook salmon since the number of fish affected is relatively small and the effect does not 

necessarily result in mortality or reduced reproductive output. 

T a bl e 10 E st11na . t e d num b er o ff IS h to b e exposec 1 t o se d11nent ' e ff ects a stream f or d s 

Trail Width 

Steel head Chinook Number of Number of 

Stream Name Density Density Steel head Chinook Number (m) 2 2 (fish/ I OOm ) (fish/IOOm) (Area x Density) (Area x Density) 

Little Slate Creek 303 Not present Not present Not present Not present 

Deadhorse Creek (upper) 301 1 Not present 1" Not present 1 

Deadhorse Creek (mid) 329 1 7.2' 1" 6 1 

Deadhorse Creek (lower) 329 1 7.2' 1" 6 1 

North Fork Slate Creek 320 3 7.2' Not present 18 Not present 

North Fork Slate Creek 320 3 7.2' Not present 18 Not present 

North Fork Slate Creek 320 3 7.2' Not present 18 Not present 

North Fork Slate Creek 320 3 7.2' Not present 18 Not present 

Swiftwater Creek 716 2 21 Not present 35 Not present 

Pine Knob Creek 723 1 10 Not present 8 Not present 

West Fork American River 837 1 14' Not present 12 Not present 

Kirks Fork 830 1 14' Not present 12 Not present 

Box Sing Creek 887 1 14' Not present 12 Not present 

Box Sing Creek 887 1 14' Not present 12 Not present 

American Creek 328 Not present Not present 71 Not present 

Hunt Creek 431 3 28' Not present 71 Not present 

Mill Creek 313 3 28 Not present 71 Not present 

Mill Creek 319 3 28 Not present 71 Not present 

Mill Creek 385 3 28 Not present 71 Not present 

TOTAL: 589 3 

• Steelhead density is unknown and estimated from the largest density observed in a nearby stream 

" An estimate is used where Chinook have not been observed in the stream, but may be present 

57 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 73
At the ESU scale, wild steelhead smolts are likely to number around 1 million fish and hatchery 

releases number around 10 million fish. Non-lethal take of 589 juvenile steelhead distributed 

over 19 different locations poses no risk of genetic losses or changes in the spatial structure of 

the MPG, and it is not likely to have a discernible effect on productivity. Non-lethal take of 

three spring/summer Chinook salmon poses no risk of genetic losses or changes in the spatial 

structure of the MPG, and potential negative effects on individual fish would not affect enough 

individuals to cause a meaningful change in productivity. 

There are few circumstances where the action might possibly harm or kill fish, and the likelihood 

of harm or death in those circumstances is low. The proposed action does not expose enough 

fish to potential harm or death to affect the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of salmon and 

steelhead in the action area. In short, neither the indirect effects of activities at campsites on 

spring/summer Chinook or the effects of turbidity of stream crossings on both species are 

expected to affect more than a few individuals. These effects will not have MPG level effects, 

and therefore will not have ESU or DPS level effects. For these reasons, the proposed action 

will not jeopardize SRB steelhead or Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

Critical Habitat Determination and Rationale 

The purpose of critical habitat designation is to identify areas which have those physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special 

management considerations or protection; and also to conserve specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for its conservation [ESA 3(5)(a)]. 

Section 3(3) of the ESA defines "conservation" as "to use and the use of all methods and 

procedures necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to a point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to [the] Act are no longer necessary." In view of the statutory 

language concerning critical habitat and the pivotal role of "conservation" in designating critical 

habitat, an action would adversely modify or destroy critical habitat if it altered the PCEs in a 

manner that diminished the conservation role or value of the designated critical habitat. 

The PCEs potentially affected by the action include water quality, stream channel substrate size, 

and riparian vegetation. Critical habitat effects related to each of these PCEs are discussed 

below. Habitat alterations would be limited to qualitative changes in streambanks, riparian 

vegetation, substrate composition, and water quality mostly in the immediate vicinity of riparian 

campgrounds and downstream from the trail fords. 

Water Quality 

Motorized vehicle travel potentially affects water quality when vehicles create sediment that .is 

added to streams or when fuels, lubricants, or other chemicals leak into water or wash off the 

vehicles when crossing streams. The potential for sediment effects is dispersed throughout the 

action area where roads or trails are in close proximity to streams. Sediment caused by 

58 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 74
motorized travel combines with substantially larger amounts of sediment from other sediment 

sources (both natural and human-caused). The potential for chemical pollutants occurs almost 

exclusively at stream fords. 

Proposed motor vehicle use is likely to create suspended sediment at stream fords and locations 

where surface runoff from roads and trails carries travel-related sediment directly into streams. 

Where sediment is introduced to a stream from motorized travel, it reduces water quality while it 

remains suspended in the water column. Suspended sediment from travel surface runoff is likely 

to have sporadic effects on juvenile rearing habitat in locations where road runoff flows 

unfiltered into streams. Suspended sediment from travel surface runoff is likely to intensify 

sediment concentrations near the points where road or trail runoff enters a stream and then taper 

off near background levels downstream. Most of the coarse sediment is likely to drop out of 

suspension within a short distance, while the finer sediment may remain suspended in decreasing 

concentrations as it disperses and settles downstream. Sediment-laden runoff caused by motor 

travel on unpaved roads and trails is unlikely to cause water quality effects that are 

distinguishable from background sediment because the amount of sediment from motor vehicle 

use is likely to be an insignificant portion of the sediment that is carried in streams during runoff 

events. Further, as discussed above, there are few locations within the forest where roads and 

trails occur near streams; and road and trail use is seasonally limited. Roadside parking and use 

of motor vehicles to access riparian campsites are not expected to cause meaningful impacts to 

water quality since the proposed rules restrict these activities to circumstances where the vehicles 

would not damage vegetation or cause resources damage, and these areas comprise an 

insignificant amount of acreage within the action area. 

At stream fords, motorcycles that cross streams are likely to stir up deposited sediment that 

dissipates rapidly as larger particles fall out of suspension and as smaller particles are dispersed 

downstream. Fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and other vehicle-related chemicals may also 

wash off of vehicles when they are driven through water at stream fords. Chemical pollutants 

are unlikely to affect fish at stream fords since the duration of exposure to chemicals and 

concentrations of chemicals are likely to be too small to cause effects. Pulses of sediment with 

each vehicle crossing are likely to disrupt the use of the stream fords and immediate areas 

downstream for several minutes until the vehicle has cleared the area and sediment has 

dissipated. Suspended sediment and chemical pollutants from motorcycle use at stream fords are 

unlikely to affect spawning near the fords since the 19 fords were found to be unsuitable or 

poorly suited for spawning in field surveys. The use of stream fords does not meaningfully 

affect water quality since the effects of vehicle crossings at stream fords are only localized, 

momentary disruptions to rearing habitat with no lasting effect on water quality, and these 

particular stream fords have little natural potential for use as spawning areas. 

Stream Channel Substrate Size 

Sediment from motorized vehicle use will add an incremental amount of fine sediment to 

streams. The volume of sediment added to stream channel by motorized use is not large enough 

to cause a meaningful change in substrate size. At 19 stream fords, substrate size is likely to 

change as vehicles stir up fine sediment that becomes redistributed. Redistributed sediment at 

59 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 75
stream fords is likely to cause an increase in substrate size where vehicles cross the stream and 

cause a decrease in substrate size immediately downstream where fine sediment settles out of 

suspension. Changes in substrate size caused by motorized use of stream fords are expected to 

be localized, relatively minor in scale and duration, and not measurable in stream reaches 

downstream of motorized vehicle crossing locations. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Motorized travel can potentially affect riparian vegetation when vehicles are operated off of road 

or trail surfaces for parking or access to undeveloped camping areas. The proposed rules limit 

future damage to riparian vegetation from motor vehicle use. The elimination of cross country 

motorized travel and greater restrictions on off-route travel within riparian areas are expected to 

reduce impacts to salmon and steelhead and their habitat compared to current conditions. Where 

roadside parking and off-route access to undeveloped camping areas are allowed, the proposed 

action includes new rules that keep vehicles away from streams and wet areas, reducing impacts 

to riparian vegetation in contrast to the present rules. Minor streambank modifications and 

losses of riparian vegetation are likely to occur from recreational activities associated with use of 

undeveloped camping areas. Riparian effects are likely to be limited to the vicinity of the 

riparian camp sites and consist mostly of trampling vegetation. The vegetation impacts are 

unlikely to have a significant effect on fish habitat since mature trees are unlikely to be affected 

and even if mature vegetation were lost, the camp sites do not affect enough area to alter 

conditions in the streams. 

The proposed action also limits the potential impacts of riparian recreation associated with offroute use through monitoring the effects of dispersed camping. The NPNF will evaluate existing 

access routes into dispersed campsites within the riparian areas of streams with listed fish species 

to document the site and determine if any corrective actions are necessary. Where problems 

exist or occur in future the Forest will correct through appropriate actions (i.e. administratively 

or through the NEPA process). Where needed, restoration actions (via the placement of boulders 

and/or re-vegetation) to avoid an expanding "footprint" of the site and subsequent impact to 

streams will be completed. 

Summary of Critical Habitat Effects 

The proposed action is unlikely to alter the conservation value of critical habitat because 

motorized use of roads and trails causes few physical effects to streams, and off-route use affects 

a limited number of areas and is governed by rules that prevent significant habitat alterations. 

Impacts to critical habitat from motorized travel under the proposed action are less than the 

impacts under the environmental baseline, although the difference in effects from most travel 

activities is minor except for changes in impacts from use of motorized vehicles cross-country 

which is prohibited under the proposed action. The authorized travel activities would continue to 

contribute some increment of sediment to streams in the action area, at roughly the same rate as 

occurs under existing travel rules. Sediment is a limiting factor in many streams in the action 

area, but motorized travel on roads and trails contributes only a small portion of the sediment 

60 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 76
supply. Background sediment largely masks the effects of sediment from motorized travel. The 

action would also allow continued impacts to riparian vegetation from using vehicles to reach 

undeveloped campsites in riparian areas. The existing impacts from undeveloped campsites in 

riparian areas are low, and they would be reduced even more by new restrictions on off-route 

vehicle use. Beyond the vicinity of 19 trail fords where rearing habitat would be episodically 

impaired by suspended sediment and turbidity, none of the PCEs are affected by motorized travel 

authorized by the proposed action. Because the expected impacts of the proposed action on the 

PCEs is localized and minor, the proposed action is not expected to affect the conservation value 

of critical habitat, and likewise will not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. 

2.9. Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental 

take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 

otherwise lawful activity. For purposes of this consultation, we interpret "harass" to mean an 

intentional or negligent action that has the potential to injure an animal or disrnpt its normal 

behaviors to a point where such behaviors are abandoned or significantly altered. 

Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful 

agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA, if that action is performed 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS. 

2.9 .1. Amount or Extent of Take 

Juvenile steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon may be harassed, harmed or killed by 

effects of motorized vehicles crossing stream fords, and adults and early lifestages of 

spring/summer Chinook salmon may be harmed, harassed or killed from travel-related impacts 

of recreational impacts at undeveloped campsites. 

The instances where incidental take is likely to occur are limited to 19 stream fords and two 

undeveloped campsites. Incidental take at these sites is expected to occur from infrequent and 

isolated events that are not predictable. Incidental take is not certain to occur at any particular 

time or location, nor with any particular frequency clue to the variable use of these particular 

areas by listed fish and variable use of the areas by travelers. Predicting or monitoring incidental 

take is complicated by the fact that juvenile and adult fish are generally capable of avoiding harm 

from vehicles crossing stream fords and avoiding harm associated with recreational activities 

enabled by motorized access to camp sites. In addition, incidental take may not be directly 

observable since it is likely to be largely from sublethal reductions in body growth that would not 

be readily apparent. Incidental take is likely to occur only when there are circumstances that 

61 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 77
reduce or elirninate the fishes' ability to flee from harmful situations, or when fleeing itself 

becomes so frequent as to cause harassment. Situations causing incidental take can be described 

in general, but their actual on-the-ground occurrence cannot be predicted, and incidents causing 

take are unlikely to be verifiable. Since the amount of incidental take cannot be determined or 

monitored directly, the amount of incidental take is best represented by the extent of incidental 

take. 

Although the above discussion identifies the number of fish that might be exposed to the effects 

of vehicles crossing stream fords, incidental take from vehicles crossing stream fords cannot be 

quantified nor monitored directly since incidental take is likely to be from non-lethal reductions 

in growth or mortality at some later time. There is no way to distinguish between natural factors 

affecting growth and survival of an individual fish and effects of the action. Since the number of 

fish taken by the action cannot be monitored directly, the length of stream affected by turbidity 

from motorized use of stream fords is a reasonable surrogate measure of the extent of take. 

Likewise, it is impossible to effectively monitor and assess the numbers of fish harmed or 

harassed by recreational activities near undeveloped campsites. Take through this pathway is 

likely to be sublethal, and the numbers of fish harmed or harassed cannot be readily observed. 

The extent of incidental take from activities at undeveloped campsites is limited to locations 

where Chinook spawning areas are in close proximity to undeveloped camp sites accessible by 

off-route vehicle travel. 

The extent of incidental take caused by motorized access to undeveloped camp sites includes all 

portions of White Bird Creek and Slate Creek on USFS property that are within 300 feet of a 

road open to public use. This extent represents all areas potentially used by listed spring/summer 

Chinook salmon for spawning and which are accessible by off-route travel. Incidental take 

would be exempted for these areas through the end of the second full field season after this plan 

is enacted; after that time, it is expected that the USFS will survey undeveloped campsites and 

put in place site- specific measures to deter resource-harming activities. Incidental take 

stemming from motorized access to off-route camp sites would be exceeded if: 

• The survey of undeveloped camp sites is not completed by the end of the second field 

season; or 

• If, after the second full field season DRAMVU is in effect, the NPNF fails to take actions 

that make incidental take unlikely to occur (closure, limited, access to the stream, signs, 

etc.) at undeveloped campsites on USFS land in the White Bird and Slate Creek 

drainages, at locations where the USFS observes signs of recreational impacts to Chinook 

salmon and their spawning areas Chinook spawning areas are defined as locations that 

contain physical characteristics associated with Chinook spawning (i.e. gravels sizes in 

the range described by Kondolf & Wolman 1993; and in plane-bed and pool-riffle 

channels described by Montgomery et al. 1999). Signs of recreational impacts to the 

streambank or streambed include features such as user-created paths leading into the 

stream, loss of riparian vegetation from foot traffic, stream bank trampling, or alteration 

of the stream channel by moving rocks to create pools or stepping stones. 

62 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 78
An ideal indicator of the extent of take from motorized use of stream fords is measuring the 

frequency, duration, and extent of suspended sediment generated by a representative sample of 

vehicle crossings and comparing the findings to thresholds of exposure where incidental take is 

likely to occur. However, this indicator is not practical because sampling would require 

collecting a series of water samples downstream from a ford each time a vehicle crossed a 

stream. This type of sampling would require people to remain on-site in remote locations to 

collect samples or use a sophisticated form of automation that is not readily available. In 

addition, thresholds of suspended sediment exposure indicating take are likely to have limited 

practical value because fish are likely to avoid exposure by moving out of areas that have 

excessive amounts of turbidity or suspended sediment. 

A more practical indicator of the extent of take from motorcycles crossing stream fords is the 

downstream extent and concentration of turbidity plumes caused by vehicle crossings. Plumes of 

turbidity will be created each time a motorcycle crosses a ford, and with each crossing fish 

located at the ford could be exposed to injury by crushing, and fish within 275 feet downstream 

will be exposed to turbidity. This extent of take represents the uppermost bounds of the area 

affected by vehicles crossing fords and it includes all fish within these bounds even though most 

fish would likely avoid being harmed by moving away from the fords. 

Turbidity is expected to drop to near background levels at a distance of 275 feet (84 meters) 

downstream based on observations by Deiter (2006). The lowest turbidity levels that affect fisli 

growth occur around 23 NTUs, with repeated exposures in a 4 to 5 hour period (Shaw and 

Richardson 2001). Using these two studies, incidental take at stream fords would be exceeded if 

turbidity measured at a distance of 275 feet (84 meters) downstream from a stream ford is above 

background turbidity and also exceeds 23 NTU or an equivalent concentration of suspended 

sediment. If the USFS lacks the resources to sample all 19 fords where take could occur, it 

should, in consultation with NMFS, identify a representative sample of fords to monitor in order 

to verify that the extent of turbidity does not exceed the threshold distance and concentration. 

2.9.2. Effect of the Take 

In Section 2.7, NMFS determined that the level of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of 

the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

2.9.3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 

"Reasonable and prudent measures" are nondiscretionary measures to minimize the amount or 

extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02). "Terms and conditions" implement the RPMs 

(50 CFR 402.14). These must be carried out for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. 

63 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 79
2.9.3.1. Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

NMFS believes that full application of conservation measures included as part of the proposed 

action, together with use of the RPMs and terms and conditions described below, are necessary 

and appropriate to minimize the likelihood of incidental take of listed species due to completion 

of the proposed action. 

The NPNF shall: 

1. Minimize adverse effects to use of stream fords open to motorized travel in streams 

occupied by listed steelhead and Chinook salmon. 

2. Ensure that use of motorized vehicles to access undeveloped campsites within 300 feet of 

streams designated as critical habitat for steelhead trout or spring/summer Chinook 

salmon is not causing adverse effects to listed fish or their redds. 

3. Ensure completion of a monitoring and reporting program to confirm that the extent of 

incidental take is not exceeded. 

2.9.3.2. Terms and Conditions 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the NPNF and its cooperators, 

including the applicant, if any, must fully comply with conservation measures described as part 

of the proposed action and the following terms and conditions that implement the RPMs 

described above. Partial compliance with these terms and conditions may invalidate this take 

exemption, result in more take than anticipated, and lead NMFS to a different conclusion 

regarding whether the proposed action will result in jeopardy or the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitats. 

1. To implement RPM # 1, the NPNF shall: 

a. Maintain or install hardened fords on trails that are open to motorized use in streams 

occupied by steelhead or spring/summer Chinook salmon. Hardening shall be done 

in a manner that minimizes erosion of approaches to the stream and minimizes 

creation of suspended sediment when vehicles cross the streams. 

b. Visit each of the fords referenced above (Term and Condition l .a.) at least once every 

4 years to assess their condition and to perform any necessary maintenance. 

2. To implement RPM #2, the NPNF shall: 

a. Inventory and map all existing off-system routes to undeveloped campsites within 

300 feet of stream reaches within the White Bird and Slate Creek drainages by 2016 

to provide a description of baseline conditions. The map and inventory would provide 

the basis from which any increases in pioneered routes are assessed. 

64 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 80
to provide a description of baseline conditions. The map and inventory would provide 

the basis from which any increases in pioneered routes are assessed. 

b. Implement actions that make incidental take unlikely to occur (closure, limited, 

access to the stream, signs, etc.) at any undeveloped campsites on USFS land in the 

White Bird and Slate Creek drainages 

c. In cooperation with NMFS, devise and implement an on-going monitoring plan to 

revisit undeveloped campsites in the White Bird and Slate Creek drainages at regular 

intervals to determine if signs of recreational impacts to salmon or steelhead habitat 

are present. If recreational impacts are present, implement remedial actions to reduce 

or prevent further adverse effects. Remedies might include activities such as 

installing barriers, posting signs, seeding bare areas, planting trees or shrubs, or 

closing the area to vehicle access if lesser actions are not effective. 

3. To implement RPM #3, the NPNF shall: 

a. Within 90 clays after the Record of Decision is signed, in cooperation with NMFS, 

devise and implement a monitoring plan to assess incidental take at the stream fords 

open to motorized use. At a minimum, monitoring shall specify a time interval at 

which fords will be resurveyed, and use a representative sample of fords to assess 

turbidity caused by vehicles crossing the fords and to determine if turbidity is 

increased by 23 NTU over the background or more at a distance greater than 275 feet 

from a ford. If the distance and concentration of suspended sediment plumes are 

over the threshold, monitoring would continue until the threshold is met through 

reconstruction, maintenance or other changes to the ford. 

b. Submit to NMFs reports summarizing results of campsite map and inventories, and 

sediment monitoring by March 15, in each of the years monitoring activities are 

conducted. Reports shall be sent to: of the year(s) to: NMFS, North Idaho Branch 

Office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 83530. 

2.10. Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(l) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and 

endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations are suggestions regarding 

discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed 

species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02). 

1. In cooperation with NMFS, devise and implement an on-going monitoring plan to revisit 

undeveloped campsites throughout the NPNF at regular intervals to determine if signs of 

recreational impacts to salmon or steelhead habitat are present. If recreational impacts 

are present, implement remedial actions to reduce or prevent further adverse effects. 

Remedies might include activities such as installing barriers, posting signs, seeding bare 

65 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 81
areas, planting trees or shrubs, or closing the area to vehicle access if lesser actions are 

not effective. 

2. Analyze the existing road network on the NPNF to identify the minimum network needed 

to meet private and Forest Service needs within the NPNF boundary, and decommission 

roads that are identified as surplus or not indicated on the MVUM, particularly where the 

roads are affecting critical habitat for listed fish. 

3. To mitigate the effects of climate change on ESA-listed salmonids, follow 

recommendations by the ISAB (2007) to plan now for future climate conditions by 

implementing protective tributary and mainstem habitat measures; as well as protective 

hydropower mitigation measures. In particular, implement measures to protect or restore 

riparian buffers, wetlands, and floodplains; remove stream barriers; and to ensure late 

summer and fall tributary streamflows. 

Please notify NMFS if the NPNF carries out any of these recommendations so that we will be 

kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects and those that benefit listed 

species or their designated critical habitats. 

2.11. Reinitiation of Consultation 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where 

discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is 

authorized by law) and if: (1) The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new 

information reveals effects of the agency action on listed species or designated critical habitat in 

a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitat not considered 

in this Opinion; or ( 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected 

by the action. 

To reinitiate consultation, contact the lclaho State Habitat Office of NMFS and refer to NMFS 

Number assigned to this consultation. 

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

The consultation requirement of section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult 

with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA 

(section 3) defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity." Adverse effects include the direct or indirect physical, 

chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic 

organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications 

reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects on EFH may result from actions 

occurring within EFH or outside EFH, and may include site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, 

including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). 

66 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 82
Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action 

agency to conserve EFH. 

This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the [Federal agency] and 

descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast salmon contained in the fishery management plans 

developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC 1999) and approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce. The proposed action and action area for this consultation are described 

in the Introduction to this document. The action area includes streams designated as EFH for 

various life-history stages of spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

3.1. Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project 

The proposed action affects EFH for Chinook salmon in the Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, 

Lower Salmon, Little Salmon, and South Fork Clearwater river basins. 

3.2. Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat 

The proposed action reduces adverse effects to Chinook salmon EFH which presently occur from 

motorized travel within the NPNF, while allowing some potentially-adverse effects to continue. 

Motorized travel has few ways in which it can affect fish habitat. The primary effects of 

motorized travel are increased sediment delivery to streams where vehicles cause erosion of 

unpaved surfaces, physical disturbance of streams from recreational activities enabled by 

motorized access to streams, and creation of suspended sediment and turbidity when vehicles 

cross a stream at a ford. The proposed action affects EFH in the same manner as effects 

described previously for designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead since 

designated critical habitat for salmon or steelhead overlaps the streams designated as EFH. 

Motorized travel on unpaved surfaces is likely to add an inestimable amount of sediment to the 

total volume of sediment created by roads, ground-disturbing activities, and natural sources. The 

volume of sediment delivery from motorized travel is too small to create a discernible effect on 

sediment deposition in its own, but the action acids a small increment of fine sediment to the total 

sediment load in the affected streams. Suspended sediment from motor vehicle (mostly 

motorcycles and some ATVs) use of fords at the eight stream crossings located in Chinook 

salmon designated critical habitat is likely to cause some turbidity pulses at some of these fords. 

Chinook salmon may occur in Deadhorse Creek in the vicinity of three of these eight ford 

crossings, but fish densities are extremely low and the ford substrate at these three fords is very 

coarse material that is unlikely to produce large amounts of turbidity. 

Less-significant effects of the action are potential damage to or loss of riparian vegetation where 

cars are driven off-routes to reach undeveloped campsites in riparian areas, and water 

contamination from petroleum products that drip or wash off of vehicles when they are driven 

through a stream at a ford. Damage to riparian vegetation is unlikely to significantly affect EFH 

since the action specifically prohibits damage of this nature and petroleum products that might 

drip from a motorcycle or get washed off the frame would not reach concentrations where they 

would affect the usage of EFH or cause lasting effects. Rationale supporting this summary of 

67 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 83
effects is based on the analysis of effects on steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon 

critical habitats earlier in this Opinion (Section 2.4. l), which are affected by motorized travel in 

the same manner as EFH. 

None of these habitat effects are likely to significantly alter habitat features necessary to Chinook 

salmon for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. 

3.3. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations 

NMFS expects that full implementation of these EFH conservation recommendations would 

protect, by avoiding or minimizing the adverse effects described in Section 3.2 above, 

approximately 8.8 acres (275 feet length x average 6-foot stream width x number of fords = 

8.8 acres) of designated EFH for Pacific coast salmon that are located within 275 feet 

downstream from eight fords. All of the 232 fords in 4111 field HU Cs identified as EFH are not 

historically or presently accessible to Chinook salmon; however, the exact number of fords that 

occur in accessible areas is not known. 

NMFS believes that the following five conservation measures are necessary to avoid, mitigate, or 

offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. These conservation recommendations are a 

subset of the ESA Terms and Conditions. 

l. Maintain or install hardened fords on trails that are open to motorized use in streams 

occupied by Chinook salmon and designated as EFH. Hardening shall be done in a 

manner that minimizes erosion of approaches to the stream and minimizes creation of 

suspended sediment when vehicles cross the streams. 

2. Visit each of the fords referenced above (Conservation Recommendation l .) at least once 

every 4 years to assess their condition and to perform any necessary maintenance. · 

3. In cooperation with NMFS, devise and implement an on-going monitoring plan to revisit 

undeveloped campsites at regular intervals to determine if signs of recreational impacts to 

Chinook salmon habitat are present. If recreational impacts are present, implement 

remedial actions to reduce or prevent further adverse effects. Remedies might include 

activities such as installing barriers, posting signs, seeding bare areas, planting trees or 

shrubs, or closing the area to vehicle access if lesser actions are not effective. 

4. Inventory and map by 2016 all existing off-system routes to undeveloped campsites 

within 300 feet of stream reaches that are designated as EFH and which are likely to be 

suitable for use by Chinook salmon. This activity would establish a description of 

baseline EFH conditions and provide the basis from which any increases in new, 

pioneered routes would be assessed. 

68 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 84
3.4. Statutory Response Requirement 

As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the Federal agency must provide a detailed 

response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving an EFH Conservation 

Recommendation from NMFS. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final 

approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS' EFH Conservation 

Recornmendations, unless NMFS and the Federal agency have agreed to use alternative time 

frames for the Federal agency response. The response must include a description of measures 

proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. 

In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS Conservation Recommendations, the 

Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the 

scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the 

action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects [50 CFR 

600. 920(k)(l)]. 

In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of 

Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how 

many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how 

many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the 

EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation 

recommendations accepted. 

3.5. Supplemental Consultation 

The NPNF must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially 

revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that 

affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations [50 CFR 600.920(1)]. 

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW 

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 200 l (Public Law 

106-554) (Data Quality Act [DQA]) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a 

document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the Opinion addresses 

these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this Opinion 

has undergone pre-dissemination review. 

4.1. Utility 

Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, 

serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. 

69 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 85
This ESA consultation concludes that the proposed NPNF DRAMVU will not jeopardize the 

affected listed species. Therefore, the NPNF can carry out this action in accordance with its 

authorities under applicable statutes. The intended user is the NPNF. 

Individual copies were provided to the above-listed entities. This consultation will be posted on 

NMFS Northwest Region website (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov). The format and naming adheres 

to conventional standards for style. 

4.2. Integrity 

This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with 

relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, 'Security 

of Automated Information Resources,' Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the 

Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 

4.3. Objectivity 

Informatio11 Product Category: Natural Resource Plan. 

Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and 

unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They 

adhere to published standards including NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA Regulations, 

50 CFR 402.01, et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 

600.920U). 

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available 

information, as referenced in the Literature Cited section. The analyses in this Opinion/EFH 

consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. 

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, 

consistent with standard scientific referencing style. 

Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA 

implementation, and reviewed in accordance with Northwest Region ESA quality control and 

assurance processes. 

70 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 86
5. LITERATURE CITED 

Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North 

American Journal Fisheries Management. 6: (1) 9-23. 

Barret, J.C., G.D. Grossman, and J. Rosenfeld. 1992. Turbidity--induced changes in reactive 

distance of rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121 :437-443. 

Bash, J., C. Berman, and S. Bolton. 2001 Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on 

salmonids. Washington State Department of Transportation Draft Research Report WARD-526.1, Olympia, WA. http://www.wsdol.wa.gov/Research/Reports/500/526. l.htm 

Belt, G.H., J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the 

protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature. University of Idaho, Report 

No. 8, Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group. 

Berg, L. 1982, The Effect of Exposure to Short-term Pulses of Suspended Sediment on the 

Behavior of Juvenile Salmonids. Pp. 177-196 in Hartman, G.F. (ed.). Proceedings of the 

Carnation Creek workshop: a Ten-year Review. Canadian Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Cited In: Berg and Northcote (1985). 

Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill- flaring, and feeding behavior in 

juvenile coho salmon (011corhy11clllls kis11tch) following short-term pulses of suspended 

sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1410-1417. 

Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho 

salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374 

Bohlin, T., C. Dellefors, U. Faremo, and A. Johlander. 1994. The energetic equivalence 

hypothesis and the relation between population density and body size in stream-living 

salmonids. The American Naturalist 143(3): 478-493. 

Bowersox, B.J., R. Banks, and E. Crawford. 2011. Potlatch River steelhead monitoring and 

evaluation, 2009 annual report. Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Funds Contract # 05 052 

08 CW MS, NOAA Intensively Monitored Watershed Fund Contract #10-37, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game Report# 11-103, February 2011. Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Broadmeadow, S. and Nisbet, T.R. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the 

freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice. Hydrology and 

Earth System Science, 8(3): 286-305 

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

lntermountain Research Station. 21 p 

71 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 87
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size 

requirements - a review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(5):878-882. 

CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2004. Overview of climate change impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest (July 29, 2004, updated August 17, 2004). Climate Impacts Group, University 

of Washington, Seattle 

COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Bonneville Power Administration, and U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation. 2007. Comprehensive analysis of the Federal Columbia River power 

system and mainstem effects of Upper Snake and other tributary actions. Portland, OR. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/Hatcheryreview/Reports/snakeriver/SR--

0072007U pper. S nakeCA-Fi nal. pelf 

Connolly and Petersen. 2003. Bigger is not always better for overwintering young of year 

steelhead. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:262-274. 

Cordone, A. J. and Kelley, D. W. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life 

of streams. California Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228. 

Davies, P.E. and M. Nelson. 1994. Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects 

of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. 

Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45(7): 1289-1305. 

Deiter, D. 2006. OHV stream crossing monitoring. Presentation. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Integrated Resource Workshop. 

Cited In: Clarkin, K., G. Keller, T. Warhol, and S. Hixson. 2006. Low-water crossings: 

geomorphic, biological, and engineering design considerations. 0625 1808P. San Dimas, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 

Ecovista, Nez Perce Tribe Wildlife Division, and Washington State University Center for 

Environmental Education. 2003. Draft Clearwater Subbasin Assessment, Prepared for 

Nez Perce Tribe Watersheds Division and Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 463 p. 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/clearwater/plan/Default.htm 

Eisler, R. 1987. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a 

synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 85(1.11). 

Foltz, R.B. 2006. Erosion from all terrain vehicle (ATV) trails on National Forest lands. 

Presented at the 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting. ASABE, Portland 

Convention Center, Portland, OR. 9-12 July 2006. Paper No. 068012. American Society 

of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 

Ford, M.J. (eel.). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the 

Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-113, 281 p. 

72 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 88
Furniss, M. J., S. A. Flanangan, and B. Mcfadin. 2000. Hydrologically Connected Roads: An 

Indicator of the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface Water Hydrology, 

and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. Stream Notes, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs 

of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-66, http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/files/pubs/00749.pdf 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada, 

564 pp. 

Harvey, B.C., J.L. White, and R.J. Nakamoto. 2009. The effect of deposited fine sediment on 

summer survival and growth of rainbow trout in riffles of a small stream. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:434-440. 

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt 

and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-successional Forests, Fisheries and 

Watersheds. National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon a·nd Washington. A 

Report to the United States Congress and the President. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 

MD. 

Holtby, L.B., B.C. Andersen, and R.K. Kadowaki. 1990. Importance of smolt size and early 

ocean growth to interannual variability in marine survival of coho salmon ( 011corhy11c/111s 

kisutc/1). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:2181-2194. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent Populations of 

Chinook, Steelhead, and Sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily Significant Units within the 

Interior Columbia River Domain (July). 

ICTRT. 20 IOa. Current Status Summary - South Fork Salmon River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon MPG. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team, Portland, Oregon, 58 p. 

ICTRT. 2010b. Current Status Summary- Middle Fork Salmon River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon MPG. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team, Portland, Oregon. 75 p. 

ICTRT. 20 IOc. Current Status Summary - Upper Salmon River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon MPG. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team: Portland, Oregon. l 13p. 

ICTRT. 2010d. Status Summary- Snake River Steelhead DPS. Interior Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team: Portland, Oregon. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2001. Middle Salmon River-Panther 

Creek Subbasin Assessment and TMDL. IDEQ: Boise, Idaho. 114 p. 

IDEQ. 2011. Idaho's 2010 Integrated Report, Final. IDEQ: Boise, Idaho. 776 p. 

73 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 89
IDEQ and USEPA. 2003. South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total 

Maximum Daily Loads. IDEQ: Boise, Idaho. 680 p. 

IDFG. 2007. Annual returns to Lower Granite Dam, Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

data provided to NMFS by Peter Hassemer, December 2007. IDFG: Boise, Idaho. 

ITD (Idaho Department of Transportation). 2011. FY12 to FY16 Five-Year Idaho 

Transportation Investment Plan, November 2011. Idaho Department of Transportation. 

Boise, Idaho. http://itd.idaho.gov/5yearplan/Five YearPlan2011 .pdf. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia 

River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2, Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR. 

Kondolf, G.M., M.G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water 

Resources Research. 29(7): 2275-2285. 

Lee, D., J. Sedell, B. Rieman, R. Thurow and J. Williams. 1997. Broad-scale assessment of 

aquatic species and habitats. In: T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide (Editors), An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basiri and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, Volume III. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR405 

Lisle, T.E. and J. Lewis. 1992. Effects of sediment transport on survival of salmonid embryos 

in a natural stream: A simulation approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science. 49: 2337-2344. 

Lloyd, D. S., Koenings, J. P. and Laperriere, J. D. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of 

Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 34-45. 

Matthews, G. M., and R. S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer 

chinook salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/ NWC-200:75p. 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publ ications/Biological-Status-Reviews/upload/SR 199 J -

chinookl.pdf 

McElhany, P., M. Ruckleshaus, M. J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

Salmon Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U. S. 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 p. 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm42/tm42.pdf 

Mcintosh, B.A. et al. 1994. Management history of eastside ecosystems: Changes in fish habitat 

over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321, USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

74 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 90
Montgomery, D.R., E.M. Beamer, G.R. Pess, and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid 

spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 56: 377-387. 

Neff, J.M. 1985. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology, 

G.M. Rand, and S.R. Petrocelli (eds.), pp. 416-454. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, 

D.C. 

Newcombe, C. P. and J. 0 . T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a 

synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal 

Fisheries Management 16(4):693-719. 

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic 

ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Section 7 Consultation on the Effects of 

Continued Implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans on Endangered 

Species Act Listed Salmon and Snake River Basin steelhead in the Upper Columbia and 

Snake River Basins (PACFISH). Northwest Region. Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2004. Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Columbia River Power System and 

19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised and reissued pursuant 

to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon)). Northwest 

Region. Seattle WA, 98115. http://seahorse.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/sxn7 .pets upload.summary 1 isl biop?p id= 14756 

NMFS. 2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams 

for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steel head. Protected 

Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. August. 27 p. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-

. Habitat/Critical-Habitat/Redesignations/upload/F-CHART-INTRO.PDF 

NMFS. 2008. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of the federal Columbia River power 

system and mainstem effects of the Upper Snake and other tributary actions. 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/upload/Final-SCA.pdf 

NMFS. 2011 a. Idaho Snake River steelhead status and recovery. Pages 5.1-1 - 5.3-185. In: 

Draft recovery plan for Idaho Snake River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead 

populations in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant 

unit and Snake River steelhead distinct population segment. 

http://www.idahosalmonrecovery.net/rccoverplans/srsteelhead.html 

75 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 91
NMFS. 2011 b. Idaho Snake River spring/summer Chinook status and recovery. Pages 4.1-1 -

4.4-135. In: Draft recovery plan for Idaho Snake River spring/summer Chinook and 

steelhead populations in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon evolutionarily 

significant unit and Snake River steelhead distinct population segment. 

www.idahosalmonrecovery.net/recoverplans/spsumchinook.html 

NPNF. 2006 .Nez Perce National Forest roads analysis report, March 9, 2006.Unpublished 

report. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

www.fs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/fsm9 l 055105.pdf 

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream Salmon and Society in the Pacific 

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Pete1john, William T.; Correll, David L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: 

Observations of the role of a riparian forest. Ecology. 65(5): 1466-1475. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, 

Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR (March 1999). 

http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salfmp/a 14.html 

Platts, W.S., R.J. Torquemada, M.L.McHenry, and C.K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork 

Salmon River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:274-283. 

Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, and F.A. Espinosa. 1994. A coarse screening process for 

evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing 

habitat in ESA consultations. Technical Report 94-14. December, 1994. Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR. 

Roberts, B.C. and R.G. White. 1992. Effects of Angler Wading on Survival of Trout Eggs and 

Pre-emergent Fry. North American Journal Fisheries Management. 12: 450-459. 

Sample, L.J., J. Steichen, and J.R .. Kelley, Jr. 1998. Water quality impacts from low water 

fords on military training lands. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

34(4):939-949. 

Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival 

of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (011corliy11ch11s tslwwytsclw). Fisheries 

Oceanography 14:448-457. 

Servizi, J. A. and D.W. Martens. 1992. Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) to suspended sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 

1389-1395. 

76 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 92
Shaw, E.A., and J.S. Richardson. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration 

on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (011cor'1y11c/ws mykiss) growth and 

survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 2213- 2221. 

Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density of 

Steelheads and Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 113: 142-

150. [Note: Only the abstract is provided on-line] 

Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to 

Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corp., Corvallis, Oregon. (December 1996). 

http://www. nwr .noaa. gov/ 1 habcon/habweb/hab guide/Man Tech/front .h tm 

Staples C.A, Williams J.B., Craig G.R., Roberts K.M. 2001. Fate, effects and potential 

environmental risks of ethylene glycol: a review. Chemosphere. Volume 43, Number 3, 

April 200 I, pp. 377-383(7) 

Suttle, K.B., M. E. Power, J.M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in river 

beds impairs growth and survi val of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14: 969-

974. 

Sweka, J.A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in 

brook trout and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 58:386- 393. 

Tappe!, P.D., and T.C. Bjornn. 1983. Methods of relating size of spawning gravel to salmonid 

embryo survival. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 123- 135. 

Thompson, J.D.; Taylor, S.E.; Gazin, J.E.; Rummer, R.B.; Albright, R.A. 1996. Water quality 

impacts from low-water stream crossings. In: 1996 annual International meeting of the 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers; 1996 July 14-18; Phoenix, AZ. Pap. No. 96-

5015. Cited In: Sample, L.J., J. Steichen, and J.R .. Kelley, Jr. 1998. Water quality 

impacts from low water fords on military training lands. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 34(4):939-949. 

Thurow, R. 1987. Completion report: evaluation of the South Fork Salmon River steel head 

trout fishery restoration program. Performed for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Lower Snake River fish and wildlife compensation plan. Contract 

No. 14- 16-0001 -86505. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Tipping, J. M. 1997. Effect of smolt length at release on adult returns of hatchery- reared winter 

steelhead. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 59(4):310-311. 

77 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 93
Tornatore, T.A.; DeWalle, D.R.; Sharpe, W.E. 1996. Short-term impacts of forest road and skid 

trail system crossings. In: Dolan, J.D.; Riegel, A., eds. Proceedings, Environmental issues 

affecting the forestry and forest products industries in the Eastern United States. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NE-219. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial 

and aquatic conununities. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 18-30. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Clearwater National Forest annual monitoring & evaluation report, 

fiscal year 2008. U.S. Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Biological assessment: threatened, endangered and proposed 

species, Designated Routes and Motor Vehicle Use. March 2012. Nez Perce National 

Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

Walter, M.T., J.A. Archibald, B. Buchanan, H. Dahlke, Z.M. Easton, R.D. Mmjerison, A.N. 

Sharma, and S.B. Shaw. 2009. New paradigm for sizing riparian buffers to reduce risks 

of polluted storm water: practical synthesis. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage 

Engineering. 135(2):200-209. 

Ward, B.R., and P.A. Slaney. 1988. Life history and smolt-to-adult survival of Keogh River 

steelhead trout (Sa/mo gairdneri) and the relation to smolt size. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 1110-1122. 

Welsh, M.J. 2008. Sediment production and delivery from unpaved roads and off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) trails in the upper South Platte River watershed, Colorado. Master's 

Thesis, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and 

Vegetation. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Office of Public Service and 

Outreach. March 1999. 

Wilson, J.P., and J.P Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road 

bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14: 77-88. 

Wisher, A.P. 1998. Factors contributing to landslide activity in the winter of 1995-96, 

Clearwater County near Orofino, Idaho. Master's Thesis. Department of Geological 

Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA. 

Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. Mcintosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves, and J.R. Sedell. 1994. 

Ecological Health of River Basins in Forested Regions of Eastern Washington and 

Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 65 p. 

78 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 94
Young, M. K., W. A. Hubert, and T. A. Wesche. 1990. Fines in redds of large salmonids. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 156-162. 

Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M./M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between 

climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook 

salmon. Conservation Biology 20: 190-200. 

79 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 95
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 96
Rick Brazell 

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368 

Boise, Idaho 83709 

Telephone (208) 378-5243 

http://www.fws.gov/idaho 

Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

1 04 Airport Road 

MAY 3 0 2012 

Grangeville, Idaho 83530 

Subject: Nez Perce National Forest Designated Routes and Motor Vehicle Use 

(DRAMVU)-Idaho County, Idaho-Biological:Opinion 

In Reply Refer to: 01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 Internal Use: CONS-100b 

Dear Mr. Brazell: 

Enclosed are the U.S. Fish:and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and 

concurrence with the Nez Perce National Forest's (Forest) determinations of effect on species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for the proposed·Designated 

Routes and Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) action on Forest administered lands. In a letter 

dated March 19, 2012, and received by the Service on March 21, the Forest requested formal 

consultation on the determination under section 7 of the Act that the DRAMVU is likely to 

adversely affect bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The Forest determined that the DRAMVU is 

not likely to adversely affect bull trout critical habitat, Spalding's catchfly (Silene spaldingii), 

and MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), and requested our concurrence with 

these determinations. 

The enclosed Opinion and concurrence are based primarily on our review of the proposed action, 

as described in your March 2012 Biological Assessment (Assessment), and the anticipated 

effects of the action on listed species, and were prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Act. 

Our Opinion concludes that the proposed project will not jeopardize the survival and recovery of 

bull trout. A complete record of this consultation is on file at this office. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 97
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Thank you for your continued interest in the conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Please contact Clay Fletcher at (208) 3 78-5256 if you have questions concerning this Opinion. 

Enclosure 

cc: NOAA, Grangeville (Brege) 

IDFG, Lewiston (Hennekey) 

Sincerely, 

f~~ BrianT. Kelly 

~State Supervisor 

2 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 98
BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

FOR THE 

NEZ PERCE FOREST DESIGNATED ROUTES AND MOTOR VEHICLE USE 

01EIFW00-2012-F -0175 

u.s. 

FISH & WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

June2012 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

IDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 

BOISE, IDAHO 

Supervisor ~~ lfn.,_.__ /. 1::11; 

MAY 3 0 2012 (; 

Date ----------------------------

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 99
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

Table of Contents 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION ........................................................ 1 

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 1 

1.3 Informal Consultations .......................................................................................................... 2 

1.3.1 Bull Trout Critical Habitat ............................................................................................... 3 

1.3.2 Spalding's catchfly ........................................................................................................... 3 

1.3.3 MacFarlane's four-o'clock ............................................................................................... 3 

2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................................... 4 

2.1 Description ofthe Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 4 

2.1.1 Action Area ...................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.2.1 Motorized Use ofDesignated Roads and Trails .................................................... 6 

2.1.2.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7 

2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy Determination ........................................................ 8 

2.3 Status of the Species .............................................................................................................. 9 

2.3.1 Listing Status-............................................................................................................ 9 

2.3.2 Species Description ................................................................................................. io 

2.3.3 Life History ............................................................................................................. 10 

2.3.4 Status and Distribution .......... : ................................................................................. 13 

2.3.1.5 Previous Consultations and Conservation Efforts ............................................... 19 

2.3.1.6 Conservation Needs ............................................................................................. 21 

2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ........................................................................ 22 

2.4.1 Status of the Bull Trout in the Action Area ................................................................... 22 

2.4.2 Factors Affecting the Bull Trout in the Action Area ..................................................... 26 

2.4.2.1 Core Area Road Density ...................................................................................... 27 

2.4.2.2 Local Population Road Density ........................................................................... 28 

2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 28 

2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................ 28 

2.5.1.1 Assessment of the Potential Changes to the Environmental Baseline ................. 30 

2.5.1.2 Effects ofTrail Fords ........................................................................................... 32 

2.5.2 Effects oflnterrelated or Interdependent Actions .......................................................... 34 

1 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 100
Rick Brazell, Forest Superyisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

2.6 Cmnulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 34 

2.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. , ............ 35 

2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................... 36 

2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent ofTake Anticipated ......................................................... 36 

2.8.2 Effect of the Take ........................................................................................................... 37 

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 37 

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................... 37 

2.8.5 Reporting and Monitoring Requirement ........................................................................ 38 

2.9 Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 38 

2.10 Reinitiation Notice ............................................................................................................. 39 

3. LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 40 

3.1 Published Literature ............................................................................................................. 40 

3.2 In Litteris References ........................................................................................................ 45 

4. APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 46 

4.1 Appendix A - Aquatic Monitoring Plan (From Assessment) .............................................. 46 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel - existing 

condition versus condition under DRAMVU (modified from Assessment Table 1 ) ..................... 5 

Table 2. Watershed and stream condition for bull trout core areas and populations within the 

DRAMVU action area (Modified from Assessment Table 2) ...................................................... 23 

Table 3. Bull trout use and road density for bull trout populations potentially affected by 

motorized use of trail fords ........................................................................................................... 25 

Table 4. Road density by core area (from Table 3 ofFish and Wildlife Service 2005, pp. 46-50) . 

....................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Table 5. Changes to motorized use resulting from DRAMVU by core area (B = 

Baseline/Existing Condition; D = DRAMVU) ............................................................................. 29 

11 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 101
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL 

CONSULTATION 

1.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Biological Opinion (Opinion) on 

the effects of the Nez Perce National Forest Designated Routes and Motorized Vehicle Use 

(DRAMVU) proposal on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). In a letter dated March 19, 2012, 

and received on March 21, the Nez Perce National Forest (Forest) requested formal consultation 

with the Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for 

its proposal to implement the DRAMVU. The Forest determined that the proposed action is 

likely to adversely affect bull trout. As described in this Opinion, and based on the Biological 

Assessment (USFS 2012, entire) developed by the Forest and other information, the Service has 

concluded that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of bull 

trout. 

The Forest has also determined the action is not likely to adversely affect bull trout critical 

habitat, Spalding's catchfly (Silene spaldingii), and MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis 

macfarlanei). In this document, the Service is providing concurrence with those determinations. 

1.2 Consultation History 

The Service and the Forest have had the following communication/coordination on the proposed 

action. 

April 7, 2008: The Service attended a Levell meeting where the Forest presented an 

overview of the DRAMVU planning process. 

February 23, 2009: The Service attended a Levell meeting where the Forest presented the 

alternatives being considered for DRAMVU. 

October 5, 2009: The Service attended a Levell meeting where the Forest presented the 

preferred alternative and the team discussed the effects analyses for fish 

and plants. 

January 25, 2010: The Service attended a Levell meeting where the team discussed the 

proposed DRAMVU monitoring plan. 

May 24, 2010: The Service attended a Levell meeting where the Forest presented an 

early draft Assessment and the team discussed streamside roads and 

effects to fish. 

May 9, 2011: The Service attended a Level 1 meeting where the Forest presented the 

preferred alternative and the team went through the effects analysis for 

fish in the draft Assessment. 

September 23, 2011: The Service received an email from the Forest with the draft fisheries 

Assessment attached. 

1 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 102
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

September 26, 2011 : The Service received an email from the Forest with the draft plant 

Assessment attached. 

October 14, 2011 : 

October 18, 2011: 

January 20, 2012: 

January 23, 2012: 

January 24, 2012: 

February 8, 2012: 

February 10 and 16, 

2012: 

February 17, 2012: 

March 21, 2012: 

April 2, 2012: 

May 7, 2012 

May 15,2012 

May 17,2012 

The Service sent comments on the plant Assessment to the Forest via 

email. The Forest responded to the comments via email. 

The Service attended a Level 1 meeting and provided comments on the 

draft fisheries Assessment. For the plant Assessment, the Service agreed 

with the contents of the Assessment and effects determinations. 

The Service received an email from the Forest with a revised fisheries 

Assessment attached. 

The Service sent comments on the draft fisheries Assessment to the Forest 

via email. 

The Service attended a Level 1 meeting via video conference where the 

team reviewed comments on the draft fisheries Assessment. 

The Service received an email from the Forest discussing the rationale for 

the not likely to adversely affect determination for bull trout critical 

habitat. 

The Service received emails from the Forest with revised versions of the 

fisheries Assessment attached. 

The Service sent an email to the Forest stating agreement with contents of 

the fisheries Assessment and effects determinations for bull trout and 

critical habitat. 

The Service received the final plant and fisheries Assessments from the 

Forest. 

The Service sent the Forest an email requesting clarification on 

discrepancies found in the description of the proposed action. 

The Service sent the Forest a draft version of the Opinion for their review. 

The Service attended a Level 1 meeting where the Forest stated that they 

had no comments on the draft Opinion. 

The Service received an email from the Forest explaining the situation at 

the Trail 824 ford crossing on Newsome Creek. The Level 1 team looked 

at this crossing on May 16, 2012 and the Forest discovered that this 

crossing had not been addressed in the Assessment. The Forest requested 

that we include the crossing in our Opinion. 

1.3 Informal Consultations 

The Forest proposes to designate routes for motorized travel Forest wide and close the Forest to 

motorized cross-country travel. Refer to the Assessment (pp. 5-9) and section 2.1 of this 

Opinion for a complete description of the proposal. The Forest determined that their proposed 

2 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 103
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

action is not likely to adversely affect bull trout critical habitat, Spalding's catchfly, and 

MacFarlane's four-o'clock. We provide rationales for our concurrence with those 

determinations below. 

1.3.1 Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

Service concurrence that the DRAMVU is not likely to adversely affect bull trout critical habitat 

is based on the following rationales. Refer to the Assessment (p. 27) for an analysis on the 

effects of the DRAMVU to the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) ofbull trout critical 

habitat. 

1. The DRAMVU is not expected to adversely affect any of the PCEs of bull trout critical 

habitat. All effects will be insignificant or discountable. 

2. The DRAMVU will not degrade the condition of any habitat indicators in the Matrix of 

Pathways and Indicators. The baseline condition will be maintained for all indicators. 

The DRAMU will maintain the functionality of the PCEs ofbull trout critical habitat in 

the action area. 

1.3.2 Spalding's catchfly 

Service concurrence that the DRAMVU is not likely to adversely affect the Spalding's catchfly 

is based on the following rationales. 

1. The proposed action prohibits cross-country motorized travel and restricts such travel to 

designated routes. As such the DRAMVU removes all known Spalding's catchfly 

occurrences and most of the potential habitat from motorized access. 

2. Roads and trails may still pass through some potential habitat, but virtually all such areas 

have been surveyed with negative results or have been determined through map and 

photo interpretation to be unsuitable. 

3. In addition, the DRAMVU limits motorized travel to existing tracks to protect vegetation. 

While effects to this species or its preferred habitat are possible, they are not likely due to 

species absence, lack of access, or the protective measures employed to protect suitable 

habitat and known occurrences. · 

1.3.3 MacFarlane's four-o'clock 

Service concurrence that the DRAMVU is not likely to adversely affect the MacFarlane's fouro'clock is based on the following rationales. 

1. There are no known occurrences ofMacFarlane's four-o'clock on the Forest. Therefore 

effects from the DRAMVU are expected to be discountable. 

2. DRAMVU may impact only a very small amount (72 acres or about one percent) of the 

potential (modeled) habitat for MacFarlane's four-o'clock. This habitat is steep and 

rocky and is unlikely to experience any significant use by motorized vehicles. 

3 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 104
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

This section describes the proposed Federal action, including any measures that may avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat, and the extent of the 

geographic area affected by the action (i.e., the action area). The term "action" is defined in the 

implementing regulations for section 7 as "all activities or programs of any kind authorized, 

funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon.the 

high seas." The term "action area" is defined in the regulations as "all areas to be affected 

directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in, the 

action." 

2.1.1 Action Area 

The project is located on the Forest in its entirety. This Forest encompasses more than 2.2 

million acres within Idaho County in north central Idaho. The Forest is bordered by Oregon on 

the west, Montana on the east, the Clearwater National Forest on the north, and the Payette 

National Forest on the south. Over 40 percent of the Forest is included as congressionally 

designated wilderness (the Gospel-Hump and portions of the Selway-Bitterroot, and Frank 

Church-River ofNo Return Wilderness Areas). Included within the boundary is a portion of the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation and Wilderness. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

administers this portion_ of the Forest and has previously addressed travel management in this 

area. 

2.1.2 Proposed Action 

The following description of the proposed action has been adapted from the Assessment. Refer 

to the Assessment for a complete project description. 

The DRAMVU will close the Forest to all cross-country motorized travel. The proposal will 

retain 2,350 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized use. Routes open 

to motorized use will include 1,963 miles of road and 387 miles of trails. Routes open to nonmotorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and 

940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for dispersed camping will be 

allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 300 feet from trails, following the conditions of use 

described below. In addition 18 miles of road and 28 miles of trail will have no motorized 

access for dispersed camping. The proposed designations are summarized in Table 1. 

4 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 105
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel- existing condition versus 

condition under DRAMVU (modified from Assessment Table 1). 

il ;;::; . !_ ·.' •• ' ' -~ :C: c' '; ~ {. 

·~lildicato.r; , ..jj_-:; ;, .·; ,._ .. ·< .l' :r..o: . ,r· -::._._ { I" Conditi~ - ~ £ ~-~~ 

Roads .. _ -• 

Open Yearlong 1103 825 

Open Seasonally 923 1138 

Non-motorized 1700 1763 

Trails 

Open Yearlong 568 78 

Open Seasonally 118 309 

Non-motorized 1336 1636 

Roads & Trails - Total 

Motorized Total 2712 2350 

Open Yearlong 1671 903 

Open Seasonally 1041 1447 

Non-motorized Total 3036 3399 

Acres open 1,004,428 0 

to cross country travel 

Motorized access for dispersed camping 

from motorized roads Unrestricted 300* 

Feet from centerline 

Motorized access to dispersed camping 

from motorized trails Unrestricted 300* 

Feet from centerline 

• Additional routes with no motorized 

access for dispersed camping (0 feet) No Yes 

Miles of Road 18 miles 

Miles of Trail 34 miles 

DRAMVU will reduce the number of miles available for motorized use by designations and 

changes in the season of use. Three new motorized routes will be added to the system. These 

new routes will be motorized trails. No physical construction of the routes will occur because 

they already exist on the ground. Additional ground disturbing activities may be needed, 

however, to bring these trails up to a standard for motorized use. These activities will be 

included under a separate NEP A decision, and the trails will not be open to motorized use until 

this work has been completed. The routes will then be maintained at the level of use designated, 

which in this case will be for ATVs and motorcycles. 

All roads and trails proposed for motorized use have .either been assessed or are in the process of 

being assessed to determine if the current condition of the route is at a standard that can 

accommodate motorized use without resource damage. Routes that are not at tha.t standard will 

be brought up to that standard, and any ground disturbing activities necessary to upgrade to the 

standard will be assessed under a separate NEP A decision. The route will not be open to 

motorized use until this work has been completed. 

5 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 106
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

2.1.2.1 Motorized Use of Designated Roads and Trails 

Key components of the proposed action include the following: 

Cross-country motorized travel on the Forest will not be permitted. Unauthorized routes 

(i.e., routes not on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)) will not be available for motorized 

use. 

All roads, trails and areas will be closed to motorized use unless designated as open. 

Motorized use will be allowed on designated roads, trails, and areas as displayed on the 

MVUM, based on a specified type of vehicle and season of use. A designation for a road or 

trail includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the 

designated road or trail. 

Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route will be permitted 

from the edge of the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a trailer 

(e.g. boat, horse, or camper). Use will be allowed when it is safe to do so, does not create 

resourc·e damage, and where the use follows Forest orders or prohibitions. 

Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood will not be allowed per the terms of standard 

personal use firewood permits. · 

No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as a mountain bike) is allowed within 

wilderness areas. 

All areas and routes in the project area will be open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain 

bike, or stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons, such as safety, or otherwise 

posted. Mountain bikes will be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness areas, 

unless otherwise posted. 

This project will not supersede motorized use, as authorized under permit or by a line officer, 

on any road or trail. Such Forest activities may include grazing permits, weed treatment, 

mineral activities, firewood cutting permits, special use permits, and authorizations for 

administrative use. If a permit was issued for motorized activities not included under this 

decision, a separate decision (and consultation if needed) will be made. 

The project will maintain access to areas important to all Native American Tribes who use 

the Forest, and will preserve local Native American culture by providing for the continued 

ability to practice inherent tribal treaty rights and traditional uses of the forest, subject to 

travel planning rules. 

The project will post informational signs along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access 

for dispersed camping is limited by the Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 

Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes will be allowed as long as 

the conditions for that travel are met. When the conditions below are not met, the motorized 

travel will be illegal. Off-route travel for dispersed camping will be prohibited along 18 miles 

of roads and 30 miles of trails to protect heritage sites, high elevation grasslands, and 

Research Natural Areas. 

• Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes will be permitted 

within 300 feet of a designated route during the period when that route is open to 

6 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 107
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

motorized traffic. The 300 foot distance is measured perpendicular to the designated 

route. Campsites, even where they currently exist, that are beyond the 300 foot 

distance, will be off-limits to motor vehicles. 

• Since the intent is to provide for camping access, it will not be permissible to roam 

around with a motor vehicle off the designated route while looking for a campsite. 

Campers are expected to explore and evaluate campsites by non-motorized means and 

travel to them with their vehicle using the most clearly defined existing track. 

Cutting comers on the established track or taking shortcuts back to the main road or 

trail will not be permitted. Again since the intent is to provide for camping access, 

repetitive recreational riding around in the campsite or along the access route will not 

be permitted. 

• Barriers oflogs, rocks, or earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to 

restrict vehicles from sensitive or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to 

eliminate motorized traffic in wet areas, streamside zones, on redundant tracks or for 

other resource protection purposes. Moving, going over, going around, or in any way 

circumventing these restriction devices will not be permitted. 

• Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of 

resource damage associated with motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but 

are not limited to: 

• Cutting, harming, or unreasonably disturbing vegetation; 

• Using more than one track to access the campsite; 

• Crossing streams, driving on streambanks, or riding anywhere off the 

established track where rutting occurs; or, 

• Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track. 

2.1.2.3 Monitoring 

The following monitoring activities will be completed during the first two complete field seasons 

following the authorization of the DRAMVU. A report will be prepared the second field season. 

The report will note any existing and potential problems, immediate actions taken during the 

interim to minimize or avoid adverse effects, and any pending or potential actions that the Forest 

will address administratively or through the NEP A process. If monitoring finds adverse effects 

to listed species or critical habitat are occurring, the action will be immediately curtailed until a 

remedial plan is formed and subsequent section 7 consultation is completed. See aquatic 

monitoring plan (Appendix A of this Opinion). 

• Continue to monitor selected motorized trail crossings to determine if travel is 

causing direct or indirect adverse effects to listed species, designated critical habitat, 

or other aquatic resources (e.g., sensitive species, unoccupied stream habitat, 

wetlands, etc.). 

• Determine if existing dispersed recreational sites located within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and within drainages that support listed fish species are 

meeting standards and guidelines regarding P ACFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives. 

7 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 108
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy 

Determination 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Opinion relies on four 

components: 

1. The Status of the Species, which evaluates the bull trout's rangewide condition, the factors 

responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs. 

2. The Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the bull trout in the action 

area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to 

the survival and recovery of the bull trout. 

3. The Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed 

Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the bull 

trout. 

4. Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the 

action area on the bull trout. 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the 

effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the bull trout's current status, taking into 

account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to 

cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of the bull 

trout in the wild. 

As discussed below under the Status of the Species, interim recovery units have been designated 

for the ·bull trout for purposes of recovery planning and application of the jeopardy standard. Per 

Service national policy (USFWS 2006, entire), it is important to recognize that the establishment 

of recovery units does not create a new listed entity. Jeopardy analyses must always consider the 

impacts of a proposed action on the survival and recovery of the species that is listed. While a 

proposed Federal action may have significant adverse consequences to one or more recovery 

units, this will only result in a jeopardy determination if these adverse consequences reduce 

appreciably the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of the listed entity; in this case, the 

coterminous U.S. population of the bull trout. 

The joint Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998, p. 4-38), which represents national policy of 

both agencies, further clarifies the use of recovery units in the jeopardy analysis: 

When an action appreciably impairs or precludes the capacity of a recovery unit from 

providing both the survival and recovery function assigned to it, that action may represent 

jeopardy to the species. When using this type of analysis, include in the biological 

opinion a description of how the action affects not only the recovery unit's capability, but 

the relationship of the recovery unit to both the survival and recovery of the listed species 

as a whole. 

The jeopardy analysis in this Opinion conforms to the above analytical framework. 

8 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 109
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/ClearWater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

2.3 Status of the Species 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

This section presents information about the regulatory, biological and ecological status of the 

bull trout and its critical habitat that provides context for evaluating the significance of probable 

effects caused by the proposed action. 

2.3.1 Listing Status 

The coterminous United States population of the bull trout was listed as threatened on November 

1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatened bull trout occurs in the Klamath River Basin of southcentral Oregon, the Jarbidge River in Nevada, north to various coastal rivers. of Washington to 

the Puget Sound, east throughout major rivers within the Columbia River Basin to the St. MaryBelly River, and east of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana (Cavender 1978, pp. 

165-166; Bond 1992, p. 4; Brewin and Brewin 1997, pp. 209-216; Leary and Allendorf 1997, pp. 

715-720). The Service completed a 5-year Review in 2008 and concluded that the bull trout 

should remain listed as threatened (USFWS 2008, p. 53). 

The bull trout was initially listed as three separate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) (63 FR 

31647,64 FR 17110). The preamble to the final listing rule for the U.S. coterminous population 

of the bull trout discusses the consolidation of these DPSs, plus two other population segments, 

into one listed taxon and the application ofthejeopardy standard under Section 7 ofthe Act 

relative to this species (64 FR 58930): 

Although this rule consolidates the five bull trout DPSs into one listed taxon, based on 

conformance with the DPS policy for purposes of consultation under Section 7 of the Act, we 

intend to retain recognition of each DPS in light of available scientific information relating to 

their uniqueness and significance. Under this approach, these DPSs will be treated as interim 

recovery units with respect to application of the jeopardy standard until an approved recovery 

plan is developed. Formal establishment of bull trout recovery units will occur during the 

recovery planning process. 

Thus, as discussed above under the Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse 

Modification Determinations, the Service's jeopardy analysis for the proposed Project will 

involve consideration of how the DRAMVU is likely to affect the Columbia River interim 

recovery unit for the bull trout based on its uniqueness and significance as described in the DPS 

final listing rule cited above, which is herein incorporated by reference. However, in accordance 

with Service national policy, the jeopardy determination is made at the scale of the listed species. 

In this case, the coterminous U.S. population of the bull trout. 

2.3.1.1 Reasons for Listing 

Though wide ranging in parts of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, bull trout in the 

interior Columbia River basin presently occur in only about 45 percent of the historical range 

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1177; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1119). Declining trends due to the 

combined effects ofhabitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, 

poor water quality, angler harvest and poaching, entrainment into diversion channels and dams, 

and introduced nonnative species (e.g., brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis) have resulted in 

declines in range-wide bull trout distribution and abundance (Bond 1992, p. 4; Schill 1992, p. 40; 

Thomas 1992, pp. 9-12; Ziller 1992, p. 28; Rieman and Mcintyre 1993, pp. 1-18; Newton and 

9 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 110
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Pribyl1994, pp. 2, 4, 8-9; Idaho Department ofFish and Game in litt. 1995, pp. 1-3). Several 

local extirpations have been reported, beginning in the 1950s (Rode 1990, p. 1; Ratliff and 

Howell1992, pp. 12-14; Donald and Alger 1993, p. 245; Goetz 1994, p. 1; Newton and Pribyl 

1994, p. 2; Berg and Priest 1995, pp. 1-45; Light et al. 1996, pp. 20-38; Buchanan and Gregory 

1997, p. 120). 

Land and water management activities such as dams and other diversion structures, forest 

management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, road construction and maintenance, 

mining, and urban and rural development continue to degrade bull trout habitat and depress bull 

trout populations (USFWS 2002a, p. 13). 

2.3.2 Species Description 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), member. of the family Salmonidae, are char native to the 

Pacific Northwest and western Canada. The bull trout and the closely related Dolly Varden 

(Salvelinus malma) were not officially recognized as separate species until1980 (Robins et al. 

1980, p. 19). Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in the Pacific Northwest 

from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California (now extirpated), Klamath 

River basin of south central Oregon, and the Jarbidge River inN evada to the headwaters of the 

Yukon River in the Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978, p. 165-169; Bond 1992, p. 2-

3). To the west, the bull trout's current range includes Puget Sound, coastal rivers of British 

Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992, p. 2-3). East of the Continental Divide 

bull trout are found in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta and the MacKenzie 

River system in Alberta and British Columbia (Cavender 1978, p. 165-169; Brewin and Brewin 

1997, pp. 209-216). Bull trout are wide spread throughout the Columbia River b~sin, including 

its headwaters in Montana and Canada. 

2.3.3 Life History 

Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life history strategies throughout much of the current 

range (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993, p. 2). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in 

the streams where they spawn and r~ar. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in streams for 1 to 4 

years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or, in certain coastal areas, to 

saltwater (anadromous) where they reach maturity (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 1; Goetz 1989, 

pp. 15-16). Resident and migratory forms often occur together and it is suspected that individual 

bull trout may give rise to offspring exhibiting both resident and migratory behavior (Rieman 

and Mcintyre 1993, p. 2). 

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and Mcintyre 

1993, p. 4). Watson and Hillman (1997, p. 248) concluded that watersheds must have specific 

physical characteristics to provide habitat requirements for bull trout to successfully spawn and 

rear . . It was also concluded that these characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout 

these watersheds, thus resulting in patchy distributions even in pristine habitats. 

Bull trout are found primarily in colder streams, although individual fish are migratory in larger, 

warmer river systems throughout the range (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Rieman and 

Mcintyre 1993, p. 2 and 1995, p. 288; Buchanan and Gregory 1997, pp. 121-122; Rieman et al. 

1997, p. 1114). Water temperature above 15°C (59°F) is believed to limit bull trout distribution, 

which may partially explain the patchy distribution within a watershed (Fraley and Shepard 

10 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 111
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

1989, p. 133; Rieman and Mcintyre 1995, pp. 255-296). Spawning areas are often associated 

with cold water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed 

(Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and Mcintyre 1993, p. 7; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1117). Goetz (1989, 

pp. 22, 24) suggested optimum water temperatures for rearing ofless than 1 ooc (50°F) and 

optimum water temperatures for egg incubation of2 to 4°C (35 to 39°F). 

All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex forms of cover, including large 

woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Goetz 1989, pp. 22-25; Pratt 1992, p. 6; 

Thomas 1992, pp. 4-5; Rich 1996, pp. 35-38; Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 367-369; Watson and 

Hillman 1997, pp. 247-249). Jakober (1995, p. 42) observed bull trout overwintering in deep 

beaver ponds or pools containing large woody debris in the Bitterroot River drainage, Montana, 

and suggested that suitable winter habitat may be more restrictive than summer habitat. Bull 

trout prefer relatively stable channel and water flow conditions (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993, p. 

6). Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with 

suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 368-369). 

The size and age of bull trout at maturity depend upon life history strategy. Growth of resident 

fish is generally slower than migratory fish; resident fish tend to be smaller at maturity and less 

fecund (Goetz 1989, p. 15). Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and live as 

long as 12 years. Bull trout are iteroparous (they spawn more than once in a lifetime), and both 

repeat- and alternate-year spawning has been reported, although repeat-spawning frequency and 

post-spawning mortality are not well documented (Leathe and Graham 1982, p. 95; Fraley and 

Shepard 1989, p. 135; Pratt 1992, p. 8; Rieman and Mcintyre 1996, p. 133). 

Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water 

temperatures. Migratory bull trout frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and 

have been known to move upstream as far as 250 kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi)) to spawning 

grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 135). Depending on water temperature, incubation is 

normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992, p.1) and, after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. 

Time from egg deposition to emergence may exceed 200 days. Fry normally emerge from early 

April through May depending upon water temperatures and increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992, 

p. 1). 

The iteroparous reproductive system ofbull trout has important repercussions for the 

management of this species. Bull trout require two-way passage up and downstream, not only 

for repeat spawning, but also for foraging. Most fish ladders, however, were designed 

specifically for anadromous semelparous (fishes that spawn once and then die, and therefore 

require only one-way passage upstream) salmonids. Therefore, even dams or other barriers with 

fish passage facilities may be a factor in isolating bull trout populations if they do not provide a 

downstream passage route. 

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a function of size and life history 

strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro 

zooplankton and small fish (Boag 1987, p. 58; Goetz 1989, pp. 33-34; Donald and Alger 1993, 

pp. 239-243). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivores, known to feed on various fish 

species (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 135; Donald and Alger 1993, p. 242). 

11 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 112
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Ne:z: Perce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

2.3.3.1 Population Dynamics 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a, pp. 47-48) defined core areas as groups of 

partially isolated local populations of bull trout with some degree of gene flow occurring 

between them. Based on this definition, core areas can be considered metapopulations. A 

metapopulation is an interacting network oflocal populations with varying frequencies of 

migration and gene flow among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994, p. I88). In theory, bull trout 

metapopulations (core areas) can be composed of two or more local populations, but Rieman and 

Allendorf(2001, p. 763) suggest that for a bull trout metapopulation to function effectively, a 

minimum of 10 local populations are required. Bull trout core areas with fewer than 5 local 

populations are at increased riskoflocal extirpation, core areas with between 5 and 10 local 

populations are at intermediate risk, and core areas with more than I 0 interconnected local 

populations are at diminished risk (USFWS 2002a, pp. 50-51). 

The presence of a sufficient number of adult spawners is necessary to ensure persistence ofbull 

trout populations. In order to avoid inbreeding depression, it is estimated that a minimum of I 00 

spawners are required. Inbreeding can result in increased homozygosity of deleterious recessive 

alleles which can in turn reduce individual fitness and population viability (Whitesel et al. 2004, 

p. 36). For persistence in the longer term, adult spawning fish are requi~ed in suffici~nt numbers 

to reduce the deleterious effects of genetic drift and maintain genetic variation. For bull trout, 

Rieman and Allendorf (2001, p. 762) estimate that approximately 1,000 spawning adults within 

any bull trout population are necessary for maintaining genetic variation indefinitely. Many 

local bull trout populations individually do not support 1,000 spawners, but this threshold may be 

met by the presence of smaller interconnected local populations within a core area. 

· For bull trout populations to remain viable (and recover), natural productivity should be 

sufficient for the populations to replace themselves from generation to generation. A population 

that consistently fails to replace itself is at an increased risk of extirpation. Since estimates of 

population size are rarely available, the productivity or population growth rate is usually 

estimated from temporal trends in indices of abundance at a particular life stage. For example, 

redd counts are often used as an indicator of a spawning adult population. The direction and 

magnitude of a trend in an index can be used as a surrogate for growth rate. 

Survival of bull trout populations is also dependent upon connectivity among local populations. 

Although bull trout are widely distributed over a large geographic area, they exhibit a patchy 

distribution even in pristine habitats (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993, p. 7). Increased habitat 

fragmentation reduces the amount of available habitat and increases isolation from other 

populations of the same species (Saunders et al. I991, p. 22). Burkey (1989, p. 76) concluded 

that when species are isolated by fragmented habitats, low rates of population growth are typical 

in local populations and their probability of extirpation is directly related to the degree of 

isolation and fragmentation. Without sufficient immigration, growth oflocal populations may be 

low and probability of extirpation high. Migrations also facilitate gene flow among local 

populations because individuals from different local populations interbreed when some stray and 

return to nonnatal streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also 

become reestablished in this manner. 

In summary, based on the works ofRieman and Mcintyre (1993, pp. 9-15) and Rieman and 

Allendorf (2001, pp. 756-763), the draft bull trout Recovery Plan identified four elements to 

consider when assessing long-term viability (extirpation risk) ofbull trout populations: (1) 

12 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 113
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

number oflocal populations, (2) adult abundance (defined as the number of spawning fish 

present in a core area in a given year), (3) productivity, or the reproductive rate of the population, 

and (4) connectivity (as represented by the migratory life history form). 

2.3.4 Status and Distribution 

As noted above, in recognition of available scientific information relating to their uniqueness and 

significance, five population segments of the coterminous United States population ofthe bull 

trout are considered essential to the survival and recovery of this species and are identified as: 

(1) Jarbidge River, (2) Klamath River, (3) Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) St. Mary-Belly River, and 

(5) Columbia River. Each of these segments is necessary to maintain the bull trout's 

distribution, as well as its genetic and phenotypic diversity, all of which are important to ensure 

the species' resilience to changing environmental conditions. 

A summary of the current status and conservation needs of the bull trout within these units is 

provided below. A comprehensive discussion of these topics is found in the draft bull trout 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a, entire; 2004a, b; entire). 

Central to the survival and recovery of the bull trout is the maintenance of viable core areas 

(USFWS 2002a, p. 54). A core area is defined as a geograp,P.ic area occupied by one or more 

local bull trout populations that overlap in their use of rearing, foraging, migratory, and 

overwintering habitat, and, in some cases, their use of spawning habitat. Each of the population 

segments listed below consists of one or more core areas. One hundred and twenty one core 

areas are recognized across the United States range of the bull trout (USFWS 2005, p. 9). 

A core area assessment conducted by the Service for the 5 year bull trout status review 

determined that of the 121 core areas comprising the coterminous listing, 43 are at high risk of 

extirpation, 44 are at risk, 28 are at potential risk, 4 are at low risk and 2 are of unknown status 

(USFWS 2008, p. 29). 

2.3.4.1 Jarbidge River 

This population segment currently contains a single ~ore area with six local populations. Less 

than 500 resident and migratory adult bull trout, representing about 50 to 125 spawners, are 

estimated to occur within the core area. The current condition of the bull trout in this segment is 

attributed to the effects oflivestock grazing, roads, angler harvest, timber harvest, and the 

introduction of nonnative fishes (USFWS 2004a, p. iii). The draft bull trout Recovery Plan 

identifies the following conservation needs for this segment: (1) maintain the current 

distribution of the bull trout within the core area, (2) maintain stable or increasing trends in 

abundance ofboth resident and migratory bull trout in the core area, (3) restore and maintain 

suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and forms, and (4) conserve genetic diversity 

and increase natural opportunities for genetic exchange between resident and migratory forms of 

the bull trout. An estimated 270 to 1 ,000 spawning fish per year are needed to provide for the 

persistence and viability of the core area and to support both resident and migratory adult bull 

trout (USFWS 2004a, p. 62-63). Currently this core area is at high risk of extirpation (USFWS 

2005, p. 9). 

2.3.4.2 Klamath River 

This population segment currently contains three core areas and 12local populations. The 

current abundance, distribution, and range of the bull trout in the Klamath River Basin are 

13 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 114
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

greatly reduced from historical levels due to habitat loss and degradation caused by reduced 

water quality, timber harvest, livestock grazing, water diversions, roads, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Bull trout populations in this unit face a high risk of extirpation (USFWS 

2002b, p. iv). The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002b, p. v) identifies the following 

conservation needs for this unit: (1) maintain the current distribution of the bull trout and restore 

distribution in previously occupied areas, (2) maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout 

abundance, (3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and 

strategies, and ( 4) conserve genetic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic exchange 

among appropriate core area populations. Eight to 15 new local populations and an increase in 

population size from about 3,250 adults currently to 8,250 adults are needed to provide for the 

persistence and viability of the three core areas (USFWS 2002b, p. vi). 

2.3.4.3 Coastal-Puget Sound 

Bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment exhibit anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, 

and resident life history patterns. The anadromous life history form is unique to this unit. This 

population segment currently contains 14 core areas and 67 local populations (USFWS 2004b, p. 

iv; 2004c, pp. iii-iv). Bull trout are distributed throughout most of the large rivers and associated 

tributary systems within this u~t. With limited exceptions, bull trout continue to be present in 

nearly all major watersheds where they likely occurred historically within this unit. Generally, 

bull trout distribution has contracted and abundance has declined, especially in the southeastern 

part of the unit. The current condition of the bull trout in this population segment is attributed to 

the adverse effects of dams, forest management practices (e .. g., timber harvest and associated 

road building activities), agricultural practices (e.g., diking, water control structures, draining of 

wetlands, channelization, and the removal of riparian vegetation), livestock grazing, roads, 

mining, urbanization, angler harvest, and the introduction of nonnative species. The draft bull 

trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2004b, pp. ix-x) identifies the following conservation needs for 

this unit: (1) maintain or expand the current distribution ofbull trout within existing core areas, 

(2) increase bull trout abundance to about 16,500 adults across all core areas, and (3) maintain or 

increase connectivity between local populations within each core area. 

2.3.4.4 St. Mary-Belly River 

This population segment currently contains six core areas and nine local populations (USFWS 

2002c, p. v). Currently, bull trout are widely distributed in the St. Mary River drainage and 

occur in nearly all of the waters that were inhabited historically. Bull trout are found only in a 

1.2-mile reach of the North Fork Belly River within the United States. Redd count surveys of 

the North Fork Belly River documented an increase from 27 redds in 1995 to 119 redds in 1999. 

This increase was attributed primarily to protection from angler harvest (USFWS 2002c, p. 37). 

The current condition of the bull trout in this population segment is primarily attributed to the 

effects of dams, water diversions, roads, mining, and the introduction of nonnative fishes 

(USFWS 2002c, p. vi). The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002c, pp. v-ix) identifies 

the following conservation needs for this unit: (1) maintain the current distribution of the bull 

trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas, (2) maintain stable or increasing 

trends in bull trout abundance, (3) maintain and restore suitable habitat conditions for all life 

history stages and forms, (4) conserve gen~tic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic 

exchange, and (5) establish good working relations with Canadian interests because local bull 

14 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 115
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

trout populations in this unit are comprised mostly of migratory fish whose habitat is mainly in 

Canada. 

2.3.4.5 Columbia River 

The Columbia River population segment includes bull trout residing in portions of Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of 

the Columbia River Basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range 

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1177). This population segment currently contains 97 core 

areas and 527 local populations. About 65 percent of these core areas and local populations 

occur in Idaho and northwestern Montana. 

The condition of the bull trout populations within these core areas varies from poor to good, but 

generally all have been subject to the combined effects of habitat degradation, fragmentation and 

alterations associated with one or more of the following activities: dewatering, road construction 

and maintenance, mining and grazing, blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other 

diversion structures, poor water quality, incidental angler harvest, entrainment into diversion 

channels, and introduced nonnative species. 

The Service has determined that ofthe total97 core areas in this population segment, 38 are at 

high nsk of extirpation, 35 are at risk, 20 are at potential risk, 2 are at low risk, and 2 are at 

unknown risk (USFWS 2005, pp. 1-94). 

The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a, p. v) identifies the following conservation 

needs for this population segment: (1) maintain or expand the current distribution of the bull 

trout within core areas, (2) maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout abundance, (3) 

maintain and restore suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies, 

and (4) conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunities for genetic exchange. 

2.3.4.5.1 Columbia River Recovery/Management Units 

Achieving recovery goals within each management unit is critical to recovering the Columbia 

River population segment. Recovering bull trout in each management unit will maintain the 

overall distribution of bull trout in their native range. Individual core areas are the foundation of 

management units and conserving core areas and their habitats within management units 

preserves the genotypic and phenotypic diversity that will allow bull trout access to diverse 

habitats and reduce the risk of extirpation from stochastic events. The continued survival and 

recovery of each individual core area is critical to the persistence of management units and their 

role in the recovery of a population segment (USFWS 2002a, p. 54). 

The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a, p. 2) identified 22 recovery units within the 

Columbia River population segment. These units are now referred to as management units. 

Management units are groupings of bull trout with historical or current gene flow within them 

and were designated to place the scope of bull trout recovery on smaller spatial scales than the 

larger population segments. The action area is encompassed by the Clearwater River and 

Salmon River management units. 

2.3.4.5.1.1 Clearwater River Management Unit 

Bull trout are distributed throughout most of the large rivers and associated tributary systems 

within the Clearwater River management unit (USFWS 2002d, p. 16) and exhibit adfluvial, 

15 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 116
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

fluvial, and resident life history patterns. There are two naturally occurring adfluvial bull trout 

populations within the Clearwater River management unit; one is associated with Fish Lake in 

the upper North Fork Clearwater River drainage, and the other is associated with Fish Lake in 

the Lochsa River drainage (USFWS 2002d, p. 16). The Bull Trout Recovery Team has 

identified seven core areas and 35 local bull trout populations within the Clearwater management 

unit (USFWS 2002d, p. 17). The core areas include the North Fork Clearwater River, Lochsa 

River, South Fork Clearwater River, Selway River, and Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers. 

The action area is within the Selway River, South Fork Clearwater River, Lower-Middle Fork 

Clearwater River, and the two Fish Lake core areas mentioned above .. 

2.3.4.5.1.1.1 Selway River Core Area 

The Selway River core area supports a significant metapopulation (an interacting network of 

local populations) of fluvial bull trout that are widely distributed through the core area in 

variable densities, as well as widely distributed resident local populations in some upper tributary 

reaches. This core area supports 1 0 local populations in Meadow Creek, Moose Creek, Little 

Clearwater River, Running Creek, White Cap Creek, Bear Creek, Deep Creek, Indian Creek, 

Magruder Creek, and the Upper Selway River (Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, p. 35). There 

are five potential local populations1 in this core area: Marten Creek, Mink Creek, Gedney Creek, 

O'Hara Creek, and Three Links Creek. · 

Based on the guidance in section 2.3.3.1 above, because there are 10 local populations this core 

area is at an intermediate risk of extirpation from stochastic events. 

There are probably more than 500 adult spawners present, so the core area is at an intermediate 

risk of deleterious effects from gen~tic drift. 

Population trend data is lacking for the core area, so the draft Recovery Plan determined that 

until such data is available, the core area is at an increased risk of extirpation (Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002d, pp. 98-99). 

Migratory bull trout are present, so the core area is at a reduced risk of extirpation from loss of 

connectivity. 

In the 5-year Review we ranked this core area as being "At Potential Risk" of extirpation. 

Threats were characterized as widespread but oflow severity (Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, p. 

34). 

Although historic grazing, logging, and mining have occurred in the Selway River core area, 

they are no longer considered significant threats to bull trout (much of the basin is designated 

wilderness). The three primary threats to bull trout in the Selway core area are illegal angling 

harvest, presence of brook trout, and reduced prey base due to declining anadromous fish 

populations (Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, p. 77). 

1 A local population that does not currently exist, but could exist, if spawning and early rearing habitat or 

connectivity were restored in that area. Typically, bull trout have been observed in these potential local population 

watersheds, but spawning and early rearing have not been documented. 

16 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 117
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

2.3.4.5.1.1.2 South Fork Clearwater River Core Area 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

This core area has the most comprehensive data collected for bull trout of the seven core areas 

within the Clearwater River management unit due to a multi-year study by the Idaho Department 

ofFish and Game, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management which documented juvenile 

distribution in most tributaries and headwater streams (USFWS 2002d, p. 25). There are five 

local populations within the South Fork Clearwater River core area: Red River, Crooked River, 

Newsome Creek, Tenmile Creek, and John's Creek. There are three potential local populations 

in this core area: Mill Creek, American River, and Meadow Creek. 

Because there are only five local populations, the core area is at an increased risk of extirpation 

from stochastic events. 

Current abundance and distribution of bull trout in the core area is considered lower than historic 

levels (it is estimated that there are at least 500 spawners present) and genetic drift is considered 

a risk factor for the core area (USFWS 2002d, p. 98). 

Population trend data is lacking for the core area, so the draft Recovery Plan determined that 

until such data is available, the core area is considered to be at an increased risk of extirpation 

(USFWS 2002d, pp. 98-99). 

There is an extremely low incidence of fluvial migratory adults in the core area (Forest Service 

2005, p. 18), so this core area is at an intermediate level of risk due to limited connectivity 

(USFWS 2002d, p. 99). 

The Service's Five Year Status Review (USFWS 2008, p. 34) concluded that the South Fork 

Clearwater River core area is at risk of extirpation. We determined that threats to the viability of 

this core area are substantial and imminent (USFWS 2008, p. 34). Threats to bull trout in the 

core area include roads, forestry, grazing, residential development, brook trout, and angling. 

2.3.4.5.1.1.3 Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater River Core Area 

Bull trout use the lower (mainstem) Clearwater River, Middle Fork Clearwater River, and their 

tributaries primarily as foraging, migratory, rearing, and overwintering (FMO) habitat. No 

tributary streams within the core area have current documentation of bull trout spawning; 

however, juvenile bull trout have been documented in Lolo Creek. Lolo Creek is a local 

population because some of the small juveniles have been found above a small falls that will 

preclude fish of their size entry from downstream areas. Clear Creek is the only potential local 

population. Bull trout abundance is at very low levels within the core area. The larger 

tributaries, such as Orofino Creek and the Potlatch River, may be used incidentally for 

subadult/adult rearing and foraging when stream conditions are suitable but such use is 

considered to be at a very low level. Bull trout may also use some tributaries of the Middle Fork 

and lower Clearwater Rivers as thermal refuge habitat during high water temperatures in 

summer, although many tributaries may have even higher temperatures than these mainstems 

(Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, pp. 38-39). 

Bull trout are currently suspected to use spawning and rearing habitat in one stream (Lolo Creek) 

within the Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater River core area. Because this core area has only one 

local population, the core area is at an increased risk of extirpation from stochastic events. 

Current abundance and distribution of bull trout in the core area are considered lower than 

historic levels. It is estimated that there are fewer than 500 spawners present (Fish and Wildlife 

17 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 118
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Service 2002d, p. 97), so this core area is at an increased risk from the deleterious effects of 

genetic drift. 

Population trend data are lacking for the core area, so the draft Recovery Plan determined that 

until such data are available, the core area is considered to be at an increased risk of extirpation 

(Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, pp. 98-99). 

Migratory bull trout are believed to be absent in core area tributaries, so the core area is at an 

increased risk of extirpation due to loss of connectivity (Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, p. 99). 

The Service's Five Year Status Review (Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, p. 34) concluded that 

the Middle Fork/Lower Clearwater River core area is at risk of extirpation. We found that the 

short-term population trend was unknown, numbers of adult bull trout are low (50-250) and 

threats to the population are moderate and imminent (Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, p. 34). 

Threats to this core area include the past presence of a nearly impassable dam that existed at 

Lewiston between 1927 and 1972. This dam reduced returns of anadromous fish and extirpated 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ). The resulting reduced populations of anadromous 

salmonids has historically impacted bull trout through reduced abundance of prey, and continues 

to impact bull trout in the Clearwater River Management Unit. Other threats include timber 

harvest, roads with a density of 1.9 miles/square mile (Fish and Wildlife Service 2005, p. 48), 

mining, and agriculture which all contribute to very high sediment loads during high flow events 

in the Clearwater River (Fish and.Wildlife Service 2002d, pp. 44-82). 

2.3.4.5.1.2 Salmon River Management Unit 

The Salmon River management unit encompasses the entire Salmon River basin in Idaho 

upstream from its confluence with the Snake River to the headwaters in the Sawtooth Valley and 

lies in central Idaho. The Salmon River management unit contains 10 core areas including the 

Little-Lower Salmon River and Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain core area which 

encompasses the action area. 

2.3.4.5.1.2.1 Little-Lower Salmon River Core Area 

The draft bull trout Recovery Plan identifies seven local populations within the Little-Lower 

Salmon River core area: Slate, John Day, Partridge, Hard, Lake, and Boulder Creeks, and Rapid 

River (USFWS 2002e, pp. 28-29). The Little Salmon River also provides for foraging/adult 

rearing habitat and connectivity between local populations (USFWS 2002e, p. 29). There are 

three potential local populations in this core area: Elkhorn Creek, French Creek, and Hazard 

Creek. 

Because there are seven local populations, this core area is at intermediate risk of extirpation 

from stochastic events. 

Adult bull trout abundance is grossly estimated to be between 500 and 5,000 individuals, 

indicating that this core area is at reduced ri.sk from deleterious effects associated with genetic 

drift. 

The Little-Lower Salmon River core area is one of the few core areas with at least 10 years of 

population trend data. Based on this data, this core area is thought to be at intermediate risk of 

extirpation. 

18 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 119
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Migratory bull trout are present in most local populations within the Little-Lower Salmon River 

core area; therefore this core area is at reduced risk of extirpation from loss of connectivity 

(USFWS 2002e, pp. 63-66). 

The Service's Five Year Status Review (USFWS 2008, p. 34) concluded that the Little-Lower 

Salmon River core area is at high risk of extirpation. Threats to the population are substantial 

and imminent (USFWS 2008, p. 34). 

Threats to this core area include livestock grazing (upper reaches of the Little Salmon River), 

water withdrawal for pasture irrigation, transportation networks, commercial and residential 

development, and mining (upper Slate Creek), 

2.3.4.5.1.2.2 Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain Core Area 

Within the Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain core area there are nine local populations: Wind 

River, Sheep Creek, Bargamin Creek, Sabe Creek, Big Squaw Creek, Chamberlain Creek, 

Warren Creek, California Creek, and Fall Creek. Crooked Creek is the only potential local 

population (USFWS 2002e, p. 19). 

Because there are nine local populations, this core area is at intermediate risk of extirpation from 

stochastic events. 

Adult abundance is estimated at between 500 and 5,000, therefore this core area is at reduced 

risk of genetic drift. 

Because there is no trend data for this core area, the core area is assumed to be at an increased 

extirpation risk until additional information is available. 

Migratory bull trout are present in some but not all local populations; therefore this core area is 

at intermediate risk for this factor (USFWS 2002e, pp. 63-66). 

In the 5-year Review we ranked this core area as being "At Potential Risk" of extirpation 

(USFWS 2008, p. 34). 

2.3.1.5 Previous Consultations and Conservation Efforts 

2.3.1.5.1 Consultations 

Consulted-on effects are those effects that have been analyzed through section 7 consultation as 

reported in a biological opinion. These effects are an important component of objectively 

characterizing the current condition of the species. To assess consulted-on effects to bull trout, 

we analyzed all of the biological opinions received by the Region 1 and Region 6 Service Offices 

from the time ofbull trout's listing until August 2003; this summed to 137 biological opinions. 

Of these, 124 biological opinions (91 percent) applied to activities affecting bull trout in the 

Columbia Basin population segment, 12 biological opinions (9 percent) applied to activities 

affecting bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, 7 biological opinions (5 

percent) applied to activities affecting bull trout in the Klamath Basin population segment, and 

one biological opinion(< 1 percent) applied to activities affecting the Jarbidge and St. MaryBelly population segments (Note: these percentages do not add to 100, because several 

biological opinions applied to more than one population segment). The geographic scale of these 

consultations varied from individual actions (e.g., construction of a bridge or pipeline) within 

one basin to multiple-project actions occurring across several basins. 

19 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 120
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Our analysis showed that we consulted on a wide array of actions which had varying levels of 

effect. Many of the actions resulted in only short-term adverse effects, somewith long-term 

beneficial effects. Some of the actions resulted in long-term adverse effects. No actions that 

have undergone consultation were found to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the bull trout. Furthermore, no actions that have ·undergone consultation were 

anticipated to result in the loss of local populations ofbull trout. 

2.3.1.5.2 Regulatory mechanisms 

The implementation and effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms vary across the coterminous 

range. Forest practices rules for Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada include 

streamside management zones that benefit bull trout when implemented. 

2.3.1.5.3 State Conservation Measures 

State agencies are specifically addres~ing-bull trout through the following initiatives: 

Washington Bull Trout and DoUy Varden Management Plan developed in 2000. 

Montana Bull Trout Restoration Plan (Bull Trout Restoration Team appointed in 1994, and 

plan completed in 2000). 

Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy (developed in 2004). 

Nevada Species Management Plan for Bull Trout (developed in 2005). 

State of Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan (developed in 1996). The watershed advisory 

group drafted 21 problem assessments throughout Idaho which address all 59 key 

watersheds. To date, a conservation plan has been completed for one of the 21 key 

watersheds (Pend Oreille). 

2.3.1.5.4 Habitat Conservation Plans 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) have resulted in land management practices that exceed State 

regulatory requirements. Habitat conservation plans addressing bull trout cover approximately 

4 72 stream miles of aquatic habitat, or approximately 2.6 percent of the Key Recovery Habitat 

across Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. These Hers include: Plum Creek 

Native Fish HCP, Washington Department ofNatural Resources HCP, City of Seattle Cedar 

River Watershed HCP, Tacoma Water HCP, and Green Diamond HCP. 

2.3.1.5.5 Federal Land Management Plans 

P ACFISH is the "Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds and 

includes Federal lands in Western Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California." 

INFISH is the "Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon 

and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions ofNevada." Each strategy amended 

Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management 

Resource Management Plans. Together P ACFISH and INFISH cover thousands of miles of 

waterways within 16 million acres and provide a system for reducing effects from land 

management activities to aquatic resources through riparian management goals, landscape scale 

interim riparian management objectives, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), riparian 

standards, watershed analysis, and the designation of Key and Priority watersheds. These interim 

strategies have been in place since 1992 and are part of the management plans for Bureau of 

Land Management and Forest Service lands. 

20 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 121
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

0 I EIFW00-20 12-F-0 175 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP) is the strategy that 

replaces the P ACFISH and INFISH interim strategies when federal land management plans are 

revised. The Southwest Idaho Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) is the first LRMP 

under the strategy and provides measures that protect and restore soil, water, riparian and aquatic 

resources during project implementation while providing flexibility to address both short- and 

long-term social and economic goals on 6.6 million acres ofNational Forest lands. This plan 

includes a long-term Aquatic Conservation Strategy that focuses restoration funding in priority 

subwatersheds identified as important to achieving Endangered Species Act, Tribal, and Clean 

Water Act goals. The Southwest Idaho LRMP replaces the interim P ACFISH/INFISH strategies 

and adds additional conservation elements, specifically, providing an ecosystem management 

foundation, a prioritization for restoration integrated across multiple scales, and adaptable active, 

passive and conservation management strategies that address both protection and restoration of 

habitat and 303(d) stream segments. 

The Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan (SEORMP) and Record ofDecision is the 

second LRMP under the ICBEMP strategy which describes the long-term (20+ years) plan for 

managing the public lands within the Malheur and Jordan Resource Areas of the Vale District. 

The SEORMP is a general resource management plan for 4.6 million acres of Bureau of Land 

Management administered public lands primarily in Malheur County with some acreage in Grant 

and Harney Counties, Oregon. The SEORMP contains resource objectives, land use allocations, 

management actions and direction needed to achieve program goals. Under the plan, riparian 

areas, floodplains, and wetlands will be managed to restore, protect, or improve their natural 

functions relating to water storage, groundwater recharge, water quality, and fish and wildlife 

values. 

The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres in Washington, Oregon, and northern 

California. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is a component of the Northwest Forest 

Plan. It was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and the 

aquatic ecosystems. The four main components of the ACS (Riparian Reserves, Watershed 

Analysis, Key Watersheds, and Watershed Restoration) are designed to operate together to 

maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. 

It is the objective of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage and 

maintain habitat and, where feasible, to restore habitats that are degraded. These plans provide 

for the protection of areas that could contribute to the recovery of fish and, overall, improve 

riparian habitat and water quality throughout the basin. These objectives are accomplished 

through such activities as closing and rehabilitating roads, replacing culverts, changing grazing 

and logging practices, and re-planting native vegetation along streams and rivers. 

2.3.1.6 Conservation Needs 

The recovery planning process for the bull trout (USFWS 2002a, p. 49) has identified the 

following conservation needs (goals) for bull trout recovery: ( 1) maintain the current 

distribution of bull trout within core areas as described in recovery unit chapters, (2) maintain 

stable or increasing trends in abundance of bull trout as defined for individual recovery units, (3) 

restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies, 

and (4) conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange. 

21 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 122
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

The draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a, p. 62) identifies the following tasks needed 

for achieving recovery: (1) protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull 

trout, (2) prevent and reduce negative effects of nonnative fishes, such as brook trout, and other 

nonnative taxa on bull trout, (3) establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible 

with bull trout recovery, (4) characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow 

among local populations of bull trout, (5) conduct research and monitoring to implement and 

evaluate bull trout recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using 

feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery tasks, (6) use all available conservation 

programs and regulations to protect and conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats, (7) assess the 

implementation of bull trout recovery by management units, and (8) revise management unit 

plans based on evaluations. 

Another threat now facing bull trout is warming temperature regimes associated with global 

climate change. Because air temperature affects water temperature, species at the southern 

margin of their range that are associated with cold water patches, such as bull trout, may become 

restricted to smaller, more disjunct patches or become extirpated as the climate warms (Rieman 

et al. 2007, p. 1560). Rieman et al. (2007, pp. 1558, 1562) concluded that climate is a primary 

determining factor in bull trout distribution. Some populations already at high risk, such as the 

Jarbidge, may require "aggressive measures in habitat conservation or restoration" to persist 

(Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1560). Conservation and restoration measures that will benefit bull trout 

include protecting high quality habitat, reconnecting watersheds, restoring flood plains, and 

increasing site-specific habitat features important for bull trout, such as deep pools or large 

woody debris (Kinsella 2005, entire). 

2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area 

This section assesses the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors that have led to 

the current status of the species, its habitat and ecosystem in the action area. Also included in the 

environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action 

area that have already undergone section 7 consultations, and _the impacts of state and private 

actions which are contemporaneous with this consultation. 

2.4.1 Status of the Bull Trout in the Action Area 

The action area is located within five bull trout core areas: Selway River, South Fork Clearwater 

River, Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater River, Little-Lower Salmon River, and Middle Salmon 

River-Chamberlain. Table 2 below includes ratings of watershed and stream habitat condition by 

core area with local and potential local populations identified. Watershed condition ratings were 

based on watershed road density, streamside road density, landslide prone road density, and 

sediment yield. Stream condition ratings were based on cobble embeddedness, percent surface 

fines, percent fines by depth, large woody debris, and pool frequency. These indicators were 

included because they could potentially be affected by motorized use or are correlated with 

motorized use. 

The Forest found that in most cases there was a range of values for habitat condition within 5th 

Field HUC watersheds. Where the actual ranges fell between two categories, both categories are 

indicated below (e.g., Mod - Low). Where named watersheds within the 5th Field HUC 

watersheds deviated markedly from the 5th Field HUC as a whole, these watersheds were split 

22 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 123
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

out and given separate ratings (e.g., Upper Crooked River was split from the rest of the 

watershed). 

Table 2. Watershed and stream condition for bull trout core areas and populations within the DRAMVU 

action area (Modified from Assessment Table 2). 

Core Area Principle Named Streams Watershed Stream 

(Local population = Condition Condition 

LP; Potential Local 

Population = PLP) -

I' I . Selway River I 

Running Creek (LP) Upper Running, Lower High High 

Running, Eagle 

Bear Creek (LP) Upper Bear, Wahoo, Middle High High 

Bear, Lower Cub, Upper 

Cub, Paradise, Lower Bear 

Moose Creek (LP) East Moose, Cedar, North High High 

Moose, WestMoose,Rhoda 

Three Links Creek Three Links, Meeker, Martin, High High 

(PLP) Mink, Pinchot, Otter 

Meadow Creek (LP) Upper Meadow, East High High 

Meadow, Sable, Buck Lake, 

Horse 

Gedney Creek (PLP) Gedney High High 

O'Hara, Swiftwater Mod Low 

Goddard Mod Mod 

South Fork 

Clearwater 

Red River (LP) Upper Red River, South Fork Low Mod-Low 

Red River, Middle Red 

River, Lower Red River 

American River (PLP East Fork American River, Mod Mod-Low 

Lower American River, Elk 

Creek 

Upper American River High High 

Crooked River (LP) Lower Crooked River, Mod Mod-Low 

Deadwood Creek 

Upper Crooked River High High 

Newsome Creek (LP) Upper Newsome Creek, Mod Low 

Lower Newsome Creek 

Upper South Fork Tenmile (LP), Twentymile High Mod-High 

Clearwater River Creeks 

Mainstem and face drainages Mod-Low Mod-Low 

Johns Creek (LP) Upper Johns Creek, Lower High High-Mod 

Johns Creek, Gospel Creek 

Middle South Fork Meadow (PLP) Low-Mod Low 

Clearwater River Mill (PLP) Mod Mod 

Lower-Middle Fork 

Clearwater 

Middle Fork Big Smith, Suttler, Maggie, Mod Mod 

Clearwater River Lodge 

Clear Creek (PLP) Upper Clear, South Fork Mod Mod-Low 

23 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 124
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

Core Area Principle Named Streams 

(Local population = 

LP; Potential Local 

Population = PLP) 

Clear, Lower Clear 

Little -Lower Salmon 

River 

Salmon River- Kelly, Allison, Berg 

Partridge (LP) 

Slate Creek (LP) Slate, North Fork Slate, Little 

Slate, Van Buren 

Rapid River (LP) Upper Rapid River, Copper 

Creek, West Fork Rapid 

River, Lower Rapid River 

Middle Salmon River 

-Chamberlain 

Sabe Creek (LP) Hamilton, Upper Sabe, 

Lower Sabe 

Bargamin Creek (LP) Upper Bargamin, Middle 

Bargamin, Lower Bargamin 

Sheep Creek (LP) Sheep, Indian, Bull, Bear, 

California 

Crooked Creek (PLP) Upper Crooked, Big, Lake, 

Lower Crooked 

Wind River (LP) Wind River, Meadow 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Watershed Stream 

Condition Condition 

Mod Low 

Mod Mod-Low 

High High 

High High 

High High 

High High 

High-Mod Mod- High 

High-Mod High 

Table 2 shows that there are many local and potential local populations distributed throughout 

the action area potentially impacted by DRAMVU implementation. However, as discussed in 

section 2.5 below, the primary pathway for the DRAMVU to result in significant effects to bull 

trout is at stream fords. Under the proposed DRAMVU, the Forest will continue to permit 

motorized trail use at six fords2 in bull trout watersheds. These crossings are on Newsome Creek 

in the Newsome Creek local population, Mill Creek in the Mill Creek potential local population, 

Kirks Fork and West Fork American River in the American River potential local population, and 

Deadhorse Creek (two crossing) in the Slate Creek local population (Table 3). There are no road 

fords open for motorized use that will impact bull trout. Therefore the primary focus of the 

remainder of this Opinion will be on these six trail crossings in the South Fork Clearwater River 

and Little-Lower Salmon River core areas. 

2 The Assessment only identified five crossings, but an additional crossing on Newsome Creek was discovered after 

the Assessment was fmalized (Thompson 2012, in !itt). 

24 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 125
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Table 3. Bull trout use and road density for bull trout populations potentially affected by motorized use of 

trail fords. 

Core Bull Trout Use (SAR = Subadult and 

Area/Population Adult Rearing; SSR = Suspected Road Density (miles/square mile) 

and Stream Spawning and Rearing) 

South Fork Clearwater River Core Area 

Newsome Creek 

(Newsome Creek SAR (lower Newsome Creek) 4.8 (IDEQ 2003, p. 120) 

LP) 

Mill Creek (Mill SAR 3.0 (IDEQ 2003, p. 119) CreekPLP) 

Kirks Fork 

(American River SAR 1.7 (IDEQ 2003, p. 120) 

PLP) 

West Fork 

American River SSR 3.7 (CBBTTAT, p. 68) (American River 

PLP) 

Little-Lower Salmon River Core Area 

Deadhorse Creek SAR 0.97 (USFS 2000, p. 5-19) (Slate Creek LP) 

Newsome Creek Local Population 

Newsome Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Clearwater River upstream 7.7 miles 

(mi) provides FMO habitat; spawning and rearing habitat occurs upstream an additional4.4 mi 

with presumed spawning and rearing habitat occurring upstream an additional3.5 mi to its 

headwaters. 

Bull trout occur in Newsome, Pilot, and Baldy Creeks, and the lower reaches of Bear, Beaver, 

and Mule Creeks. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game documented 34 bull trout in the 

Newsome Creek watershed during surveys conducted in 1993. In 1998, Forest biologists 

recorded 32 bull trout in Pilot Creek. Current (since 1985) bull trout spawning and early rearing 

are known to occur in upper Newsome, Pilot, and Baldy Creeks and are suspected in Beaver 

Creek (Forest Service 2005, p. 19). · 

Bull trout status in the Newsome Creek watershed is considered to be weak throughout most 

areas for which there is available information, except for the headwaters of Pilot Creek which is 

considered a strong population thought to be comprised of resident fish (Forest Service 2005, p. 

19). 

25 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 126
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

Mill Creek Potential Local Population 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Mill Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Clearwater River upstream 8.4 miles (mi) to 

Merton Creek provides FMO habitat. Merton Creek from its confluence upstream 1.0 mi 

provides spawning and rearing habitat. Bull trout use of Mill Creek has been characterized as 

sporadic (CBBTI AT 1998, p. 39) but bull trout adult and subadult rearing has been documented 

in Mill Creek and Merton Creek, a tributary to Mill Creek (Fish and Wildlife Service 2002d, p. 

30). Although no spawning has been documented in the drainage, surveys conducted in 2008 

and 2009 found juvenile bull trout in the lower reach of Mill Creek near the confluence with the 

South Fork Clearwater River (Forest Service 2010, p. 25). 

American River Potential Local Population 

Kirks Fork from its confluence with the American River upstream 1.3 mi provides bull trout 

spawning and rearing habitat. The West Fork American River from its confluence with the 

American River upstream 5.0 mi to its headwaters provides presumed spawning and rearing 

habitat (USFWS 2010, pp. 532-533). However bull trout spawning has not been documented in 

these watersheds. Bull trout use ofboth Kirks Fork and the West Fork American River appears 

to be limited to occasional adult and subadult rearing. 

Slate Creek Local Population 

Deadhorse Creek from its confluence with Little Slate Creek upstream 5.7 mi to its headwaters 

provides spawning and rearing habitat (USFWS 2010, p. 673). Whether spawning actually 

occurs in Deadhorse Creek is unclear. The Assessment indicates that it does not, but the Forest 

previously indicated that bull trout spawning may occur in the lower reaches (USFS 2000, map 

28). . 

2.4.2 Factors Affecting the Bull Trout in the Action Area 

Aquatic habitats on the Forest have been affected over the years by many types of activities. 

·Road construction and maintenance, timber harvest, domestic livestock grazing, mining, trail 

construction and maintenance, road ~ecommissioning, and instream restoration are all activities 

that have affected habitat and fish. Past activities h~ve indirectly affected aquatic resources 

through change~ in watershed condition, sediment delivery and deposition, water temperature, 

large woody debris recruitment, and surface and subsurface flow regimes. Direct effects have 

resulted from domestic livestock grazing in streamside areas, establishment of crossing structures 

at road/stream intersections and trail/stream intersections (e.g., culverts and bridges), 

construction of roads and trails in streamside areas, and in-channel mining. Many road/stream 

crossings become barriers to the migration of fish and other aquatic organisms. Road and trail 

stream crossings, fords in particular, are often sources of sedimentation. 

The Forest has implemented watershed and instream restoration activities to ameliorate the 

adverse effects of land management actions in many areas. These activities include road/trail 

crossing upgrades, road/trail decommissioning, stream channel reconstruction, large woody 

debris placement, riparian planting, and riparian fencing. In addition, the Forest has been 

replacing fords in fish bearing streams on open roads with bridges or other crossing structures. 

Changes in hydrology and temperature caused by changing climate have the potential to 

negatively impact aquatic ecosystems in Idaho, with salmonid fishes being especially sensitive. 

Average annual temperature increases due to increased carbon dioxide are affecting snowpack, 

26 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 127
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

peak runoff, and base flows of streams and rivers (Mote et al. 2003, p. 45). Increases in water 

temperature may cause a shift in the thermal suitability of aquatic habitats (Poff et al. 2002, p. 

iii). For species that require colder water temperatures to survive and reproduce, warmer 

temperatures could lead to significant decreases in available suitable habitat. Increased 

frequency and severity of flood flows during winter can affect incubating eggs and alevins in the 

streambed and over-wintering juvenile fish. Eggs of fall spawning fish, such as bull trout, may 

suffer high levels of mortality when exposed to increased flood flows (ISAB 2007, p. iv). 

Because of the numerous ecological effects of road construction and associated activities, such as 

timber harvest, (Jones et al. 2000, p.76, Trombulak and Frissell2000, p.18) road density can be 

used as an indicator of watershed condition. Road density of less than one mile of road per 

square mile of watershed indicates high watershed condition, one to three miles indicates 

moderate condition, and greater than three miles indicates low condition (National Marine 

Fisheries Service (North Central Idaho local adaptation) 1996, p. 1). There appears to be an 

inverse relationship between watershed road density and bull trout occurrence in that bull trout 

typically do not occur where road densities exceed 1. 7 mi per square mi (Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002a, p. 18). Bull trout population strongholds occur most often in 

undisturbed/roadless areas (Quigley and Arbelide 1997, p. 1183; Kessler et al. 2001, p. ES-1). 

2.4.2.1 Core Area Road Density 

Table 4 below shows the existing road density in each of the affected core areas. As shown in 

the table, road densities at the core area scale are 0.2 milsquare mi for the Selway River, 0.3 for 

the Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain, 1.4 for the South Fork Clearwater River, 1.6 for the 

Little-Lower Salmon River core area, and 1.9 for the Lower- Middle Fork Clearwater River .. 

Based on the guidance above, these road densities indicate high habitat condition for the Selway 

River and Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain core areas and moderate habitat conditions for the 

remammg core areas. 

We conclude that at the core area scale, existing road networks are having some negative impacts 

on bull trout populations in the South Fork Clearwater River, Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater 

River, and Little-Lower Salmon River core areas. ·Road densities· are having little impact on the 

Selway River and Salmon River-Chamberlain core areas. We assume that, in most cases, road 

densities within the local populations (strongholds) are sufficiently low to maintain high habitat 

conditions (e.g., Deadhorse Creek in the Slate· Creek local population). The DRAMVU will 

maintain existing road densities. 

Table 4. Road density by core area (from Table 3 of Fish and Wildlife Service 2005, pp. 46-50). 

Core Area Road Density Habitat Condition 

(miles/square mile) based on Road 

Density 

Selway River 0.2 High 

South Fork Clearwater 1.4 Moderate 

River 

Lower-Middle Fork 1.9 Moderate 

27 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 128
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVV 

Core Area Ro~d Density 

(.miles/square mile) 

Clearwater River 

Little-Lower Salmon River 1.6 

Middle Salmon River- 0.3 

Chamberlain 

Habitat Condition 

based on Road 

Density 

Moderate 

High 

2.4.2.2 Local Population Road Density 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

As state above, road density of less than one mile of road per square mile of watershed indicates 

high watershed condition, one to three miles indicates moderate condition, and greater than three 

miles indicates low condition (USNOA (North Central Idaho local adaptation) 1996, p. 1 ). At 

the scale of the six trail ford crossings (Table 3) we conclude that Deadhorse Creek in the Slate 

Creek local population with road density of 0.97 mil square mi is in high habitat condition. 

Newsome Creek (Newsome Creek local population), Mill Creek (Mill Creek potential local 

population) and West Fork American River (American River potential local population) are in 

low habitat condition with road densities of 4.8, 3.0 and 3.7 respectively. Kirks Fork (American 

River potential local population) is in moderate condition based on a road density of 1. 7. 

The Forest has been working over the past two decades to identify and minimize adverse 

watershed effects from roads and trails, particularly those associated with erosion and sediment 

delivery. Projects to minimize road effects have included closing roads and trails to motorized 

use, decommissioning unneeded roads and trails, relocating trails, improving stream crossings, 

and upgrading drainage and surfacing. Many of these activities have been included in past 

consultations. 

2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action 

Effects of the action considers the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species 

and/or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or 

interdependent with that action. These effects are considered along with the environmental 

baseline and the predicted cumulative effects to determine the overall effects to the species. 

Direct effects are defined as those that result from the proposed action and directly or 

immediately impact the species or its habitat. Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or 

will result from, the proposed action and are later in time, but still reasonably certain to occur. 

An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the 

proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no 

independent utility apart from the action under consultation. 

2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

The proposed DRAMVU closes the Forest to unregulated cross-country motorized travel and 

authorizes changes f9r roads and trails regarding allowable use and timing restrictions. No new 

construction or decommissioning is proposed; however, the DRAMVU decision could result in 

future decisions to implement road decommissioning or other road and trail related activities, but 

28 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 129
Core Area 

Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

such actions would be consulted on separately. Although the miles of roads and trails on the 

ground will not change under the DRAMVU, the miles of routes designated as motorized would 

decrease. When compared to the existing condition, closing the Forest to unregulated crosscountry motorized use, in addition to prescribing the conditions-of allowable off-route motorized 

use associated with dispersed camping, is expected to reduce the effects of motorized use along 

streams, including those associated with sediment delivery. 

Table 5 summarizes how the DRAMVU will affect the existing conditions on the Forest in terms 

of acres open to cross-country motorized travel, miles of motorized roads, miles of motorized 

roads within RHCAs, miles of motorized trails within RHCAs, number of motorized stream 

crossings, and number of motorized fords within the five affected core areas. As previously 

Table 5. Changes to motorized use resulting from DRAMVU by core area (B =Baseline/Existing Condition; 

D=DRAMVU). 

Number 

Acres Open to Miles Miles Miles Motorized Number 

Unregulated Miles Motorized Motorized Motorized Motorized Crossings Motorized 

Motorized Use Roads Trails Roads- Trails- (includes Fords RHCA RHCA bridges and 

culverts) 

B D B D B D B D B D B D B D 

Selway River 

309,515 0 178 176 224 78 39 39 47 12 276 174 149 52 

LowerMiddle Fork 

' Clearwater 

River 33,538 0 89 77 13 8 II 10 4 3 57 53 12 10 

Middle 

Salmon 

RiverChamberlain 161,507 0 206 205 58 33 42 42 9 5 190 169 31 21 

Little-Lower 

Salmon River 

South Fork 

Clearwater 

River 

Total 

Percent 

Reduction 

231784 0 609 602 178 122 101 100 41 20 595 537 139 86 

267,977 0 946 904 213 144 187 186 42 19 892 796 129 63 

1,004,321 0 2,028 1,964 686 385 380 377 143 59 2,010 1,729 460 232 

100 3 44 <1 59 14 so 

stated, upon implementation ofDRAMVU there will be no acres on the Forest open to 

unregulated motorized use. There will be minor decreases in miles of motorized roads, miles of 

motorized roads in RHCAs, and number of motorized stream crossings (reductions of 3 percent, 

less than 1 percent, and 14 percent, respectively). There will be significant reductions in the 

29 

EFFECT 

OF THE 

DRAMVU 

TO 

BASELINE 

Maintain 

Upper; 

Restore 

Lower 

Maintain 

Maintain 

Maintain 

Little 

Salmon; 

Restore 

Lower 

Salmon 

Restore 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 130
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

miles of motorized trails, miles of motorized trails in RHCAs and in the number of motorized 

fords (reductions of 44 percent, 59 percent, and 50 percent). 

At the core area scale, the DRAMVU will maintain baseline habitat conditions in the Selway 

River (restore in lower Selway), the Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater River, the Middle Salmon 

River-Chamberlain, and the Little-Lower Salmon River core areas (restore in the Lower Salmon 

River). The DRAMVU will help restore habitat" conditions in the South Fork Clearwater River 

core area. 

2.5.1.1 Assessment of the Potential Changes to the Environmental 

Baseline 

The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) is used to assess the effects of proposed actions on 

the bull trout and its habitat. Specific MPI indicators that could be affected by designation of 

motorized use on existing roads and trails, as well as designation of new routes and 

establishment of conditions for limited off-route motorized use associated with access to 

dispersed campsites, include the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Width/Depth Ratio 

Streambank Stability 

Floodplain Connectivity 

Turbidity/Suspended Sediment 

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients 

Cobble Embeddedness 

Percent Surface Fines 

Harassment 

Redd Disturbance 

Effects to these indicators would generally not occur at the watershed scale; they would be 

localized and limited to specific sites in streams, such as trail fords and some routes within 

streamside RHCAs. Others, such as turbidity/suspended sediment, harassment, redd disturbance, 

and chemical contamination, would be transitory in time, and the risk of effect would be 

associated with discrete events at. specific sites (e.g., a motorized vehicle being driven through a 

stream). 

As previously mentioned the watershed route density, streamside route density, and landslide 

prone route density indicators would not change under the proposed action, nor would the total 

miles of routes or number of stream crossings. Changes are based on designation of motorized 

uses only. 

Effects to the MPI indicators listed above are summarized as follows. 

• Effects to Watershed Condition Indicators: Of the seven indicators, a positive 

response (restore) is expected on the riparian vegetation condition and the sediment yield 

indicators across the Forest. The elimination of .cross county travel, reduction of 

motorized travel in riparian areas and the reduction of motorized trail miles (including 

stream crossings and riparian trails) are expected to substantially reduce the risk of 

riparian and streambank degradation, erosion, sedimentation, and aquatic habitat 

disturbance due to off-route motorized travel and dispersed recreational use. No changes 

30 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 131
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

to watershed road density, streamside road density, landslide prone road density, 

peak/base flow and water yield indicators will occur. 

• Effects to Channel Condition Indicators: The reduction of motorized trail stream 

crossings and trails within riparian areas will allow a positive response in the three 

indicators: width/depth ratio, streambank stability and floodplain connectivity. Although 

existing channel conditions and dynamics will be maintained at existing trail stream 

crossings, monitoring of selected critical trails, prompt restoration of problem areas, and 

general trail maintenance are expected to reduce the risks to these indicators. 

• Effects to Water Quality Indicators: No short-term measurable changes in stream 

temperatures are expected due to the reduction of activities within the RHCAs. Slight-tomoderate restoration in overall riparian conditions are expected in some RHCA's due to 

the elimination of cross county travel, reduction of motorized travel in riparian areas and 

the reduction of motorized trail miles (including stream crossings and riparian trails). 

A long-term decrease in suspended sediment is expected in most streams due to theelimination of cross county travel, reduction of motorized travel in riparian areas and the 

reduction of motorized trail miles (including stream crossings and riparian trails). Any 

substrate changes and redistribution of fine sediment produced by motorized use would 

be localized and not measurable in stream reaches downstream of the crossing location. 

Due to the reduction of motorized stream trails and stream crossings, the baseline 

condition of the chemical contaminants/nutrients indicator is expected to be slightly 

improved due to a lower risk of chemical contamination. 

• Effects to Habitat Access Indicators: No activity is proposed which will create a 

barrier to adult or juvenile aquatic species. However, ongoing routine maintenance of 

existing trail fords in bull trout habitat may result in continued minimal impediment to 

bull trout movement. Routine trail maintenance activities have been previously consulted 

on under the Trail Maintenance Programmatic Biological Assessment (USPS 1999, p. 

131-140). 

• Effects to Habitat Elements Indicators: No changes in the condition ofthe cobble 

embeddedness, percent surface fines, percent fines by depth indicators are expected 

within any stream reach ofbull trout streams. Any substrate changes and redistribution 

of fine sediment produced by motorized use will be localized and not measurable in 

stream reaches downstream of the crossing location. Closing the Forest to unregulated 

off-route motorized use is expected to result in restoring the condition of some indicators. 

Slight positive changes in the large woody debris, pool frequency, off-channel habitat, 

and habitat refugia are expected due to the reduction of activities (i.e., motorized trails 

within riparian areas and stream crossings) within the RHCA. 

• Effects to Take Indicators: No changes to the baseline condition of the harassment, 

redd disturbance, or juvenile harvest indicators for bull trout are expected. With the 

exception of the trail crossings in Deadhorse Creek, the field reviews did not find any 

spawning habitat at the trail crossings in the streams that have potential habitat for bull 

trout. In addition, the field reviews found marginal rearing habitat (holding areas) at the 

trail crossings which will substantially reduce, but not eliminate, the likelihood of 

31 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 132
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

harassment or injury to bull trout juveniles via motorized vehicles. Due to limited 

changes to existing motorized roads, no road fords in occupied bull trout habitat, and 

reduction in motorized trail stream crossings, the proposed DRAMVU is expected to 

reduce the risks to the baseline condition of the take indicators. As a precautionary 

measure the Forest will monitor the selected trail crossings on bull trout streams to 

determine if future travel (motorized and non-motorized) at these stream crossings is 

causing direct or indirect impacts on bull trout (see Appendix A of this Opinion). 

Accessing existing recreation sites within the riparian areas is not expected to change 

(and may improve) the baseline condition of the take indictors because of closures and 

site rehabilitation. Similar to the trail crossings, the Forest will monitor dispersed 

recreation sites and associated access to determine if existing sites located within the 

RHCAs and within bull trout drainages are meeting the standards and guidelines 

established to meet or not retard the attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives 

(as defined in PACFISH and INFISH amendments to the Forest Plan). 

• Effects to Specific Bull Trout Indicators: Due to limited changes in existing motorized 

roads, no road fords in occupied bull trout habitat, and reduction in the number of 

motorized trail stream crossings, the proposed DRAMVU is expected to reduce the risks 

to the -five take indicators for bull trout. With the exception of two crossings in 

Deadhorse Creek, the field reviews did not find spawning habitat at the trail crossings in 

the streams that have potential habitat for bull trout. In addition the field review~ found 

marginal rearing habitat (holding areas) at the trail crossings. These factors will 

substantially reduce (but not eliminate) the likelihood of harassment or injury to bull trout 

juveniles and adults from motorized vehicles. As a precautionary measure the Forest will 

monitor the trail crossings on fish bearing streams to determine if future travel 

(motorized and non-motorized) at these stream crossings is causing direct or indirect 

impacts on bull trout (see Appendix A of the Opinion- Monitoring Plan). 

In conclusion, we are not expecting significant effects to bull trout except at six trail fords in bull 

trout habitat,_ as discussed below. All other components of the proposal will result in effects that 

are insignificant and/or discountable. There are no designated motorized streamside routes in 

known bull trout spawning areas. The restrictions associated with access to dispersed recreation 

sites should benefit bull trout. The Forest will monitor dispersed recreation sites and use 

adaptive management to reduce resource impacts. 

2.5.1.2 Effects of Trail Fords 

Potential effects of ford crossings on bull trout include generation of turbidity and suspended 

sediment, potentially crushing redds or juvenile fish, toxic effects oflubricants and fuels, and 

disturbance. As discussed below, the only anticipated adverse effect to bull trout from 

DRAMVU implementation is disturbance of any bull trout present when motorized vehicles use 

the crossings. 

The Forest identified six crossings as motorized trail fords on bull trout streams. There are no 

motorized road fords present that may affect bull trout. These trail crossings include one on 

Newsome Creek (Trail824), one on Mill Creek (Trail319), one on Kirks Fork {Trail830), one 

on West Fork American River {Trail837), and two on lower Deadhorse Creek {Trails 301 and 

329). Site specific characteristics of these six fords are described below. 

32 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 133
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

Newsome Creek 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Trail 824 begins at Sing Lee campground and immediately crosses Newsome Creek. The 

ford approaches are not steep and not eroding into the stream. The stream substrate at the 

crossing consists of large cobbles; spawning habitat is not present. There are no large pools 

present at the site to provide holding areas for bull trout (Thompson 2012, in /itt). Bull trout 

use Lower Newsome Creek primarily as migratory habitat3

. 

Mill Creek 

The Trail 319 ford crosses main Mill Creek below the mouth of Merton Creek. The Forest 

field reviewed this ford in 2009 and found the substrate at the ford consisted oflarge cobble 

with little or no deposited sediment. The Forest found no issues associated with motorized 

use of this ford. Bull trout adult and subadult rearing may occur at this crossing. 

Kirks Fork 

Trail 830 crosses Kirks Fork at the streams headwaters. Given low stream order, small 

stream size, and steep stream gradient, it is unlikely bull trout redds and juvenile rearing 

would be present at these locations; however, adult and subadult bull trout may be present. 

West Fork American River 

The Trail 837 ford on the West Fork American River is located in the upper one third of the 

watershed. The stream is small and shallow at the ford site. At low water it is less than three 

feet in width. This crossing was reviewed in September 2011. Bull trout adult and subadult 

rearing may occur at this crossing. 

Deadhorse Creek 

Three crossings (Trails 301 and 329) in Deadhorse Creek were reviewed in September 2011. 

The Forest indicates that suitable spawning habitat is present at both of the lower crossings 

(however, bull trout spawning has not been documented in the drainage). Little or no 

deposited sediment was noted at the fords in 2011, therefore a pulse of suspended sediment 

would not be expected to occur when a vehicle is driven through the stream. A vail able data 

(presence/absence) and casual observations of the sites do not suggest juvenile bull trout are 

present due to shallow water depth and lack of deep pools. As stated previously, the 

evidence is inconclusive on whether bull trout spawn in the vicinity of these crossings (bull 

trout redds have not been documented), but, at a minimum, we expect adult and subadult 

rearing at the two lower crossings.4 Bull trout are not expected at the upper crossing. 

3 The Forest plans to replace the ford with a bridge in 2013 or 2014 which would eliminate any effects to bull trout 

associated with motorized use of the ford. 

4 As of January 2012, bridges are proposed to be built at the lower two fords. Implementation will occur in 2013. 

Construction of bridges will remove direct effects from motorized use of the ford to any fish or redds that may be 

present in or downstream of the ford. 

33 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 134
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

The Forest's field review of the above fords did not indicate any sediment issues associated with 

any of the crossings. We are therefore not expecting turbidity/suspended sediment related effects 

to bull trout from continued use of these crossings. 

Vehicles crossing streams can potentially contaminate water from fuel leaks and lubricants or 

other automotive fluids that wash off the vehicle or drip into the water. Trace amounts of these 

chemicals are likely to be introduced with most crossings, but the expected low concentrations of 

these contaminants are not likely to pose a significant risk to fish or other aquatic species. 

Petroleum-based contaminants such as fuel, oil, and some hydraulic fluids are much lighter than 

water and do not readily mix with water. Consequently, these chemicals are likely to remain on 

the water surface and evaporate before significant exposure occurs. Ethylene glycol (the primary 

ingredient in antifreeze) has been observed to cause sublethal effects to rainbow trout at 

concentrations of20 giL (Staples et al. 2001, p. 380), but this is such a high concentration that 

adverse effects would be highly unlikely in flowing water. Brake fluid is also a mixture of 

glycols and glycol ethers, and has about the same toxicity as antifreeze. Based on these findings 

we conclude that the introduction of these chemicals at the six stream crossings poses an 

insignificant risk to bull trout. 

Bull trout may both see and hear motorized vehicles crossing at fords. Because sound waves are 

amplified in aquatic environments (Slabbekoom et al. 2010, p. 420), we expect that bull trout 

will be impacted at a greater distance from the sound of motor vehicles at the fords than from the 

sight of these vehicles. This distance is dependent upon ambient background noise (e.g., riffles, 

rapids, falls), the number of vehicles crossing, size of the vehicles, and engine noise levels. 

Hawkins and Johnstone (1978, p. 668) surmise that Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) can "detect 

footfalls on the bank, perhaps at considerable distances from the source." Unfortunately, the~e 

authors did not quantify this distance. At the other extreme of sound level and detection 

distance, Amoser et al. (2004, p. 3 796) conclude that char in a lake environment can hear power 

boat noise at distances up to 400 m (1312 feet). Given that there is probably considerable 

background noise (e.g., riffles) at the fords and vehicle noise will be less than that from power 

boats, we will conservatively use 300 feet as the distance at which bull trout may hear and be 

significantly disturbed by vehicle traffic at the fords. 

The Forest did nqt observe suitable holding water (e.g., pools) at any of the crossings, so we 

expect that bull trout use ofhabitat at the crossings is sporadic and temporary. Therefore, the 

number of bull trou,t potentially harassed by motorized vehicles will be small. Similarly, with 

the exception of the two lower crossings on Deadhorse Creek (where sp~wning habitat is present 

but spawning has not been documented), the Forest observed no spawning habitat at the 

crossings so the DRAMVU is not expected to affect spawning bull trout or redds at these 

crossings. We are not expecting any bull trout mortality (any life stage) associated with 

DRAMVU implementation. 

2.5.2 Effects of Interrelated or Interdependent Actions 

The Service has not identified any actions that are interrelated or interdependent with the 

proposed DRAMVU. 

2.6 Cumulative Effects 

The implementing regulations for section 7 define cumulative effects to include the effects of 

future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area 

34 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 135
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

considered in this Opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are 

not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act. 

Many of the categories of on-going activities with potential effects to bull trout were identified in 

the Status of the Species section of this Opinion. These activities include timber harvest, road · 

building and grazing, all of which are occurring in the action area. 

Illegal and inadvertent harvest of bull trout is also considered a cumulative effect. Harvest can 

occur through both misidentification and deliberate catch. Schmetterling and Long (1999, p. 1) 

found that only 44 percent of the anglers they interviewed in Montana could successfully identify 

bull trout. Being aggressive piscivores, bull trout readily take lures or bait (Ratliff and Howell 

1992, pp. 15-16). Idaho Department of Fish and Game report that 400 bull trout were caught and 

released in the regional (Clearwater administrative region) waters of the Salmon and Snake 

Rivers during the 2002 salmon and steelhead fishing seasons. In the Little Salmon River, 89 bull 

trout were caught and released during the same fishing seasons (Idaho Department ofFish and 

Game 2004, p. 11 ). Spawning bull trout are particularly vulnerable to harvest because the fish 

are easily observed during autumn low flow conditions. Hooking mortality rates range from 

4 percent for non-anadromous salmonids with the use of artificial lures and flies (Schill and 

Scarpella 1997, p. 1) to a 6.0 percent worst-case scenario for bull trout taken with bait 

(Cochnauer et. al. 2001, p. 21). Thus, even in cases where bull trout are released after being 

caught, some mortality can be expected. 

An additional cumulative effect to bull trout is global climate change. Warming of the global 

climate seems quite certain. Changes have already been observed in many species' ranges 

consistent with changes in climate (ISAB 2007, p. iii; Hansen et ·al. 2001, p. 767). Future 

climate change may lead to fragmentation of suitable habitats that may inhibit adjustment of 

plants and wildlife to climate change through range shifts (ISAB 2007, p. iii; Hansen et al. 2001, 

pp. 768-773). Changes due to climate change and global warming could be compounded 

considerably in combination with other disturbances such as fire and invasive species. Fire 

frequency and intensity have already increased in the past 50 years, particularly in the past 15 

years, in the shrub steppe and forested regions of the west (ISAB 2007, p. iii). Larger climatedriven fires can be expected in Idaho and Montana in the future. Small isolated bull trout 

populations will be at increased risk of extirpation in the event of larger and more numerous 

fires. In addition, the preference of bull trout for colder water temperatures gives them a 

competitive advantage over invasive species, such as brook trout, inhabiting warmer stream 

reaches. Rahel et. al. (2008, p. 552) state that "Climate change will produce a direct threat to 

bull trout through thermally stressful temperatures and an indirect threat by boosting the 

competitive ability of other trout species present." 

Although cumulative effects can be identified, we cannot quantify the magnitude of their impacts 

on bull trout populations. Except for climate change, we do not expect cumulative effects to 

appreciably alter the existing baseline condition in the action area during the 5-year lifetime of 

the project. We cannot be so certain on the effects of climate change. 

2.7 Conclusion 

The Service has reviewed the current status of bull trout, the environmental baseline for the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects. The Service concludes 

35 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 136
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

that direct effects to adult, sub adult, and juvenile bull trout in the action area will be limited to 

direct harassment from motorized vehicles crossing at trail fords in occupied bull trout streams. 

No spawning habitat occurs at four of the six identified crossings and bull trout spawning has not 

been documented at the two crossings on Deadhorse Creek with suitable spawning habitat. 

Therefore, spawning bull trout, eggs, or alevins are not expected to be affected by the 

DRAMVU. The Service does not expect the numbers, distribution, and reproduction ofbull 

trout in the action area, the South Fork Clearwater River or the Little-Lower Salmon River core 

areas5

, or in the Columbia Basin population segment will be changed as a result of this proposal. 

Therefore, it is the Service's biological opinion that the proposed action will not jeopardize the 

coterminous population ofbull trout. 

2.8 Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without specific exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm in the definition of take in the Act means an act which 

actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing·essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service 

as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to listed 

species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns 

which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of 

an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that 

is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited 

taking under the Act provided that such. taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of 

this Incidental Take Statement. 

The Forest has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take 

statement. If the Forest fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions the protective 

coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the 

Forest must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as 

specified in the incidental take· statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]. 

2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated 

Based on the best available information, the Service assumes the presence ofbull trout in the 

action area; however, it is difficult for us to anticipate the exact number of individual bull trout 

that will be taken as a result of the DRAMVU. Therefore, to address take associated with 

harassment ofbull trout through continued use of the six identified trail fords (Table 2), we will 

use the extent of up and downstream disturbance as a surrogate. We anticipate that all adult, -

5 Effects in the Selway River, Lower-Middle Fork Clearwater River, and Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain core 

areas are assessed to be insignificant and/or discountable. 

36 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 137
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

subadult, and juvenile bull trout within 300 feet of the six crossings will be subject to take in the 

form of harassment from direct exposure to disturbance when motorized vehicles use the 

crossings. This Incidental Take Statement is valid for 10 years from the signature date of this 

Opinion and only covers incidental take at the six identified stream crossings. 

We expect that no bull trout mortality will occur as a result ofDRAMVU implementation, and 

no lethal take is authorized. 

If incidental take anticipated by this document (i.e., harassment to bull trout within 300 feet of 

the six identified stream crossings) is exceeded, the Forest will immediately contact the Service 

to determine if consultation should be reinitiated. 

Authorized take will be exceeded if: 

• Motorized use of any of the six trail crossings increases to a point where significant 

maintenance is required (i.e., Level III maintenance, as described in the Trail 

Maintenance Biological Assessment (USFS 1999, p. 132)); or 

• Bull trout spawning is documented at any crossing. 

2.8.2 Effect of the Take 

In the accompanying Opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout across its range. 

The probability that the proposed DRAMVU will eliminate any local or potential local 

populations ofbull trout is insignificant. Local bull trout densities and distribution in the action 

area are not expected to be significantly altered. We do not expect any bull trout spawning areas 

to be affected by the DRAMVU. As the project will not directly affect the viability of any bull 

trout local or potential local populations, it is highly unlikely that the proposed action would 

impair productivity or population numbers of bull trout in the Clearwater River or Salmon River 

management units or in the Columbia River population segment. 

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

The Service concludes that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and 

appropriate to minimize the take of bull trout caused by the proposed action. 

• Minimize the potential for harassment to bull trout resulting from continued use of 

motorized stream crossings on bull trout streams. 

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions 

1. In addition to the provisions in the proposed Monitoring Plan, the Forest will monitor the 

six motorized stream crossings on bull trout streams on a yearly basis for 3 years. If 

monitoring results indicate that continued use of these crossings is resulting in increasing 

levels of impacts (e.g., increasing levels of rehabilitation work is required) the Forest ·will 

take measures to reduce the use of the impacted crossings. These measures may include 

37 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 138
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

closing the crossing, or installing a crossing structure such as a bridge or puncheon. A 

separate section 7 consultation will be needed for any of these measures that require a 

NEP A decision and that may affect listed species6

. 

2. The Forest will conduct bull trout redd surveys and fish demographic surveys at the 

crossings with the highest potential for occupancy by spawning and early rearing bull 

trout (i.e., the two crossings on Deadhorse Creek). Should the Forest find redds or 

juvenile bull trout, the Forest will close the crossings and reinitiate consultation with the 

Service. 

2~8.5 Reporting and Monitoring Requirement 

In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Federal agency or any applicant must 

report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the 

incidental take statement [(50 CPR 402.14 (i)(3)]. 

In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Federal agency or any applicant must 

report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the 

incidental take statement [(50 CPR 402.14 (i)(3)]. 

· 1. Upon completion of the required bull trout surveys, and annual monitoring of stream 

crossings and dispersed recreation sites, the Forest shall provide a report detailing the 

monitoring and survey results. The monitoring report will be sent to the following address 

by March 31 the year following monitoring and bull trout surveys: 

Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 

1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite J68 

Boise, Idaho 83 709 

2. Upon locating dead, injured, or sick bull trout, or upon observing destruction of redds as a 

result of Project activities, such activities shall be terminated and notification must be 

made within 24 hours to the Service's Division of Law Enforcement at (208) 378-5333. 

Additional protection measures will be developed through discussions with the Service. 

3. During DRAMVU implementation, the Forest shall promptly notify the Service of any 

emergency or unanticipated situations arising that may be detrimental for bull trout 

relative to the proposed activity. 

2.9 Conservation Re~ommendations 

Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

6 We acknowledge that the Assessment states that the two lower ford crossings on Deadhorse Creek are proposed for 

replacement with bridges in 2013. The Trail824 crossing on Newsome Creek will be replaced with a bridge in 2013 

or 2014 (Thompson 2012, in /itt). Terms and Conditions 1 and 2 will apply until the bridges are in place. 

38 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 139
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery programs, or to develop new information on listed species. 

1. Develop a method to monitor trends in the number of users crossing streams with the 

highest potential for bull trout presence. 

2. Continue to decommission roads and upgrade stream crossings especially in the South 

Fork Clearwater River core area where core area road density is 1.4 miles/square mile . . 3. Analyze the existing road network on the Forest for impacts to bull trout, particularly 

unauthorized roads not on the MVUM, and continue to prioritize decommissioning to 

address those impacts. 

2.10 Reinitiation Notice 

This concludes formal consultation on the DRAMVU. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, 

reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or 

control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: 

1. The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded. 

2. New information reveals ·effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or 

critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion. 

3. The agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed 

species or critical habitat that was not considered in this Opinion. 

4. A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In 

instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations 

causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. 

39 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 140
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

3. LITERATURE CITED. 

3.1 Published Literature 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Amoser, S., L.E. Wysocki, and F. Ladich. 2004. Noise emission during the first powerboat race 

in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 116 (6): 3789-3797. 

Berg, R.K. and E.K. Priest. 1995. Appendix Table 1: A list of stream and lake fishery surveys 

conducted by U.S. Forest Service and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks fishery 

biologists in the Clark Fork River Drainage upstream of the confluence of the Flathead 

River from the 1950s to the present. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Job Progress 

Report, Project F-78-R-1, Helena, Montana. 

Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits ofbull char, Salvelinus conjluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo 

gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

101(1): 56-62. 

Bon4, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the effects of · 

human activity on the species. Pages 1-4 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, editors. 

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Brewin, P .A: and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution maps for bull trout in Alberta. Pages 206-

216 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. ·Friends of the Bull Trout 

Conference Proceedings. 

Buchanan, D. M. and S. V. Gregory. 1997. Development ofwater temperature standards to 

protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. Pages 1-

8 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout 

Conference Proceedings. 

Burkey, T.V. 1989. Extinction in nature reserves: the effect of fragmentation and the 

importance of migration between reserve fragments. Oikos 55:75-81. 

Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus conjluentus 

(Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64(3): 139-174. 

Clearwater Basin Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team (CBBTT AT). 1998. South Fork 

Clearwater River Subbasin Bull Trout Problem Assessment. Prepared for the State of 

Idaho by the CBBTTAT. November 1998. 77 pp. 

Cochnauer, T., E. Schriever, and D. Schiff. 2001. Idaho Department ofFish and Game Regional 

Fisheries Management Investigations: North Fork Clearwater River Bull Trout, Project 

9. F-73-R-22. 

Donald, D.B. and D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche 

overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian J oumal of Zoology 71: 

238-247. 

40 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 141
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Dunham, J.B. and B.E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure ·ofbull trout: influences of 

physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications 

9(2):642-655. 

Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. 

Northwest Science 63(4): 133-143. 

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature review. Willamette 

National Forest. Eugene, Oregon. 

Goetz, F. 1994. Distribution and juvenile ecology of bull trout (Salve linus confluentus) in the 

Cascade Mountains. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon .. 

Hansen, A.J., R.P. Neilson, V.H. Dale, C.H. Flather, L.R. Iverson, D.J. Currie, S. Shafer, R. 

Cook, and P.J. Bartlein. 2001. Global Change in Forests: Responses of Species, 

Communities, and Biomes. BioScience 51(9):765-779. 

Hawkins, A.D. and A.D.F. Johnstone .. 1978. The hearing of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. 

Journal ofFish Biology 13:655-73. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin 

Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads. Boise, Idaho. Available at: 

http://www .deq.idaho.gov/media/453 5 50-

water data reports surface water tmdls clearwater river sf clearwater river sf entir 

e.pdf(last accessed May 22, 2012) 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 1995. List of stream extirpations for bull trout in 

Idaho. 

Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 2004. 2003 Bull Trout Conservation Program Plan and 

2002 Report. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 136 pp. 

Jakober, M. 1995. Autumn and winter movement and habitat use of resident bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout in Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 

Montana. 

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. 2001. Effects of roads on 

hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation 

Biology 14(1 ):76-85. 

Kessler, J., J. Wood, C. Bradley and J. Rhodes. 2001. Imperiled western trout and the importance 

ofroadless areas. Western Native Trout Campaign, Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, 

Oregon. 

Kinsella, S.R. 2005. Weathering the Change- Helping Trout in the West Survive the Impacts 

of Global Warming. Available at: 

www.montanatu.org/issuesandprojects/climatechange.pdf (last accessed January 11, 

2011) 

41 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 142
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics ofbull trout in the 

Columbia and Klamath River drainages. Conservation Biology 7(4):856-865. 

Leary, R.F. and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic confirmation ofsympatric bull trout and Dolly 

Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715-

720. 

Leathe, S.A. and P. Graham. 1982. Flathead Lake fish food habits study. E.P .A. through 

Steering Committee for the Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study. 

Light, J., L. Herger and M. Robinson. 1996. Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation 

strategy, a conceptual framework for recovery. Part One. The Klamath Basin Bull Trout 

Working Group. 

Meefe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, 

Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, K.N. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, D.P. Lettenmaier, N.J. 

Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. 

Preparing for climatic change: The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Climatic Change 61:45-88. 

Newton, J.A. and S. Pribyl. 1994. Bull trout population summary: Lower Deschutes River 

Subbasin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon. 

Poff, N. L., M. M. Brinson, and J. W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems & global climate 

change: Potential impacts on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the 

United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review ofbull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in Howell, P. J. and D. V. 

Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon 

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Quigley, T.M. and J.J. Arbelbide. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath .and Great basins. Vol. III. 117 4-1185pp. 

Rahel, F.J., B. Bierewagen, andY. Taniguchi. 2008. Managing aquatic species of conservation 

concern in the face of climate change and invasive species. Conservation Biology 

22(3):551-561. 

Ratliff, D. E. and P. J. Howell. 1992. The Status of Bull Trout Populations in Oregon. Pages 

10-17 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain 

Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

Rich, C.F., Jr. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident bull trout 

in fragmented habitats, western Montana. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, . 

Bozeman, Montana. · 

Rieman, B.E. and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation 

criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756-764. 

42 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 143
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. Mcintyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

ofbull trout. General Technical Report INT-302, Intermountain Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise, Idaho. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. Mcintyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat 

patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124 (3): 285-296. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. Mcintyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull trout redd counts. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 132-141. 

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status and likely future trends of 

bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath basins. 

Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, and D. Meyers. 2007. 

Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the 

Interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

136:1552-1565. 

Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.H. Lachner, R.N. Lea and W.B. Scott. 

1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and 

Canada. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 12, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Rode, M. 1990. Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus Suckley, in the McCloud River: status and 

recovery recommendations. Administrative Report Number 90-15. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem 

fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32. 

Schill, D.J. 1992. River and stream investigations. Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 

Schill, D.J. and R.L. Scarpella. 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout 

fisheries: a social issue. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(4): 873-

881. 

Schmetterling, D.A. and M.H. Long. 1999. Montana anglers' inability to identify bull trout and 

other salmonids. Fisheries 24: 24-27. 

Sexauer, H.M. and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile trout in four streams located 

in the Eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-370 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brown and 

M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. 

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opseeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, and A.N. Popper. A noisy 

spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution 25: 419-427 

Staples, C.A., J.B. Williams, G.R. Craig, K.M. Roberts. 2001. Fate, effects and potential 

environmental risks of ethylene glycol: a review. Chemosphere 43:377-383. 

Thomas, G. 1992. Status ofbull trout in Montana. Report prepared for Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. 

Trombulak, S.C.and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. 

43 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 144
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/ Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Chapter 1, Introduction. 137pp. In: Bull 

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Chapter 2, Klamath River Recovery Unit, 

Oregon. 82pp. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002c. Chapter 25, St. Mary-Belly River Recovery 

Unit, Montana. 134 pp. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002d. Chapter 16, Clearwater River Recovery Unit, 

Idaho. 196 pp. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002e. Chapter 17, Salmon River Recovery Unit, 

Idaho. 194 pp. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 132 + xiii pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget 

Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of 

In: Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004c. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget 

Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvel{nus confluentus). Volume II (of 

II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 + xvi pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Bull Trout Core Area Conservation Status 

Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland? Oregon. 95pp. plu~ appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Recovery Units and Jeopardy Determinations 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Director Memorandum: 

FWS/AES/DCHRS/024358. March 6, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. 53pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and NMFS). 

1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. 351 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1999. South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment. Nez 

Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000. Slate Creek Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. 

Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 604 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005. Population Viability Assessment Upper South Fork 

Clearwater River: Spring Chinook, Snake River Steelhead Trout, Westslope Cutthroat 

44 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 145
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Trout, Columbia River Bull Trout, and Pacific Lamprey. Nez Perce National Forest, 

Grangeville, Idaho. 43 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Final Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Designated 

Routes and Motor Vehicle Use, Listed Fishes and Plants. Nez Perce National Forest, 

Grangeville, Idaho. 67 pp. plus appendices. 

U.S. NOAA Fisheries Service (USNOAA). 1996. Making Endangered Species Determinations 

of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. National Marine 

Fisheries Service Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation 

Branch, August 1996. Local adaptation by Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater National 

Forest, and Nez Perce National Forest through the Levell Streamlining Process. North 

Central Idaho Levell Team, Grangeville, Idaho. 

Watson, G. and T. Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance ofbull trout: 

an investigation into hierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 17:237-252. 

Whitesel, T.A., J. Brostrom, T. Cummings, J. Delavergne, W. Fredenberg, H. Schaller, P. 

Wilson, and G. Zydlewski. 2004. Bull Trout Recovery Planning: A review of the 

science associated with population structure and size. Science Team Report #2004-01. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon. 

Ziller, J.S. 1992. Distribution and relative abundance ofbull trout in the Sprague River 

Subbasin, Oregon. Pages 18-29 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings 

of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

3.2 In Litteris References 

Thompson, K. 2012, in /itt. Email from Katherine Thompson, Fisheries Biologist (U.S. Forest 

Service, Grangeville, Idaho) to Clay Fletcher, Biologist (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Boise, Idaho). Subject: Information on additional ford in bull trout critical habitat. May 

17,2012. 

45 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 146
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce/Ciearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

4. APPENDICES 

4.1 Appendix A - Aquatic Monitoring Plan (From 

Assessment) 

Travel Planning Project 

Nez Perce National Forest 

MONITORING PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET 

Type of Monitoring: Implementation and Effectiveness (Water Quality & Aquatic Resources) 

Project Name: OHV Travel Planning Project (2012-2016) 

Goal: The goal of the best management practices and design features as described in the 

Environmental Impact Statement (U.S.D.A. Forest Service- Nez Perce National Forest 2012) is to 

meet Forest Plan standards. Specifically for aquatic resources, tbe Forest Plan states ''manage water 

quality and stream conditions to assure that National Forest management activities do not cause 

permanent or long-term damage to existing or specified beneficial uses". The overall goal of this 

monitoring project is to determine if authorized travel (motorized and non-motorized) is causing 

direct or indirect impacts to aquatic resources. 

Objectives: (1) Determine if travel (motorized and non-motorized) is causing direct or indirect 

aquatic impacts on selected trails within drainages that have ESA listed fish species. (2) Determine 

if existing dispersed recreational sites located within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

(RHCAs) and within drainages that have ESA listed fish species are meeting the standards and 

guidelines established to meet or not retard the attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives 

(as defined in the PACFISH amendment to the Forest Plan). 

The analysis summarized in the biological assessment concluded that the cumulative impacts 

(both existing and potential) regarding the existing trail system (including motorized use) would 

be minimal (non-measurable) to the major population groups for steelhead trout and core areas 

for bull trout. However, dependent upon the location of stream fords and dispersed recreation 

sites in relation to occupied steelhead trout and bull trout streams, some impacts may not be 

insignificant or discountable in specific drainages. 

In 2011, the Forest conducted a field review of the motorized trail stream crossings on those 

streams that have documented presence (or potential) of steelhead trout, spring/summer chinook 

salmon, or bull trout spawning and/or rearing. 27 stream crossings. The field reviews did not 

find any notable spawning habitat at the stream crossings, except in three fords in Deadhorse 

Creek. 

In addition to the motorized trail crossings, authorization of existing dispersed recreation sites 

within the riparian conservation areas (RHCAs) as defmed by the PACFISH amendment to the 

Forest Plan may result in unacceptable adverse effects to listed fish species. 

46 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 147
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

Parameters: 

1. Stream ford monitoring. 

a. Spawning gravels present at stream crossing 

b. Erosion on trail approaches (sedimentation) 

2. Dispersed site monitoring. 

a. Site located within bankfull area. 

b. Distance of site to stream. 

c. Stream bank disturbance. 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

d. Vegetative modifications affecting bank stability, streamside shade and/or woody debris 

recruitment. 

e. Erosion and/or sedimentation 

Location(s): As per Section 7 ESA consultation process via Level One coordination, the following 

monitoring locations were proposed to identify any existing or potential impacts to steelhead trout, 

spring/summer chinook salmon, and bull trout: 

Stream crossings on the following trails will be monitored every third· year to ascertain if any 

stream fords are causing impacts to listed species: 

Table 1. Stream Crossings to be monitored. 

Subbasin Drainage Stream Crossing(s) Species 

Trail Number(s) 

Lower Salmon Slate Creek North Fork Slate Steelhead Trout 

Creek Trail #320 (4 

crossings) 

Lower Salmon Deadhorse Creek Trails #30 1, 329 (3 Steelhead Trout, Bull 

crossings Trout 

Lower Salmon Van Buren Creek Trail #303 (1 Bull Trout 

crossing) 

Lower Salmon Upper Little Slate Creek Trail #307 (1 Bull Trout 

crossing) 

MF Clearwater Clear Creek Trail #723 (5 Steelhead Trout, Bull 

crossings) Trout 

South Fork Mill Creek Trails #313, #385 (2 Steelhead Trout 

Clearwater crossings) 

Lower Selway Swiftwater Creek Trail #716 (1 Steelhead Trout 

crossings) 

47 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 148
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OlEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

To assess whether existing recreational sites are causing channel alt~rations, sedimentation, or 

effects to riparian vegetation, the Forest will conduct a field review of existing sites along the 

following streams. 

Table 2. Riparian areas along roads to be evaluated and monitored. 

Subbasin Drainage Roads (Number) Species 

Lower Salmon Slate Creek FSR#354 Spring/summer 

chinook, steelhead 

trout, bull trout 

· Lower Salmon Allison Creek FSR#221 Steelhead trout 

South Fork Clearwater Mainstem SF Clearwater State Hwy. 14 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout 

South Fork Clearwater Red River FSR#234 

South Fork Clearwater Mill Creek FSR#309 Steelhead trout 

South Fork Clearwater Newsome Creek FSR#284 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout 

South Fork Clearwater Crooked River FSR#233 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout 

South Fork Clearwater American River FSR#443 Steelhead trout 

Lower Selway O'Hara Creek FSR#716 Steelhead trout 

Frequency: Follow-up field reviews ofthe 18 trail crossings in Table 1 will be completed 

every three years (i.e. 2014 and 2017). 

The field reviews of the riparian sites will be completed once during the first two complete field 

seasons following the authorization of the travel plan .. Any sites identified for maintenance (i.e. 

restoration, closure etc.) will be evaluated the year following maintenance at a minimum and on 

a needed basis thereafter. For the remaining sites, unless recreational monitoring shows that 

motorized use or dispersed site use has increased 50 percent compared to existing levels, each 

field review will be conducted once (each existing dispersed site located along the roads noted 

above will be visited once). 

Methodology: 

1. Stream ford monitoring: Although each of the 18 stream crossings were field reviewed in 2011, 

each trail will be monitored every third year and the following information regarding streams 

crossings will be collected to assess any changes: 

48 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 149
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

01EIFW00-2012-F-0175 

a. At all stream fords, the amount of area potentially available for spawning for steelhead trout 

and bull trout will be assessed using the standard stream survey techniques as outlined in 

Espinosa (1988)7

• Any erosion on trail approaches that is contributing sediment to the 

stream course will be noted. 

b. Digital photos of each stream ford and the trail approaches will be taken. 

c. GPS coordinates will be recorded. 

d. Recommendations regarding minimizing impacts to spawning fish and/or substrate 

conditions such as, moving crossing and/or providing crossing structure, and hardening 

and/or drainage control at the trail approaches are recorded. 

2. Dispersed site monitoring: Each dispersed site that currently has motorized use will be walked 

and the following information regarding effects to the riparian area and adjacent stream will be 

collected: 

a. At each existing dispersed site, a sketch of the site in relation to the adjacent stream(s) and 

the established route will be completed. 

b. The closest location of the site to the bankfull (i.e. high water mark) will be measured. Sites 

that extend within the high water zone will be noted. 

c. The linear distance ofbank disturbance (m) will be estimated. 

d. The amount of vegetative modifications (expressed in m2 within 150 feet of the stream(s) 

will be estimated. 

e. Qualitative assessment regarding vegetative modifications affecting bank stability, 

streamside shade and/or woody debris recruitment. 

f. Any erosion at the dispersed site that is contributing sediment to the stream course will be 

noted. 

g. Digital photos of each stream ford and the trail approaches will be taken. 

h. GPS coordinates will be recorded. · 

1. Recommendations regarding reduction of the site "foot print", closure of the site to 

motorized travel and/or complete closure for use are recorded. 

A report will be prepared following the second field season and presented to NOAA Fisheries 

and USFWS the following spring. The report will note any existing and potential problems, 

immediate actions taken during the interim to minimize or avoid the impacts, and any pending or 

potential actions that the Forest will address administratively or through a separate decision. 

Duration: The field reviews of the riparian sites will be completed during the first two complete 

field seasons following the authorization of the travel plan. A report will be prepared following 

the second field season. Access to dispersed recreational sites (within the riparian areas) that are 

authorized under the Travel Plan will be inventoried to avoid user-created unauthorized sites and 

evaluated to assess impacts and restoration needs. Dependent upon the location of the site and 

issues, follow-up monitoring may occur on an annual basis. If other recreational monitoring 

shows that motorized use or dispersed site use has increased 50 percent compared to existing 

levels, follow-up and/or additional field reviews may be necessary. 

7 Espinosa, A. 1988. Clearwater stream survey methodology. Clearwater National Forest, Orofmo, Idaho. 

49 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 150
Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest 

DRAMVU 

OIEIFW00-2012-F-0175 

Follow-up field reviews of the 18 trail crossings on fish bearing streams will be completed every 

three years (i.e. 2014 and 2017) in conjunction with the Forest's stream temperature monitoring 

program. 

50 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 151
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 152
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 153
DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 154
1 | P a g e

FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION 

FOR 

DESIGNATED ROUTES AND MOTOR VEHICLE USE 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – ALTERNATIVE 5 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTED FISH 

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Snake River Steelhead Trout - Oncorhynchus mykiss

Columbia River Bull Trout - Salvelinus confluentus 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon – Oncorhynchus nerka 

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon – Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

REGION 1 SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES 

Spring Chinook Salmon - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Westslope Cutthroat Trout – Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

Interior Redband Trout – Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Pacific Lamprey – Lampetra tridentata 

Western Pearlshell Mussel – Margaritifera falcata 

USDA Forest Service 

Nez Perce National Forest 

March 14, 2012 

_______________________________________ _______________________ 

Katherine L. Thompson Date 

Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forests Fisheries Biologist 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 155
2 | P a g e

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 156
3 | P a g e

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5 

Project Description......................................................................................................................... 5 

Monitoring............................................................................................................................ 9 

Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat.............................................................................. 9 

Baseline Habitat Conditions .............................................................................................. 11

Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................................................................15

Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................... 25

Effects to PCE’s ...........................................................................................................................25

Determinations of Effect...................................................................................................................... 28 

Literature Cited................................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix A – Aquatic Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................ ..38

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 157
4 | P a g e

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 158
5 | P a g e

I. Introduction

This biological assessment addresses the effects of designating routes on the Nez Perce National Forest for 

motorized vehicle use by type of vehicle and season of use to ESA listed and Forest Service sensitive aquatic 

species. This proposal was developed to respond to the Travel Management Rule, which states that routes and 

areas on National Forest and BLM lands are closed to motorized travel unless designated open. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 directs federal agencies to conserve threatened and endangered species 

and to ensure that federal actions authorized, funded, and carried out are not likely to jeopardize their continued 

existence or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The analysis area used to evaluate 

the effects of the project includes the Nez Perce National Forest portions of the following subbasins: Middle 

Salmon – Chamberlain, Little Salmon, Lower Salmon, Upper Selway, Lower Selway, Middle Fork Clearwater, and 

South Fork Clearwater. 

For many years, motorized use of the national forests, including cross country travel, has continued to increase. 

With improvements in design, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) can now be used to access more areas than ever 

before. In addition, increased sales and licensing of OHVs means more people are in the woods driving OHVs. 

This use has resulted in increased adverse effects to the natural resources of the nation’s forests, such as user 

created trails in wet meadows. Adverse effects have been noted in areas on the Nez Perce National Forest 

(NPNF), where a network of use-created trails exists in most watersheds outside of designated wilderness. 

The NPNF is thus proposing to close the Forest to motorized cross country travel and designate routes where 

motorized travel is allowed. Routes would include both roads and trails. This biological assessment was prepared 

in accordance with direction provided in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service Manual 

2670, which states that a biological evaluation will be prepared for all listed, proposed, and sensitive species to 

assess potential effects to ESA listed and Region 1 sensitive species. The purpose of this document is to assess 

and disclose the effects to ESA listed and sensitive fish from implementation of this project, which would occur in 

2012. In addition, this document serves as an analysis of Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

for chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon. 

ESA listed fish species potentially affected by the project include Snake River fall chinook salmon, Snake River 

spring/summer chinook salmon (in the Salmon basin), Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River steelhead trout, 

and Columbia River bull trout. Sensitive species potentially affected include westslope cutthroat, spring chinook 

salmon (in the Clearwater basin), interior redband trout, and Pacific lamprey. 

II. Project Description 

Location: The project is located on the NPNF in its entirety. This National Forest encompasses more than 2.2 

million acres in north central Idaho. The boundary stretches from the Oregon border on the west to Montana on 

the east. Over 40 percent of the NPNF is included as congressionally designated wilderness. Included within the 

boundary is a portion of the Hells Canyon National Recreation and Wilderness. The Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest administers this portion of the Forest and has previously addressed travel management in this area. 

Within the NPNF boundary are the Gospel-Hump Wilderness Area and portions of the Selway-Bitterroot and 

Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Areas. 

NPNF lands lie entirely within Idaho County, Idaho. Bounded by the north by the Clearwater National Forest, the 

Nez Perce National Forest abuts the Bitterroot National Forest to the east and the Payette National Forest to the 

south. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest lies to the west in Oregon on the west side of the Snake River. 

Purpose and Need: The purpose for the travel planning effort is to meet the intent of the Travel Management 

Rule (USDA-FS 2005) and determine which routes should be designated for motorized vehicle use by type of 

vehicle and season of use. This action is needed to maintain opportunities for motorized recreation while 

minimizing user conflicts and adverse effects on natural resources, and eliminate unmanaged cross country use. 

Proposed Action: The selected alternative (Alternative 5 modified) would respond to public comments about 

providing motorized and non-motorized use opportunities, while moving toward the standards and objectives for 

wildlife resources and other management areas. Road and trail designations would reduce the number of miles 

available for motorized use by designations and a change in the season of use. Three new routes that were 

proposed by the public would be added to the system for motorized use. These new routes would be motorized 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 159
6 | P a g e

trails. Information on these trails is found in Table 8 on page 24. No physical construction of the routes would 

occur because they already exist on the ground. Additional ground disturbing activities may be needed, however, 

to bring these trails up to a standard for motorized use. These activities would be included under a separate 

NEPA decision, and the trails would not be open to motorized use until this work has been completed. The routes 

would then be maintained at the level of use designated, which in this case would be for ATVs and motorcycles. 

All roads and trails proposed for motorized use have either been assessed or are in the process of being 

assessed to determine if the current condition of the route is at a standard that can accommodate motorized use 

without resource damage. Routes that are not at that standard would be brought up to that standard, and any 

ground disturbing activities necessary to upgrade to the standard would be assessed under a separate NEPA 

decision. The route would not be open to motorized use until this work was completed. 

Alternative 5 would retain 2,349 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized use. Routes 

open to motorized use would include 1,962 miles of road and 264 miles of trails. In additional routes open to nonmotorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles of trail 

inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 

300 feet from trails, following the conditions of use. In addition 18 miles of road and 28 miles of trail would have 0 

feet of motorized access for dispersed camping. 

Summary of Key Features of the Proposal

Elimination of cross-country motorized travel on the Nez Perce National Forest is a key component. All roads, 

trails and areas are closed to motorized use unless designated as open (USDA-FS 2005). 

No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) is allowed within wilderness areas as 

specified by law and the Nez Perce Forest Plan (Wilderness Act 1964, Endangered American Wilderness 1978, 

Central Idaho Wilderness Act 1980, USDA-FS 1987, as amended). 

No new motorized routes would be authorized within the eight Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Forest. 

These areas are dedicated to the study of natural ecosystem processes and provide a baseline for research and 

monitoring. The RNAs include O’Hara Creek, Newsome, Moose Meadows, Elk Creek, Fish Lake, Square 

Mountain, No Business Creek 

Road 444 to Square Mountain, Road 233 to Wildhorse Lake and Road 492 Sourdough Peak would remain open 

to motorized vehicles as agreed to and directed by the Gospel Hump Management Plan (Idaho 1985) and the 

NPNF Forest Plan. 

Routes with a current closure order(s), including spurs, are closed to motorized use. If a main system road is 

closed to motorized use, all connected routes are would be closed. 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel, existing condition 

compared to project proposal. 

Indicator

Existing 

Condition

(Alt. 1)

Preferred 

Alternative

(Alt. 5)

Roads

Open Yearlong 1103 825

Open Seasonally 923 1138

Non-motorized 1700 1763

Trails

Open Yearlong 568 78

Open Seasonally 118 309

Non-motorized 4336 4636

Roads & Trails - Total

Motorized Total 2709 2350

Open Yearlong 1671 903

Open Seasonally 1041 1447

Non-motorized Total 4736 3399

Acres open 

to cross country travel 1,004,428 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 160
7 | P a g e

Indicator

Existing 

Condition

(Alt. 1)

Preferred 

Alternative

(Alt. 5)

Motorized access for dispersed camping from 

motorized roads

Feet from centerline

Unrestricted 300* 

Motorized access to dispersed camping from 

motorized trails

Feet from centerline

Unrestricted 300*

*Additional routes with no motorized 

access for dispersed camping (0 feet)

Miles of Road

Miles of Trail

No Yes

18 miles

34 miles

Motorized Use of Designated Roads and Trails 

 Cross-country motorized travel on the Nez Perce National Forest (USDA-FS 2005) would not be permitted. 

Unauthorized routes (routes not on MVUM) would not be available for motorized use. 

 All roads, trails and areas would be closed to motorized use unless designated as open. Motorized use would 

be allowed on designated roads, trails, areas as displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), based on 

a specified type of vehicle and season of use. A designation for a road or trail includes all terminal facilities, 

trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the designated road or trail. 

 Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route would be permitted from the edge of 

the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a trailer (e.g. boat, horse, or camper). Use 

would be allowed when it is safe to do so, not create resource damage, and where the use follows forest 

orders or prohibitions. 

 Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood would not be allowed per the terms of standard personal use 

firewood permits. 

 No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) is allowed within wilderness areas, 

as specified by law. 

 All areas and routes in the project area would be open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain bike, or 

stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons, such as safety, or otherwise posted. Mountain bikes 

would be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness areas, unless otherwise posted. 

 This action would not supersede 36CFR 261: 53, 54, 55, which allows the local manger the responsibility and 

authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use any time a there is considerable adverse 

environmental effects occurring from use until the problem has been resolved. 

 This action would not supersede CFR 261.12 National Forest System roads and trails; ...prohibiting (c) 

Damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or segment thereof. Nor would this action 

supersede CFR 261.15 Use of vehicles off roads: It is prohibited to operate any vehicle off National Forest 

System, State, or County roads: (h) In a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or 

vegetative resources. 

 This action would not supersede the general prohibitions and any other restriction that have been put in place 

on National Forest Service Roads and Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest (36 CFR, Part 

261, Subpart A and Subpart B), specifically regarding parking and motorized vehicle access. Including, but 

not limited to: 

General prohibitions that would apply to parking and dispersed camping include: 

o General prohibitions and any other restrictions placed on National Forest Service Roads and 

Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest (36 CFR, Part 261, Subpart A and Subpart 

B; Sections 36 CFR 261: 53, 54, 55), will continue to allow the local manger the responsibility and 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 161
8 | P a g e

authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use any time a there is considerable adverse 

environmental effects occurring from use until the problem has been resolved (USDA Forest 

Service 2011). 

o This project would not supersede the terms and conditions for motorized use as authorized under 

permit, by a line officer, on any road or trail. Such forest activities may include: grazing permits, 

weed treatment, mineral activities, fire wood cutting permits, special use permits and 

authorizations for administrative use. Motorized use may include travel on or off designated 

routes. 

Prohibitions that would apply to parking or access to dispersed camping by order include: 

• Special closure which prohibits use to go into or be upon any area which is closed for protection 

of (a) Threatened, endangered, rare, unique, or vanishing species of plants, animals, birds or fish; 

(b) Special biological communities; (c) Objects or areas of historical, archeological, geological, or 

paleontological interest; (d) Scientific experiments or investigations; (e) Public health or safety; or 

(f) Property (Part B, 261.53). 

• Using any type of vehicle prohibited by the order (Part B, 261.54(a)). 

• Being on the road (Part B, 261.54(e)). 

• When provided by an order, it is prohibited to possess or use a vehicle off National Forest System 

roads (Part B, 261.56). 

• Parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of posted instructions (Part B, 261.58(g)). 

 This project would not supersede motorized use as authorized under permit, by a line officer, on any road or 

trail. Such forest activities may include grazing permits, weed treatment, mineral activities, firewood cutting 

permits, special use permits, and authorizations for administrative use. If a permit was issued for motorized 

activities not included under this decision, a separate decision (and consultation if needed) would be made. 

 The project would maintain access to areas important to all Native American Tribes who use the Nez Perce 

National Forest, and would preserve local Native American culture by providing for the continued ability to 

practice inherent tribal treaty rights and traditional uses of the forest, subject to travel planning rules. 

 The project would post access points into the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal watersheds with signs 

informing users of the municipal watershed, encouraging caution with potential pollution sources and detailing 

sanitation requirements. 

 The project would post informational signs along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access for dispersed 

camping is limited by the Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 

Conditions for Off-Route Motorized Travel 

Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes would be allowed as long as the conditions for 

that travel are met. When the conditions below are not met, the motorized travel would be illegal. Off-route travel 

for dispersed camping would be prohibited along 18 miles of roads and 30 miles of trails to protect heritage sites, 

high elevation grasslands, and Research Natural Areas. 

To meet the intent of the rule, motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes would be 

permitted within 300 feet of a designated route during the period when that route is open to motorized traffic. The 

300 foot distance is measured perpendicular to the designated route. Campsites, even where they currently exist 

that are beyond the 300 foot distance, would be off-limits to motor vehicles. 

Since the intent is to provide for camping access, it would not be permissible to roam around with a motor vehicle 

off the designated route while looking for a campsite. Campers are expected to explore and evaluate campsites 

by non-motorized means and travel to them with their vehicle using the most clearly defined existing track. 

 Cutting corners on the established track or taking shortcuts back to the main road or trail would not be permitted. 

Again since the intent is to provide for camping access, repetitive recreational riding around in the campsite or 

along the access route would not be permitted. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 162
9 | P a g e

Barriers of logs, rocks, or earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to restrict vehicles from sensitive 

or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to eliminate motorized traffic in wet areas, streamside zones, 

on redundant tracks or for other resource protection purposes. Moving, going over, going around, or in any way 

circumventing these restriction devices would not be permitted. 

Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of resource damage associated with 

motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but are not limited to: 

 Cutting, harming, or unreasonably disturbing vegetation. 

 Using more than one track to access the campsite. 

 Crossing streams, driving on streambanks, or riding anywhere off the established track where rutting 

occurs. 

 Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track. 

III. Monitoring

The following monitoring activities would be completed during the first two complete field seasons following the 

authorization of the travel plan. A report will be prepared the second field season. The report will note any existing 

and potential problems, immediate actions taken during the interim to minimize or avoid adverse effects, and any 

pending or potential actions that the Forest will address administratively or through the NEPA process. If 

monitoring finds adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat are occurring, the action will be immediately 

curtailed until a remedial plan is formed and subsequent ESA consultation is completed. See aquatic monitoring 

plan (Appendix A). 

 Continue to monitor selected motorized trail crossings to determine if travel is causing direct or indirect 

adverse effects to ESA listed species, designated critical habitat, or other aquatic resources (e.g. 

sensitive species, unoccupied stream habitat, wetlands, etc). 

 Determine if existing dispersed recreational sites located within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and 

within drainages that support ESA listed fish species are meeting standards and guidelines regarding 

PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. 

IV. Identification of ESA Listed Fish Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Status and Distribution: Snake River sockeye salmon were listed as an endangered species on November 20, 

1991 (Federal Register, Vol. 56, 58619). On the Nez Perce National Forest, sockeye salmon are found in the 

mainstem Salmon River, which functions as a migratory corridor for this species. No spawning or rearing habitat 

is located on the Forest. Sockeye salmon are not found in the Clearwater basin. 

Critical Habitat: The mainstem Salmon River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Snake River is 

included as critical habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon. Critical habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon was 

designated on December 28, 1993 (Federal Register, Vol. 58, 68543), effective on January 27, 1994. No streams 

on the Nez Perce National Forest are included as critical habitat for this species. 

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Status and Distribution: Snake River fall chinook salmon were listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act on May 22, 1992 (Federal Register, Vol. 57, 14653). 

Fall chinook salmon migrate and spawn in the mainstem Salmon and Clearwater Rivers. This race of salmon 

does not spawn in streams on the NPNF; spawning only occurs in larger rivers. Currently, the mainstem 

Clearwater River below the North Fork Clearwater River supports most spawning and rearing of fall chinook 

salmon in Idaho, facilitated by cold water releases from Dworshak Reservoir. Limited spawning and rearing by fall 

chinook salmon occurs in the mainstem Salmon River in river reaches adjacent to the NPNF. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 163
10 | P a g e

Critical Habitat: Designated critical habitat for fall chinook salmon includes the Salmon River from its mouth 

upstream to Fall Creek (river mile 107). The mainstem Clearwater River from its confluence with the Snake River 

upstream to Greer, Idaho is included as designated critical habitat. 

Critical habitat was designated on December 28, 1993 (Federal Register, Vol. 58, 68543), effective on January 

27, 1994. Critical habitat in the Salmon River basin includes all river reaches presently or historically accessible 

and adjacent riparian zones, except reaches above impassable natural falls. There is no critical habitat 

designated on the NPNF in the Clearwater basin. 

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Status and Distribution: Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon were listed as threatened on May 22, 1992 

in the Salmon River basin (Federal Register, Vol. 57, 14653). Spring chinook salmon have not been listed in the 

Clearwater basin. Spring chinook salmon in the Clearwater basin are a Region 1 sensitive species. 

Spring/summer chinook salmon spawn and rear in most of the larger, accessible tributaries on the Nez Perce 

National Forest. In the Salmon basin where the species is listed, the most important streams for spawning and 

rearing on the NPNF include Slate Creek, Rapid River, and Bargamin Creek. Spawning and rearing occur in other 

streams as well. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon was designated on December 

28, 1993 (Federal Register, Vol. 58, 68543), effective on January 27, 1994. Critical habitat includes all river and 

tributary reaches presently and historically accessible by the species. 

Snake River Steelhead Trout/Interior Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) 

Status and Distribution: Steelhead/redband trout are present throughout the Salmon and Clearwater basins and 

most tributaries that are accessible and of sufficient size to support fish. Although classified as the same species, 

the term “steelhead” generally refers to the anadromous form, while “redband trout” refers to the stream resident 

form that does not migrate to the ocean (Behnke, 1992). The Snake River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) includes the anadromous form only and is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act (Federal Register Vol. 71 No. 3, 2006). The steelhead trout that spawn and rear in the Salmon and Clearwater 

basins are included in this DPS. The resident form (redband trout) is not included, although it is included as a 

USFS sensitive species in Region 1. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for the Snake River DPS and includes the Selway, Middle 

Fork Clearwater, South Fork Clearwater, Main Salmon, and Little Salmon River mainstems in their entirety, in 

addition to all accessible tributaries on the Nez Perce National Forest. Specific reaches designated as critical 

habitat are outlined in Federal Register Vol. 70 No. 170. 

Columbia River Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus): 

Status and Distribution: Bull trout are present throughout the Clearwater and Salmon River basins and spawn 

and rear in many tributaries. Bull trout in these basins are included in the Columbia River bull trout Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS), which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 (Federal 

Register Vol. 63 No. 31647). 

Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Resident bull 

trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary or nearby stream in which they spawn and rear, whereas 

migratory bull trout spawn and rear in tributary streams, then move to a larger stream or river and grow larger 

before returning to a small stream to spawn. Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either 

form may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Both 

life history strategies have been documented in streams on the Nez Perce National Forest. 

Both the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers have been designated as recovery units by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for this DPS. Within each recovery unit, bull trout core areas and recovery units were identified, as well as 

local populations and potential local populations. A local population is defined as a group of bull trout using 

spawning and rearing habitat in stream complexes where there is a high probability of mating among these same 

individuals. A potential local population is defined as a population that may inhabit a stream complex but sufficient 

data are lacking. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 164
11 | P a g e

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for bull trout was designated most recently on October 10, 2010 (Federal 

Register Vol. 75 No. 200) and included stream reaches within all 7 subbasins on the NPNF. 

Information regarding designated critical habitat for bull trout, including specific reaches on the Nez Perce 

National Forest, is located in the project file and on the USFWS website. 

V. Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic Species 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi): Westslope cutthroat trout are a Forest Service 

sensitive species in Region 1 and have been considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. They are 

not currently listed, but a recent litigation history exists over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusions 

regarding listing. They have been designated a species of special concern by the State of Idaho. 

Stream survey data indicate westslope cutthroat trout are widely distributed in streams on the NPNF. In general, 

the strongest populations are associated with watersheds with low road densities (USDA-FS 1998, USDA-FS 

2001). 

Westslope cutthroat trout are included as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Nez Perce Forest Plan. 

Critical Habitat: Since this species is not listed under the Endangered Species Act, there has been no 

designation of critical habitat. 

Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata): Pacific lamprey are not listed under the Endangered Species Act but 

are included as a Forest Service sensitive species and considered a state endangered species by the State of 

Idaho. 

Until recently, little information was available regarding distribution of lampreys on the NPNF. Presence-absence 

sampling in 2000 – 2004 in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin, Upper and Lower Selway subbasins, and limited 

areas in the Lower Salmon subbasin have been conducted by Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The results 

of these sampling efforts are available in Cochnauer and Claire (2001 – 2004). 

In the South Fork Clearwater subbasin, sampling indicated distribution of lamprey was restricted to the river and 

lower Red River. Suitable habitat exists in upper Red River, American River, and Crooked River, but the species 

was not found in these areas. Despite extensive surveys in Newsome Creek in 2001, no lampreys were observed, 

and Nez Perce Tribal rotary screen trapping indicates remnants of Pacific lamprey populations in the stream are 

nearing the final stages of decline. 

Juvenile lampreys were documented in various sites along the Lower Salmon River and Selway River. 

Critical Habitat: Since this species is not listed under the Endangered Species Act, there has been no 

designation of critical habitat. 

Western Pearlshell Mussel: Western pearlshell mussels are not listed under the Endangered Species Act but 

were added as a sensitive species in Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service in 2010. The species appears to be 

declining across its range, including areas in the mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers (Nedeau et al. 2009). 

Populations of mussels are known to exist across the Nez Perce National Forest, usually in rivers (e.g. mainstem 

Selway and South Fork Clearwater) and the lower reaches of larger tributaries (e.g. American River and Red 

River). Comprehensive survey and monitoring on the NPNF are proposed in the future for this species. 

Critical Habitat: Since this species is not listed under the Endangered Species Act, there has been no 

designation of critical habitat. 

VI. Baseline Habitat Conditions 

Stream and watershed conditions were summarized across the Forest most recently in 1999 in subbasin 

Biological Assessments at the 5th code hydrologic unit (HU) scale (USDA-FS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d, 

1999e). Conditions and their ratings were based on criteria defined by the Central Idaho Level 1 team (Matrix of 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 165
12 | P a g e

Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Bull Trout, Local 

Adaptation for the Clearwater and Lower Salmon, 1998). 

Upper Selway Subbasin

The majority of this subbasin is located in the Selway-Bitterroot or Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness 

Areas. A large portion is administered by the Bitterroot National Forest. Watershed and stream conditions were 

rated High in 1999. Widespread wildfires that burned throughout the early 2000’s may have resulted in changed 

baseline conditions, but monitoring conducted by the Bitterroot National Forest did not document long-term 

degradation of any stream (Jakober and Dentino, 2003). The Bitterroot National Forest also implemented several 

road/stream crossing upgrades, resulting in improved fish passage and hydrologic function. 

No adverse effects from motorized use were noted in 1999. Designation of motorized routes and establishment of 

conditions for off-route motorized use is expected to maintain current conditions and reduce future risk of adverse 

effects. 

Lower Selway Subbasin

A large portion of this subbasin is located in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. Watershed and stream 

conditions were rated High for 5th code HUCs located within wilderness and roadless areas, and High to Moderate 

for those outside of wilderness and roadless areas. There are portions of moderate to high road density in the 

O’Hara drainage, which is part of the Gedney Creek – Selway 5th HUC, and areas within this watershed with 

degraded stream habitat. 

Baseline conditions in this subbasin may have been affected by wildfires in the 2000s, most notably the Slims Fire 

in 2003, which burned in the Meadow Creek watershed. This watershed would still be expected to be rated High 

for most instream indicators, however. 

Unregulated off-route motorized use was identified in 1999 as one factor that was causing stream degradation in 

upper Meadow Creek, specifically off-route use associated with Trail 541 in adjacent meadows. The ford where 

this trail crosses main Meadow Creek has also been identified as problematic, as was an off-route ford across 

Butter Creek. 

Adverse effects from motorized use were not noted in other watersheds in 1999. 

Middle Fork Clearwater Subbasin

Watershed and stream conditions were rated Moderate to Low in 1999, due to moderate to high road densities 

and degraded habitat in Clear Creek. Due to lack of large-scale disturbance since 1999, baseline conditions 

would be expected to be the same. Although motorized trail use may have increased since 1999, steep terrain 

probably limits off-route use. 

No adverse effects from motorized use were noted in 1999. 

Middle Salmon – Chamberlain Subbasin

Watershed and stream conditions in the 5th HU watersheds were rated Moderate to High, depending mostly on 

road density and amount of sediment in the streams. Crooked Creek in particular is characterized with areas of 

high road density. Some streams in the Middle Salmon – Big Mallard watershed were rated with Moderate 

instream conditions because of moderate to high levels of deposited sediment, which was present even in some 

streams without roads. 

Since 1999, baseline stream conditions in some watersheds may have been affected by large-scale wildfires in 

some areas that occurred in the mid to late 2000s, particularly in 2007. 

Off-route motorized travel was not identified as a variable affecting conditions in 1999. It is possible establishment 

of off-route trails has affected current conditions, although any effects would be expected to be localized. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 166
13 | P a g e

Lower Salmon Subbasin

Watershed and stream conditions in the 5th HUC watersheds in this subbasin were rated High to Low, depending 

on road density, past vegetation management, past and ongoing livestock grazing, and past and ongoing mining 

activity. Many streams in this subbasin have been degraded by various ground disturbing activities, although a 

portion of the acreage is included in the Gospel – Hump Wilderness Area. Unregulated motorized use was 

identified as a factor affecting the existing condition of streams in 1999 in some areas, and this activity is thus 

included in the baseline. 

Since 1999, baseline stream conditions in some watersheds may have been affected by large-scale wildfires in 

some areas that occurred in the mid to late 2000s, particularly in 2007. In addition, motorized use of trails and offroute motorized use may have increased, resulting in effects to streambanks and increased sediment delivery, as 

well as establishment of user-created trails. 

Little Salmon Subbasin

Watershed and stream conditions in the 5th HU watersheds were rated High to Low. The NPNF administers only a 

small portion of this subbasin, the majority of which is located in the Rapid River 5th HU. 

No adverse effects from motorized use were noted in 1999. 

South Fork Clearwater Subbasin

The NPNF administers a large portion of this subbasin. Watershed and stream conditions were rated from High to 

Low, depending on subwatershed. Many watersheds in this subbasin have been degraded from past actions, 

including in-channel dredge mining, road construction, and various other ground-disturbing activities. Miles of 

streamside roads are highest in this subbasin when compared to others on the NPNF, with roads extending along 

the mainstem portions of nearly every large tributary flowing into the South Fork and many smaller streams as 

well. 5th HUC watersheds showing the most degradation include Red River, Crooked River, Newsome Creek, and 

Middle South Fork Clearwater, which contains subwatersheds such as Mill and Meadow Creeks. Watershed and 

stream conditions were mostly rated Low in 1999, reflecting a poor existing condition. 

The Johns Creek 5th HUC watershed was rated highest, reflecting its largely roadless character. 

Since then, baseline conditions in several degraded watersheds, including portions of Red River, Crooked River, 

Newsome Creek, and Meadow Creek, have been improved by implementation of large scale watershed 

restoration projects, including road decommissioning, and in-channel improvements such as channel 

reconstruction, addition of large woody debris, and crossing upgrades. 

Since there are many miles of motorized streamside roads, establishment of conditions for off-route use 

associated with dispersed camping would be expected to reduce effects to streambanks and riparian areas at 

sites where effects currently exist. It would also be expected to reduce risk of future effects from the pioneering of 

new campsites, proportionately more so than the other subbasins because of higher road and trail density. 

Designation of motorized routes and establishment of conditions for off-route use would be expected to restore 

conditions where effects from unregulated motorized use are occurring and reduce future risks from this activity. 

The table below includes ratings of watershed and stream habitat condition. Watershed condition ratings were 

based on watershed road density, streamside road density, landslide prone road density, and sediment yield. 

Stream condition ratings were based on cobble embeddedness, percent surface fines, percent fines by depth, 

large woody debris, and pool frequency. In most cases, there was a range of values within 5th HU watersheds. 

Where the actual ranges fell between two categories, both categories are indicated below (e.g. Mod- Low). Where 

named watersheds within the 5th HU watersheds deviated markedly from the 5th HU as a whole, these watersheds 

were split out and given separate ratings (e.g. Upper Crooked River was split from the rest of the watershed). 

These indicators were included because they could potentially be affected by motorized use or are correlated with 

motorized use. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 167
14 | P a g e

These conditions reflect baseline conditions in 1999. Conditions in 2011 may be slightly better or worse, 

depending on numerous factors, including but not limited to large scale disturbances (e.g. wildfires) and 

watershed restoration efforts implemented since 1999. 

Table 2. Existing Condition of Select Clearwater/Nez Perce NF Matrix Watershed and Habitat Indicators 

(High = Good Condition, Moderate = Fair Condition, Low = Poor Condition) 

5

th Code HUC Principle Named Streams Watershed 

Condition 

Stream Condition 

Middle SalmonChamberlain

Sabe Creek Hamilton, Upper Sabe, Lower 

Sabe

High High

Bargamin Creek Upper Bargamin, Middle 

Bargamin, Lower Bargamin

High High

Middle Salmon – Big 

Mallard

Big Mallard, Little Mallard, Rhett, 

Jersey, Lemhi, Fivemile

High Mod - High

Middle Salmon – Sheep 

Creek

Sheep, Indian, Bull, Bear, 

California

High High

Crooked Creek Upper Crooked, Big, Lake, Lower 

Crooked

High - Mod Mod - High

Wind River Wind River, Meadow High - Mod High

Lower Salmon

Salmon River - Partridge Kelly, Allison, Berg Mod Low

Lower Salmon River -

Race

Fiddle, Race, China, Cow, John 

Day, Sherwin

Mod Mod - Low

Lower Salmon River –

Skookumchuck

McKinzie, Skookumchuck, Deer, 

Sotin

Mod – Low Low

White Bird Creek South Fork White Bird, North 

Fork White Bird, Lower White

Bird

Mod Mod

Slate Creek Slate, North Fork Slate, Little 

Slate, Van Buren

Mod Mod - Low

Little Salmon

Rapid River Upper Rapid River, Copper 

Creek, West Fork Rapid River, 

Lower Rapid River

High High

Lower Little Salmon River Elk, Boulder, Sheep, Hailey, 

Squaw

Mod Mod

Upper Selway

Upper Selway - Pettibone Elk, Goat, Ditch, Dog, Pettibone High High

Running Creek Upper Running, Lower Running, 

Eagle

High High

Bear Creek Upper Bear, Wahoo, Middle 

Bear, Lower Cub, Upper Cub, 

Paradise, Lower Bear

High High

Lower Selway

Moose Creek East Moose, Cedar, North 

Moose, West Moose, Rhoda

High High

Lower Selway – Three 

Links Creek

Three Links, Meeker, Martin, 

Mink, Pinchot, Otter

High High

Meadow Creek Upper Meadow, East Meadow, 

Sable, Buck Lake, Horse

High High

Lower Selway – Gedney 

Creek

Gedney High High

O’Hara, Swiftwater Mod Low

Goddard Mod Mod

Middle Fork Clearwater

Middle Fork Clearwater 

River

Big Smith, Suttler, Maggie, Lodge Mod Mod

Clear Creek Upper Clear, South Fork Clear, 

Lower Clear

Mod Mod - Low

South Fork Clearwater

Red River Upper Red River, South Fork 

Red River, Middle Red River, 

Lower Red River

Low Mod - Low

American River East Fork American River, Lower 

American River, Elk Creek

Mod Mod - Low

Upper American River High High

Crooked River Lower Crooked River, 

Deadwood Creek

Mod Mod - Low

Upper Crooked River High High

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 168
15 | P a g e

5

th Code HUC Principle Named Streams Watershed 

Condition 

Stream Condition 

Newsome Creek Upper Newsome Creek, Lower 

Newsome Creek

Mod Low

Upper South Fork 

Clearwater River

Tenmile, Twentymile Creeks High Mod - High

Leggett, Peasley, Cougar, Wing Mod - Low Low

Silver Mod - High Mod

Mainstem and face drainages Mod – Low Mod – Low

Johns Creek Upper Johns Creek, Lower Johns 

Creek, Gospel Creek

High High - Mod

Middle South Fork 

Clearwater River

Meadow Low - Mod Low

Mill Mod Mod

Mainstem and face drainages Mod - Low Mod - Low

Lower South Fork 

Clearwater River

Butcher, Rabbit, Threemile 

Creeks

Low Low

VII. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action 

Effects to fish and their habitat from designation of motorized routes, and the use of these routes by motorized 

vehicles, could include the following: 

 Physical effects to streambanks from motor vehicles crossing or otherwise operating in streams 

 Increases in stream width and decreases in stream depth at crossings 

Erosion of trails leading to increases in sedimentation in streams, particularly where trails cross streams 

or are adjacent to streams. 

 Physical effects to riparian vegetation where trails are adjacent to streams 

 Access to fishing that could cause some fish populations to be over-fished 

 Access to sensitive stream reaches where adult fish may be staging or spawning, resulting in disturbance 

of fish and/or redds from human presence and/or operation of machines in streams 

 Access to sensitive riparian areas or wet areas, leading to activities such as “mud bogging” that could 

adversely affect streams, riparian areas, and wetlands 

 Disturbance to redds and individual fish at motorized route/stream fords. 

 Introduction of toxic materials from motorized vehicles at stream crossings, particularly fords. 

The analysis considers the physical effects of motorized use on roads and trails and to access dispersed camping 

areas, as well as effects to fish from the use of motorized vehicles adjacent to streams. The physical existence of 

roads on the landscape, and to a lesser extent trails, can affect watershed condition and habitat for fish in 

streams, particularly where the density of roads is high. The effects of roads on watershed and stream conditions 

are well documented in peer-reviewed literature (Furniss et al. 1991; Rhodes, 1994; Sedell et al. 1997; Lee et al. 

1997, Gucinsky et al., 2001; Luce and Black, 2001, Baxter et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2000; among others). In 

addition, Nez Perce National Forest’s stream and watershed data corroborate the effects of roads described in 

the literature (USDA-FS 1998, USDA-FS 2001). High road density is correlated with varying degrees of degraded 

fish habitat as related to indicators such as cobble embeddedness, percent surface fines, width:depth ratio, 

stream temperature, amount of large woody debris, and number of pools (Sedell et al.1997). 

The sediment effects of motorized use on existing routes are less clear. Motorized use on roads and trails may 

increase erosion (Reid and Dunne, 1984; Luce and Black, 2001; Chin et al. 2004; Foltz 2006), depending on type 

of vehicle, amount of use, condition of the road or trail surface, and level of maintenance. Effects to watershed 

resources associated with road use are typically greater on motorized routes than on non-motorized routes. The 

degree of impact varies with surface conditions of the road and the level of use. Typically, the greatest impact 

would occur on native-surfaced roads experiencing relatively high traffic levels with very heavy vehicles, such as 

loaded log trucks, during periods when the road surface is saturated. Paved roads would show the least impact 

from motorized use, even though they often have the highest traffic levels. On the Nez Perce National Forest, 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 169
16 | P a g e

roads with gravel surfacing have generally withstood moderate to high levels of traffic without significant increases 

in surface erosion. 

In addition, the physical presence of motorized vehicles traveling across or within stream channels disrupts 

substrate materials, liberates fine sediment, and may destroy redds if they are present at the site. The only areas 

where motorized travel in streams would be allowed under the DRAMVU decision include trail/stream crossings 

where a structure is not present (i.e. fords, see effects discussion below). Foot and stock use of fords may result 

in similar effects, although depending on the level of use, risks from motorized vehicles may be greater. The 

following analysis contains detailed, site specific information about the effects of motorized fords, beginning on 

page 19. For clarification purposes, the decision would only include fords associated with motorized trails; there 

would be no motorized road fords. 

A. Watershed and Stream Conditions – Proposed Changes to the Existing Condition and Effects of the 

Action Compared to 1999 Baseline Conditions 

As previously discussed, baseline watershed and stream conditions on the Nez Perce National Forest were most 

recently summarized in 1999 at the 4th and 5th HUC scale (USDA-FS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d, 1999e). 

Conditions were assessed using indicators described in the Central Idaho Level 1 Matrix of Pathways and 

Indicators (1998). 

Since 1999, baseline stream conditions may have been affected by large-scale wildfires that occurred in the mid 

to late 2000s, particularly in 2007 in the Crooked Creek, Middle Salmon – Big Mallard, Race Creek – Salmon 

River, and Skookumchuck – Lower Salmon 5th HUC watersheds. 

Matrix indicators that could be affected by designation of motorized use on existing roads and trails, as well as 

designation of new routes and establishment of conditions for limited off-route motorized use associated with 

access to dispersed campsites, include the following: 

 Width:Depth Ratio 

 Streambank Stability 

 Floodplain Connectivity 

 Turbidity/Suspended Sediment 

 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients 

 Cobble Embeddedness 

 Percent Surface Fines 

 Harassment 

 Redd Disturbance 

Watershed route density, streamside route density, and landslide prone route density would not change under the 

proposed action, nor would the total miles of routes or number of stream crossings. Changes are based on 

designation of motorized uses only. Effects to these indicators would generally not occur at the watershed scale; 

they would be localized and limited to specific sites in streams, such as trail fords and some routes within 

streamside RHCAs. Others, such as turbidity/suspended sediment, harassment, redd disturbance, and chemical 

contamination, would be transitory in time, and risk of effect would be associated with discrete events at specific 

sites (e.g. a motorized vehicle being driven through a ford). 

The DRAMVU decision could result in future decisions to implement road decommissioning or other road and trail 

related activities, but such actions would be consulted on separately. 

Table 3 summarizes changes in route miles and number of crossings resulting from motorized route designation. 

Numbers displayed for the existing condition do not include miles of unauthorized, user-created routes, all of 

which would be closed under the proposed action, except for the new designated routes (discussed separately). It 

should be noted there are many miles of user-created trails, most of which have not been inventoried. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 170
17 | P a g e

Table 3. Comparison of the Existing Condition (Alt. 1) to Proposed Action (Alt. 5), With Summary of Effect 

to Baseline Matrix Indicators, NPNF Portion of Watersheds 

Subbasin/5th Code 

HUC

Acres Open to 

Unregulated 

Motorized Use

Miles 

Motorized 

Roads

Miles 

Motorized 

Trails

Miles 

Motorized 

Roads -

RHCA

Miles 

Motorized 

Trails -

RHCA

Number 

Motorized 

Crossings 

Number 

Motorized 

Fords

EFFECT OF 

THE ACTION 

TO BASELINE

Upper Selway Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Running 30,488 0 11 11 29 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 19 9 9 0 Maintain

Upper Selway –

Pettibone

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintain

Bear 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintain

Little Clearwater River 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintain

Total Subbasin 30,501 0 11 11 30 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 19 9 9 0 Maintain

Lower Selway Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Lower Selway – 3 

Links

6,596 0 10 10 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 9 9 0 0 Maintain

Meadow Cr 147,947 0 36 34 132 44 2.6 2.6 32 8 111 28 99 20 Restore

Lower Selway -

Gedney

124,471 0 121 121 62 34 32 32 15 4 137 128 41 32 Maintain

Total Subbasin 279,014 0 167 165 194 78 36 36 47 12 257 165 140 52 Restore

MF Clearwater Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Clear Creek 20,207 0 77 67 13 8 10 9 4 3 54 51 12 10 Maintain

MF Clearwater River 13,331 0 12 10 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3 2 0 0 Maintain

Total Subbasin 33,538 0 89 77 13 8 11 10 4 3 57 53 12 10 Maintain

Middle Salmon 

Chamberlain

Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Sabe Creek 378 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintain

Bargamin Creek 20,814 0 24 24 15 2 3 3 3 0 15 0 4 0 Maintain

Big Mallard – Salmon 

River

74,039 0 58 58 0 2 7 7 0 0 30 30 0 0 Maintain

Crooked Creek 34,429 0 67 66 22 14 24 24 4 3 84 80 14 9 Maintain

Wind River 12,115 0 41 41 9 8 7 7 1 1 39 39 8 8 Maintain

Sheep Creek – Salmon 

River

19,732 0 13 13 12 7 1 1 1 0.5 22 20 5 4 Maintain

Subbasin Total 161,507 0 206 205 58 33 42 42 9 5 190 169 31 21 Maintain

Lower Salmon Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Partridge Creek –

Salmon River

39,660 0 93 94 26 16 23 23 6 2 123 112 26 16 Maintain

Slate Creek 71,388 0 150 150 74 60 25 25 18 15 179 167 69 58 Restore

Race Creek – Salmon 

River

43,715 0 141 140 19 14 20 20 2 2 132 132 4 4 Maintain

Skookumchuck –

Salmon River

22,679 0 72 69 11 4 8 8 2 0 48 37 9 0 Maintain

White Bird Creek 35,515 0 113 114 36 24 18 17 9 1 76 66 19 8 Maintain

Subbasin Total 212,960 0 569 567 166 118 94 93 37 20 558 514 127 86 Restore

Little Salmon Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Rapid River 7,859 0 20 19 3 0 2 2 0 0 11 9 0 0 Maintain

Lower Little Salmon 10,965 0 20 16 9 4 5 5 4 0 37 23 12 0 Maintain

Subbasin Total 18,824 0 40 35 12 4 7 7 4 0 37 23 12 0 Maintain

South Fork 

Clearwater River

Alt. 1 Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 

1

Alt. 

5

Red River 75,557 0 212 212 42 32 70 71 7 2 204 203 14 5 Maintain

American River 20,529 0 64 68 36 21 11 11 11 5 71 60 28 13 Maintain

Crooked River 36,989 0 58 58 31 12 19 19 8 2 62 44 26 9 Restore

Newsome Creek 36,375 0 109 102 27 11 21 19 6 1 100 74 25 5 Restore

Upper South Fork 

Clearwater

26,685 0 174 175 41 33 61 62 5 4 213 204 25 18 Maintain

Johns Creek 16,063 0 14 14 7 8 1 1 3 3 5 5 4 4 Maintain

Middle South Fork 55,732 0 304 266 29 27 2 2 2 2 223 202 7 9 Maintain

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 171
18 | P a g e

Subbasin/5th Code 

HUC

Acres Open to 

Unregulated 

Motorized Use

Miles 

Motorized 

Roads

Miles 

Motorized 

Trails

Miles 

Motorized 

Roads -

RHCA

Miles 

Motorized 

Trails -

RHCA

Number 

Motorized 

Crossings 

Number 

Motorized 

Fords

EFFECT OF 

THE ACTION 

TO BASELINE

Clearwater

Lower South Fork 

Clearwater

47 0 11 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 Maintain

Subbasin Total 267,977 0 946 904 213 144 187 186 42 19 892 796 129 63 Restore

Closing the Forest to unregulated off-route motorized use would be expected to result in improved conditions at 

sites currently affected by off-route motorized use. Closing the Forest to unregulated off-route motorized use 

would also be expected to reduce future risks to watershed condition, riparian habitats, stream habitats, and fish 

from unmanaged motorized use adjacent to or within streams and wetlands. 

B. Direct/Indirect Effects from Motorized Routes within Streamside RHCAs Adjacent to Occupied Habitat 

Miles of streamside roads are correlated with watershed condition in some 5th code HUC watersheds, particularly 

in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin. As an example, Red River has relatively high watershed road density and 

is known to be in a degraded condition (USDA-FS 1998, USDA-FS 2003). High number of streamside roads is 

probably a contributing factor, as they can constitute an ongoing source of sedimentation. 

The NPNF has been working over the past two decades to identify and minimize adverse watershed effects from 

roads and trails, particularly those associated with erosion and sediment delivery. Projects to minimize road 

effects have included closing roads and trails to motorized use, decommissioning unneeded roads and trails, 

relocating trails, improving stream crossings, and upgrading drainage and surfacing. Many of these activities have 

been included in past consultations. 

Although motor vehicle use on designated routes in RHCAs could result in increased sediment delivery, any 

increases would constitute only an increment of the total sediment yield within a watershed. Effects to streams 

from motorized use on routes as prescribed through this travel plan would be expected to be indistinguishable 

from the effects of the routes themselves and less than the existing condition, because there would be fewer 

miles of routes designated for motorized use, and cross country motorized use would no longer be allowed. . 

As displayed previously in Table 3, the proposed action would result in a reduction in motorized streamside routes 

in most 5th code HUCs, compared to the existing condition. Although the miles of roads and trails won’t change 

under these alternatives, the miles of routes designated as motorized would decrease. When compared to the 

existing condition, closing the NPNF to unregulated cross-country motorized use, in addition to prescribing the 

conditions of allowable off-route motorized use associated with dispersed camping, would be expected to reduce 

the effects of motorized use along streams, including those associated with sediment delivery. 

Table 4 below summarizes the miles of proposed routes adjacent to known occupied habitat by each of the fish 

species of special concern, by 5th HUC. 

Table 4. Miles of Motorized Streamside Routes (Roads and Trails Combined) Adjacent to Known or 

Suspected Occupied Habitat 

Watershed Spring/Summer 

Chinook Salmon*

Steelhead/

Redband Trout

Bull Trout Westslope Cutthroat 

Trout

Upper Selway Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Running 0.6 0 1.8 0 1.2 0 1.8 0

Upper Selway –

Pettibone

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subbasin Total 0.6 0 1.8 0 1.2 0 0 0

Lower Selway Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Lower Selway – 3 

Links

0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.8

Meadow Cr 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8

Lower Selway -

Gedney

0.7 21 1.2 22 0.6 21.5 3.0 25.7

Subbasin Total 2.3 24 2.8 25 2.2 24 4.6 28

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 172
19 | P a g e

Watershed Spring/Summer 

Chinook Salmon*

Steelhead/

Redband Trout

Bull Trout Westslope Cutthroat 

Trout

MF Clearwater Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Clear Creek 3.4 0.82 3.4 1.0 2.3 0 3.3 0.7

MF Clearwater 

River

0 0.05 0 0.05 0 0.05 0 0.05

Subbasin Total 3.4 0.9 3.4 1.1 2.3 0.05 3.3 0.7

Middle Salmon 

Chamberlain

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Sabe Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bargamin Creek 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.2 0

Big Mallard –

Salmon River

0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 1.4

Crooked Creek 0 0.1 14** 4.2 0 0.1 2.4 0.1

Wind River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sheep Creek –

Salmon River

0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.08

Subbasin Total 0.5 0.2 14.5 4.3 0.5 0.2 4.3 1.6

Lower Salmon Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Partridge Creek –

Salmon River

0.05 9.4 0.05 13.5 0.05 6.5 0.05 6.5

Slate Creek 0.01 10.3 5.8 11.9 3.6 11.9 7.5 10.6

Race Creek –

Salmon River

0 0.1 0 0.7 0 0 3.3 3.2

Skookumchuck –

Salmon River

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White Bird Creek 0 0 9.0 3.6 0 0 0.6 0.4

Subbasin Total 0.1 20 15 30 3.6 18 11 21

Little Salmon Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Rapid River 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 0.7

Lower Little 

Salmon

0 0 0.13 1.8 0 0 0.1 1.8

Subbasin Total 0 1.4 0.13 3.2 0 1.4 0.1 2.5

South Fork 

Clearwater River

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Red River 3.5 23 7.9 31.4 4.0 31.4 11.7 36

American River 5.4 2.5 5.6 2.5 0.9 0 8.5 2.7

Crooked River 0.2 10.2 0.9 13.8 0.5 11.6 2.5 15

Newsome Creek 0.8 8.7 0.8 8.7 0.8 8.8 0.9 12.8

Upper South Fork 

Clearwater

1.6 33 2.1 33 2.0 30 5.5 41

Johns Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1.4

Middle South Fork 

Clearwater

2.7 22.3 6.1 23.8 0.65 19 9.2 24.6

Lower South Fork 

Clearwater

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27

Subbasin Total 14 99 27 113 8.8 100 41 134

*Spring/summer chinook salmon ESA listed only in Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, Lower Salmon, and Little Salmon subbasins. 

**This Oncorhynchus mykiss population is primarily resident and therefore not included in the Snake River steelhead DPS. 

In addition to physical effects to habitat, designation of streamside motorized routes could result in increased 

access by people for fishing or other activities, such as parking and dispersed camping. Accesses for these 

activities could increase risk of redd disturbance (from angler wading) and harassment of individual fish. 

Increased access, however, would be predicated on substantial increases in miles of motorized streamside routes 

over the existing condition. In this case, there would be an overall reduction in streamside routes, as well as 

reduced access from unregulated cross-country motorized use. Table 4 displays a reduction in motorized 

streamside routes in all 4th code HUCs. 

Although an increase in access would not occur under the proposed action, the action would continue to allow 

motorized access on streamside routes and motorized access to dispersed campsites within 300 feet of these 

routes on designated routes. There is insufficient information available to quantitatively assess current levels of 

harassment and effects to redds associated with motorized access and dispersed camping, but there are no 

known instances where motorized use on streamside routes or at dispersed campsites has resulted in habitat loss 

or reduction in fish densities. Basinwide stream survey data collected in streams adjacent to roads do not suggest 

any correlation in densities of juvenile fish in reaches with a streamside motorized route compared to reaches 

without a motorized route (mainstem Slate Creek 1990; mainstem Allison Creek 1990; upper Red River 1992; 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 173
20 | P a g e

Meadow Creek 1996, 1997; Mill Creek 1993; and others, NPNF unpublished data). There are no known 

differences associated with the physical appearance of the stream channel or changes in large cover features 

such as boulders or logs. At a broad scale, however, reduction in some watershed and stream condition 

indicators is correlated with road and streamside road density (USDA-FS 1998; USDA-FS 2003). 

Since there appear to be no significant effects under the baseline, and since the action would further restrict 

access and activities that might disturb fish or alter their habitat, additional significant adverse effects to fish 

density and site specific habitat attributes are not anticipated under the proposed action. 

C. Direct/Indirect Effects from Motorized Route Crossings 

The greatest potential for roads and trails to affect streams is at the route/stream crossings where sediment is 

most efficiently delivered. Crossings on the NPNF include fords, culverts, and bridges. All crossings may 

potentially affect streams and fish, due to proximity to the stream (Taylor, 1999). Potential effects related to use at 

stream crossings include erosion at the site and increased risk that toxic materials (e.g. petroleum products) are 

introduced into streams if these substances leak from machines or if they overturn while crossing (Ouren et al. 

2007). Such risks are higher at fords, where vehicles are driven through streams, but some risk exists at culverts 

and bridges. 

In addition, the physical presence of motorized vehicles traveling across or within streams may disturb and 

displace individual fish and destroy redds (fish nests) if they are present at the site. These effects would generally 

not occur where bridges and culverts are present. 

Matrix indicators that could be affected by motorized use of stream crossings, and fords in particular, include 

cobble embeddedness, percent surface fines, suspended sediment, streambank stability, width:depth ratio, 

chemical contamination/nutrients, harassment, and redd disturbance. If these effects were to occur, they would be 

limited to the ford site only. Field review of fords in habitat occupied by ESA listed fish indicated that increases in 

sediment were unlikely from motorized use in all fords but one. Actions are proposed to address sediment at this 

ford (see following discussion). 

The rate of sediment input at stream crossings open to motorized use is generally greater than sediment input at 

stream crossings closed to motorized traffic (Reid and Dunne, 1984; Luce and Black, 2001; Chin et al. 2004; Foltz 

2006). The degree of impact would presumably vary with surface conditions of the road, type of crossing, and the 

amount of use. Typically, the greatest effects would be observed at fords on native-surfaced roads with relatively 

high levels of traffic. A primary concern is the direct effects to aquatic resources at stream fords where individual 

fish and stream features (i.e. substrate, streambanks, etc) would be directly affected by vehicles crossing 

streams. Bridges and culverts may also result in effects to streams, but these are primarily related to design and 

function, and not vehicle use. 

Table 3 includes the total number of route crossings, the number of fords, and shows that the number of 

crossings, including fords, decreases under the proposed action for all subbasins. Therefore, the action would not 

be expected to result in additional adverse effects over the existing condition, and it is likely to result in improved 

conditions and reduced risk of future effects when considered at a broad scale. 

An assessment of all proposed motorized fords was completed in September 2011. This assessment included 

mapping motorized fords across the NPNF and identifying those that occurred in habitat known or suspected to 

support ESA and/or sensitive fish species for addition assessment. The vast majority of fords did not occur in 

occupied habitat. 19 out of 232 were determined to occur within habitat occupied by ESA-listed fish species. 

These fords were then divided into 2 groups according to stream gradient, those in streams less than 4 percent 

and those in streams 4 percent and greater. It was initially assumed fords in streams less than 4 percent would be 

more likely to contain spawning habitat than those greater than 4 percent. Field review indicated this was not the 

case. For example, spawning habitat for steelhead trout was identified in 2 fords in Deadhorse Creek (greater 

than 4 percent), but no spawning habitat was identified in any of the fords less than 4 percent. Available 

information is summarized in the following tables and text. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 174
21 | P a g e

Table 6. Motorized Fords Proposed at Sites with Stream Gradient Less Than 4 Percent, ESA-Listed Fish 

Species Only 

6

th HUC 

Watershed

Stream Name Gradient 

(%)

Trail 

Number

Use Type Season of 

Use

Critical Habitat at Crossing?

Upper Little 

Slate

Little Slate 

Creek

2.0 303 Motorcycles 

and ATVs

Yearlong Yes – bull trout

Yes – spring/summer chinook 

Yes – steelhead trout

Upper

American River

West Fork 

American 

River

2.0 837 Motorcycles 6/16 –11/30 Yes- steelhead trout

Yes – bull trout

Lower Johns 

Creek

American 

Creek

1.0 328 Motorcycle 4/2 -11/30 Yes – steelhead trout

Mill Creek Mill Creek 3.3 313 Motorcycles 

and ATVs

4/2 -11/30 Yes – steelhead trout

Mill Creek Mill Creek 2.3 319 Motorcycles Yearlong Yes- steelhead trout

Yes – bull trout

Mill Creek Mill Creek 2.8 385 Motorcycles 

and ATVs

6/16 -9/14 Yes – steelhead trout

Site-Specific Review of Proposed Motorized Fords in Occupied Habitat Less Than 4 Percent Stream Gradient –

ESA Listed Fish Only 

Upper Little Slate Creek: Proposed motorized fords less than 4 percent include Trail 303 across Little Slate Creek. 

This ford is located in habitat occupied by bull trout and interior redband trout. This ford and designation of 

motorized use on the trail have been consulted on separately under the Little Slate FEIS in October 2011. 

Mill Creek: Proposed motorized fords less than 4 percent include Trails 313, 319, and 385. The 313 and 385 fords 

were reviewed in the field in August 2011. Spawning habitat was not noted in either ford. The 313 ford, however, 

did have issues related to failing corduroy and livestock use, which has resulted in streambank trampling, 

overwidened stream channel, and ATV users driving off the tread to avoid the corduroy. This site has been 

identified as needing improvement. Actions to address drainage and erosion have been proposed and would be 

covered under a separate decision, with implementation expected in FY 2012. 

The #319 ford was reviewed in 2009. The substrate at this ford was large cobble, and no spawning habitat was 

noted. No issues with motorized use of the ford were noted. 

Juvenile steelhead or bull trout may be present at the fords when vehicles are driven through and therefore could 

be subjected to disturbance from the physical presence of the vehicle and/or a pulse of suspended sediment 

liberated as the machine is driven through the stream. 

For Trail #319, the ford is across main Mill Creek below the mouth of Merton Creek. Little or no deposited 

sediment was noted at the ford in 2009, therefore a pulse of suspended sediment would not be expected to occur 

when a vehicle (in this case a motorcycle) is driven through the stream. Neither juvenile nor adult bull trout have 

been observed at this ford. Available data do not suggest a resident population or juvenile bull trout are present at 

the site. Density of juvenile steelhead trout during basinwide surveys in Lower Mill Creek conducted in the 1990s 

averaged 28 fish /100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width of about 3 meters, the total affected area at and 

downstream of the ford is about 9 m2. Therefore, 2 – 3 juvenile steelhead would be expected to be present at or 

just downstream of the ford. 

For Trail #313, the ford is across main Mill Creek near the headwaters, upstream of Hepner Creek and its 

confluence with Adams Creek. The stream is very small at the ford. It is doubtful if juvenile steelhead are present 

at this site, particularly in the mid to late summer and fall when motorized vehicle use would be expected to occur. 

Based on the same criteria as the Trail #319 ford, density of juvenile steelhead would be assumed to average 28 

fish/100 m2 or less, given small stream size and shallow depth. Total affected area at and downstream of the ford 

is about 3 m2. Therefore, no more than 1 juvenile steelhead would be expected to be present at or just 

downstream of the ford. 

As of January 2012, a bridge is proposed to be built at this ford. Implementation would occur in 2013. 

Construction of this bridge would result in improved stream conditions at the site and remove direct effects from 

motorized use of the ford to any fish present in or downstream of the ford. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 175
22 | P a g e

For Trail #385, the ford is across main Mill Creek just upstream from the mouth of Camp Creek. Little or no 

deposited sediment was noted at the ford in 2009, therefore a pulse of suspended sediment would not be 

expected to occur when a vehicle (in this case a motorcycle) is driven through the stream. Neither juvenile nor 

adult bull trout have been observed in Mill Creek in the vicinity of this ford. Available data do not indicate presence 

of a resident population or juvenile bull trout. Density of juvenile steelhead trout during basinwide surveys in 

Lower Mill Creek conducted in the 1990s averaged 28 fish /100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width of about 3 

meters, the total affected area at and downstream of the ford is about 9 m2. Therefore, 2 – 3 juvenile steelhead 

would be expected to be present at or just downstream of the ford. 

West Fork American River: These crossings were reviewed in September 2011. No spawning habitat was noted 

for steelhead trout in these fords, as the substrate is too small. Also small stream size would limit access by adult 

steelhead. 

No snorkel surveys have been conducted by USFS personnel. Parr monitoring data collected by Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game in the 1980s and 1990s in American River suggested mean density of steelhead 

trout ranged from 2 – 14 fish/m2. No density data are available for West Fork American River, but based on 

habitat and lack of upstream migration barriers, it is assumed steelhead trout are present in this stream. 

The ford is located across West Fork American River in the upper one third of the watershed. The stream is small 

and shallow at the ford site. At low water it is less than 1 meter in width. Area affected by the ford is roughly 4 m2. 

Therefore, assuming a density of 14 fish/100 m2, no more than 1 juvenile steelhead would be present at or just 

downstream of the ford site. 

No bull trout have been observed in West Fork American River, although it is possible migrating bull trout may be 

present downstream of the ford. The stream at the ford site is too small and shallow to support a migratory bull 

trout. 

American Creek: Stream surveys were conducted in upper American Creek (tributary to Johns Creek) in both 

1991 and 2009. No spawning habitat for steelhead trout was noted anywhere in the surveyed sections, which 

included the ford locations. Substrate size was generally too small. Although spawning habitat was present, it was 

appropriate for resident fish 300 mm in length or less. Small stream size would limit access by adult steelhead as 

well. Due to small stream size and difficult access, it is probable the O. mykiss present in the upper reaches of 

American Creek are resident redband trout. Therefore, no juvenile steelhead trout would be affected by motorized 

use of this ford. Bull trout have not been documented in this stream, and it is not included as critical habitat. 

Table 7. Motorized Fords Proposed at Sites 4 Percent Gradient and Higher, ESA Listed Fish Species Only 

6

th HUC 

Watershed

Stream Name Gradient (%) Trail Number Use Type Season of 

Use

Designated Critical Habitat at 

Crossing

Lower Little Slate Deadhorse 

Creek

7.7 301 Motorcycle and 

ATV

Yearlong Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Bull trout

Lower Little Slate Deadhorse 

Creek

6.7 329 Motorcycle and 

ATV

Yearlong Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Bull trout

Lower Little Slate Deadhorse 

Creek

7.1 329 Motorcycle and 

ATV

Yearlong Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Lower Slate North Fork Slate 

Creek

7.9 320 Motorcycle 6/16 -

11/30

Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Lower Slate North Fork Slate 

Creek

7.9 320 Motorcycle 6/16 -

11/30

Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Lower Slate North Fork Slate 

Creek

7.9 320 Motorcycle 6/16 -

11/30

Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Lower Slate North Fork Slate 

Creek

7.9 320 Motorcycle 6/16 -

11/30

Spring/summer chinook

Steelhead trout

Goddard Creek Swiftwater Creek 5.9 716 Motorcycle 6/16-11/30 Steelhead trout

Upper Clear Creek Pine Knob Creek 7.5 723 Motorcycle 6/16-11/30 Steelhead trout

Lower American

River

Kirks Fork 4.6 830 Motorcycle 6/16- 9/14 Steelhead trout

Bull trout

Lower American 

River

Box Sing Creek 12.7 887 Motorcycle Yearlong Steelhead trout

Lower American 

River

Box Sing Creek 12.7 887 Motorcycle Yearlong Steelhead trout

Mill Creek Hunt Creek 6.9 431 Motorcycle and 

ATV

6/16- 9/14 Steelhead trout

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 176
23 | P a g e

Site-Specific Review of Proposed Motorized Fords in Occupied Habitat 4 Percent and Greater Stream Gradient –

ESA Listed Fish Only 

Deadhorse Creek Crossings: Three crossings in Deadhorse Creek were reviewed in September 2011. All three 

crossings contained habitat suitable for steelhead spawning, but the upstream most crossing is probably beyond 

a point where upstream migrating steelhead could access because of a series of barriers (G. Seloske, 2011 pers. 

comm.). The downstream 2 crossings are accessible, and steelhead have been observed spawning in the lowest 

crossing. All three crossings are proposed to be open to motorcycles and ATVs yearlong. Bull trout spawning has 

not been documented in Deadhorse Creek. 

As of January 2012, bridges are proposed to be built at the lower 2 fords. Implementation would occur in 2013. 

Construction of bridges would remove direct effects from motorized use of the ford to any fish or redds present in 

or downstream of the ford. 

In the meantime, to address risks to spawning steelhead trout, the trail would be closed to motorized use from 

March 15 to July 1 until bridges are built. 

Juvenile steelhead trout in the vicinity of the fords could be affected by motorized use during the period the trail is 

open to motorized use, until bridges are built. Little or no deposited sediment was noted at the fords in 2011, 

therefore a pulse of suspended sediment would not be expected to occur when a vehicle is driven through the 

stream. Available data (presence/absence) and casual observations of the sites do not suggest juvenile bull trout 

are present due to shallow water depth and lack of deep pools. Density data for juvenile steelhead trout are not 

available because the stream has not been comprehensively surveyed, but densities of juvenile steelhead in 

similar reaches in North Fork Slate Creek ranged from 4.1 – 7.2 fish/100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width of 

about 1 meter in Deadhorse Creek, the total affected area at and downstream of the fords is about 3 m2. 

Therefore, about 1 juvenile steelhead would be expected to be present at or just downstream of the fords. 

Neither spring/summer chinook salmon nor bull trout have been documented or otherwise observed in Deadhorse 

Creek. Neither species has been observed spawning anywhere in Deadhorse Creek. It is possible juveniles may 

occur sporadically the lower 1 mile of the stream, but no more than 1 fish/m2 would be expected to be present at 

the ford sites. 

North Fork Slate Creek Crossings: All motorized crossings associated with Trail #320 from the mouth of North 

Fork Slate Creek upstream through habitat occupied by steelhead trout (about 4 miles) were reviewed in July 

2011. There were fewer crossing across North Fork Slate Creek than initially appeared on a map of crossings 

generated through GIS, with just 4 crossings. The others are on small tributaries to North Fork Slate Creek that do 

not contain habitat suitable for steelhead trout. 

Spawning habitat was not noted in any of the 4 crossings. Erosion and sediment movement into streams at the 

crossings were not noted due to hardened approaches. Due to lack of deposited sediment in the fords, it is not 

expected a visible plume of sediment would occur when a machine is driven through the ford. It appeared use of 

the trail by motorcycles is light to non-existent. Only riders with a high level of skill would be able to negotiate the 

main North Fork Slate Creek crossings, due to large substrates and relatively deep water. 

Juvenile steelhead trout could be affected by motorized use of the fords during the period the trail is open to 

motorized use. Little or no deposited sediment was noted at the fords in 2011, therefore a pulse of suspended 

sediment would not be expected to occur when a vehicle is driven through the stream. Available data 

(presence/absence) do not show that bull trout are located in NF Slate Creek. Snorkel data collected in 1990 

indicated that juvenile steelhead trout densities ranged from 4.1 – 7.2 fish/100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width 

of about 3 meters in NF Slate Creek, the total affected area at and downstream of the fords is about 12 m2. 

Therefore, about 1 – 2 juvenile steelhead would be expected to be present at or just downstream of the fords. 

Spring/summer chinook salmon have not been documented or otherwise observed in North Fork Slate Creek, and 

spawning habitat for this species has not been identified. Therefore individuals would not be expected at the ford 

sites. 

Swiftwater Creek Crossing: This crossing was not reviewed in 2011, but past observations and stream surveys 

suggest no spawning habitat is present. Dominant substrate in this reach was large cobbles and small boulders. 

Given the substrate, stream gradient, and type and season of use, risk that a steelhead redd might be present 

and adversely affected is considered very low, at most. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 177
24 | P a g e

Juvenile steelhead may be present at the ford site. The stream was most recently surveyed in 1989. Density of 

juvenile steelhead trout was estimated at about 21 fish/100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width of about 2 meters, 

total affected area at and immediately downstream of the ford is about 6 m2. Therefore, 1 – 2 juvenile steelhead 

would be expected to be present at each of the 4 ford sites. 

Pine Knob Creek Crossing: This crossing was reviewed in the field in 2011. No spawning habitat was noted in or 

downstream of the ford. The stream is small and shallow up and downstream of the crossing, averaging no more 

than 1 meter in width at low water. 

Juvenile steelhead may be present at the ford site. The stream was most recently surveyed in 1989. Density of 

juvenile steelhead trout was estimated at about 10 fish/100 m2. Assuming a mean stream width of about 1 meter, 

total affected area at and immediately downstream of the ford is about 3 m2. Therefore, 1 juvenile steelhead 

would be expected to be present at the ford site. 

Box Sing Creek and Kirks Fork Crossings: These crossings are located at the headwaters of Box Sing Creek and 

Kirks Fork, across first or second order streams. Given low stream order, small stream size, and steep stream 

gradient, it is unlikely that steelhead or bull trout redds would be present at these locations. It is possible juvenile 

steelhead could be present downstream of the sites. Parr monitoring data collected by Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game in the 1980s and 1990s in American River suggested mean density of steelhead trout ranged from 2 –

14 fish/m2. No density data are available for Box Sing or Kirks Fork Creek, but based on the IDFG data and a 

mean stream width of 1 m2, no more than 1 juvenile steelhead would be expected to be present at the site. 

Bull trout have not been documented in Kirks Fork, although it is possible sporadic use occurs. 

D. Direct/Indirect Effects from Stream Crossings on New Proposed Routes

New routes have been proposed that are not currently included as system routes on the NPNF are included in the 

proposed action. New proposed routes are all motorized trails. All proposed routes currently exist on the ground 

and would not include new construction, although trail maintenance (e.g. installation of water bars) would occur to 

bring the trail to standard for the designated use. The effects of these routes, particularly of any stream crossings, 

were not included in baseline watershed and stream conditions in 1999. Stream crossing information is included 

in the following table. 

Table 8. New Proposed Routes 

New Route 

Number

Length 

(mi)

5

th HU Alternative # Stream 

Crossings

Type of Stream 

Crossing

NEW1 0.52 Red River 5 1 Bridge

NEW4 0.3 Middle SF Clearwater 5 1 Ford

NEW5 0.27 Middle SF Clearwater 5 0 No crossing

NEW1 includes a crossing in Trapper Creek, and fish would be expected to be present at this crossing. A bridge 

currently exists, however, and is sufficient to accommodate ATVs. Approaches for the crossing are located on 

gentle terrain, and erosion into the stream is not evident. This new route is therefore not expected to adversely 

affect fishery resources. 

NEW4 includes a ford crossing in a 1st-order tributary in the Mill Creek subwatershed, which is a tributary to the 

South Fork Clearwater River. Fish would not be expected to be present at the site because the stream is too 

small, too steep, and too shallow, and they have not been observed. The nearest documented fish are over 0.5 

miles downstream in mainstem Mill Creek. 

NEW5 would not be expected to affect fishery resources because of its location on a ridge well outside of any 

RHCA and lack of stream crossings. 

E. Direct/Indirect Effects from Off-Route Motorized Use Associated with Parking and Dispersed Camping

The conditions of use described in the project description section were developed to provide specific guidelines 

on off-route travel for the purpose of dispersed campsite access, partly because of potential effects to riparian and 

fishery resources. Effects from this activity and parking along designated routes are included below. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 178
25 | P a g e

Alternative 5 would allow off-route motorized use of up to 300 feet on either side of most motorized routes for 

dispersed camping. Exceptions where this activity would not be allowed are described in Section II. The 

conditions for off-route motorized travel for parking and dispersed camping would be expected to reduce or 

eliminate adverse effects to riparian areas, streams, and fish. Future development of new sites in riparian areas 

accessible to motorized use would not occur because use would be limited to existing sites only. Since streams 

would not be crossed by vehicles, direct effects to fish would not occur. 

Effects associated with repeated recreation use in existing sites could occur, however, and it could be assumed 

with motorized access effects would be greater than if motorized access was prohibited. These include campsite 

activities that damage vegetation that might provide shade, cover, or large woody debris, through harassment of

fish while occupying campsites, and from potential introduction of chemical pollutants from vehicle leaks or use of 

common household chemicals. These effects are likely to affect the immediate areas where camping occurs, but 

the activities are unlikely to affect steelhead, salmon, or bull trout to a significant extent beyond the immediate 

area where the activities occur. 

It is possible camping activities could result in disturbance of individual steelhead, salmon, or bull trout that would 

not otherwise occur if motorized access to campsites was not permitted. Such disturbance would result in a 

greater risk of effect if it occurred to staging or spawning adult fish. Since steelhead spawn during the spring when 

flows are higher, they are more difficult to detect than salmon, which spawn during the late summer when water 

flows are lower. Also more people would be expected to be camping during the late summer than spring. 

Areas where listed spring/summer chinook salmon might be present and spawn where a road is adjacent to 

occupied habitat include Slate Creek from the Forest Service boundary upstream to the confluence of Main and 

Little Slate Creeks. Existing dispersed sites are located along this road. Risks to spawning salmon have been 

addressed through placement of barriers at some sites and posting of signs at sites that remain open. 

A streamside road extends up Allison Creek, but juvenile salmon have not been documented in this stream, and 

there is no known spawning. 

There are no other roads adjacent to any other streams flowing into the Salmon River where listed salmon spawn 

or rear. 

For bull trout, there are no streamside routes that are adjacent to known spawning areas. Known bull trout 

spawning areas are generally located in high elevation stream reaches such as West Fork Crooked River, Upper 

Meadow Creek, (Selway), upper South Fork Red River, and Van Buren Creek. 

Effects to salmon, steelhead, and bull trout from parking along designated routes are possible, but the magnitude 

of these effects is expected to be very small. Vehicles are allowed to park adjacent to or within one vehicle length 

of the designated route. Roads that are near streams typically have shoulders or fill material that physically 

separate roads from streams. The physical separation generally keeps vehicles far enough from a stream that 

fish do not react to vehicles or to their occupants. If fish did react to vehicles or passengers, disruptions would 

likely be brief and have little effect on fish behavior, other than fish moving a short distance to avoid encounters. 

VIII. ESA Cumulative Effects

Within all subbasins in which the NPNF administers lands, significant portions are administered by other national 

forests, other federal land management agencies, the State of Idaho, and the Nez Perce Tribe. There are also 

varying acreages of private lands as well, particularly within the Little Salmon and Lower Salmon subbasins. 

The travel planning rule applies to lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

across the United States, so it would be expected similar motorized use designations have occurred or will occur 

within the subbasins considered in this document, along with ESA consultation where designation could affect 

ESA listed fish species. 

The Endangered Species Act defines cumulative effects as "those effects of future State or private activities, not 

involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action 

subject to consultation". 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 179
26 | P a g e

The effects of past and ongoing activities on the NPNF were analyzed in the 1999 subbasin BAs and were 

incorporated into the baseline ratings. 

The effects of future State or private activities reasonably certain to occur within the travel planning area on the 

NPNF are not known. The ratings assigned to the matrix indicators for this project would be the result of effects to 

the indicators on NPNF lands. It is assumed that any adverse effects occurring on non-federal lands would 

continue. Since the action would result in either Maintain or Restore ratings, however, we have concluded the 

action would not cumulatively contribute to adverse effects occurring on non-federal lands. 

IX. Effects to Primary Constituent Elements – Designated Critical Habitat for O. mykiss 

(Snake River steelhead DPS) and O. tshawytscha (spring/summer chinook salmon) 

(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, 

incubation, and larval development. 

The effects to spawning habitat include possible sediment introduction from motorized use of streamside roads 

and trails and at stream crossings, particularly motorized fords. Overall, implementation of the travel plan would 

be expected to reduce effects to freshwater spawning sites because travel would be restricted to designated 

routes, and any increases in erosion from this use would be more easily identified and addressed. 

There are two fords accessible to steelhead where spawning habitat is present. These fords are in Deadhorse 

Creek. Actions to eliminate effects are proposed (see page 22). Prior to implementation of these actions, the trail 

would be closed to motorized use during the spawning and incubation period for steelhead trout. The approaches 

to the crossings did not exhibit any signs of erosion during a 2011 field review, and deposited sediment at the 

fords was not evident. Therefore the trail itself does not appear to be adversely affecting the sites. Motorized use 

of the fords does not appear to have reduced the quantity or quality of these sites. 

Spawning habitat for spring/summer chinook salmon was not identified in or within 100 meters downstream of any 

ford proposed for motorized use. The project is not expected to result in adverse effects to freshwater spawning 

sites for this species. 

(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat 

conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; 

and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams, beaver dams, aquatic 

vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. 

Similar to spawning sites, sediment introduction is possible at fords. All proposed motorized fords in streams 

where listed or sensitive fish might be present have been reviewed on the ground. Of these, only one was 

identified as affecting rearing habitat (Trail #313 in Upper Mill Creek), and actions have been proposed to address 

these effects, with implementation expected in summer or fall 2102. 

Use of motorized vehicles at ford sites would be expected to maintain current effects to streambanks. Additional 

effects are not expected, because monitoring is proposed to identify any areas where any increases in motorized 

use results in adverse effects, and actions would be taken to address these effects. 

No new fords are proposed except 1, (see Table 8), but this ford is not located in a fish-bearing stream. Given its 

location at the headwaters of a 1st order stream, it is not expected to affect rearing habitat or any stream reach 

where fish are present. This new route would be assessed and brought to a standard to accommodate the 

designated use, including the ford, prior to opening the route to this use. 

Overall the project would result in decreased risk of new crossings and improvement in any streambanks, 

floodplains, and riparian areas currently affected by off-route motorized use. Closure of the Forest to unregulated 

cross country use, specifying conditions for off-route use associated with dispersed campsite access, and 

designating motorized routes on specific roads and trails, at a level that is less than the current condition, would 

be expected to result in static or improved freshwater rearing sites, including sediment, temperature, large woody 

debris, and streambank stability, and prevent future adverse effects associated with motorized use. 

The analysis previously presented supports this conclusion. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 180
27 | P a g e

(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural 

cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side 

channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. 

Effects to freshwater migration corridors would be limited to routes with fords, all of which currently exist. These 

fords are located on motorized trails, not roads. The action would result in no effects to freshwater migration 

corridors. All fords in fish-bearing streams have been reviewed in the field, and none were determined to 

constitute a migration barrier to steelhead trout or otherwise affect migration, especially since adult steelhead 

migrate during higher flows. Fords are not expected to affect listed spring/summer chinook salmon because none 

are located in streams where adult spring/summer chinook are known to migrate. 

No new stream crossings are proposed, except for those depicted in Table 8. Of these, one crossing has an 

existing bridge, and the other is proposed in a first order, headwater stream that does not contain fish and is 

located about 0.5 miles from the nearest occupied habitat. 

X. Effects to Primary Constituent Elements – Designated Critical Habitat for Salvelinus 

confluentus (Columbia River bull trout DPS) 

Effects to bull trout critical habitat primary constituent elements are summarized below in Table 9. 

Table 9. Primary Constituent Elements for Columbia River Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat 

Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs)

Associated Habitat 

Indicators

Environmental 

Baseline

Present or 

Absent

Effects of the 

Actions

(Restore, Maintain, 

or Degrade)

1 Springs, seeps, groundwater 

sources, and subsurface water 

connectivity (hyporehic flows) to 

contribute to water quality and 

quantity and provide thermal refugia.

Flood plain connectivity, 

changes in peak/base flows, 

cobble embeddedness, road 

density, streambank stability, 

chemical 

contamination/nutrients

Present Maintain/Restore

2 Migration habitats with minimal 

physical, biological, or water quality 

impediments between spawning, 

rearing, overwintering, and 

freshwater and marine foraging 

habitats, including but not limited to 

permanent, partial, intermittent, or 

seasonal barriers.

Temperature, sediment, 

chemical 

contamination/nutrients, 

physical barriers, peak/base 

flow, width/depth ratio, 

refugia

Present Maintain

3 An abundant food base, including 

terrestrial organisms of riparian 

origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

and forage fish.

Floodplain connectivity, 

riparian vegetation condition, 

pool frequency and quality, 

cobble embeddedness, 

temperature, chemical 

contaminants and nutrients

Present Maintain

4 Complex river, stream, lake, 

reservoir, and marine shoreline 

aquatic environments and processes 

with features such as large wood, 

side channels, pools, undercut 

banks and un-embedded substrates, 

to provide a variety of depths, 

gradients, velocities, and structure.

Large woody debris, pool 

frequency and quality, 

width/depth ratio, off-channel 

habitat, streambank stability, 

riparian vegetation condition, 

floodplain connectivity, 

disturbance history and 

regime, refugia

Present Maintain

5 Water temperatures ranging from 2 

to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate 

thermal refugia available for 

temperatures that exceed the upper 

end of this range. Specific 

temperatures within this range will 

vary depending on bull trout lifehistory stage and form; geography; 

elevation; diurnal and seasonal 

variation; shade, such as that 

provided by riparian habitat; and 

local groundwater influence.

Temperature, refugia, pool 

frequency and quality, 

width/depth ratio, change in 

peak/base flows, 

streambank stability, 

floodplain connectivity, road 

density

Present Maintain

6 In spawning and rearing areas, 

substrate of sufficient amount, size, 

and composition to ensure success 

Sediment, cobble 

embeddedness, large woody 

debris, pool frequency and 

Present Maintain

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 181
28 | P a g e

Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs)

Associated Habitat 

Indicators

Environmental 

Baseline

Present or 

Absent

Effects of the 

Actions

(Restore, Maintain, 

or Degrade)

of egg and embryo overwinter 

survival, fry emergence, and youngof-the-year and juvenile survival. A 

minimal amount of fine sediment, 

generally ranging in size from silt to 

coarse sand, embedded in larger 

substrates, is characteristic of these 

conditions. The size and amounts of 

fine sediment suitable to bull trout 

will likely vary from system to 

system.

quality, streambank stability

7 A natural hydrograph, including 

peak, high, low, and base flows 

within historic and seasonal ranges 

or, if flows are controlled, minimal 

flow departures from a natural 

hydrograph.

Peak/base flow, road 

density, riparian vegetation 

condition, floodplain 

connectivity, 

Present Maintain/Restore

8 Sufficient water quality and quantity 

such that normal reproduction, 

growth, and survival are not 

inhibited.

Floodplain connectivity, 

peak/base flow, 

temperature, sediment, 

chemical contaminant and 

nutrients

Present Maintain

9 Sufficiently low levels of occurrence 

of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake 

trout, walleye, northern pike, 

smallmouth bass); interbreeding 

(e.g., brook trout); or competing 

(e.g., brown trout) species that, if 

present, are adequately temporally 

and spatially isolated from bull trout.

Physical barriers Absent Maintain

Maintain and restore ratings are based on lower motorized route density when compared to the existing condition, 

fewer miles of routes, closure of Forest to unregulated cross country motorized travel, and establishment of 

conditions for off-route travel to access dispersed camp sites. The project is expected to have negligible impacts 

to bull trout critical habitat due to: (1) low number of fords in bull trout critical habitat (there are 5); (2) hardened 

approaches and drainage improvements to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation; and (3) annual trail 

maintenance program. Overall changes in substrate conditions (due to turbidity and suspended sediment levels) 

that may occur at the crossing sites are expected to be relatively minor in scale and duration. Any substrate 

changes and redistribution of fine sediment produced by motorized use would be localized and not measurable in 

stream reaches downstream of the crossing location. Field reviews did not observe any notable spawning habitat 

at the fords in bull trout critical habitat (that could have or potential could have bull trout spawning. Therefore, no 

impacts to bull trout redds (including incubation and larval development) are expected within the range of bull 

trout. Due to the shallow nature of the trail crossings (i.e. no pools or deep runs for fish to hold), the risk of 

directly harming a fish is highly unlikely unless a fish happens to swim by when a ATV or motorcycle is crossing 

the stream. 

The project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to water quantity. The use of motorized vehicles within 

the riparian areas elevates the risk of chemical contamination of streams via fuel spills (vehicles mishaps) or 

leakage of fuel or other petroleum projects (especially at stream crossings). However, the authorized motorized 

vehicles for trails (motorcycles and ATV’s) have a limited fuel supply (between two and four gallons) which 

reduces the likelihood of substantial impacts due a mishap involving a fuel spill at a stream crossing. Additionally, 

vehicles are equipped with safety mechanisms to avoid fuel spillage if vehicles are overturned or on their side. 

Similarly, motorized vehicles accessing dispersed recreational sites are not expected to have measurable impacts 

to water quality especially when vehicles are restricted to the access route and “foot print” of the dispersed site. 

As noted in a previous section, the Forest will evaluate existing access routes into dispersed campsites within the 

riparian areas of streams with listed fish species to document the site and determine if any corrective actions are 

necessary. Where problems exist or occur in future the Forest will correct through appropriate actions (i.e. 

administratively or through the NEPA process). Where needed, restoration actions (via the placement of boulders 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 182
29 | P a g e

and/or re-vegetation) to avoid an expanding “footprint” of the site and subsequent impact to streams will be 

completed. In general, due to the reduction of motorized stream trails and use within riparian areas, elimination of 

cross country travel and a reduction of stream crossings, the risks of chemical contaminants within the riparian 

areas are expected to be reduced. 

XI. Determination of Effect 

A. Essential Fish Habitat 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is designated for chinook and coho salmon in the Salmon and Clearwater River 

basins. In accordance with applicable requirements of section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and it 

implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600.920), the Forest needs to evaluate potential effects of the proposed 

project within the Middle Fork Clearwater, Selway, South Fork Clearwater, Lower Salmon, Lower Little Salmon, 

and Middle Salmon – Chamberlain subbasins to Essential Fish Habitat. Spring chinook salmon are not listed 

under ESA within the Clearwater River basin, but spring chinook salmon production (naturally and hatchery 

supplemented) occurs in the Middle Fork Clearwater, Selway, and South Fork Clearwater subbasins. 

Effects of Proposed Action: Generally, the project is expected to have minimal to nonexistent effects on salmon 

habitat in the short-term, while long-term effects are likely to be beneficial. Overall the project proposal does not 

propose any new ground-disturbing activities and will actually reduce the amount of acreage subjected to a higher 

risk of various resource impacts. Based on the above analysis the proposed Travel Plan would reduce the 

potential for adverse impacts to the aquatic environment and spring chinook salmon and coho salmon streams by: 

(1) reducing the miles of motorized roads by 4 percent, 

(2) reducing the miles of motorized trails by 44 percent; 

(3) reducing the number of motorized crossings by 14 percent; 

(4) reducing the number of motorized fords by 50 percent; 

(5) reducing the miles of motorized trails adjacent to occupied habitat by 59 percent; 

(6) eliminating cross country travel via motorized vehicles; and 

(7) reducing existing motorized routes in riparian areas with no new routes permitted. 

Since designated critical habitat for Snake River steelhead in the Clearwater basin and Snake River steelhead 

and spring/summer chinook salmon in the Salmon basin are identical to the area designated as EFH for spring 

chinook and coho salmon, the EFH analysis and potential adverse effects to designated critical habitat for ESAlisted species and EFH MSA-managed species are considered to be functionally equivalent. Effects on salmon 

EFH (spring chinook and coho) would be the same as those described for steelhead trout and bull trout within this 

biological assessment. 

 

Therefore, the determination for the proposed Travel Plan is that the proposed activities would not adversely 

affect EFH for spring chinook and coho salmon. 

B. ESA Listed and Sensitive Fish Species 

1. Determinations 

The determinations of effect for each TES fish species are included below in Table 10. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 183
30 | P a g e

Table 10. Determination of Effect for TES Fish Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

Species – ESA Listed Determination 

Snake River Steelhead 

Trout

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Snake River 

Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon (Salmon Basin)

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Columbia River Bull 

Trout

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Snake River Fall 

Chinook Salmon

No Effect

Snake River Sockeye 

Salmon

No Effect

Species – Region 1 

Sensitive

Determination - Species

Spring Chinook Salmon 

(Clearwater Basin)

May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead

to ESA Listing

Westslope Cutthroat 

Trout

May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead 

to ESA Listing

Interior Redband Trout May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead 

to ESA Listing

Pacific Lamprey May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead 

to ESA Listing

Western Pearlshell 

Mussel

May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead 

to ESA Listing

2. Determination Rationale 

ESA Listed Fish Species

Snake River Steelhead Trout and Designated Critical Habitat

The determination for steelhead trout is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. This determination is based 

potential direct effects to individual fish at stream crossings and indirect effects to habitat, as summarized below: 

(1) Effects to individual steelhead trout are expected at motorized fords if fish are present at the site or 

immediately downstream. Fords that are proposed in streams known or suspected to be occupied by steelhead 

trout are displayed in Tables 6 and 7. Effects would include disturbance and/or displacement of individuals from 

the physical presence of a machine and pulses of suspended sediment when machines are driven through the 

fords. Sustained suspended sediment pulses or plumes are not expected because low levels of fines in stream 

substrates were noted in most fords reviewed in 2011. 

No mortality of individuals has been documented from operation of motorized vehicles in stream fords. 

Small amounts of hydrocarbons or other potentially toxic substances could be introduced to streams at fords 

when machines cross fords, if they were present on the outside of the vehicle that contacts the water. Since 

motorized vehicles are typically in the water for just a few seconds while crossing a ford, and few riders would be 

expected to stop in the middle of a ford for extended periods of time, it is unlikely that large amounts of any toxic 

material would be delivered to streams. 

(2) Spawning habitat for steelhead trout has been documented in two motorized fords in Deadhorse Creek, which 

is a tributary to Little Slate Creek. Operation of motorized vehicles during the spawning and incubation period 

could result in direct mortality of eggs and unemerged fry. This trail is proposed to be open to ATVs and 

motorcycles yearlong. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 184
31 | P a g e

Bridges are proposed to be constructed at these sites to reduce or eliminate this risk, and the trail would be 

closed to motorized use during the spawning and incubation period for steelhead until they are built. 

(3) Effects to individuals from motorized access to dispersed sites and parking include the physical presence of 

motorized vehicles being driving within streamside RHCAs and human presence and activities that might not 

occur if motorized access were not allowed. Conditions for off-route use limit motorized use to “the most clearly 

defined track”. Crossing of streams constitutes resource damage and would not be permitted, nor would random 

or repetitive motorized use for the purpose of finding a site. It is assumed the effects of motorized access to 

dispersed sites would not increase over the existing condition, and future risks from this activity would be less. 

Also existing sites would be monitored (see Appendix A). 

Human presence and activities could result in effects to individual steelhead trout. Streamside routes adjacent to 

occupied steelhead habitat are included in Table 4. Effects would be expected to be limited to possible 

disturbance of juveniles from human activities in or adjacent to streams, such as wading, swimming, collecting 

water, and throwing rocks in the stream. It is also possible a site might occur adjacent to spawning habitat. Since 

steelhead spawn in the spring, high elevation sites may not be accessible to motorized vehicles because of snow. 

At lower elevations, steelhead would be more difficult to detect because of high water, and fewer people would be 

expected to be camping. 

(4) Sediment from stream crossings and streamside motorized routes could affect critical habitat for steelhead 

trout. The amount of sediment from this use is expected to be indistinguishable from sediment yield in the 

absence of this use. A sediment model that differentiates between sediment from the routes themselves and 

motorized use on the routes is not available. Sediment increases from log truck traffic operated on forest roads 

has been studied, it was determined that there was substantial variability in the amount of sediment produced, 

and in some cases log truck traffic results in significant sediment production (Luce and Black, 2001). Increased 

logging traffic, however, is not part of the DRAMVU decision. The effects of increased logging traffic would be 

associated with separate decisions for individual timber projects. The DRAMVU decision considers the effects of 

passenger vehicle and trail machine use, for which there is very little information available concerning amount of 

sediment liberated by this use. Logically, one could assume operation of any motorized vehicle on a saturated, 

muddy route with no surface materials (e.g. rock) would result in rutting, which if located on a slope that leads to a 

stream would result in erosion into the stream. Therefore, routes lacking surface materials that are open to 

motorized use during periods when they could become saturated would be cause for concern, particularly routes 

adjacent to streams. 

Streamside routes proposed for motorized use with seasonal closures are displayed in Table 4. Closure dates 

were established using several criteria, one of which was susceptibility of the route to damage or erosion during 

the spring and early summer. Other criteria included restricting access during the fall hunting season, winter 

season to protect big game winter range, and spring to protect elk calving. These closures coincide with the times 

of the year when the routes are most likely to become saturated. 

Routes designated as open yearlong to motorized use were determined to have been built and are maintained to 

a standard that can accommodate that use during wet periods without damage to the surface of the route that 

could lead to erosion (pers. comm. J. Bonn, 2012). One exception would be trails proposed for motorized use that 

may not currently be at a standard for the type of use proposed. Following is a summary of these trails: 

 Single to double track: Trails #307, 329, 884 

 Non-motorized to motorized: Trails #212, 234, 505 

 New-1, New-4, and New-5 would need additional trail work to bring to standard for motorized use 

These trails would not be opened, however, until actions were taken to upgrade the standard on the ground. Any 

construction or ground disturbance would be included under a separate decision. 

The other exception would be at the approaches of fords at trail/stream crossings, where erosion directly into the 

stream could occur when motorized trail machines are driven on the approaches. The effects of fords located in 

critical habitat have been analyzed in some detail previously in this document. A field review of all proposed 

motorized fords in critical habitat and most fords in other fish-bearing streams was conducted in 2010 and 2011. 

Of these, one was identified as producing a level of erosion that resulted in measurable increases in stream 

sediment (Mill Creek at the Trail #313 crossing). Actions to address the problem have been proposed, with 

implementation scheduled in 2012. Several others were identified in Upper Little Slate Creek, but these have 

been addressed in the Little Slate EIS under a separate consultation. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 185
32 | P a g e

As implementation of the DRAMVU decision occurs, it is expected that any fords that have not been reviewed on 

the ground (nearly all of which are in fishless streams), will be assessed along with the trail to determine if they 

are at a standard that can accommodate the designated use without resource damage. Resource damage 

includes erosion that would result in measurable increases in stream sediment. Areas where standards are not 

met would be addressed through maintenance, reconstruction, relocation, or closure of the route. 

Given the above information, increases in erosion from the operation of motorized vehicles on designated routes 

at a magnitude that would result in measurable increases in deposited sediment in any stream, including streams 

in designated critical habitat, are not expected under the DRAMVU decision. 

Since there are fewer routes proposed than are currently designated, any sediment effects from motorized use 

would occur in fewer areas than the existing condition. In addition, closure of the NPNF to unregulated off-route 

motorized use may result in significant improvement, if current use is resulting in erosion into streams. 

(5) Effects from parking along designated routes are not expected to result in adverse effects to streams or 

habitat, because people generally park using the existing road template. Although parking would be allowed 

within one vehicle length, it is assumed most people would not attempt to park in wet areas off the road template 

for fear of getting stuck, particularly if a trailer is involved. Conditions for off-route travel would be expected to limit 

off-route travel, including parking, that would result in resource damage. 

(6) Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to critical habitat would be 

expected to occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

Columbia River Bull Trout and Designated Critical Habitat 

The determination for Columbia River bull trout is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. The determination for 

designated critical habitat is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. These determinations are based potential 

direct effects to individual fish at that could possibly be present at 5 stream crossings and indirect effects to 

habitat, as summarized below: 

(1) Effects to individual bull trout could occur at 5 motorized fords if fish are present at the site or immediately 

downstream. Effects would include disturbance and/or displacement of individuals from the physical presence of a 

machine and pulses of suspended sediment when machines are driven through the fords. Sustained suspended 

sediment pulses or plumes are not expected because low levels of fines in stream substrates were noted in most 

fords reviewed in 2011. 

No mortality of individuals has been documented from operation of motorized vehicles in stream fords. 

Small amounts of hydrocarbons or other potentially toxic substances could be introduced to streams at fords 

when machines cross fords, if they were present on the outside of the vehicle that contacts the water. Since 

motorized vehicles are typically in the water for just a few seconds while crossing a ford, and few riders would be 

expected to stop in the middle of a ford for extended periods of time, and trail machines typical contain only 2 – 4 

gallons of fuel at a time, it is unlikely that large amounts of any toxic material would be delivered to streams. 

(2) Spawning habitat for bull trout has not been identified in any of these 5 fords during surveys conducted in 

2011, so direct effects to redds or unemerged fry are not expected. 

(3) Effects to individual bull trout from motorized access to dispersed sites and parking include the physical 

presence of motorized vehicles being driving within streamside RHCAs and human presence and activities that 

might not occur if motorized access were not allowed. Conditions for off-route use limit motorized use to “the most 

clearly defined track”. Crossing of streams constitutes resource damage and would not be permitted, nor would 

random or repetitive motorized use for the purpose of finding a site. It is assumed the effects of motorized access 

to dispersed sites would not increase over the existing condition, and future risks from this activity would be less. 

Also existing sites would be monitored (see Appendix A). 

Human presence and activities could result in effects to individual bull trout. Streamside routes adjacent to 

occupied bull trout habitat are included in Table 4. None of these routes are adjacent to known bull trout spawning 

areas. Since juvenile bull trout are difficult to detect, even in small streams, deliberate harassment would not be 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 186
33 | P a g e

expected. Individuals could be disturbed by human activity in or adjacent to the stream, however. Effects would 

be expected from human activities such as wading, swimming, collecting water, and throwing rocks in the stream. 

(4) Sediment from stream crossings and streamside motorized routes could affect critical habitat for bull trout. The 

amount of sediment from this use is expected to be indistinguishable from sediment yield in the absence of this 

use. The project only designates type of use on existing roads and trails; it does not include a decision regarding 

the future existence of the road or trail. These facilities would be expected to continue to produce a background 

level of sediment. 

The DRAMVU decision considers the effects of passenger vehicle and trail machine use, for which there is very 

little information available concerning amount of sediment liberated by this use. Logically, one could assume 

operation of any motorized vehicle on a saturated, muddy route with no surface materials (e.g. rock) would result 

in rutting, which if located on a slope that leads to a stream would result in erosion into the stream. Therefore, 

routes lacking surface materials that are open to motorized use during periods when they could become saturated 

would be cause for concern, particularly routes adjacent to streams. 

Streamside routes proposed for motorized use with seasonal closures are displayed in Table 4. Closure dates 

were established using several criteria, one of which was susceptibility of the route to damage or erosion during 

the spring and early summer. Other criteria included restricting access during the fall hunting season, winter 

season to protect big game winter range, and spring to protect elk calving. These closures coincide with the times 

of the year when the routes are most likely to become saturated. 

Routes designated as open yearlong to motorized use were determined to have been built and are maintained to 

a standard that can accommodate that use during wet periods without damage to the surface of the route that 

could lead to erosion (pers. comm. J. Bonn, 2012). One exception would be trails proposed for motorized use that 

may not currently be at a standard for the type of use proposed. Following is a summary of these trails: 

 Single to double track: Trails #307, 329, 884 

 Non-motorized to motorized: Trails #212, 234, 505 

 New-1, New-4, and New-5 would need additional trail work to bring to standard for motorized use 

These trails would not be opened, however, until actions were taken to upgrade the standard on the ground. Any 

construction or ground disturbance would be included under a separate decision. 

The other exception would be at the approaches of fords at trail/stream crossings, where erosion directly into the 

stream could occur when motorized trail machines are driven on the approaches. The effects of fords located in 

critical habitat have been analyzed in some detail previously in this document. A field review of all proposed 

motorized fords in critical habitat and most fords in other fish-bearing streams was conducted in 2010 and 2011. 

Of these, one was identified as producing a level of erosion that resulted in measurable increases in stream 

sediment (Mill Creek at the Trail #313 crossing). Actions to address the problem have been proposed, with 

implementation scheduled in 2012. Several others were identified in Upper Little Slate Creek, but these have 

been addressed in the Little Slate EIS under a separate consultation. 

As implementation of the DRAMVU decision occurs, it is expected that any fords that have not been reviewed on 

the ground (nearly all of which are in fishless streams), will be assessed along with the trail to determine if they 

are at a standard that can accommodate the designated use without resource damage. Resource damage 

includes erosion that would result in measurable increases in stream sediment. Areas where standards are not 

met would be addressed through maintenance, reconstruction, relocation, or closure of the route. 

Given the above information, increases in erosion from the operation of motorized vehicles on designated routes 

at a magnitude that would result in measurable increases in deposited sediment in any stream, including streams 

in designated critical habitat, are not expected under the DRAMVU decision. 

Since there are fewer routes proposed than are currently designated, any sediment effects from motorized use 

would occur in fewer areas than the existing condition. In addition, closure of the NPNF to unregulated off-route 

motorized use may result in significant improvement, if current use is resulting in erosion into streams. 

(5) Effects from parking along designated routes are not expected to result in adverse effects to streams or 

habitat, because people generally park using the existing road template. Although parking would be allowed 

within one vehicle length, it is assumed most people would not attempt to park in wet areas off the road template 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 187
34 | P a g e

for fear of getting stuck, particularly if a trailer is involved. Conditions for off-route travel would be expected to limit 

off-route travel, including parking, that would result in resource damage. 

(6) Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to critical habitat would be 

expected to occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

Determination for Columbia River Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect. This determination is based on item #4 and information presented in Table 9, in which effects to Primary 

Constituent Elements are discussed. The effects of the action would Maintain or Maintain/Restore PCEs. A NLAA 

determination for critical habitat is based on maintaining the current condition of some PCEs. Restoration would 

be predicated on monitoring and future implementation of projects to address any sediment concerns associated 

with motorized use of designated routes. 

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Designated Critical Habitat

The Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon ESU is found within the mainstem Salmon River and tributaries. 

Spring chinook salmon in the Clearwater basin are not included in this ESU and are not ESA-listed. The 

determination for listed spring/summer chinook is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. This determination is 

based indirect effects to habitat and possible take associated with motorized access to dispersed campsites in 

Slate Creek, as summarized below: 

(1) Effects to individual salmon are not expected at fords because no fords were identified in occupied habitat. 

(2) In the Lower Salmon subbasin, there are about 20 miles of road identified as being adjacent to occupied 

habitat. Of these miles, 10 are located up mainstem Slate Creek, and 9 are located adjacent to the mainstem 

Salmon River. 0.1 miles are located in the Salmon River- Race Creek 5th code HUC. 

Dispersed campsites can be found along the Salmon River and Slate Creek, but those up Slate Creek pose the 

greatest risk. Effects include the physical presence of motorized vehicles being driving within streamside RHCAs 

and human presence and activities that might not occur if motorized access were not allowed. Conditions for offroute use limit motorized use to “the most clearly defined track”. Crossing of streams constitutes resource 

damage and would not be permitted, nor would random or repetitive motorized use for the purpose of finding a 

site. It is assumed the effects of motorized access to dispersed sites would not increase over the existing 

condition, and future risks from this activity would be less. Also existing sites would be monitored (see Appendix 

A). 

Human presence and activities could result in effects to individual salmon. Streamside routes adjacent to 

occupied salmon habitat are included in Table 4. Sites adjacent to Slate Creek could result in harassment of 

staging or spawning adult salmon. Dispersed sites have been reviewed in the past, and those adjacent to known 

spawning areas or other high risk areas have been blocked from use by placement of boulders. Some sites 

remain open, but these sites are not adjacent to known spawning areas. 

Individual fish, including adult salmon, could be disturbed by human activity. Possible effects could occur from 

people wading, swimming, throwing rocks in the stream, throwing rocks at the fish, and attempting to snag, net, or 

otherwise capture the fish. It is unclear if continuing to allow motorized access to dispersed sites or parking along 

designated routes would contribute to this risk, or if closing the area to off-route use would reduce it. Existing sites 

would be monitored (see Appendix A). 

(3) Sediment from stream crossings and streamside motorized routes could affect critical habitat for 

spring/summer chinook salmon. The amount of sediment from this use is expected to be indistinguishable from 

sediment yield in the absence of this use. The project only designates type of use on existing roads and trails; it 

does not include a decision regarding the future existence of the road or trail. These facilities would be expected 

to continue to produce a background level of sediment. 

Regarding possible increases in stream sediment from motorized use, please see discussion above under 

steelhead trout and bull trout. 

Since there are fewer routes proposed than are currently designated, any sediment effects from motorized use 

would occur in fewer areas than the existing condition. In addition, closure of the NPNF to unregulated off-route 

motorized use may result in significant improvement, if current use is resulting in erosion into streams. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 188
35 | P a g e

(4) Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to critical habitat would be 

expected to occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

Snake River Fall Chinook and Sockeye Salmon and Designated Critical Habitat

The Snake River fall chinook salmon ESU is found within the mainstem Salmon and Clearwater Rivers. The 

Snake River sockeye salmon ESU is found within the mainstem Salmon River only. The determination for both 

species and designated critical habitat is No Effect. The rationale for this determination is: 

(1) Since both species and their critical habitat involve mainstem rivers, effects pathways would be limited to 

those that could affect mainstem rivers. 

(2) There are no designated routes adjacent to occupied or designated critical habitat or that cross occupied or 

designated critical habitat, except for FSR #1614, which extends up the Salmon River from Riggins to the end of 

the road at Vinegar Creek. There are two crossings of this route over the Salmon River, obviously both are 

bridges. 

(3) Given large river nature of occupied habitat, increases in sediment from motorized use generated upstream 

would not be expected occur in any area where fall chinook or sockeye salmon are present. 

(4) Because the fish are found in large rivers, they would not be expected to be vulnerable to disturbance from 

human activities associated with motorized use on FSR #1614 and motorized access to dispersed campsites. 

Region 1 Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic Species

Spring Chinook Salmon

As previously discussed, spring chinook salmon in the Clearwater basin are not listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. They are, however, a Region 1 sensitive species. The determination for spring chinook salmon in the 

Clearwater basin for this project is May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead to 

ESA Listing. 

Individuals may be affected by motorized use at stream crossings. They may also be affected by motorized 

access to dispersed campsites, if such use results in greater human presence adjacent to occupied habitat than 

would occur if motorized access were prohibited. Information regarding stream crossings and motorized routes 

adjacent to stream occupied by chinook salmon is included in Tables 3 and 4. 

Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to salmon habitat would be 

expected to occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Westslope cutthroat trout are a Region 1 sensitive species. They are the most widely distributed salmonid species 

on the NPNF and therefore potentially affected by more activities in more places. . The determination for 

westslope cutthroat trout for this project is May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or 

Lead to ESA Listing. 

Individuals may be affected by motorized use at stream crossings. They may also be affected by motorized 

access to dispersed campsites, if such use results in greater human presence adjacent to occupied habitat than 

would occur if motorized access were prohibited. Information regarding stream crossings and motorized routes 

adjacent to stream occupied by westslope cutthroat trout is included in Tables 3 and 4. 

Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to habitat would be expected to 

occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 189
36 | P a g e

Interior Redband Trout

As previously discussed, interior redband trout are the resident form of Oncorhynchus mykiss and are a Region 1 

sensitive fish species. They are more widely distributed across the NPNF than anadromous steelhead, often 

occurring upstream of migration barriers that prevent access by anadromous fish. Examples include the upper 

reaches of Little Slate Creek, Crooked Creek, and Meadow Creek (Selway), where the “rainbow trout” populations 

are largely resident redbands. The determination for interior redband trout for this project is May Impact 

Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead to ESA Listing. 

Individuals may be affected by motorized use at stream crossings. They may also be affected by motorized 

access to dispersed campsites, if such use results in greater human presence adjacent to occupied habitat than 

would occur if motorized access were prohibited. Information regarding stream crossings and motorized routes 

adjacent to stream occupied by interior redband and steelhead trout is included in Tables 3 and 4. 

Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to habitat would be expected to 

occur, based on information provided in Table 3. 

Pacific Lamprey

Pacific lamprey is a Region 1 sensitive fish species and a State of Idaho endangered species. They are rare 

across the NPNF, and populations have been documented in just a few locations. These locations include Red 

River downstream from the mouth of Redhorse Creek, the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River, the mainstem 

Selway River, and the mainstem Salmon River. Distribution in the mainstem Selway River appears to be 

widespread. They may be present in other locations however. The determination for Pacific lamprey for this 

project is May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead to ESA Listing. 

Individuals may be affected by motorized use at stream crossings. Because juvenile lamprey burrow into stream 

substrates and spend up to seven years in substrates, they may be especially vulnerable to adverse effects from 

motorized use of fords. There are no fords proposed in habitat known to be occupied by lampreys, and nearly all 

fords are located in areas that do not support habitat that could be occupied by lampreys. There is a small risk 

that lampreys could occur in some of the fords across larger streams, however. 

Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to habitat would be expected to 

occur, based on information provided in Table 3. Closing the NPNF to unregulated motorized use would 

dramatically reduce risk to lampreys because operation of motorized vehicles in streams, except at fords, would 

be prohibited. 

Western Pearlshell Mussel

Western pearlshell mussel is a Region 1 sensitive aquatic species. Populations have been identified in the 

mainstem Selway River, American River, Red River, and the South Fork Clearwater River. It is likely there are 

other populations as well, since comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. The determination for this 

species is May Impact Individuals, But Not Likely to Cause Loss of Viability or Lead to ESA Listing. 

Individuals may be affected by motorized use at fords, if use occurs where mussels are present. Similar to 

juvenile Pacific lampreys, individual mussels are mostly sessile, residing in stream substrates, and are thus 

vulnerable to adverse effects from motorized use of fords. All fords in larger streams where this species could be 

present have been reviewed, and no mussels were observed. It is possible there are fords somewhere that could 

support mussels, however. 

Overall improvement in baseline conditions, RMOs, and reduced long term risk to habitat would be expected to 

occur, based on information provided in Table 3. Closing the NPNF to unregulated motorized use would 

dramatically reduce risk to mussels because operation of motorized vehicles in streams, except at fords, would be 

prohibited. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 190
37 | P a g e

References: 

Baxter, C.; C. Frissell; and F.R. Hauer. 1999. Geomorphology, logging roads, and the distribution of bull trout 

spawning in a forested river basin: implications for management and conservation. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 128: 854 – 867. 

Bilby, R; K. Sullivan, and S. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road surface sediment in forested 

watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 453-468. 

Bjornn, T. C. and N. Horner. 1980. Biological criteria for classification of Pacific salmon and steelhead as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Chin, A., D. M. Rohrer, D. A. Marion, and J. A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Stream 

Dynamics. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SRS-74. pp. 292-296. 

Cochnauer, T., and C. Claire. 2001 - 2004. Evaluate status of Pacific lamprey in the Clearwater River drainage, 

Idaho. Report of Idaho Department of Fish and Game to U.S. Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon. 

Foltz, R. B. 2006. Erosion from All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Trails on National Forest Lands. Written for 

presentation at the 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting. Portland, Oregon. July 9-12, 2006. 

Foltz, R.B., N.S. Copeland, and W.J. Elliot. 2009. Re-opening abandoned roads in northern Idaho, USA: 

Qualification of runoff, sediment concentration, infiltration, and interrill erosion parameters. Journal of 

Environmental Management 90: 2542 – 2550. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance. In: Influences of Forest 

and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Edited by W.R. Meehan. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MD. 

Gucinsky, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brooks. 2001. Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific 

information. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-509, Portland, OR. 

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast 

salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p. 

Jakober, M. and C. Dentino. 2003. A summary of fish habitat and population changes in the Wilkerson Creek 

drainage, Upper Selway subbasin, six years after the 1996 Swet Fire. USDA Forest Service, Bitterroot National 

Forest, unpublished report. 

Jones, J A., Frederick J. Swanson, B. C. Wemple, and K. U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of Roads on Hydrology, 

Geomorphology, and Disturbance Patches in Stream Networks. Conservation Biology. Vol. 14. No. 1. pp. 76-85.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, and B. Rieman. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In: Quigley, 

T.M. and Arbelbide, S. J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia River 

basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-406. 

Luce, C. A. and T. A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment production. In 

Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. March 25-29, 2001. Reno, Nevada. 

pp. V67-V74. 

McPhail, J.D. and C.C. Lindsey. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of Cascadia (the Columbia system and 

rivers north of the Stikine). Pp. 615 – 637 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wilsey, eds. Zoogeography of North American 

Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Son, Inc. New York 

Meyer, K.G. 2002. Managing degraded off-highway vehicle trails in wet, unstable, and sensitive environments. 

USDA – Forest Service Technology and Development Program, Missoula, MT. 

Nedeau, E., A. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest. The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 191
38 | P a g e

NOAA Fisheries. 2006. Draft Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

Ouren, D., C. Haas, C. P. Melcher, S. C. Stewart, P. D. Ponds, N. R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z. H. 

Bowen. 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A 

Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and Internet Resources. United States 

Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2007-1353. 

Reid, Leslie M. and Thomas Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources 

Research. Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1753-1761. 

Rieman, B. and K. Apperson. 1989. Westslope cutthroat trout synopsis and analysis of fishery information. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise. Project F-73-R-11, Subproject II, Job 1. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for the conservation of bull trout 

Salvelinus confluentus. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT302, Ogden, UT. 

Rhodes, J.J., McCullough, D.A., and Espinosa Jr., F.A., 1994. A Coarse Screening Process for 

Evaluation of the Effects of Land Management Activities on Salmon Spawning and Rearing 

Habitat in ESA Consultations. CRITFC Tech. Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR. 

Sedell, J., D. Lee, B. Rieman, R. Thurow, and J. Williams. 1997. Effects of proposed alternatives on aquatic 

habitats and native fishes (ICRB). In: Quigley, T.M. and Arbelbide, S. J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem 

components in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

PNW-GTR-406.

USFWS 2002. Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 16, Clearwater Recovery Unit 15, Idaho. USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service Pacific Region. Available at http://pacific.fws.gov/bulltrout/colkla/recovery/Chapter_16.htm

Vella, J.J., L.C. Stuehrenberg, and T.C. Bjornn. 1997. Migration patterns of Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata in 

the Lower Columbia River 1997. Annual Report of Research, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 192
39 | P a g e

APPENDIX A - AQUATIC MONITORING PLAN

Travel Planning Project 

Nez Perce National Forest 

MONITORING PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET 

Type of Monitoring: Implementation and Effectiveness (Water Quality & Aquatic Resources) 

Project Name: OHV Travel Planning Project (2012-2016) 

Goal: The goal of the best management practices and design features as described in the Environmental 

Impact Statement (U.S.D.A. Forest Service – Nez Perce National Forest 2012) is to meet Forest Plan 

standards. Specifically for aquatic resources, the Forest Plan states “manage water quality and stream 

conditions to assure that National Forest management activities do not cause permanent or long-term 

damage to existing or specified beneficial uses”. The overall goal of this monitoring project is to determine 

if authorized travel (motorized and non-motorized) is causing direct or indirect impacts to aquatic resources. 

Objectives: (1) Determine if travel (motorized and non-motorized) is causing direct or indirect aquatic 

impacts on selected trails within drainages that have ESA listed fish species. (2) Determine if existing 

dispersed recreational sites located within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and within 

drainages that have ESA listed fish species are meeting the standards and guidelines established to meet or 

not retard the attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives (as defined in the PACFISH amendment 

to the Forest Plan). 

The analysis summarized in the biological assessment concluded that the cumulative impacts (both 

existing and potential) regarding the existing trail system (including motorized use) would be minimal 

(non-measurable) to the major population groups for steelhead trout and core areas for bull trout. 

However, dependent upon the location of stream fords and dispersed recreation sites in relation to 

occupied steelhead trout and bull trout streams, some impacts may not be insignificant or discountable in 

specific drainages. 

In 2011, the Forest conducted a field review of the motorized trail stream crossings on those streams that 

have documented presence (or potential) of steelhead trout, spring/summer chinook salmon, or bull trout 

spawning and/or rearing. 27 stream crossings. The field reviews did not find any notable spawning 

habitat at the stream crossings, except in three fords in Deadhorse Creek. 

In addition to the motorized trail crossings, authorization of existing dispersed recreation sites within the 

riparian conservation areas (RHCAs) as defined by the PACFISH amendment to the Forest Plan may 

result in unacceptable adverse effects to listed fish species. 

Parameters: 

1. Stream ford monitoring. 

a. Spawning gravels present at stream crossing 

b. Erosion on trail approaches (sedimentation) 

2. Dispersed site monitoring. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 193
40 | P a g e

a. Site located within bankfull area. 

b. Distance of site to stream. 

c. Stream bank disturbance. 

d. Vegetative modifications affecting bank stability, streamside shade and/or woody debris 

recruitment. 

e. Erosion and/or sedimentation 

Location(s): As per Section 7 ESA consultation process via Level One coordination, the following 

monitoring locations were proposed to identify any existing or potential impacts to steelhead trout, 

spring/summer chinook salmon, and bull trout: 

Stream crossings on the following trails will be monitored every third year to ascertain if any stream 

fords are causing impacts to listed species: 

Table 1. Stream Crossings to be monitored. 

Subbasin Drainage Stream Crossing(s)

Trail Number(s)

Species

Lower Salmon Slate Creek North Fork Slate 

Creek Trail #320 (4 

crossings)

Steelhead Trout

Lower Salmon Deadhorse Creek Trails #301, 329 (3 

crossings

Steelhead Trout, Bull 

Trout

Lower Salmon Van Buren Creek Trail #303 (1 

crossing)

Bull Trout

Lower Salmon Upper Little Slate Creek Trail #307 (1 

crossing)

Bull Trout

MF Clearwater Clear Creek Trail #723 (5 

crossings)

Steelhead Trout, Bull 

Trout

South Fork 

Clearwater

Mill Creek Trails #313, #385 (2 

crossings)

Steelhead Trout

Lower Selway Swiftwater Creek Trail #716 (1 

crossings)

Steelhead Trout

To assess whether existing recreational sites are causing channel alterations, sedimentation, or effects to 

riparian vegetation, the Forest will conduct a field review of existing sites along the following streams. 

Table 2. Riparian areas along roads to be evaluated and monitored. 

Subbasin Drainage Roads (Number) Species

Lower Salmon Slate Creek FSR #354 Spring/summer 

chinook, steelhead 

trout, bull trout

Lower Salmon Allison Creek FSR#221 Steelhead trout

South Fork Clearwater Mainstem SF Clearwater State Hwy. 14 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout

South Fork Clearwater Red River FSR #234

South Fork Clearwater Mill Creek FSR#309 Steelhead trout

South Fork Clearwater Newsome Creek FSR#284 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout

South Fork Clearwater Crooked River FSR#233 Steelhead trout, bull 

trout

South Fork Clearwater American River FSR#443 Steelhead trout

Lower Selway O’Hara Creek FSR#716 Steelhead trout

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 194
41 | P a g e

Frequency: Follow-up field reviews of the 18 trail crossings in Table 1 will be completed every three 

years (i.e. 2014 and 2017).

The field reviews of the riparian sites will be completed once during the first two complete field seasons 

following the authorization of the travel plan. Any sites identified for maintenance (i.e. restoration, 

closure etc) will be evaluated the year following maintenance at a minimum and on a needed basis 

thereafter. For the remaining sites, unless recreational monitoring shows that motorized use or dispersed 

site use has increased 50 percent compared to existing levels, each field review will be conducted once 

(each existing dispersed site located along the roads noted above will be visited once). 

Methodology: 

1. Stream ford monitoring: Although each of the 18 stream crossings were field reviewed in 2011, each 

trail will be monitored every third year and the following information regarding streams crossings will 

be collected to assess any changes: 

a. At all stream fords, the amount of area potentially available for spawning for steelhead trout and 

bull trout will be assessed using the standard stream survey techniques as outlined in Espinosa 

(1988)1. Any erosion on trail approaches that is contributing sediment to the stream course will be 

noted. 

b. Digital photos of each stream ford and the trail approaches will be taken. 

c. GPS coordinates will be recorded. 

d. Recommendations regarding minimizing impacts to spawning fish and/or substrate conditions such 

as, moving crossing and/or providing crossing structure, and hardening and/or drainage control at 

the trail approaches are recorded. 

2. Dispersed site monitoring: Each dispersed site that currently has motorized use will be walked and the 

following information regarding effects to the riparian area and adjacent stream will be collected: 

a. At each existing dispersed site, a sketch of the site in relation to the adjacent stream(s) and the 

established route will be completed. 

b. The closest location of the site to the bankfull (i.e. high water mark) will be measured. Sites that 

extend within the high water zone will be noted. 

c. The linear distance of bank disturbance (m) will be estimated. 

d. The amount of vegetative modifications (expressed in m2 within 150 feet of the stream(s) will be 

estimated. 

e. Qualitative assessment regarding vegetative modifications affecting bank stability, streamside shade 

and/or woody debris recruitment. 

f. Any erosion at the dispersed site that is contributing sediment to the stream course will be noted. 

g. Digital photos of each stream ford and the trail approaches will be taken. 

h. GPS coordinates will be recorded. 

i. Recommendations regarding reduction of the site “foot print”, closure of the site to motorized travel 

and/or complete closure for use are recorded. 

A report will be prepared following the second field season and presented to NOAA Fisheries and 

USFWS the following spring. The report will note any existing and potential problems, immediate 

actions taken during the interim to minimize or avoid the impacts, and any pending or potential actions 

that the Forest will address administratively or through a separate decision. 

Duration: The field reviews of the riparian sites will be completed during the first two complete field 

seasons following the authorization of the travel plan. A report will be prepared following the second 

 

1

 Espinosa, A. 1988. Clearwater stream survey methodology. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 195
42 | P a g e

field season. Access to dispersed recreational sites (within the riparian areas) that are authorized under 

the Travel Plan will be inventoried to avoid user-created unauthorized sites and evaluated to assess 

impacts and restoration needs. Dependent upon the location of the site and issues, follow-up monitoring 

may occur on an annual basis. If other recreational monitoring shows that motorized use or dispersed 

site use has increased 50 percent compared to existing levels, follow-up and/or additional field reviews 

may be necessary. 

Follow-up field reviews of the 18 trail crossings on fish bearing streams will be completed every three 

years (i.e. 2014 and 2017) in conjunction with the Forest’s stream temperature monitoring program.

Data Storage: On the O drive: 

(fsfiles/office/aquatic/inventory_monitoring/monitoring/ohv_travel_planning).

Report: Include in Forest annual monitoring results report, annual ESA compliance report and in the 

fisheries project files. 

Estimated Cost: $7,500 – Riparian Assessment and Report; other follow-up monitoring will be associated 

with other monitoring activities (i.e. stream temperature monitoring). 

 2 – Biological Technicians – field surveys; dispersed sites – 10 days 

1 - Fish Biologist/Hydrologist – field surveys; dispersed sites – 10 days 

1 – Forest Fish Biologist – project setup, analysis and report – 3 days 

Personnel Required: Recreational, Biological, and/or Hydrologic Technician(s) and Fishery Biologist 

Responsible Individual: Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forests Fisheries Program Leader 

Prepared By: Katherine Thompson Date: 09/23/20

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 196
Page 1 of 23

NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

For Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Uses 2011 

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Alternative 5 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Federally listed Plants 

Under provisions of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve 

endangered and threatened species, and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. 

According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list dated December 13, 2010, the federally listed 

species suspected to occur on the Nez Perce National Forest are Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii), 

and MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei). The other federally listed plant species, water 

howellia (Howellia aquatilis), slick spot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) and Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis), have been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to occur in on 

the Forest and need not be analyzed in future projects. 

Spalding's catchfly, a perennial herb of the carnation family, was proposed for listing by the USFWS on 

December 3, 1999. A final rule was published on October 10, 2001, listing the plant as threatened. The 

listing took effect on November 9, 2001. MacFarlane’s four o’clock is a perennial forb of the fouro’clock family was listed as Endangered by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act. A recovery 

plan was approved and signed by the USFWS in 1985. Twelve years of recovery efforts led the USFWS 

to reclassify MacFarlane’s four o’clock as Threatened in 1996. Silene spaldingii occurs at one location 

in the Sherwin Creek Allotment. 

This assessment was prepared to provide information on the effects to listed plants of current or 

proposed changes to management of livestock grazing in the Christie Creek, Sherwin Creek Allotments. 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Location: The project is located on the Nez Perce National Forest in its entirety. This National Forest 

encompasses more than 2.2 million acres in north central Idaho. The boundary stretches from the 

Oregon border on the west to Montana on the east. Over 40 percent of the Forest is included as 

congressionally designated wilderness. Included within the boundary is a portion of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation and Wilderness. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest administers this portion of 

the Forest and has previously addressed travel management in this area. 

Within the Forest boundary are the Gospel-Hump Wilderness Area and portions of the SelwayBitterroot and Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Areas. 

Nez Perce National Forest lands lie entirely within Idaho County, Idaho. Bounded by the north by the 

Clearwater National Forest, the Nez Perce National Forest abuts the Bitterroot National Forest to the 

east and the Payette National Forest to the south. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest lies to the west 

in Oregon on the west side of the Snake River. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 197
Page 2 of 23

Purpose and Need: The purpose for the travel planning effort is to meet the intent of the Travel 

Management Rule (USDA-FS 2005) and determine which routes should be designated for motorized 

vehicle use by type of vehicle and season of use. This action is needed to maintain opportunities for 

motorized recreation while minimizing user conflicts and adverse effects on natural resources, and 

eliminate unmanaged cross country use. 

Proposed Action: The selected alternative (Alternative 5 modified) would respond to public comments 

about providing motorized and non-motorized use opportunities, while moving toward the standards and 

objectives for wildlife resources and other management areas. Road and trail designations would reduce 

the number of miles available for motorized use by designations and a change in the season of use. 

Three new routes that were proposed by the public would be added to the system for motorized use. 

These new routes would be motorized trails. No physical construction of the routes would occur because 

they already exist on the ground. Additional ground disturbing activities may be needed, however, to 

bring these trails up to a standard for motorized use. These activities would be included under a separate 

NEPA decision, and the trails would not be open to motorized use until this work has been completed. 

The routes would then be maintained at the level of use designated, which in this case would be for 

ATVs and motorcycles. 

All roads and trails proposed for motorized use have either been assessed or are in the process of being 

assessed to determine if the current condition of the route is at a standard that can accommodate 

motorized use without resource damage. Routes that are not at that standard would be brought up to that 

standard, and any ground disturbing activities necessary to upgrade to the standard would be assessed 

under a separate NEPA decision. The route would not be open to motorized use until this work was 

completed. 

Alternative 5 would retain 2,349 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized use. 

Routes open to motorized use would include 1,962 miles of road and 264 miles of trails. In additional 

routes open to non-motorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 miles of trails outside of wilderness 

areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for dispersed camping would be 

allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 300 feet from trails, following the conditions of use. In addition 

18 miles of road and 28 miles of trail would have 0 feet of motorized access for dispersed camping.

Summary of Key Features of the Project: Elimination of cross-country motorized travel on the Nez 

Perce National Forest is a key component. All roads, trails and areas are closed to motorized use unless 

designated as open (USDA-FS 2005). 

No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) is allowed within wilderness 

areas as specified by law and the Nez Perce Forest Plan (Wilderness Act 1964, Endangered American 

Wilderness 1978, Central Idaho Wilderness Act 1980, USDA-FS 1987, as amended). 

No new motorized routes would be authorized within the eight Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the 

Forest. These areas are dedicated to the study of natural ecosystem processes and provide a baseline for 

research and monitoring. The RNAs include O’Hara Creek, Newsome, Moose Meadows, Elk Creek, 

Fish Lake, Square Mountain, No Business Creek 

Road 444 to Square Mountain, Road 233 to Wildhorse Lake and Road 492 Sourdough Peak would 

remain open to motorized vehicles as agreed to and directed by the Gospel Hump Management Plan 

(Idaho 1985) and the NPNF Forest Plan. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 198
Page 3 of 23

Routes with a current closure order(s), including spurs, are closed to motorized use. If a main system 

road is closed to motorized use, all connected routes are would be closed. 

Table 1. Comparison of designated roads and trails open for motorized travel, existing condition 

compared to project proposal. 

Indicator

Existing 

Condition 

(Alt. 1)

Preferred 

Alternative 

(Alt. 5)

Roads

Open Yearlong 1103 825

Open Seasonally 923 1138

Non-motorized 1700 1763

Trails

Open Yearlong 568 78

Open Seasonally 118 309

Non-motorized 4336 4636

Roads & Trails - Total

Motorized Total 2709 2350

Open Yearlong 1671 903

Open Seasonally 1041 1447

Non-motorized Total 4736 3399

Acres open 

to cross country travel 1,004,428 0

Motorized access for dispersed 

camping from motorized roads

Feet from centerline

Unrestricted 300* 

Motorized access to dispersed camping 

from motorized trails

Feet from centerline

Unrestricted 300*

*Additional routes with no motorized 

access for dispersed camping (0 feet)

Miles of Road

Miles of Trail

No Yes

18 miles

34 miles

Motorized Use of Designated Roads and Trails 

Cross-country motorized travel on the Nez Perce National Forest (USDA-FS 2005) would not be 

permitted. Unauthorized routes (routes not on MVUM) would not be available for motorized use. 

All roads, trails and areas would be closed to motorized use unless designated as open. Motorized 

use would be allowed on designated roads, trails, areas as displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM), based on a specified type of vehicle and season of use. A designation for a road or trail 

includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the designated 

road or trail. 

Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route would be permitted from the 

edge of the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a trailer (e.g. boat, horse, 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 199
Page 4 of 23

or camper). Use would be allowed when it is safe to do so, not create resource damage, and where 

the use follows forest orders or prohibitions. 

Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood would not be allowed per the terms of standard personal 

use firewood permits. 

No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) is allowed within 

wilderness areas, as specified by law. 

All areas and routes in the project area would be open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain bike, 

or stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons, such as safety, or otherwise posted. Mountain 

bikes would be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness areas, unless otherwise posted. 

This action would not supersede 36CFR 261: 53, 54, 55, which allows the local manger the 

responsibility and authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use any time a there is 

considerable adverse environmental effects occurring from use until the problem has been resolved. 

This action would not supersede CFR 261.12 National Forest System roads and trails; ...prohibiting 

(c) Damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or segment thereof. Nor 

would this action supersede CFR 261.15 Use of vehicles off roads: It is prohibited to operate any 

vehicle off National Forest System, State, or County roads: (h) In a manner which damages or 

unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources. 

This action would not supersede the general prohibitions and any other restriction that have been put 

in place on National Forest Service Roads and Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest 

(36 CFR, Part 261, Subpart A and Subpart B), specifically regarding parking and motorized vehicle 

access. Including, but not limited to: 

General prohibitions that would apply to parking and dispersed camping include: 

o General prohibitions and any other restrictions placed on National Forest Service Roads 

and Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest (36 CFR, Part 261, Subpart A 

and Subpart B; Sections 36 CFR 261: 53, 54, 55), will continue to allow the local manger 

the responsibility and authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use any time a 

there is considerable adverse environmental effects occurring from use until the problem 

has been resolved (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

o This project would not supersede the terms and conditions for motorized use as 

authorized under permit, by a line officer, on any road or trail. Such forest activities may 

include: grazing permits, weed treatment, mineral activities, fire wood cutting permits, 

special use permits and authorizations for administrative use. Motorized use may include 

travel on or off designated routes. 

Prohibitions that would apply to parking or access to dispersed camping by order include: 

• Special closure which prohibits use to go into or be upon any area which is closed for 

protection of (a) Threatened, endangered, rare, unique, or vanishing species of plants, 

animals, birds or fish; (b) Special biological communities; (c) Objects or areas of 

historical, archeological, geological, or paleontological interest; (d) Scientific 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 200
Page 5 of 23

experiments or investigations; (e) Public health or safety; or (f) Property (Part B, 261.53). 

• Using any type of vehicle prohibited by the order (Part B, 261.54(a)). 

• Being on the road (Part B, 261.54(e)). 

• When provided by an order, it is prohibited to possess or use a vehicle off National Forest 

System roads (Part B, 261.56). 

• Parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of posted instructions (Part B, 261.58(g)). 

This project would not supersede motorized use as authorized under permit, by a line officer, on any 

road or trail. Such forest activities may include grazing permits, weed treatment, mineral activities, 

firewood cutting permits, special use permits, and authorizations for administrative use. If a permit 

was issued for motorized activities not included under this decision, a separate decision (and 

consultation if needed) would be made. 

The project would maintain access to areas important to all Native American Tribes who use the Nez 

Perce National Forest, and would preserve local Native American culture by providing for the 

continued ability to practice inherent tribal treaty rights and traditional uses of the forest, subject to 

travel planning rules. 

The project would post access points into the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal watersheds with 

signs informing users of the municipal watershed, encouraging caution with potential pollution 

sources and detailing sanitation requirements. 

The project would post informational signs along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access for 

dispersed camping is limited by the Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 

Conditions for Off-Route Motorized Travel 

Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes would be allowed as long as the 

conditions for that travel are met. When the conditions below are not met, the motorized travel would 

be illegal. Off-route travel for dispersed camping would be prohibited along 18 miles of roads and 30 

miles of trails to protect heritage sites, high elevation grasslands, and Research Natural Areas. 

To meet the intent of the rule, motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes would be 

permitted within 300 feet of a designated route during the period when that route is open to motorized 

traffic. The 300 foot distance is measured perpendicular to the designated route. Campsites, even where 

they currently exist that are beyond the 300 foot distance, would be off-limits to motor vehicles. 

Since the intent is to provide for camping access, it would not be permissible to roam around with a 

motor vehicle off the designated route while looking for a campsite. Campers are expected to explore 

and evaluate campsites by non-motorized means and travel to them with their vehicle using the most 

clearly defined existing track. Cutting corners on the established track or taking shortcuts back to the 

main road or trail would not be permitted. Again since the intent is to provide for camping access, 

repetitive recreational riding around in the campsite or along the access route would not be permitted. 

Barriers of logs, rocks, or earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to restrict vehicles from 

sensitive or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to eliminate motorized traffic in wet areas, 

streamside zones, on redundant tracks or for other resource protection purposes. Moving, going over, 

going around, or in any way circumventing these restriction devices would not be permitted. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 201
Page 6 of 23

Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of resource damage 

associated with motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but are not limited to: 

Cutting, harming, or unreasonably disturbing vegetation. 

Using more than one track to access the campsite. 

Crossing streams, driving on streambanks, or riding anywhere off the established track where 

rutting occurs. 

o Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track. 

III. SPECIES MODELING 

Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii) 

The GIS model for Spalding’s catchfly was based upon the occurrences of the species in the Canyon 

Grasslands of Hells Canyon and the lower Salmon River Canyon near the confluence of those canyons. 

Also the leading experts with the Nature Conservancy and Idaho Natural Heritage program provided 

input on the criteria selected. Initially there were two runs of criteria, one set considered higher 

probability that included all the parameters considered important and another that increased the 

elevation to include the area below 5,200 feet. Grasslands at the higher elevations provided the same 

habitats, but generally are above the elevation for the species in nearby Hells Canyon. The criteria were 

as follows: 

<=4,000 (5,200-second run) ft. elevation and 

north, northwest or northeast aspect and 

grassland cover or forest with <10% canopy cover and 

has fine textured soils (primarily basalts) 

Surveys of these areas found some good Idaho fescue grasslands, but the plant community typically 

associated with Silene spaldingii was never present. However, a walk-through of a south facing 

grassland not selected by the models not only found the typical plant community, but found a population 

of Spalding’s catchfly. Thus field verification of the model during the 2005 field surveys made it 

apparent that the desirable plant community could also occur on south slopes at higher elevations in the 

Canyon Grasslands. At these higher, cooler slopes that retained more moisture due to less grade, the 

desirable fescue grasslands are found. As a result of these findings additional modeling was initiated 

based upon the following criteria: 

Between 4,800 and 6,000 ft. elevation and 

South, southwest, southeast or west aspect and 

Grassland cover or forest with <10% forest canopy cover and 

<40% slope and 

has fine textured soils (primarily basalts) 

Upon completion of the final set of modeling, it was decided to simply map all areas from the various 

models as equally suitable habitat for simplicity and because the habitat features making occurrence of 

Spalding’s catchfly possible could potentially occur on ground modeled by any of the GIS exercises. 

The modeling exercise indicated 1,962 acres of potentially suitable habitat on the Nez Perce National 

Forest. All of this is limited to the Salmon River basin. 

After the extensive grassland surveys from 2004 through 2007, it became apparent that the model, which 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 202
Page 7 of 23

was designed with broad parameters to pick as much suitable ground as possible, should not be thought 

of as one that closely selects habitat for this species. Rather it selects areas that have many of the 

physical features that are conducive to the development of suitable habitat features. These grasslands 

are Canyon Grasslands, which are generally on steep, xeric, high energy slopes. The floral community 

which Spalding’s catchfly requires is more prairie-like and representation of it in the steep Canyon 

Grasslands is rare or limited to certain settings. It is possible that the lower elevation, north facing 

grasslands that hold this species and community in Hells Canyon did at one time in the Salmon Canyon 

as well, but these latter locations are almost entirely on private land where extensive management and 

weed invasion has largely displaced the native plant communities. The current model also selects the 

higher, cooler south facing slopes that are almost entirely on Forest Service land. 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) 

The GIS model for Macfarlane’s four o’clock was based on the habitat characteristics of all the known 

occurrences in the species’ very small global range, most of which are in the Salmon River Canyon. 

The model selects areas with all of the following criteria: 

West, southwest, south, southeast aspects 

<= 3,200 ft. elevation 

grassland or rock cover 

Modeling results based on criteria defining the known occurrences of MacFarlane’s four o’clock 

determined potential habitat may occur on 6,454 acres on the Nez Perce National Forest. Almost all of 

this ground is in the Rapid River drainage and main Salmon River Canyon upstream of Riggins; both are 

areas that appear to be excluded from the very small, localized range of the species. Forest Service 

lands in proximity to known occurrences are generally too high in elevation for the species. Though the 

indicated habitat often is a bit higher in elevation than typical for this species, it was included to be 

inclusive of potentially marginal habitat. There have been few surveys in most of these areas to 

determine species presence or absence or the quality of the habitat. 

IV. SURVEY RESULTS 

Surveys of Modeled Spalding’s Catchfly Habitat 

There have been extensive surveys for Silene spaldingii on the Nez Perce National Forest as part of past 

assessments and project analysis. There have also been numerous general botanical surveys and species 

monitoring efforts both by agency personnel and an array of other entities and individuals. Most of 

these surveys have been limited to the west side of the Salmon River corridor; however, many of the 

most recent surveys have been east of the river. 

Probably the first surveys focusing on Silene spaldingii habitat were conducted in the field seasons of 

2005 and 2006 as part of the Island Ecological Assessment at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) project and 

various range allotment projects. Though potential habitats for several species of concern were 

surveyed, the large emphasis was placed on areas indicated by the Spalding’s-catchfly habitat GIS 

exercise. These surveys covered the grassland habitat indicated as potential Spalding’s-catchfly habitat 

as well as other areas found through photo/map interpretation or other survey efforts that appeared to 

possibly provide potential habitat. Occurrences of Spalding’s-catchfly were found on Johnson Ridge in 

2005, Center Ridge in 2006 and Mud Springs Ridge in 2010. A significant area of apparently good 

habitat was found on the Tablelands, which was surveyed in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011 with negative 

results. Probably because it is on the border of the Nez Perce National Forest, with the large majority of 

the habitat excluded, it was not indicated by the habitat model. Extensive surveys east of the Salmon 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 203
Page 8 of 23

River were conducted primarily from 2009-2011 and have found thin soiled, often steep grasslands that 

are not considered suitable habitat, however; there are still unsurveyed areas. A summary of surveys of 

potential habitat is included in Table 1 of Appendix A at the end of this report. Some areas were 

surveyed based upon opportunity and photo interpretation and were not always selected by the habitat 

model. 

The large majority of potential habitat surveyed was determined not to provide suitable habitat for the 

target species. Most was either too steep or drained or had a substrate of coarse material, which prevents 

adequate moisture retention. Other areas simply did not support the appropriate plant community. 

Much of the ridge top habitat selected by the model was found to be composed of rock outcrops or very 

narrow and xeric ridges that were evidently selected by the model due to the often gentle slope of the 

ridgelines. 

There are some small forest openings selected by the model that support dry forest forbs and grasses, but 

are not true grassland habitats. These parcels were surveyed or easily reconnoitered from the road on 

several occasions. There are many other small modeled areas that based on photo and map 

interpretations are too dry or steep to support Spalding’s catchfly. Field surveys of these areas were not 

deemed necessary and were of the lowest priority though some were still conducted (see Table 1 in 

Appendix A).

Other Grassland Surveys and Botanical Work 

Other project surveys were conducted with the Salmon River Canyon Fire Project in the late 1990s, the 

more recent Salmon River landscape assessment and miscellaneous projects. Many of these project 

surveys focused on grasslands, largely due to the potential presence of the sensitive species, broad-fruit 

mariposa (Calochortus nitidus). Though this species has broader ecological amplitude than Spalding’s 

catchfly, many of the grasslands that include most of the modeled Spalding’s catchfly habitat were 

included, often in multiple survey efforts. Most of the surveyors of past projects include Forest Service 

botanists and ecological and botanical researchers with the Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC). In 

addition to extensive surveys, many of the grasslands were the subject of ecological monitoring based on 

the presence of broad-fruit mariposa. Generally the study efforts were conducted by CDC botanists. 

From the descriptions and/or maps included in their work, it is known that their efforts took place at 

least in part in areas that would be included in the future Spalding’s catchfly modeling effort. These 

efforts are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix A. 

Range Monitoring 

Over the summers of 2005 and 2006, permanent ecological monitoring plots to measure the condition of 

grasslands were installed by the Nez Perce National Forest Ecologist. On the west side of the Salmon 

River Canyon, 49 plots were installed in a representative sample of grassland vegetation types. While 

some of these plots fell in areas selected by the model, most did not, though these did serve to verify the 

model results and to sample habitats that were not included in the GIS exercise or contain small 

inclusions of potential habitat. Nine of the plots fell on areas indicated by the model as potential 

Spalding’s catchfly habitat. Two others fell on the Tablelands in an area not indicated by the model as 

suitable habitat, but field surveys confirm that they are. The eleven occurrences in potential habitat will 

allow the condition of this habitat to be monitored through time along with additional monitoring plots 

installed on the known occurrences as part of ongoing monitoring efforts.

Historic Surveys and Botanical Collections 

There is also a record of extensive historic botanical explorations of the area. Bingham (1987) 

attempted to create a list of plant species for the Seven Devils Mountains on the west side of the lower 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 204
Page 9 of 23

Salmon Canyon from Camp Howard south to the Forest Service boundary in the Rapid River basin. 

This landmark effort is a compilation of plants collected by botanists from records of 28 herbaria and 

widespread species surveys. While few of these collectors or researchers were looking for Spalding’s 

catchfly specifically, they were collecting any noteworthy species encountered and certainly would have 

noted its presence. Bingham and others also compiled extensive plant lists in addition to what was 

collected in their effort to quantify all species present. Forest Service Ecologist Charles Johnson is

noteworthy for years of community ecology work, in which he defined vegetative communities in 

northeast Oregon and western Idaho. The results of his work, including grassland plant community 

ordination are compiled in Alpine and Subalpine Vegetation of the Wallowa and Seven Devils and Blue 

Mountains (2004). In characterizing grassland habitats, Johnson quantified all plant species present in 

his representative research plots. Also of significance is the plant community work of Tisdale (1986) 

that defined communities within the Canyon Grasslands centered on Hells Canyon. In gathering data for 

this research he surveyed vast areas of local Canyon Grasslands. Table 3 in Appendix A summarizes the 

miscellaneous survey and collection efforts in grassland habitats in the lower Salmon Canyon. This list 

is not complete, but adequately illustrates the collective thoroughness of botanical work on the west side 

of the Salmon River Canyon. 

V. PLANT SPECIES 

Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) 

Spalding’s catchfly is a long lived perennial herb of the carnation family (Caryophyllaceae) with four to 

seven pairs of lance-shaped leaves and a spirally arranged inflorescence consisting of small greenishwhite flowers. The flowers consist of five petals, each with a narrow claw that is concealed by the calyx 

tube and a very short exposed blade at the end of the claw. Four to six axillary appendages are attached 

to the petals at the lower margin of the blade (Lichthardt 1997). The plant is distinguished by its very 

sticky foliage and petals that are shallowly lobed. Spalding’s catchfly may range from eight to 24 inches 

in height, and it flowers from July through early August. 

The plant prefers open grasslands with Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) with Junegrass (Koeleria 

cristata). Bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) may be present, but only at lower levels. Other 

associated species include snowberry (Symphicarpos albus), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), yarrow 

(Achillea millefolium), prairie smoke (Geum triflorum), sticky purple geranium (Geranium 

viscossimum), and arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsmaorhiza sagittata) (Lichthardt 1997) and thin-leaved 

owl-clover (Orthocarpus tenuifolius) (Hustafa 2006). According to Gray (2005), arrowleaf balsamroot 

in Idaho fescue and Junegrass is a key indicator of potential habitat in the Canyon Grasslands. Scattered 

individuals of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) may be found in or adjacent to Spalding’s catchfly 

habitat. Such scattered trees occur in grassland habitats; dry open forest types with forest forbs and 

grasses do not provide habitat. Spalding’s catchfly sites range from approximately 1,600 feet to 5,100 

feet in elevation. Soils vary from mollisols formed in loess or basalt to skeletal along the breaklands 

with loam to silt loam texture. Throughout the Canyon Grassland aspect tends to be north and east, but 

the associated plant community can also be found on south aspects if the hydrologic and topographic 

features are suitable. 

This species is primarily restricted to mesic (relatively moist) grasslands. The appropriate grassland 

community may occur in prairie, steppe, or canyon grassland communities. These grasslands make up 

the Palouse region in southeastern Washington, and adjacent portions of Idaho and Oregon. It also 

occurs in grasslands of northwestern Montana. In addition, approximately 100 plants are located in 

habitat extending into British Columbia. Palouse habitat is considered to be a subset of the Pacific 

Northwest bunchgrass habitat type (Tisdale 1986). In Idaho, Palouse habitat is confined to a narrow 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 205
Page 10 of 23

band along the western edge of central and north-central Idaho centering on Latah County (Tisdale 

1986). More than 98 percent of the original Palouse prairie habitat has been lost or modified by 

agricultural conversion, grazing, invasion of non-native species, altered fire regimes, and urbanization 

(Noss et al. 1995). 

The occurrences found on the Nez Perce National Forest are similar in habitat characteristics. All are 

dominated by Idaho fescue, with good representation of Junegrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Drier 

grasses such as blue-bunch wheatgrass and Sandburg’s bluegrass are present, but in low levels. 

Broadfruit mariposa, a Region One Sensitive species is also well represented. The soils are very fine 

textured and very little exposed as vegetation and duff in general are heavy, leaving very little surface 

coverage of open, bare soil. Perhaps the most interesting feature, and potentially the best indicator in 

these local grasslands is the micro-topography. The ground is often characterized by numerous low 

undulations that seem to be sites of temporally moist and apparently unstable soil. The plants 

immediately on these small irregularities are relatively moist compared to the surrounding grasslands, 

though the community difference is sometimes subtle. California brome (Bromus carinatus) is 

representative, though because the surface is slightly unstable, annual grasses and weeds also find these 

small islands of desirable condition. Spalding’s catchfly generally does not grow on these features, but 

seems to have a strong affinity for the margins or interspaces between approximate mounds. It is 

believed that the general area is slightly more mesic than the general surrounding Canyon Grassland 

communities. Another common feature of the local Spalding catchfly sites is that the overall topography 

is formed by a large, but only slightly deflected concave slope at or associated with the head of a draw. 

Moisture in these grasslands, not only manifest by the Idaho fescue community, but by the local 

topography and soil conditions is the key component in locating potential suitable habitat for this 

species. 

According to the USFWS Recovery Plan for Spalding catchfly (USFWS 2007) there are 99 occurrences 

in west-central Idaho, northeast Oregon, northwest Montana, eastern Washington and British Columbia. 

This total does not include numerous new findings from eastern Washington in 2006 (Hill 2006) as well 

as additional recent discoveries in the lower Salmon Canyon of Idaho. There are 24 occurrences in 

Idaho across Lewis, Nez Perce and Idaho Counties (ICDC 2007), not including recent discoveries in the 

lower Snake and Salmon River Canyons. The BLM Cottonwood Field Office area has the largest 

known population of Spalding’s catchfly in the state of Idaho. Three occurrences have been found on 

the Nez Perce National Forest; one each in 2005, 2006 and 2010. 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) 

Mirabilis macfarlanei is a perennial forb with a stout, deep-seated taproot, and freely branched, 

decumbent or ascending stems forming small to large clumps. The leaves are opposite, somewhat 

succulent, green above, and glaucescent below. The lower leaves are orbicular or ovate-deltoid in 

shape, becoming progressively smaller towards the tip of the stem. The inflorescence is comprised of a 

cluster of 4-7 flowers subtended by an involucre. The striking, 5-merous, bright magenta-colored 

flowers are up to 25 mm long and 25 mm wide. They are funnel-form shaped with a widely expanding 

limb and exserted stamens (ICDC 1996). 

Mirabilis macfarlanei occurs in river canyon habitats characterized by regionally warm and dry 

conditions. Precipitation occurs mostly as rain during the winter and spring. Sites are dry and open, or 

with scattered shrubs. Plants can be found on all aspects, but most often on southeast to western 

exposures. Slopes are often steep, but range to nearly flat. Plants can occur on any slope position. Soils 

vary from sandy to rocky. Talus rock often underlies the soil substrate and several sites are relatively 

unstable and prone to erosion. The associated vegetation is usually in early to mid-seral condition, and 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 206
Page 11 of 23

the grasslands are typically grazing modified versions of bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) 

communities. Sand drop-seed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), three-awn (Aristida longiseta), and Sandberg’s 

bluegrass (Poa secunda) are other common native bunchgrass associates. Other commonly associated 

species include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), soft brome (Bromus mollis), pale alyssum (Alyssum 

alyssoides), St. Johns-wort (Hypericum perforatum), varileaf phacelia (Phacelia heterophylla), Yarrow 

(Achillea millefolium), rock rose (Oenothera cespitosa), hairy milkvetch (Astragalus inflexus), smooth 

sumac (Rhus glabra), gray rabbit-brush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and hackberry (Celtis reticulata). 

Elevations range from 1,200 to 2,700 feet (ICDC 1996). Refer to the Modeling section for more 

discussion of this species’ potential habitat in the project area. 

Mirabilis macfarlanei is narrowly endemic to portions of the Snake, Salmon, and Imnaha river canyons 

in Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon, and adjacent Idaho County in Idaho. The species global 

range is approximately 28.5 miles by 17.5 miles. According to the Idaho Conservation Data Center 

(2005), there are 16 documented occurrences, three in Oregon and 13 in Idaho. Populations in Oregon 

contain an estimated 3000 plants covering about 90 acres (Kaye 1992). An estimated 3000 – 4000 

plants occur in Idaho. Two Idaho populations contain more than 1000 plants, while eight have fewer 

than 100. Most sites are less than an acre in size, ranging from a few square meters to over seven acres. 

Populations can also be grouped in three ecological groups including the Snake River unit with 

approximately 4,752 plants occupying about 25 acres; the Salmon River units with approximately 1,660 

plants on 68 acres and the Imnaha River units with approximately 800 plants on 70 acres (USFWS 

1996). Because of clonality, it is difficult to determine the number of genetic individuals (Barnes et al. 

1997). Three populations in the Hells Canyon area monitored between 1990 and 1995 appear stable 

(Kaye 1995). 

VI. EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

The Nez Perce National Forest does not contain habitat for the three other Idaho federally listed plants, 

water howellia, Ute ladies’-tresses or slick-spot peppergrass, based on knowledge of habitat and range 

for these species. Discussion of effects for Spalding’s catchfly and MacFarlane’s four o’clock follows 

below. The direct and indirect effects of motorized use including Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) are 

provided in this section and key points are summarized here: 

Suitable habitat is modeled but not all has been verified. Much of the suitable habitat may not be 

occupied habitat so effects may be less or similar, but typically not greater, than those shown 

below. 

Modeling indicates that 6,454 acres could potentially provide suitable habitat for MacFarlane’s 

four o’clock, of which only 324 acres (5 percent) are accessible to motorized vehicles under 

present management and 79 acres (1 percent) are accessible under the proposed alternative. 

Modeling indicates that 1,962 acres could potentially provide suitable habitat for Spalding’s 

silene, of which 731 acres (37 percent) are accessible to motorized vehicles under present 

management and 103 acres (5 percent) are accessible under the proposed alternative. 

Some mapped suitable habitats within the area of potential cross country travel may be isolated 

from motorized vehicles impacts by natural barriers, so that actual likelihood of effects may be 

less in some areas. 

Effects may be less than indicated because suitable habitat does not actually occur as mapped, 

the species is not present, or cross country travel does not occur. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 207
Page 12 of 23

Conditions of use for off-route travel greatly reduce the actual amount of habitat available for 

motorized vehicles travel, thus potentially effected ground is much less than indicated. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Spalding's catchfly (Silene spaldingii) 

Due to its life history and growth form traits, Spalding’s catchfly is a species that would have to 

generally tolerate, rather than capitalize on disturbance. It possesses several attributes of species 

considered disturbance or stress tolerators (Menke and Muir 2004). It is a very long-lived perennial, 

found in late seral habitats, with infrequent sexual reproduction. It has a deep fleshy taproot and the 

above-ground stalk brakes off easily (just above the root crown and dormant buds) when tugged or 

kicked. Within a given site many of the plants have the inherent ability to seasonally adjust production 

from complete dormancy to reset formation only, to arrested shoot development with no flowering. All 

these traits are apparently in response to undefined environmental clues. The following discussion of 

effects lists the general direct and indirect effects followed by a discussion of the local situation. 

Direct Effects

The use of OHVs has the potential for direct impacts that could potentially be serious to the species or 

its habitat. Besides the obvious destruction and removal of plants, the potential damage of adult rosettes 

in the spring could cost a loss of carbohydrate reserves that could reduce seed production and energy 

storage for the future, but resprouting and recovery to some degree would be expected. Later summer 

impacts would be a greater loss as seed production would be ongoing and there would be no time for 

regrowth. One time regrowth likely would not kill established plants, but repeated physical impacts 

could damage the plant below the root crown or exhaust plants reserves as well as make it more 

vulnerable to pathogens or other stochastic events (Hustafa 2005). Once the plants have set seed and 

gone dormant in September, there would be little if any direct physical impacts. Across the species 

range actual impacts from OHV use is noted to be light (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007), but with 

the rapid rise in the popularity of these vehicles and extensive unsurveyed habitat, it is virtually certain 

the negative effects are more than presently known. 

Indirect Effects

Understanding the indirect effects to Spalding’s catchfly may be somewhat confounding and less 

straightforward. From the remnant populations throughout its range the species appears most vigorous 

in late seral grasslands most often characterized by Idaho Fescue. Management that allows for grassland 

maintenance in mid to late seral stages or good ecological condition minimizes any change in 

community composition/competition and should help provide for the species (Hustafa 2005). Under 

such management, there would be less potential for indirect effects to the species in these more resilient 

habitats. 

However, management that results in compromised habitat or causes habitat degradation would likely 

have indirect effects on Spalding’s catchfly. Such habitats generally have an increased coverage of 

annual grasses and forbs and non-palatable weedy perennial species. Such weedy species would be 

expected to out-compete Spalding’s catchfly and also cause livestock or wildlife to focus more on 

grazing it and other desirable species as the level of unpalatable weed species increases. Degraded plant 

communities contain fewer plants with deep roots and more plants with shallow rooting mass, thus 

increasing opportunity for erosion and reducing habitat for soil organisms. Such a state would reduce 

the ability of Spalding’s catchfly to function given its biology and species characteristics. Grasslands in 

poor condition are either in an ongoing state of disclimax or may be very slow to recover even with 

modern range management or restoration activities. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 208
Page 13 of 23

The effects of OHV use on the sensitive surfaces found in grasslands would include scarification of 

soils, rutting, changes in community composition and changes in surface hydrology among other things. 

The indirect effects of such activities would create a condition where the ecological factors utilized by 

particular species are more varied and transitional in nature. Such a condition favors the establishment 

of weeds that can displace native species and compromise the integrity of the vegetative community. 

This indirect effect of OHV use is probably the greatest effect on Spalding’s catchfly and the community 

in which it resides. 

Local Effects

It is important to note that this discussion of effects to Spalding’s catchfly is general for the species. The 

local populations on the Nez Perce National Forest have been unaffected or little affected directly or 

indirectly by OHV use. Given the terrain involved two of the three populations and most of the habitat 

are not accessible and numerous surveys in the population areas from 2005 through 2008 have yet to 

note OHV activity in these population areas. However, the Mud Springs occurrence is partially 

accessible to OHV and low levels of use and effects have been noted. In addition not all the potential 

habitat found in the Salmon Canyon has been surveyed. In general the worst threat to Spalding’s 

catchfly and its habitat is invasion by undesirable introduced species such as cheat grass, yellow star 

thistle and common crupina among others. The steep, high energy slopes that naturally have a high 

percentage of exposed soil are readily invaded by weeds from numerous sources including roads, trails, 

livestock and others. While such slopes generally do not support Spalding’s catchfly, they are often 

adjacent to the more suitable habitat and serve as weed sources resulting in degradation of the grasslands 

in general. Where OHV use does occur it can exacerbate the situation through increased opportunity for 

weeds to take advantage of disturbed ground and by directly transporting weed propagules throughout 

the area. 

Proposed Alternative 

Modeling indicates there are 1,962 acres of potentially suitable habitat on Forest lands, of which 

approximately 731 acres (37 percent) may be currently accessible to OHV use. Observed use of the 

accessible potential habitat is low at the present time. However, while the use of the species’ habitat is 

currently low, there is potential for effects to the species or quality of the habitat through direct and 

indirect effects wherever use does occur. Under the proposed alternative approximately 103 acres (5 

percent) would be accessible to OHV use. It is anticipated that the actual effects to suitable habitat 

would be substantially less because some of the mapped suitable habitats may be isolated from OHV 

access by natural barriers. Additionally effects are likely less than indicated because suitable habitat 

does not actually occur as mapped or suitable habitat is often unoccupied. Most significantly, the 

conditions of use for off-route travel greatly reduce the amount of habitat available for off road travel. 

These conditions limit such travel to existing tracks and limits parking to the immediate road side. 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) 

This species occurs at low elevations in warm and dry Canyon Grasslands along the main Salmon and 

Snake rivers in Idaho. In this area National Forest lands, mostly occur at elevations higher than the 

species is believed to occur. Modeled habitat in the vicinity of the very limited distribution are indicates 

only traced amounts of marginal habitat within Forest boundaries. Much more modeled habitat is found 

in Forest Service land in the lower Rapid River Canyon; however this is relatively far from the known 

distribution area. See the Modeling section for this discussion. 

Off road vehicles may pose a direct threat to MacFarlane’s four o’clock as open ground in the Canyon 

Grasslands wherever they are used in or near the appropriate habitat. However, most population sites 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 209
Page 14 of 23

are on ground that is too steep for the use of such vehicles. Of the 6,454 acres modeled as potential 

habitat, only 324 (5 percent) are considered accessible to OHV use. Under the proposed alternative only 

79 acres (1 percent) of potentially suitable habitat would be accessible. Where the plants can be 

reached, spring use would have the greatest impact as that is when the plant is mature and flowering. 

Most of the summer the plant is dormant and the large deep roots would be protected from activity on 

the surface. 

The most serious consequences of OHV use are likely indirect, most notably habitat degradation leading 

to weed invasion. As with grasslands inhabited by Spalding’s catchfly, degradation of habitat may 

result in the plants being less fit for the changing environment or they may not compete well with 

weeds. It has been noted that cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) inhibits germination, growth, and 

development of species of Mirabilis (USFWS 1996). Also unhealthy sites may become dominated by 

annual weeds or other species that are less palatable causing the livestock or wildlife to seek the 

remaining native species which are greener and more palatable. However, given that the typically steep 

and rocky habitats support relatively little vegetation, it is unlikely the potential habitat on the Nez Perce 

National Forest would be significantly grazed because livestock would focus on other areas. 

Proposed Alternative 

While it is possible some OHV use may have some effect on MacFarlane’s four o’clock it is not likely 

due to the very small area of marginal habitat that may occur on the forest and is accessible to OHV use. 

Also the large majority of this habitat is located in Rapid River, which is outside of what appears to be 

the local range for the species. Thus OHV use is considered Not Likely to Adversely Affect the species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for rare and sensitive plants are addressed through consideration of past, proposed 

and reasonably foreseeable actions. It is not possible to directly quantify effects of specific activities 

that are several years or decades old on species of concern today. The status and occurrence of rare 

plants was completely unknown for much of the management history of the project area. Historically 

the changes in condition and abundance of specific habitats important to these species are also unknown. 

Therefore the effects of these past projects can only be qualified through general discussions. However, 

the results of past projects contribute to the current existing condition, which can be used to discuss 

proposed activities on rare plant species. All proposed and reasonably foreseeable actions on lands 

administered by the Forest Service could require protective measures to avoid negative effects to rare 

plants. Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative effects that would result in viability loss of any 

species of concern. 

Cumulative effects to rare plants and grasslands can be manifested through the persistent effects to plant 

populations and habitats from road and trail construction and use, timber harvest, natural and prescribed 

fire, grazing, weed introductions, and mining, as well as OHV traffic. Cumulative effects of OHV use 

would accrue over time in the areas where cross-country travel to dispersed camping sites is habitual. In 

general, some effects can be positive for species that require sunlight or bare substrate for establishment. 

Cumulative effects can be negative for species sensitive to trampling, displacement, alteration of slope 

hydrology, grazing, or competitive exclusion when invasive species are introduced. Prescribed burning 

has potential for either negative or positive cumulative effects. Encroaching conifers or shrubs may be 

suppressed by prescribed burning, which could favor some rare plants and restore grassland habitats in 

some situations where invasive species are controlled. The interaction of motorized use or livestock 

grazing and prescribed burn areas may provide a vector for invasive species into susceptible habitat. 

Some activities such as trail maintenance, road maintenance, recreation site maintenance, access 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 210
Page 15 of 23

management, riparian planting, forest inventory and others are considered routine and ongoing and 

collectively would have negligible impacts on species or habitats of concern. 

Access limiting motorized traffic to existing motorized routes and minimizes the mileage of those routes 

are most likely to limit adverse cumulative effects. Under these assumptions, Alternative 5 would 

minimize adverse cumulative effects through the prevention of off route travel through sensitive 

grassland habitats that may support the federally listed plant species. Because the federally listed plant 

species on the Nez Perce National Forest are limited to the Salmon River Basin, species-specific 

discussion of cumulative effects are limited to activities in that area. 

Spalding's catchfly (Silene spaldingii) 

Due to the non-forested nature of the habitat for Spalding’s catchfly, timber harvest does not occur in 

areas where the species grows, however, logging roads and sometimes log decks/landings are 

constructed in or through non-forested habitats. The historical loss of potential Spalding’s catchfly 

habitat to these actions cannot be quantified, although some of the Idaho fescue grasslands have been 

crossed by roads. The loss of occurrences is considered highly unlikely given the marginal nature of the 

habitat and the lack of roads extending out the lateral ridges from the Salmon/Snake divide, which hold 

almost all the modeled potential habitat on public lands. None of the timber harvest has had any effects 

on grasslands preferred by Spalding’s catchfly. 

Natural or prescribed fire also may affect the grassland habitats of Spalding’s catchfly, though 

significant events have not occurred in suitable habitat. Prescribed fires will occur in the 

Christy/Sherwin project, but this will be limited to forest vegetation and any work on encroaching trees 

in the grassland will be done by hand. Native plant species have evolved with and adapted to natural 

fires, but they differ in their response to fire intensity and timing. In the Salmon River Canyon, 

lightning fires occur from late spring to late fall. These fires vary in intensity and frequency depending 

on vegetation, fire regime, and weather conditions. Fire may have historically played a role in 

maintaining Spalding catchfly habitat, especially in sites that are interspersed with ponderosa pine 

(WNHP 2001). 

Lesica (1999) found that fire had no detectable effect on the survival or recruits of Spalding’s catchfly, 

but results suggest that fire has a positive effect on the population dynamics of the species by removing 

litter and creating desirable sites for recruitment. Other research scientists found that following fires in 

similar grassland habitat both grasses and forbs increased, while others found that survivorship 

decreased. Howe (1995) documents the effects on grassland species from differing seasons of fire, 

stating that the effect of fire on a species depends on the season the burn occurs. Lesica (1999) suggests 

that this may explain some of the variation in results reported in the literature. In his study, neither burn 

treatment produced significant effects on survivorship, probably because they occurred before and after 

the plant’s active growing season. Menges and Dolan (1988) found that Silene regia, an eastern North 

American prairie plant, has also responded favorably to fire. 

Fire suppression can result in an overall decline in suitable habitat conditions for Spalding’s catchfly by 

facilitating the encroachment of woody vegetation or other plant species, contributing to increasing 

amounts of litter or duff layer, and inhibit seed germinations (USFWS 1999). Therefore, the species 

composition of native plant communities may be outside the historic range of variability because of fire 

exclusion. Wildfires and/or prescribed fires may facilitate and maintain some potential habitat for 

Spalding’s catchfly. 

Spalding’s catchfly potential habitat areas occur on lands infested by many noxious and exotic plant 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 211
Page 16 of 23

species. Several of these species benefit from fire, so prescribed fire may cause indirect effects to the 

native plant communities and ecosystems. Noxious weeds can inhibit re-colonization by native 

bunchgrass and leads to altered plant communities (USDA – PNW 1997). Increases in noxious weed 

infestations can also threaten the known populations and habitat of rare plant species (Rosentreter 1994). 

The cumulative effect of grazing, noxious weed invasion, fire exclusion and possibly herbicide use has 

possibly contributed to a loss of potential habitat in some of the grasslands found in the project area. In 

addition, fire suppression activities such as fire line construction will result in ground disturbance that 

may adversely affect rare species and permit noxious weeds to become established. Prescribed fire is 

being implemented in some parts of the Salmon River canyon. The Slate Creek Ranger District also has 

an ongoing noxious weed program with an emphasis on weed control in the quality grasslands of the 

project area. 

Generally grazing provides the primary direct effects of management activities to Spalding’s catchfly. 

Grazing has always been an activity in the grasslands within these allotment areas. Historic use by 

wildlife has always occurred and livestock grazing by Native Americans has gone on for approximately 

200 years. As homesteaders arrived in these canyons in the late 1800s, the grazing of horses, cows and 

sheep slowing increased before reaching peak levels in the early decades of the 1900s. Grazing levels 

have declined dramatically from the 1940s when use was much more intense, extensive and caused 

much more resource damage than in modern times (Island EAWS 2006). The effects on rare plant 

species such as Spalding’s catchfly would be less today, and occurrences have persisted under existing 

management. 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) 

Many of the same management activities that potentially affect Spalding’s catchfly may affect 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock, however given the very few acres of marginal habitat in the project area and 

the lack of specific projects in the vicinity, cumulative effects would be very low to non-existent. Also 

the required habitat is far below timberline in the Canyon Grasslands so there would be no effects from 

past, present or future timber sales. The most significant effects would be from weeds, but there is some 

potential for fire and several other miscellaneous effects. At one occurrence in Idaho, the number of 

plants appears to be stable several years after a range fire (ICDC 1996). Also, most natural fires would 

occur later in the summer when the plant is dormant. Spring fires could harm the above portion of the 

plant, perhaps reducing reproduction. The most significant effect of fire on this species habitat would be 

the indirect effect of weed influx in burned areas. Habitat occupied by Mirabilis macfarlanei was found 

to have a greater density of native grasses than adjacent unoccupied habitat (Kaye 1992). 

Some populations may be threatened by scientific or horticultural collection, maintenance of roads and 

trails, recreational uses such as trampling or off-road vehicles, insect damage and disease, herbicide 

spraying or inbreeding depression based on the low population and isolated occurrences. Stochastic 

events such as landslides and floods must also be considered for species with such a limited existence. 

While all these factors may potentially affect Mirabilis macfarlanei in its limited range, these effects 

along with the minimal effects associated with this project would not result in significant cumulative 

effects to this species or its habitat. 

VII. DETERMINATION 

Due to the absence of species or habitat, it is determined that this project will have “No Effect” on water 

howellia (Howellia aquatilis), Slick spot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum), or Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). There would be a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” on MacFarlane’s four 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 212
Page 17 of 23

o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). 

Determination Rational 

For Macfarlane’s four o’ clock, the Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination is reached 

because only a very small percentage (1%) of the isolated potential habitat could be reached by OHVs 

and the effects are likely to be very light to absent given the steep, rocky nature of the area, and the early 

phenology of the plant would protect it from mechanical harm during most of the season of use. Also, no 

occurrences are known from ground currently managed by the Nez Perce National Forest, where 

habitats are very marginal and surveys have been negative. While effects could occur to the species or 

habitat, they are very unlikely. 

Some potential Spalding’s catchfly habitat may be affected by OHVs under the proposed alternative. 

Existing management would allow OHVs access to any suitable habitat an operator can reach, including 

most areas of the known occurrences. The proposed alternative removes all known occurrences and 

most of the potential habitat from motorized access. Roads and trails may still pass through some 

potential habitat, but virtually all such areas have been surveyed with negative results or have been 

determined through map and photo interpretation to be unsuitable or off route access is not possible due 

to the intervening terrain. In addition, allowed access off of these routes is subject to conditions of use, 

which limits travel to existing tracks to protect vegetation. While effects to this species or its preferred 

habitat are possible, they are not likely due to species absence, lack of access or the protective measures 

employed to suitable habitat and known occurrences. Therefore, a Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) determination is reached for the proposed alternative. 

IX. RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION

This Biological Assessment has been prepared based on available information. If the final project 

design is changed so as to have effects on any proposed, threatened or sensitive plant species, and their 

habitat or if new information becomes available that reveals impacts not considered in this biological 

assessment/evaluation, a revised, or new biological assessment/evaluation will be required. 

Signatures: 

Prepared And Approved By: 

/s/ Michael R. Hays Botanist February 15, 2012 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 Name Title Date 

 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 213
Page 18 of 23

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 

Barnes, Jennifer L., Wolf, P.G., Tepedino, V.J. 1997. Genetic Diversity, Gene Flow and Clonal 

Structure of the Salmon River Populations of MacFarlane’s Four O’Clock Mirabilis macfarlanei

(Nyctaginaceae). BLM Idaho Technical bulletins. 97-17: 63 pp. 

Bingham, R.T. 1987. Plants of the Seven Devils Mountains of Idaho - An Annotated Checklist. GTR 

INT-219. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden UT. 

Gamon, J. 1991. Report on the status of Silene spaldingii Wats. in Washington. Washington Natural 

Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 

Gray, K. 2005. Botanist with the Idaho Conservation Data Center. Personal communication 

concerning Silene spaldingii habitat. 

Hill, J.L. 2006. Botanist, Idaho Conservation Data Center. Personal communication concerning gopher 

herbivory and new occurrences of Silene spaldingii.

Hill. J.L. &, Grey, K.L. 2004 Conservation Strategy for Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii. Wats) 

A report prepared in cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game Conservation Data Center. Boise ID. 

Howe, H.F. 1995. Succession and fire season in experimental prairie plantings. Ecology 76: 1917-

1925. 

Hustafa, J. 2006. Botanist with the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Personal communication 

concerning Silene spaldingii.

Hustafa, J. 2005. Biological Assessment for the Joseph Creek Rangelands Analysis for Effects on 

Spalding’s Catchfly. Report on file at the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest office, Enterprise OR. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2007. Species element occurrence records for Silene spaldingii, cited 

at the 2007 Idaho Rare Plant Conference, Boise, ID. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2005. Species element occurrence records for Mirabilis macfarlanei. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 1996. Species account for Mirabilis macfarlanei. Idaho Conservation 

Data Center. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/spp_accounts_plants/mirmac.cfm. Accessed: 

2005. 

Kaye, T.N. 1995. Evaluation of Population Monitoring for Mirabilis macfarlanei, 1990-1995. Report 

submitted to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

Kaye, T.N. 1992. Status report update for Mirabilis macfarlanei. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 

Conservation Biology Program. 40 pp/ plus maps. 

Johnson, C.G. 2004. Alpine and Subalpine Vegetation of the Wallowa, Seven Devils and Blue 

Mountains. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-04, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland OR. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 214
Page 19 of 23

Lesica, P. 1999. Effects of fire on the demography of the endangered, geophytic herb Silene spaldingii 

(Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 86(7):996-1002. 

Lesica, P. 1991. Inbreading Depression and the importance of Pollinators to the Threatened Plant, 

Silene spaldingii (Caryophyllaceae). A report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Montana Field 

Office. Helena, MT. 

Lichthardt, J. 1997. Revised Report on the Conservation Status of Silene spaldingii in Idaho. Idaho 

Dept of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise. Unpublished Report.

Menke and Muir 2004. Patterns and Influences of Exotic Species Invasion into the Grasslands Habitat 

of the Threatended Plant Silene spaldingii. Natural Areas Journal, volume 24, number 2. 

Menges, E.S. and R.W. Dolan. 1998. Demographic viability of populations of Silene regia in 

Midwestern prairies: relationships with fire management, genetic variation, geographic location, 

population size and isolation. Journal of Ecology 86: 63-78.

Noss, R.F., E.T. Laroe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A 

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Washington (DC): Biological Resources Division, US 

Geological Survey. (12 June 2002; http://biological.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm). Page 62 and 67. 

Rosentreter, R. 1994. Displacement of Rare Plants by Exotic Grasses. In USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Boise, Idaho. 416 pp. Pages 170-175.

Tisdale, E. W. 1986. Canyon Grasslands and Associated Shrublands of West-central Idaho and Adjacent 

Areas. Bulletin Number 40. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. University of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho. 42 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii 

(Spalding’s Catchfly). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xiii 

+ 187 pages. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Proposed Rule; Proposed Threatened Status for the 

Plant Silene spaldingii (Spalding's Catchfly). Federal Register: Vol. 64 Number 232. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reclassification of Mirabilis macfarlanei (MacFarlane’s 

Four-O’clock) From Endangered to Threatened Status. Federal Register. 61, 52: 10693-10697.

United States Department of Agriculture, Nez Perce National Forest. 2006. EAWS for the Island 

assessment area. Report in progress at the Nez Perce National Forest office, Grangeville, ID. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service – Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW). 

1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basin. Portland, Oregon. Pages 793-798. 

WNHP. 2001. Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington. Washington Natural 

Heritage Program and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished online report. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 215
Page 20 of 23

Appendix A 

Survey Summaries 

Table 1. Summary of Potential Silene Spaldingii Habitat Surveys 

Survey Area Surveyor(s) Date Result Summary

Pittsburg Saddle, NE sec 24 M. Hays 6/15/2005 No habitat. Generally steep and 

drained. Xeric plant community. 

Some Fescue, but too much open 

soil.

Joe Springs - northeast M. Hays 6/25/2005 No habitat. Thin, rocky soils. 

Wrong plant community.

Christy Ck./Joe Creek 

Divide, excluding Rhett Ck. 

pasture.

M. Hays 7/7/2005 No habitat. Thin, rocky soils. 

Coarse substrate. Some Fescue, 

but wrong plant community.

Pt. 5438 east of Grave Pt. 

SE of SE corner sec 30.

M. Hays 7/7/2005 No habitat. Thin soiled, seasonally 

moist, but does not retain adequate 

moisture. Wrong community.

Race/Kessler divide M. Hays,

K. Blythe

7/25/2005 No habitat. Thin soiled, seasonally 

moist, but does not retain adequate 

moisture. Wrong community.

Ridge running NNE from 

Grave Pt. N. Fk Joe/E. Fk 

Deer Ck divide. East side 

of sec 30

M. Hays, 

K. Blythe

7/26/2005 No habitat. Despite being flat, 

ridge is thin soiled and rocky, too 

xeric. 

North Ridge of Grave Pt. 

central sec 30

M. Hays, 

K. Blythe

7/26/2005 No habitat. Ridge is narrow, rocky 

and drained. Generally forested. 

Tablelands NW sec 7and 

adjacent sec 12

M. Hays 7/27/2005 Ample habitat. Most is west of 

divide and not on Nez Perce NF. 

Large modeled habitat 

polygon in east central sec 

33

M. Hays 8/12/2005 No habitat. Area is of an open, 

coarse substrate. Plant community 

far too xeric.

East of rd 420 near Bull 

Springs. SW of NE sec 31

M. Hays 8/13/2005 No habitat. Extremely xeric rocky 

ground. Lots of open soil. 

Summit grassland, 

boundary of sec 30 and 31

M. Hays 8/13/2005 No habitat. Soils are too thin and 

xeric, wrong plant community.

Center Ridge Saddle, ridge 

top to NE sec 9

M. Hays 9/28/2005 Nice Fescue grasslands. Very late 

in season.

Motthorn Saddle; NW sec 

13

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

6/12/2006 No habitat found. Soils are too 

xeric, thin and rocky.

Center Ridge, NE sec 8, 

adjacent NW sec 9, west to 

Center Ridge Saddle

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

6/13/2006 Silene spaldingii found; areas of 

good habitat. Other area soils too 

xeric, thin, drained.

Grave Pt/Bull Springs 

vicinity

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

6/14/2006 No habitat. Soils are too thin and 

xeric, wrong plant community.

Christy Ck./Joe Creek 

Divide, excluding Rhett Ck. 

pasture.

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

6/14/2006 No habitat. Thin, rocky soils. 

Coarse substrate. Wrong plant 

community.

Squaw/Papoose divide M. Hays 6/17/2006 No habitat. Thin, rocky, xeric soils. 

Wrong plant community.

Bean Ck Sdl to SE M. Hays 7/18/2006 No habitat. Thin, rocky, xeric soils. 

Wrong plant community.

Salmon/Snake Divide, 

Motthorn Saddle to Camp 

Howard

M. Hays 7/19/2006 Generally thin, rocky soils, wrong 

community. A little good fescue 

found – close grid survey, negative 

results. 

Center Ridge, especially 

north and east sec 9

M. Hays,

J. Fischer

7/20/2006 Revisited Silene spaldingii site and 

continued survey to all modeled 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 216
Page 21 of 23

habitat in sec 9. Extremely weedy. 

Soils open, coarse, rocky and 

drained. No additional habitat.

Cannon Ball Mt. from Scott 

Sdl to Coconut Grove

M. Hays 7/25/2006 Numerous grassland habitats, none 

suitable. Area generally too dry, 

community wrong, substrate too 

coarse and drained.

Papoose/Rapid divide M. Hays 7/26/2006 Generally thin, rocky soils, wrong 

community. A little good fescue 

found – too dry. Negative survey.

East sec 12, adjacent sec 1, 

NW sec 12. Upper Cowen 

Gulch, Poe Ck and Deer 

Ck.

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

7/27/2006 Generally too drained, rocky, 

xeric. Area of marginal Fescue 

habitat, but very open soils; grid 

surveyed. Microsite of good 

habitat close grid surveyed, 

negative results.

Johnson Ridge M. Hays,

M. Godawa

7/29/2006 Good habitat in area of known 

occurrence. Negative survey.

North slopes of Camp 

Howard and adjacent points

M. Hays 7/31/2006 Most of the area is not habitat. Pt. 

east of summit on property line -

good prairie community. Grid 

surveyed, negative results.

Large area on boundary of 

sections 6 and 7

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

8/7/2006 No habitat. Surface too open, dry. 

Scabby or drained.

Rhett Ck/Christy Ck divide. 

South sec 33 and adj. sec 4. 

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

8/7/2006 No habitat. Very drained, xeric, 

coarse, open soil. Plant 

community far too dry. 

Central sec 33, north side of 

Rhett Ck.

M. Hays, 

M. Godawa

8/7/2006 No habitat. Area is of an open, 

coarse substrate. Plant community 

far too xeric.

Tablelands from SW sec 7, 

south to the SE of SW sec 

18

M. Hays 8/8/2006 Ample, Silene spaldingii habitat. 

Most is west of divide. Livestock 

also fenced out of virtually all the 

rest. 

Center Ridge, NE sec 8, 

adjacent NW sec 9

M. Hays 9/22/2006 Revisited Silene spaldingii

occurrence to assess plant 

condition, grazing use and west 

boundary of population area.

Center Ridge NE sec 8, 

between 4,400-4,600 ft.

M. Hays 9/22/2006 Survey of modeled ground sw of 

population. Little marginal habitat 

surveyed closely with negative 

results.

1/3 mile west of Center 

Ridge Saddle

M. Hays 9/22/2006 No habitat. Open dry forest made 

more open by logging.

NW sec 5, NE of Center 

Ridge Saddle

M. Hays 9/22/2006 No habitat. Dense forest and small 

pockets of open dry forest.

Mud Springs, east half of 

sec 21

M. Hays 9/24/2006 No habitat found. Areas are forest 

or too xeric, coarse soil, wrong 

community. Very similar to Rhett 

Creek area.

Johnson Ridge M. Hays and 

15 others

7/12/2007 A mass survey of Johnson Ridge. 

Some suitable Fescue communities 

found, but no Silene. 

NE corner of Tablelands in 

sec 7

M. Hays,

S. Shelly, 

P. Green,

C. Morse

7/12/2007 Good Silene spaldingii habitat. 

Close survey was negative.

Sly Ridge M. Hays 6/16/2009 No habitat. Habitat too xeric, thin 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 217
Page 22 of 23

7/6/2009 rocky soils, wrong community.

Boufford Ridge M. Hays 7/6/2009 Generally too xeric, thin rocky 

soils, wrong community. Small 

inclusion of marginal habitat 

unoccupied.

McKenzie Ridge M. Hays 7/8/2009 No habitat. Habitat too xeric, thin 

rocky soils, wrong community.

Dairy Ridge M. Hays 7/9/2009 No habitat. Habitat too xeric, thin 

rocky soils, wrong community.

Slippy Ridge M. Hays 7/9/2009 No habitat. Habitat too xeric, thin 

rocky soils, wrong community.

Bentz Ridge M. Hays 8/26/2009 Various habitats, none suitable. 

Generally too xeric, thin rocky 

soils, wrong communities.

Christy/Joe divide (Rhett) M. Hays 8/27/2009 No habitat, too xeric, wrong 

community.

Pinnacle Ridge M. Hays, 

M. Godawa, 

J. Bonn

7/29/2010 Various habitats, none suitable. 

Generally too xeric, thin rocky 

soils, wrong communities.

Mud Springs Ridge M. Hays 8/12/2010

8/19/2010

Suitable habitat present and large 

occurrence of Silene spaldingii

found.

Skookumchuck/Dalmage 

grasslands

M. Hays 6/25/2011

7/12/2011

7/31/2011

Various habitats, none suitable. 

Generally too xeric, thin rocky 

soils, wrong communities.

Berg/Allison face M. Hays 6/15/2011 Generally too xeric/rocky. 

Extensive weeds and pasture 

grasses otherwise. Potential 

suitable habitat noted on 

inaccessible steep slopes.

White Bird Ridge M. Hays 6/29/2011 No habitat on east side. Suitable 

habitat on part of west side, survey 

negative, more recommended.

E. of China Saddle M. Hays 7/14/2011 No habitat, too xeric, wrong 

community.

Squaw/Papoose Divide M. Hays 7/14/2011 Habitat very marginal. Some 

community components, but very 

rocky/xeric. Survey negative.

Rapid River M. Hays 7/19/2011 Habitat very marginal. Some 

community components, but very 

rocky/xeric. Survey negative.

Christy/Joe divide - west M. Hays 8/7/2011 Marginal habitat, but thin soils, 

rocky, unoccupied.

NE corner of Tablelands in 

sec 7

M. Hays 8/7/2011 Good Silene spaldingii habitat. 

Close survey was negative.

Banner Ridge M. Hays Numerous 

dates

There have been a multitude of 

spot checks on Banner Ridge 

grasslands. To date, no suitable 

habitat has been found. Ridge in 

general is too xeric and rocky. 

Desirable Fescue communities 

absent or very marginal.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 218
Page 23 of 23

Table 2. Summary of Other Project Area Surveys and Monitoring 

Survey/Research Area Surveyor Date Work Conducted

Tablelands S. Caicco (CDC) 1987 Survey of future modeled 

habitat

Tablelands M. Mancuso 

(CDC)

1991 Survey of future modeled 

habitat

North side of Mud Springs 

Ridge

C. Tretter and J. 

Meriam (NPNF)

1993 Survey of open forests 

and microsite grasslands

North side of Mud Springs 

Ridge

J. Hanna (NPNF) 1997 Survey of open forests 

and microsite grasslands

Christy Ck/Joe Ck divide M. Mancuso 

(CDC)

1991 Surveys of future 

modeled habitat

Christy Ck/Joe Ck divide S. Caicco (CDC) 1987, 88, 

98, 91

Surveys and monitoring 

of future modeled habitat 

Grave Pt. summit area S. Caicco (CDC) 1987, 91 Survey of future modeled 

habitat

Grave Pt. summit area M. Mancuso 

(CDC)

1991 Survey of future modeled 

habitat

Motthorn Saddle/Big 

Canyon Saddle

S. Caicco (CDC) 1989, 93 Surveys and monitoring

Motthorn Saddle/Big 

Canyon Saddle

Blasch and 

Solberg (NPNF)

1991, 92 Surveys of future 

modeled habitat and 

nearby grasslands

Grave Pt. north ridge M. Mancuso and 

R. Moseley 

(CDC)

1991 Survey of potentially 

suitable grasslands

Table 3. Summary of Other Surveys, Ecological Work and Collections 

Survey/Research Area Surveyor Date Work Conducted

Widespread R. Bingham (FS 

Intermountain Research 

Station)

1977-83 Extensive collections and sight 

records

Widespread C. Johnson (WallowaWhitman NF)1982-84 Extensive collections, sight records 

and grassland community 

characterization

Grave Pt. R. Davis (ID St. Univ.) 1940 Collections

Camp Howard J. Aldrich (Univ. ID) 1907 Collections

Pittsburg Saddle vicinity R. Steele (FS IRS) 1972-81 Grassland plots and collections

Widespread W. Baker (Univ. ID) 1950s Collections

Rapid River L. Howell (Univ. ID) 1974 Collections

Cow Creek/Pittsburg saddles F. Johnson (Univ. ID) 1962-68 Vegetation classification plots and 

collections

Rapid River A. Nelson (Univ. WY) 1938 Collections

Papoose Creek H. St. John (WSU) 1927 Collections

Widespread E. Tisdale (Univ. ID) 1978-79 Grassland plots and collections

Rapid River H. Tucker (Coll. of ID) 1932 Collections

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 219
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE

Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized 

Vehicle Use

Biological Assessment of DRAMVU (Alternative 5 Modified) for Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis) and North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) 

04/26/2013

Prepared by: Sean Hill – Journey-level Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service – Above & Beyond Ecosystems Enterprise Unit Date

04/26/2013

Reviewed by: Tim Holden – Supervisory Natural Resources Manager

USDA Forest Service – Above & Beyond Ecosystems Enterprise Unit Date

Approved by: Mellissa Dressen – Acting Forest Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service – Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forests Date

In this Biological Assessment (BA), the potential effects of the implementation of the DRAMVU 

Project (Alternative 5 Modified) towards Canada lynx and North American wolverine are 

analyzed. Implementation of this project would be expected to result in a may affect, but not 

likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination for Canada lynx and a not likely to jeopardize

(NLJ) determination for North American wolverine. 

Effects Determinations 

Species/Habitat Status Determination

Canada Lynx

Lynx canadensis Threatened Not Likely to Adversely Affect

North American Wolverine 

Gulo gulo luscus Proposed Not Likely to Jeopardize

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 220
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 TDD). To 

file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

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

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 221
DRAMVU

i

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Description of the Proposal ......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 1

Location ................................................................................................................................... 2

Scope and Timeline ................................................................................................................. 2

Proposed Actions ........................................................................................................................ 4

Actions Common to Alternatives ............................................................................................ 4

Alternative 1– No Action – Existing Legal Access ............................................................... 11

Alternative 1A – Proposed Action - Minimum Travel Management Rule Implementation . 11

Alternative 2 – Current Condition Modified ......................................................................... 12

Alternative 3 – Response to Requests for Less Motorized Use ............................................. 13

Alternative 4 – Response to Requests for More Motorized Use ........................................... 14

Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 Modified – Blended - Preferred Alternative ....................... 15

Alternative 6 – Response to effects to Wildlife Habitats and Forest Plan ............................. 16

Current Management Direction................................................................................................. 19

Consultation to date .................................................................................................................. 19

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction ................................................................... 20

Nez Perce National Forest Application of the NRLMD ROD .............................................. 21

Lynx Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 22

North American Wolverine Critical Habitat ......................................................................... 22

Evaluated Species Information, Effects, and Determinations ................................................... 22

Analysis Process .................................................................................................................... 22

Species Accounts, Effect Analysis, and Determinations .......................................................... 25

Canada Lynx .......................................................................................................................... 25

North American Wolverine ................................................................................................... 38

References ................................................................................................................................. 43

Appendix A. .............................................................................................................................. 47

Appendix B - Lynx Mapping Effort Overview ......................................................................... 57

Appendix C – DRAMVU Area of Analysis Lynx LAU Detailed Analysis ............................. 59

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 222
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Miles of roads and trails currently open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat (values in miles). ......................................................................................... 32

Table 2. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 2 (values in miles). ............................................................. 32

Table 3. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 3 (values in miles). ............................................................. 33

Table 4. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 4 (values in miles). ............................................................. 33

Table 5. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 5 and 5 Modified (values in miles). .................................... 34

Table 6. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 6 (values in miles). ............................................................. 34

Table 7. Alternative comparison of combined motorized access on the Nez Perce National Forest 

(values in miles, unless indicated otherwise). ....................................................................... 36

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Map 1 – Project Area Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Lynx habitat and LAUs within the DRAMVU area of analysis .................................... 28

Figure 3. Baseline condition of lynx linkage areas for the DRAMVU project ............................. 30

Figure 4. Alternatives 5 and 5 Modified effects to lynx linkage areas. ......................................... 35

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 223
DRAMVU

1 

Introduction 

The purpose of this BA is to identify the likely effects of the USDA Forest Service (USDA FS) 

Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) DRAMVU Project on federally listed Canada lynx and 

wolverine that may occur or have habitat within its boundaries. The proposed action and 

alternatives have been reviewed and analyzed by a qualified specialist (as per FSM 2672.42) 

using available information on species distributions and habitat. 

This document is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation Regulations (50 CFR Section 402), and follows standards established in 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 

Section 402) and fulfills these requirements. 

Description of the Proposal 

Purpose and Need

Designation of Motorized Routes

The Existing Condition: Motorized use is prohibited through Wilderness designations on 

876,566 acres (42 percent) and through other Congressionally designated areas on 19,127 acres 

(<1%) of the Nez Perce National Forest. The 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) directs motorized recreation as generally prohibited in 5 

management areas on 29,873 acres (1%) and recreation on roads as open unless posted (signed) 

restricted or closed in 17 management areas (USDA-FS 1987, as amended). In addition, current 

Forest Supervisor closure orders prohibit cross-country motorized travel on approximately 

228,197 acres (11 percent) outside Wilderness. These orders direct motorized travel on specific 

roads or trails, including the type of vehicle and season of use. 

On the remaining lands within the administrative boundary, 1,004,428 acres (48 percent) are open 

to cross-country motorized travel. However, not all of these lands are truly accessible by 

motorized vehicles because of natural limitations, such as vegetation, slope, or terrain. Motorized 

recreationists use some routes—referred to as “unauthorized” roads or trails—that are not part of 

the official Nez Perce National Forest transportation system. Although routes that are not part of 

the Nez Perce National Forest transportation system may not have been authorized by the Forest 

Service, these routes may not have violated the Forest Plan, access guide, or other restrictions 

when they were created. 

The Desired Condition: All routes available for public motorized travel must be a part of the 

transportation system and must be designated open for motorized travel, including the type of 

vehicle and season of use, according to 36 CFR 212 (Travel Management Rule; USDA-FS 2005). 

Need: To designate the type of vehicle and season of use for all routes that will be used by 

wheeled motorized vehicles, and to eliminate unmanaged cross-country motorized travel. 

This project was developed as a forest-wide travel planning analysis proposing to designate 

wheeled motorized vehicle use on lands administered by the Nez Perce National Forest in 

compliance with the national Travel Management Rule (final rule). In order to meet the final rule, 

the proposed action and action alternatives direct that overland, cross country travel be restricted 

or eliminated during the snow-free season. The final rule does not require that over-snow vehicles 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 224
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

2 

such as snowmobiles be limited to designated routes, but it does provide that they may be 

allowed, restricted, or prohibited. The responsible official has elected to not include over-snow 

vehicles in this analysis. A Winter Use Map would be developed in the future. This project and 

therefore this analysis only include the snow-free season. The project is referred to as the 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, abbreviated as DRAMVU.

Location

The Nez Perce National Forest encompasses more than 2.2 million acres in north-central Idaho 

(Figure 1 - Map 1). The proclaimed boundary stretches from the Oregon border on the west to the 

Montana border on the east. Elevations range from less than 1,500 to more than 9,000 feet above 

mean sea level. 

Nez Perce National Forest lands lie totally within Idaho County, Idaho. The Nez Perce National 

Forest is bounded on the north by the Clearwater National Forest, to the east by the Bitterroot 

National Forest, to the south by the Payette National Forest and to the west the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area and Wilderness.

Over 40% of the Nez Perce National Forest is congressionally designated as wilderness, including 

the Gospel Hump Wilderness, portions of the Selway–Bitterroot and Frank Church River of No 

Return Wilderness, and portions of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and Wilderness. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest administers the Hells Canyon Recreation Area and 

Wilderness portion of the Nez Perce National Forest and has already addressed travel 

management for this area. The project area does not include the lands administered by the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

Scope and Timeline

The DRAMVU Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will address travel management 

and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use Forest-wide. However, the FEIS will not reanalyze travel 

planning decisions that have been made recently, or will be made soon, for these other projects on 

the Nez Perce National Forest: 

• Meadow Face Project Record of Decision. 2004.

• Peasley Creek Road Project, Decision Notice - 2011 

• Sourdough Access Project, Decision Notice – 2011 

• West Fork and South Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning Project, Decision Notice 

2011 

• Little Slate Project Record of Decision – 2012 

• Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration Project – Decision Notice planned for 

2013. 

The FEIS discusses alternatives for managing motorized use within the Nez Perce National 

Forest, and discloses the potential environmental consequences of those alternatives. The FEIS, in 

combination with public comments, legal requirements, and other information, will be used to 

create a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) that will be available to the public. For each road and 

trail, the MVUM will specify the types of motorized uses that are appropriate, including: full size 

vehicle use, vehicles less than 50 inches in width, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and motorcycle use. 

The map will not include over-snow vehicle use. The goal for the Nez Perce National Forest is to 

publish a MVUM early in 2013. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 225
DRAMVU

3 

Figure 1 – Map 1 – Project Area Vicinity Map

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 226
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

4 

Proposed Actions 

This analysis contains information on seven alternatives that were analyzed in detail and the 

preferred alternative. These alternatives are:

• Alternative 1 – No Action – Existing Legal Access

• Alternative 1A – Proposed Action

• Alternative 2 – Modified Current Condition 

• Alternative 3 – Responds to Request to Decrease Motorized Use

• Alternative 4 – Responds to Request to Increase Motorized Use

• Alternative 5 – Blend

• Alternative 5 Modified – Preferred Alternative – Minor modification of Alternative 5 – 

not studied as a stand-alone alternative.

• Alternative 6 – Responds to Effects on Wildlife Habitat and Forest Plan Direction

The no-action alternative serves to form a baseline by which to measure the effects of the action 

alternatives. Alternative 1 is the existing travel management direction on the Forest based on the 

2007 Road and Trail Access Guide. All action alternatives would prohibit motorized cross 

country travel. Alternative 1A would not change the amount of motorized use allowed on roads 

and trails during non-snow months (which vary by the year) and Alternatives 2 through 

Alternative 6 vary in the amount of motorized use allowed on roads and trails during the nonsnow months. A modified Alternative 5 (Alternative 5 Modified) is the preferred alternative.

There would be no construction activities associated with any of the alternatives. The actions are 

purely administrative and non-construction oriented. Implementation would occur as soon as 

possible following the decision. 

Actions Common to Alternatives

Actions Common to All Alternatives

General prohibitions that would apply to parking and dispersed camping include: 

• Placing a vehicle or other object in such a manner that it is an impediment or hazard to 

the safety or convenience of any person (Part A, 261.10(f)). 

• Use or occupancy of National Forest System lands or facilities without an approved 

operating plan when such authorization is required (Part A, 261.10(p)). 

• Damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or segment thereof 

(Part A, 261.12(c)). 

• Blocking, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the use of a road, trail, or gate (Part A, 

261.12(d)). 

• In a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative 

resources (Part A, 261.15(h)). 

• In violation of State law established for vehicles used off roads (Part A, 261.15(i)). 

Prohibitions that would apply to parking or access to dispersed camping by order include: 

• Special closure which prohibits use to go into or be upon any area which is closed for 

protection of (a) Threatened, endangered, rare, unique, or vanishing species of plants, 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 227
DRAMVU

5 

animals, birds or fish; (b) Special biological communities; (c) Objects or areas of 

historical, archeological, geological, or paleontological interest; (d) Scientific 

experiments or investigations; (e) Public health or safety; or (f) Property (Part B, 261.53). 

• Using any type of vehicle prohibited by the order (Part B, 261.54(a)). 

• Being on the road (Part B, 261.54(e)). 

• When provided by an order, it is prohibited to possess or use a vehicle off National Forest 

System roads (Part B, 261.56). 

• Parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of posted instructions (Part B, 261.58(g)). 

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

This section of the document describes alternatives considered in detail, Alternatives 1A, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 5 Modified, and 6; the design features common to those alternatives. The design of all 

alternatives described in this document was based on the most current information and 

technology available at this time. Minor variation in the alternatives due to changes on-theground conditions or improved technology prior to implementation would be consistent with the 

intent of the original alternative.

In response to public comments on the proposal and interdisciplinary team discussions, project 

design and mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various 

alternatives may cause. These design and measures would be applied to any of the action 

alternatives.

Project Design

• Motorized use on roads and trails are subject to Idaho State Law.

• Over-the snow-motorized use would continue as specified in the Nez Perce National 

Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1987, as amended) and existing forest service orders. 

• Hiking and use of recreational livestock would not be restricted to designated routes

• Past forest or district NEPA decisions made on access are considered. 

• Routes with a current closure order(s), including spurs, are closed to motorized use. 

Example, if a main system road is closed to motorized use, all connected spur routes are 

would be closed. 

• Maintain appropriate motor vehicle access to recreational sites (e.g. campgrounds, boat 

ramps, picnic areas, trailheads, rental cabins, recreation resorts etc.).

• Maintain Road 444 to Square Mountain, Road 233 to Wildhorse Lake and Road 492 

Sourdough Peak open to motorized vehicles as agreed to and directed by the Gospel 

Hump Management Plan (Idaho 1985) and the NPNF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1987, as 

amended), or like access provided.

• No new motorized routes within the eight Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Forest. 

These areas are dedicated to the study of natural ecosystem processes and provide a 

baseline for research and monitoring. The RNAs are: O’Hara Creek, Newsome, Moose 

Meadows, Elk Creek*, Fish Lake*, Square Mountain*, No Business Creek (*In 

established wilderness) (USDA-FS 1987, as amended). 

• Alternatives do not display or consider all unauthorized (user created routes) that may be 

on the ground. Known routes that were specifically identified, submitted regarding the 

proposed action and met the criteria presented (FEIS, Appendix B – New Routes) would 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 228
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

6 

be considered for designation as a motorized route (a new proposed route in an 

alternative).

• With the exception of new routes considered in the alternatives, this project will not 

consider construction, reconstruction or decommissioning of roads, trails, areas or 

unauthorized routes. Those actions are better addressed at a more site specific scale.

Motorized Use of Designated Roads, Trails, and Areas

• No cross-country motorized travel on the Nez Perce National Forest (USDA-FS 2005), 

including retrieval of downed big game. Unauthorized routes (routes not on MVUM) 

would not be available for motorized use. 

• All roads, trails and areas are closed to motorized use unless designated as open (USDAFS 2005). Motorized use would be allowed on designated roads, trails, areas as displayed 

on the MVUM, based on the specified type of vehicle and season of use (FEIS, Appendix 

B). A designation for a road or trail includes all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking 

lots, and turnouts associated with the designated road or trail.

• Parking a motor vehicle within one vehicle length of a designated route is also permitted 

from the edge of the route surface. One vehicle length is the length of a vehicle and a 

trailer (e.g. boat, horse, or camper). Use would be allowed when it is safe to do so and as 

to not create resource damage and follows forest orders or prohibitions. 

• Use of vehicles off roads to gather firewood is not allowed per the terms of standard 

personal use firewood permits.

• No motorized equipment or mechanical transport (such as mountain bikes) are allowed 

within wilderness areas as specified by law and the Nez Perce Forest Plan (Wilderness 

Act 1964, Endangered American Wilderness 1978, Central Idaho Wilderness Act 1980, 

USDA-FS 1987b, as amended; and within the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River 

corridor, as specified within the enabling legislation for the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area and Rapid River Wild and Scenic River).

• All areas and routes in the project area are open to non-motorized use (by foot, mountain 

bike, or stock), unless prohibited for administrative reasons such as safety or otherwise 

posted. Mountain bikes would be permitted on all roads and trails outside of wilderness 

areas, unless otherwise posted. 

• General prohibitions and any other restrictions placed on National Forest Service Roads 

and Trails, or areas within the Nez Perce National Forest (36 CFR, Part 261, Subpart A 

and Subpart B; Sections 36 CFR 261: 53, 54, 55), will continue to allow the local manger 

the responsibility and authority to immediately close a road, trail or area to use anytime a 

there is considerable adverse environmental effects occurring from use until the problem 

has been resolved (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

• This project would not supersede the terms and conditions for motorized use as 

authorized under permit, by a line officer, on any road or trail. Such forest activities may 

include: grazing permits, weed treatment, mineral activities, fire wood cutting permits, 

special use permits and authorizations for administrative use. Motorized use may include 

travel on or off designated routes. 

• Maintain access to areas important to all Native American Tribes who use the Nez Perce 

National Forest, and would preserve local Native American culture by providing for the 

continued ability to practice inherent tribal treaty rights and traditional uses of the forest.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 229
DRAMVU

7 

• Post access points into the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal watersheds with signs 

informing users of the municipal watershed, encouraging caution with potential pollution 

sources and detailing sanitation requirements. 

• Conditions of Use – Wheeled Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping 

o In response to comments on the DEIS and internal discussions there was a need to be 

consistent with the Clearwater National Forest about motorized access for dispersed 

camping. Because of the location of the Nez Perce National Forest and the 

neighboring Clearwater National Forest, many forest visitors travel and enjoy 

activities on both forests. There was a need to remove differences between the two 

forests. The proposed conditions of use, responds to this concern. 

o In response to the potential effects of natural and heritage resources, there was also a 

need to clarify conditions of use, and several areas on the forest were determined to 

need additional protection from effects from dispersed camping activities. The 

proposal for reduced wheeled vehicle access for dispersed camping responds to this 

concern. 

o Motorized travel to dispersed campsites along designated routes is included as 

designated route travel as long as the conditions for that travel are met. When the 

conditions below are not met, the motorized travel is illegal. 

o To meet the intent of the rule, motorized travel to dispersed campsites along 

designated routes would be permitted within a specific distance (varies by 

alternative) of a designated route during the period when that route is open to 

motorized traffic. The distance is measured perpendicular to the designated route.

Campsites, even where they currently exist that are beyond the distance would be offlimits to motor vehicles.

o Since the intent is to provide for camping access, it would not be permissible to roam 

around with a motor vehicle off the designated route while looking for a campsite. 

Campers are expected to explore and evaluate campsites by non-motorized means 

and travel to them with their vehicle using the most clearly defined existing track.

Cutting corners on the established track or taking shortcuts back to the main road or 

trail would not be permitted. Again since the intent is to provide for camping access, 

repetitive recreational riding around in the campsite or along the access route would 

not be permitted.

o Barriers of logs, rocks, or earth, gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to 

restrict vehicles from sensitive or damaged areas. These devices may be in place to 

eliminate motorized traffic in wet areas, streamside zones, on redundant tracks or for 

other resource protection purposes. Moving, going over, going around, or in any way 

circumventing these restriction devices would not be permitted.

o Any motorized travel that causes resource damage is prohibited. Examples of 

resource damage associated with motorized travel to dispersed campsites include but 

are not limited to:

 Cutting, harming or unreasonably disturbing vegetation 

 Using more than one track to access the campsite

 Crossing streams, driving on stream banks, or riding in any wet area off the 

established track where rutting occurs.

 Pioneering a new campsite or a new track or extending the existing track 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 230
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

8 

• Follow Terms and Conditions identified through consultation with NOAA-Fisheries and 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

• Forest Plan Amendments -The full text and description of the proposed amendments are 

included in Appendix D of this FEIS. 

o Two project-specific Forest Plan amendments are proposed in all of the action 

alternatives. The action alternatives would not apply Recreation Standard #9 or 

Road and Trail Standard #10 described in the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended. 

o One project-specific Forest Plan amendment is proposed in all action 

alternatives. Management Area 16 – Elk/Deer Winter Range, Wildlife/Fish 

Access Standard #1 would not be applied to some roads depending on the 

alternative. The amendment would not apply the standard to specific local roads 

in Management Area 16 as described in the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended. 

o One project-specific Forest Plan amendment is proposed in Alternatives 1A, 2, 3, 

4, and 6. Management Area 22 – Wall Creek Municipal Watershed, Recreation 

Management Standard #5 would not be applied to some roads depending on 

alternative. The amendment would not apply the standard to specific local roads 

in Management Area 22 as described in the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended. 

Mitigation & Monitoring

Recreation

• Coordinate with Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) to review past IDPR 

grants when the designation would convert use on a trail from motorized to nonmotorized. Work with the IDPR to determine if an application for replacement 

opportunity is necessary (varies by alternative – see Chapter 3-Recreation – DRAMVU 

FEIS).

Monitoring 

• Monitoring can include several kinds of activities. Project implementation monitoring 

evaluates compliance with land management plans and project decisions, including any 

required mitigation measures. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates the effectiveness of 

management actions in achieving desired outcomes. Program monitoring tracks and 

evaluates ecological, social, and economic trends. Validation monitoring verifies 

assumptions and models used in project implementation. Each kind of monitoring is 

relevant to managing motor vehicle use. 

Heritage Resources

• Identify and evaluate all historic properties within the project area and develop protection 

measures for sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office would approve all identification, evaluation, and protection 

measures. In order to comply with Section 106, the protocol states the Forest Service will 

conduct the following activities: 

1. A portion of cultural resources associated with open road systems will be monitored 

and protected yearly as part of the broader target-attainment, National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 110, Archaeological Resource Protection Act and 

related Heritage Program responsibilities.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 231
DRAMVU

9 

2. Newly designated motorized roads and trails will be inventoried for cultural 

resources and reported to the Idaho SHPO following protocols found in the 2001 

North Idaho PA prior to a travel planning decision. 

3. Existing dispersed recreation sites accessed by roads, and where no prior survey has 

occurred or where use is expanding will be inventoried for cultural resources 

following a travel planning decision. This inventory will be conducted in the 

following manner: 

a. Fifty-acres of survey will be conducted annually by each Forest. This survey will 

occur where there is a conjunction between high cultural resource probability and 

high motorized use. 

b. Inventory will include monitoring, condition assessments and development of 

appropriate mitigation measures as needed to reduce or eliminate adverse effects 

to historic properties within the targeted annual survey area. 

c. All three National Forests are currently conducting recreation inventories and 

GPS mapping of dispersed recreation sites. The above activities will be aided by 

these inventory/GPS efforts and resulting GIS products. 

• Mitigation needs arising from implementing the above protocol elements may include, 

but are not limited to, route relocation/closures, site specific dispersed camping closures, 

barrier rock placement, capping archaeological properties with a protective soil layer, 

formal collection of surface artifacts, or data recovery. 

Fisheries

• The following monitoring activities would be completed during the first two complete 

field seasons following the authorization of the travel plan. A report will be prepared the 

second field season. The report will note any existing and potential problems, immediate 

actions taken during the interim to minimize or avoid adverse effects, and any pending or 

potential actions that the Forest will address administratively or through the NEPA 

process. If monitoring finds adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat are 

occurring, the action will be immediately curtailed until a remedial plan is formed and 

subsequent Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation is completed. See aquatic 

monitoring plan (FEIS, Appendix F). 

• Continue to monitor selected motorized trail crossings to determine if travel is causing 

direct or indirect adverse effects to ESA listed species, designated critical habitat, or 

other aquatic resources (e.g. sensitive species, unoccupied stream habitat, wetlands, etc). 

• Determine if existing dispersed recreational sites located within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas and within drainages that support ESA listed fish species are meeting 

standards and guidelines regarding PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives.

Project Implementation and MVUM Revision

• The Nez Perce National Forest would follow national direction for producing maps. The 

Forest Service has implemented a standard national format for MVUM. These maps will 

be available at local Forest Service offices and, as soon as practicable, on Forest Service 

web sites. The Forest Service plans to issue additional travel management guidance in its 

sign standards handbook to ensure consistent messages and use of standard interagency 

symbols. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 232
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

10 

• Revision. The designations identified on the motor vehicle use map are subject to 

revision. Information collected through monitoring and through public user groups will 

be useful in evaluating and revising travel management decisions. The forest would 

update the INFRA database, and the MVUM maps to incorporate any changes in 

motorize access from new NEPA decisions annually or as needed, including corrections.

• Complete future NEPA analysis and decisions for activities such as reconstruction of 

roads or trails to accommodate the designated uses with this decision. 

• Implementation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and objectives would 

continue on a site-specific basis when resource concerns are identified. Future sitespecific planning and enforcement of motorized vehicle regulations would occur at the 

project level.

• User education and enforcement of the new travel management regulations would occur. 

User education would include public meetings, and brochures describing the new travel 

management policy and use of the MVUM. The Nez Perce National Forest will provide 

Forest Protection Officer’s (FPO’s) on the forest to educate visitors on the 

implementation of MVUM.

• Grants and Agreements. The Forest Service will pursue partnerships and grants with 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to maintain motorized and non-motorized 

trails and other groups. 

• Mixed Use Traffic. State of Idaho law allows for motorized mixed use of licensed drivers 

in registered OHVs and highway legal vehicles on unpaved National Forest Systems 

(NFS) roads designated as open to motorized public travel. The Forest may choose to 

regulate this use based on a Mixed Use Traffic Study which determines the safety of such 

use. Routes deemed to be unsafe as a result of the traffic study may be closed to mixed 

use by the Forest, thus eliminating use by OHV’s or highway legal vehicles. 

• Standards, Maintenance, and Construction. Road and trail standards vary depending on 

intended use. Road and trail standards allow for a range of route conditions from 

primitive to high standard. Road and trail maintenance, required by Forest Service 

Manual direction, would continue as available funding is allocated by Congress. In all 

action alternatives, portions of some roads and trails may require reconstruction or 

relocation in order to meet standards. Most of the new construction would consist of short 

“connector” segments, which would tie existing roads or trails together. New trails or 

roads would be designed to meet the trail or road standards as defined by the USDA 

Forest Service Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM-7720-102; or the 

FSH 7700 Roads USDA Forest Service Handbook for roads (USDA-FS 2011). 

Actions Common to Alternatives 4, 5, and 5 Modified

• For new routes implement the following measures would be applied to reduce the spread 

of invasive species:

o Check for invasive weeds at new trail routes, especially for new invader species. 

Treatment at these sites would be addressed under the existing Weed 

Management program.

o If determined necessary, establish desirable vegetation on all ground disturbing 

areas promptly, following the Regional native species guidelines. All noncertified seed used would be tested and certified free of all state noxious weeds 

by a certified seed laboratory. All straw and mulch used would be certified as 

free of noxious weed seed. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 233
DRAMVU

11 

o Remove all mud, soil, and plant parts from all off-road equipment before moving 

into the project area to limit the spread of invasive species. This includes ATVs 

used on and off roads, but does not apply to service or hauling vehicles that 

would stay on improved roadways. 

Actions Common to Alternatives 5, 5 Modified, and 6

• Post informational signs along the Gospel Road 444 where motorized access for 

dispersed camping is limited by the Gospel Hump Wilderness Boundary. 

Alternative 1– No Action – Existing Legal Access

The No Action alternative would take no action to change existing conditions. It would not 

implement the final rule, and would not meet the purpose and need for action. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a “no action” alternative to serve as the baseline for 

analyzing effects. Alternative 1 represents the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative no 

change to routes/areas available for motorized use would be implemented to meet the intent of the 

Travel Plan Rule (36 CFR 212, 251, 261, 295; 11/9/2005). The Nez Perce Forest would continue 

to manage motorized vehicles using existing direction and regulations. Routes and areas currently 

legally open for motorized use would be maintained. Outside of area closures, the forest would 

remain open for motorized cross-country travel. All other currently authorized activities would 

continue on the forest. 

Alternative 1A – Proposed Action - Minimum Travel Management 

Rule Implementation

The Proposed Action (Alternative 1A) would designate NFS motorized routes on the Nez Perce 

National Forest by class of vehicle and seasons of use following existing Forest Supervisor 

closure orders. The Proposed Action would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel. 

Over-snow use and routes currently available for snowmobile use are not addressed by the 

Proposed Action and would continue to be available. This proposal does not supersede uses as 

allowed by other permit or authority, such as Grazing Permits, Mineral Plan of Operation, 

Firewood Permits, or Administrative use. 

Under the Proposed Action, a system of designated roads (2,026 miles) and trails (686 miles) 

would be established for motorized use on the Nez Perce National Forest. 

Motorized use would be designated open for yearlong use on 1,103 miles of roads and seasonal 

use on 923 miles of roads. Allowed vehicles would include full-sized vehicles (1,628 miles); 

vehicles less than 50 inches wide (248 miles); ATVs and motorcycles (28 miles); and 

motorcycles only (1 mile). 

Motorized use would be designated open for yearlong use on 568 miles of trails and for seasonal 

use on 118 miles of trails. Allowed vehicles would include full-sized vehicles (35 miles); vehicles 

less than 50 inches wide (33 miles); ATVs and motorcycles (571 miles); and motorcycle only (46 

miles). 

Parking would be allowed within one vehicle width of roads and trails, including trailers. In 

addition, motorized access for dispersed camping would be allowed within 300 feet from the 

center of roads, following the conditions of use and provided terrain and resource protection are 

not limiting factors (e.g., cliffs, streams). No parking provision for motorized use of trails would 

be included in the Proposed Action. The only exception would be if a traveler needed to get just 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 234
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

12 

off the trail to be consistent with the intent of 36 CFR 261.12 (d) prohibiting blocking, restricting, 

or otherwise interfering with the use of a road, trail, or gate. 

Alternative 1A would require four project–specific Forest Plan amendments.

In addition, this action would not supersede existing regulations that guide motorized use on the 

Nez Perce National Forest and prohibit the following:

• Damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or segment thereof 

(36 CFR 261.12(c)) 

• Carelessly, recklessly, or without regard for the safety of any person, or in a manner that 

endangers, or is likely to endanger, any person or property (36 CFR 261.15(g)) 

• Operating any vehicle off National Forest System, State, or County roads in a manner 

which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 

CFR 261.15 (h)). 

In summary, only actions to meet the basic requirements of the final rule would be taken by this 

alternative. It would designate the same road and trail systems in Alternative 1 and no motorized 

cross country use would be allowed. 

Alternative 2 – Current Condition Modified

Alternative 2 has been referred to as Modified Current Condition. Currently, many trails have 

been built, managed, and maintained for a specific type of use or vehicle and/or season of use. To 

“legally” restrict these uses, a Forest Supervisor Closure Order must have been in place to legally 

close or restrict other uses. In many cases, this Closure order has not been in place, but managers 

have intended specific objectives for a road or trail. Alternative 2 analyzes these routes with the 

assigned Road or Trail Management Objectives as a guide even in the absence of the Closure 

Order.

Examples of the modifications that were considered are, but not limited to:

• A trail was constructed to hiker/pack and saddle stock standard design specifications in 

accordance with Forest Service Manual Trail Standards. Over the years, as motorized 

recreation grew, and technology progressed, this hiker/pack trail began to receive OHV 

use. This trail was never legally closed to OHV’s but was not built or maintained for that 

use. The intent is to manage the trail for hiker/stock.

• A trail is open to motorized uses and, the topography and trail specifications limit use to a 

single track motorized vehicle. The intent is to manage the trail for as a single track 

motorized trail (motorcycle) and other non-motorized uses. 

• A route is signed as closed on the ground in order to prevent resource damage or reduce 

conflicts, but did not have a forest closure order. The intent is for this route to be nonmotorized. 

• A past decision designated a route for non-motorized use; however the decision was 

never implemented with a closure order. The intent is to for the route is a non-motorized 

route. 

• A past decision was made to close a main road and a forest closure order was issued. The 

spur roads off the main road were not specifically identified. The entire system (main 

road and spurs) was also intended to be closed. 

• A past decision was made for an area closures and designated use for motorized vehicles. 

Those designations would continue. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 235
DRAMVU

13 

This alternative would provide a system of designated NFS roads and trails for public use with 

motorized vehicles, under class of vehicle and seasons of use. This alternative responds to 

direction provided in the Travel Plan Rule, as well as meeting current law, regulation, and policy. 

Implementation of the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives would continue. 

Alternative 2 would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel. This alternative would 

allow limited motorized vehicle use, for 300 feet from center of designed NFS roads and 100 feet 

from center of designated NFS trails, for the purposes of dispersed camping following the 

conditions of use describe in Chapter 2. 

Alternative 2 would retain 2,109 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized 

use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,980 miles of road and 398 miles of trails. 

Twenty-five percent of the roads and five percent of the trails would be available for motorized 

use seasonally. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,746 miles of road and 684 

miles of trails, outside of wilderness areas. 

This alternative would change route designation from non-motorized to motorized uses on 4 

miles of trail and would maintain designation of single track on 3 miles of routes. This alternative 

would designate single track use on 13 miles of routes. 

Alternative 3 – Response to Requests for Less Motorized Use

Alternative 3 would emphasize non-motorized use of trails in all Inventoried Roadless areas and 

have no motorized cross country use. Motorized use would also be reduced on some roads and 

trails by adjusting to a shorter season of use. A reduction of use would also be through a change 

in the type of vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from 

motorized to non-motorized, or from large to smaller vehicle types. This alternative would have 

four project-specific forest plan amendments.

Comments received on the proposed action identified a concern that motorized use is not 

appropriate in Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs). Proposed changes to trail management within IRAs 

were considered in the development of Alternative 3.

This alternative was developed in response to the issue related to requests to decrease motorized 

use in Inventoried Roadless Areas while maintaining motorized access to forest areas and 

facilities. This action would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel except in 

specifically designated areas. 

Comments were received that motorized use within IRA should be reduced from the current 

condition. This alternative responds to comments that the amount of motorized use is too high, 

the quality of “quiet” recreational experiences available in IRAs on the Nez Perce National 

Forest, and concerns relating to aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Comments were also received to seasonally close existing motorized use of several routes. These 

proposed changes were included in this alternative.

Some examples that were considered with this alternative include, but are not limited to:

• Trails within IRAs would not be designated for motorized use. 

• If a route was proposed to be closed to motorized use, all spur roads were also closed. 

• Seasonal restrictions are proposed on road or trails.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 236
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

14 

This alternative would provide a system of designated NFS roads and trails for public use with 

motorized vehicles, under class of vehicle and seasons of use. This alternative responds to 

direction provided in the Travel Plan Rule, as well as meeting current law, regulation, and policy. 

Implementation of the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines and Objectives would continue. 

This alternative would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel. Alternative 3 would 

allow limited motorized vehicle use for 300 feet from center of designed NFS roads for the 

purposes of dispersed camping following the conditions of use presented in Chapter 2. 

Alternative 3 would retain 2,109 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized 

use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,942 miles of road and 167 miles of trails. 

Twenty-nine percent of the roads and four percent of the trails would be available for motorized 

use seasonally. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,784 miles of road, 915 

miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles inside wilderness areas. 

This alternative would change route designation from non-motorized to motorized use on 2.7 

miles of trail and would not change designation from single track on 3.1 miles of routes. 

Compared with Alternative 2, this alternative would change designation from single to two-track 

on 1.4 miles of routes.

Alternative 4 – Response to Requests for More Motorized Use

Alternative 4 would emphasize designation for motorized use on road and trails across the forest 

and have no motorized cross country use. Motorized use would be increased on some routes by 

adjusting to a longer season of use. An increase of motorized use would occur though changing 

the type of vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from nonmotorized to motorized, or from small to larger vehicle types. Five routes that were proposed by 

the public would be added to the system for motorized use. This alternative would have four 

project-specific forest plan amendments.

In Alternative 4, comments submitted by the public requesting changes to existing routes or 

adding new routes were screened using the criteria given to the public in May of 2007, ‘How to 

Propose a Route for Consideration’ (FEIS Appendix B). This alternative considered five new 

routes proposed by the public after a review of the criteria presented to the public. 

The forest received comments there is a need for more motorized recreational opportunities 

available on the Nez Perce National Forest. This alternative proposes an increase in amount 

motorized roads and trails available for use.

Routes are proposed to change the use from non-motorized to motorized. Changes are also 

proposed for the type of motorized vehicle allowed on a route. Some comments were received 

that identified motorized loop opportunities to improve safety and reduce user conflicts. This 

adjusted the type of use on some routes. 

This alternative would provide a system of designated NFS roads and trails for public use with 

motorized vehicles, under class of vehicle and seasons of use. This alternative responds to 

direction provided in the Travel Plan Rule, as well as meeting current law, regulation, and policy. 

Implementation of the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines and Objectives would continue. 

This alternative would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel except in specifically 

designated areas. Alternative 4 would allow limited motorized vehicle use, for 300 feet from 

center of designed NFS roads and 300 feet from center of designated NFS trails, for the purposes 

of dispersed camping following the conditions of use presented in Chapter 2. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 237
DRAMVU

15 

Alternative 4 would retain 2,555 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized 

use with an addition of 3.3 miles of trail for yearlong use. Routes open to motorized use would 

include 2,037 miles of road and 517 miles of trails. Twenty-five percent of the roads and five 

percent of the trails would be available for motorized use seasonally. In additional routes open to 

non-motorized use include 1,692 miles of road, 565 miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and 

940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. 

Based on public comments several roads were proposed to open existing non-motorized routes 

for motorize use on 41 miles of roads. For example, on the Red River District the Sawmill Creek 

Road 9833 is proposed to change the use from restricted to all vehicles to open to ATV & 

motorcycle only, on 1.8 miles. 

An additional 3.3 miles of new trail would be designated for use by motorized vehicles (<50”) on 

5 routes located on the Clearwater and Red River Districts. This alternative would change route 

designation from non-motorized to motorized use on 69.7 miles of trail and would change 

designation from single to two-track on 3.1 miles of routes. Compared with Alternative 2, this 

alternative would change designation from single to two-track on 8.4 miles of routes. 

Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 Modified – Blended - Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative 5 would respond to public comments about providing motorized and non-motorized 

use opportunities, while moving toward the objectives for wildlife resources, and other 

management areas. There would be no motorized cross country use on the forest. Road and trail 

designations would reduce the number of miles available for motorized use by designations and 

change in the season of use. Three new routes that were proposed by the public would be added 

to the system for motorized use. This alternative would have three project-specific forest plan 

amendments.

The forest received comments on both the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS. There is a 

need to provide a variety of motorized recreational opportunities on the Nez Perce National 

Forest. This alternative proposes a combination of motorized roads and trails available for use, 

while providing protection of wildlife habitat during the year and moving toward forest plan 

objectives.

Routes are proposed to change the use from non-motorized to motorized. Changes are also 

proposed for the type of motorized vehicle allowed on a route. Some comments were received 

that identified motorized loop opportunities to improve safety and reduce user conflicts. This 

adjusted the type of use on some routes. 

This alternative would provide a system of designated NFS roads and trails for public use with 

motorized vehicles, under class of vehicle and seasons of use. This alternative responds to 

direction provided in the Travel Plan Rule, as well as meeting current law, regulation, and policy. 

Implementation of the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives would continue. 

This alternative would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel except in specifically 

designated areas. Alternative 5 would allow limited motorized vehicle use, for 300 feet from 

center of designed NFS roads and 300 feet from center of designated NFS trails, for the purposes 

of dispersed camping following the conditions of use in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

In addition, in response to the potential effects of natural and heritage resources, there was also a 

need to clarify conditions of use, and several areas on the forest were determined to need 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 238
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

16 

additional protection from effects from dispersed camping activities (See Chapter 2, Conditions 

of Use in the FEIS). This alternative responds to these concerns by reducing wheeled vehicle 

access for dispersed camping off some roads and trails. 

Alternative 5 includes 18 miles of roads and 30 miles of trails with zero feet for motorized access 

for dispersed camping. This includes Road 444 access to wilderness boundary (less than 300 

feet). Motorized access for dispersed camping from all other roads and trails follows the 

conditions of use within 300 feet of the centerline of a route. 

Alternative 5 would retain 2,349 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized 

use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,963 miles of road and 386 miles of trails. 

Thirty-one percent of the roads and fifteen percent of the trails would be available for motorized 

use seasonally. In additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 

miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. 

This alternative includes three new routes (New 1, 4 and 5; 1.1 miles) proposed by the public 

after a review of the criteria presented to the public (Appendix A-Maps 11, 14, 15 of the FEIS). 

This alternative would change route designation from non-motorized to motorized use on 14.3 

miles of trail and would not change designation on single track trails. Compared with Alternative 

2, this alternative would change designation from single to two-track on 7.4 miles of routes. 

Three project-specific amendments to the forest plan are proposed. A no amendment to the forest 

plan for Management Area 22 is proposed. One mile (Road 337A) is proposed to be closed to all 

motorized vehicles, except snowmobiles, to meet the intent of the Forest Plan standard, of 

Management Area 22 (Map 24, FEIS). Full text and analysis of the proposed amendments are 

located in Appendix D of the FEIS. 

Alternative 6 – Response to effects to Wildlife Habitats and Forest 

Plan 

Alternative 6 emphasizes Forest Plan standards and objectives for protecting elk, deer, and moose 

habitat; Municipal watersheds other forest plan direction. There would be no motorized cross 

country use on the forest. This alternative would also move toward objectives in the Forest Plan 

for summer elk habitat. Consistency on motorized designations with adjacent forest and land 

managers would be provided on several roads and trails. Motorized opportunities are generally 

reduced though a reduction in the season of use available on designated roads or trails in 

important habitat or areas. This alternative would have four project-specific forest plan 

amendments.

Following the release of the Draft EIS, the forest received comments about the effects of 

motorized use on wildlife habitats and took a closer look at Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

There was a need to reduce motorized use on roads in trail on certain wildlife habitat on the Nez 

Perce National Forest. Many of the proposed designations in this alternative were presented in the 

SDEIS and were combined with Alternative 3 in the DEIS. This alternative proposes a reduction 

in the amount motorized roads and trails available for use, primarily changing the season roads 

and trail are available for use.

This alternative would provide a system of designated NFS roads and trails for public use with 

motorized vehicles, under class of vehicle and seasons of use. This alternative responds to 

direction provided in the Travel Plan Rule, as well as meeting current law, regulation, and policy. 

Implementation of the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines and Objectives would continue. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 239
DRAMVU

17 

This alternative would close the forest to cross-country motorized travel except in specifically 

designated areas. Alternative 6 would allow limited motorized vehicle use, for 300 feet from 

center of designed NFS roads for the purposes of dispersed camping following the conditions of 

use in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

In response to the potential effects of natural and heritage resources, there was also a need to 

clarify conditions of use, and several areas on the forest were determined to need additional 

protection from effects from dispersed camping activities (See Chapter 2, Conditions of Use, 

FEIS).

Alternative 6 proposes approximately 20 miles of road (on 14 different roads) for no wheeled 

vehicle access for dispersed camping (0 feet), parking of vehicles would still be allowed up to one 

vehicle length. See Tables 2-14 and Maps 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (in the FEIS) for a display of routes 

proposed for a reduction in wheeled motorized access for dispersed camping. This is the same as 

Alternative 5 with the addition of Roads 1856 and 468 (See bold text on Table 2-14, FEIS).

Along Road 444, for distance of 1.5 miles, motorized access for dispersed camping would be 

allowed up 300 feet or to the Wilderness Boundary whichever is less. This proposal is needed 

because the wilderness boundary is less than 300 feet away from Road 444, and motorized use in 

prohibited in the wilderness.

Alternative 6 would retain 2,087 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal motorized 

use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,923 miles of road and 164 miles of trails. 

Thirty-six percent of the roads and six percent of the trails would be available for motorized use 

seasonally. In additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,802 miles of road, 918 miles 

of trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. 

There are several areas of focus in Alternative 6: Elk/deer winter range, Moose Winter Ranger, 

Summer Elk Habitat, and adjacent land managers. 

Motorized route designations are proposed to address some of the elk habitat areas below 

assigned objectives, roads and trails in elk and deer winter range, winter moose habitat or others. 

Nearly all of the proposals focus on restricting motorized use seasonally, when there is very little 

recreation use currently, but which could increase in the future. The proposals are primarily for 

seasonal restrictions rather than yearlong restrictions.

Elk/Deer Winter Range & Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness

The Travel Management Rule lists specific criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas that 

includes Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats (§ 212.55 (b)(1)). 

Two wildlife issues have emerged related to motorized use: elk and deer winter range and 

Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness (See Map 51, FEIS). 

Following the release of the Draft EIS, based on public comment and internal review, a more 

detailed analysis for effects on Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness was completed. This analysis 

followed the direction set in the Forest Plan (Wildlife Standard #6; Forest Plan Appendix B) and 

is presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix F of the FEIS. Based on this analysis, new proposals to 

seasonally close roads or close roads yearlong were made in the SDEIS. One elk habitat area, 

Earthquake Elk Habitat Evaluation Area (EHEA), was below the 25 percent objective, this 

alternative includes proposals to close roads yearlong and seasonally designate motorized road 

use (See Maps 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 51 and 53 of the FEIS).

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 240
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

18 

The DEIS did not fully analyze the effects of the Alternatives in relation to the forest plan 

direction for Management Area 16 – elk and deer winter range. Following additional analysis 

(Chapter 3 of the FEIS) the forest determined that some local roads in winter range had not been 

seasonally closed as directed by the Forest Plan. However, some of the other alternatives did 

propose some closures to those roads and others did not. It was determined that for the local roads 

in winter range to remain open for yearlong use, a forest plan amendment was needed. 

Alternative 6 proposed designations on roads and trail focuses on seasonal changes to access to 

provide protection to wildlife during the summer or winter time. 

Moose Winter Range- Management Area 21 

The Travel Management Rule lists specific criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas that 

includes Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats (§ 212.55 (b)(1)). 

One issued emerged related to motorized use in Moose winter range (Map 51, FEIS).

Following the release of the DEIS, based on public comment and internal review, more detailed 

analysis for effects on moose winter range was completed. This analysis follows the direction set 

in the Forest Plan for Management Area 21 (Wildlife Standard #1) and is presented in Chapter 3 

of the FEIS. This alternative proposes to seasonally close roads to motorized use in the winter, 

except snowmobiles.

Other Proposed Designations

Other proposed designations are included in this alternative to: provide consistency with adjacent 

landowners and managers, including the Bitterroot National Forest, the Bureau of Land 

Management, Elk City township, and private landowners and reflect a response to comments on 

the DEIS, SDEIS and broadens the range of the alternatives considered. Some roads are proposed 

for seasonally motorized use by full sized vehicles to be consistent with other travel plans or other 

jurisdictions. Some examples include: 

• Road 9337 is proposed for yearlong motorized use to provide an alternative to connect to 

a trail. 

• Road 221 (13 miles) is proposed to be seasonally open to all motorized vehicles, except 

snowmobiles. On the Salmon River District this road is currently open to ATV/cycles 

yearlong. There is inconsistency between the two districts.

• About 5 miles of road are proposed for seasonally motorized use to provide a new 

alternative for designation and to be consistent with other land managers (Roads 1808, 

1808B, 1808B2 and 309A). 

• A total of eleven miles of road are proposed for non-motorized use. 

• Ten miles of road are proposed for non-motorized use to provide an alternative for 

designation on Roads 2056, 649A, 9474. 

In this alternative some trails are proposed for non-motorized use to provide an alternative to be 

consistent with other travel plans or other land managers. The trails proposed include: 

• Trail 808 (4 miles) is proposed for non-motorized use to be consistent with the Bureau of 

Land Management travel plan.

• Trail 534 (6 miles) is proposed for non-motorized in the Meadow Creek Idaho Roadless 

Area.

This alternative proposes route designations to address some of the elk habitat areas below 

assigned objectives, roads and trails in elk and deer winter range, winter moose habitat or others. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 241
DRAMVU

19 

The proposals focus on restricting motorized use seasonally, at the time of year which could 

increase in the future. The proposals are primarily for seasonal restrictions rather than yearlong 

restrictions.

This alternative would change route designation from non-motorized to motorized use on 2.7 

miles of trail and would not change designation on single track trails. Compared with Alternative 

2, this alternative would change designation from single to two-track on 1.4 miles of routes. 

Continued yearlong motorized use of some roads requires a forest plan amendment or 

identification of the road open for motorized use. Four project-specific amendments to the forest 

plan are proposed. Full text and analysis of the proposed amendments are located in Appendix D 

of the FEIS. 

Current Management Direction 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Canada lynx were federally listed as threatened by the USFWS in 2000 (USFWS 2000). A 

distinct population segment was finalized for the population found in the contiguous US (USFWS 

2003), including the project area. Critical habitat was designated in the contiguous US in the 

northern Rocky Mountains, Maine, and Minnesota (USFWS 2009); however, the Nez Perce NF 

does not contain any designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx. 

On February 4, 2013 the status of North American wolverine within the lower 48 states changed

from being a candidate species to being Proposed for listing as Threatened. The USFWS, in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 78, No. 23), published the Proposed rule to list the distinct population 

segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States as 

Threatened. 

USDA Forest Service

The Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, (LRMP) 

(USFS 1987) provides direction as it relates to the project area. Some of the direction is 

superseded by more specific direction included within the Northern Rockies Lynx Management 

Direction (NRLMD) (USDA FS 2007). The NRLMD amended all LRMPs within its jurisdiction 

and provides standards and guidelines for activities occurring on National Forests within the 

management area (the Northern Rockies), including the Nez Perce NF and adjacent National 

Forests. Most of the direction included in the NRLMD is related to vegetation management in 

lynx denning habitat and snowshoe hare habitat; the hare being a primary prey animal. Thus, 

timber harvest, insect and disease management, fuels management, and grazing management are 

important aspects of managing a landscape for lynx. Human recreation management (primarily 

within the snowy periods) is addressed as well, because human activity may influence lynx 

behavior and habitat. Appendix A of this document reviews all NRLMD standards and guidelines 

in relation to Alternative 5 as modified. Please see Chapter 1 pages 10 – 32 of the FEIS for a full 

listing of current management direction being considered by this project. 

Consultation to date 

Interagency cooperation between the Forest Service (or other federal agency) and the USFWS, 

regarding proposed, threatened, or endangered species, is described in Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Definitions relating to "consultation" and "conference" are given in 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 242
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

20 

FSM Supplement 2600-90-6. No previous USFWS consultation on Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, or Candidate terrestrial wildlife species has occurred for the DRAMVU Project. 

The USFWS, Idaho Field Office, publishes a list of Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and 

Proposed Species by county on their website (USFWS 2013). A USFWS species list for Idaho 

County was obtained on February 6, 2013. Three terrestrial animals are listed for the county, 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and North 

American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). The yellow-billed cuckoo was considered, but was 

excluded from the analysis due to, 1) the lack of suitable habitat present in the project area, and 2) 

the species’ distribution is generally found outside of the Nez Perce National Forest boundaries. 

In western states such as Utah, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the yellow-billed 

cuckoo has been found to prefer desert riparian woodlands comprised of willow-Fremont 

cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). These habitats are not found in the analysis area. Therefore, the 

yellow-billed cuckoo was excluded from the analysis. Proposed activities would have ‘no effect’ 

on the yellow-billed cuckoo; therefore it was dropped from detailed study. This BA strictly 

addresses the expected effects of the DRAMVU Project on Canada lynx and North American 

wolverine. 

The Nez Perce National Forest has been considered unoccupied, secondary habitat, for Canada 

lynx, and a BA was not completed for the DRAMVU DEIS in 2008 or the SDEIS in 2010 

because there was an expectation that no effects to lynx could occur with implementation of the 

DRAMVU Project. However, recent inquiries on whether the Forest is occupied or unoccupied 

have occurred and as a result the Forest is taking a more detailed look at the potential effects of 

the project towards lynx and their habitats.

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

The USFWS listed Canada lynx as a threatened species under the ESA in March 2000. Following 

the listing, the Forest Service (FS) signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement with the USFWS in 

2001 to consider the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) during project 

analysis, and the FS agreed to not proceed with projects that would be “likely to adversely affect” 

lynx until the plans were amended. The LCAS was renewed in 2005 and added the concept of 

occupied mapped lynx habitat. The USFWS issued a Recovery Outline for Canada lynx (USFWS 

2005) in September 2005 to serve as an interim strategy to guide and encourage recovery efforts 

until a recovery plan is completed. In 2006, the LCAS was amended to define occupied habitat 

and to list those National Forests that were occupied; it was also extended for 5 years (until 

2011), or until all relevant forest plans were revised to provide guidance necessary to conserve 

lynx (USDA Forest Service and USFWS Service 2006). In March 2007, 18 Forest Plans were 

amended with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) Record of Decision 

(USDA Forest Service 2007 NRLMD ROD, Attachment 1, p. 1). On Forests where plans were 

not amended, the LCAS still applies. 

The special habitat management considerations needed to ensure lynx recovery was described in 

the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) and on March 23, 2007, the 

USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on the effects of the NRLMD (USFWS 2007). The 

Biological Opinion was identified as the first-tier of a consultation framework, with subsequent 

projects that may affect lynx, as implemented under the amended Forest Plans, being the second 

tier of consultation. Second-tier opinions would be issued when appropriate. 

In their first-tier Biological Opinion, the USFWS was able to analyze the effects of projects with 

and without adverse effects on lynx. Adverse effects to lynx occur with a significant reduction of 

snowshoe hare habitat quality or abundance, which is dependent upon project scale. The USFWS 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 243
DRAMVU

21 

provided an incidental take statement for such activities because the Forest Service provided 

specific estimates on the number of acres that would be impacted under the exceptions and 

exemptions to the NRLMD standards. The incidental take statement exempted incidental take for 

those management projects that fell within the parameters of the first tier analysis. 

Nez Perce National Forest Application of the NRLMD ROD

The NRLMD Record of Decision (ROD) amended 18 Forests Plans in Region 1. The direction of 

that decision applies to “mapped lynx habitat on NFS lands presently occupied by Canada lynx, 

as defined by the Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement between the Forest Service and the 

USFWS. When National Forests are designing management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx 

habitat they should consider the lynx direction, especially the direction regarding linkage habitat.” 

(USDA Forest Service 2007 NRLMD ROD, p. 1). The NRLMD, ROD selected Alternative F, 

Scenario 2, which states: management direction would be incorporated into all forest plans, but 

would only apply to occupied habitat. Under Scenario 2, the direction should be “considered” for 

unoccupied units, but would not have to be followed until such time as lynx occupy the unit. The 

Nez Perce was considered to be unoccupied based on the best scientific information available at 

that time of the NRLMD Forest Plan Amendment. 

Currently, there are inconsistencies in the status of lynx on the Nez Perce National Forest. The 

Nez Perce Forest is labeled as unoccupied, yet there are historical and more recent anecdotal 

observations of lynx across the forest. However, these observations are not considered to be 

“verified” as defined by the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest 

Service 2007 NRLMD ROD 29; USDA Forest Service 2007 NRLMD Ch1 pg 3, ch 2 pg 99-100, 

ch 3 pg 142-143; USDA Forest Service and USFWS 2006 pg 4), nor do anecdotal sightings 

determine that there is reproduction or a resident population. The accuracy of a few of the lynx 

sightings is reputable because lynx were caught in traps and then verified by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. These trapped lynx were prior to 1999 and so any lynx 

documentation prior to 1999 were not considered in designation of a Forest Service Unit being 

listed as occupied or unoccupied. The accuracy of other sightings many be low due to observer 

bias in confusing lynx and bobcats. Due to the infrequent nature of lynx observations on the 

NPNF, there is no evidence to show that there is a resident population or reproduction. The NPNF 

is committed to conducting winter back-tracking surveys for lynx in 2013. 

The Rocky Mountain Research Stations conducted surveys for lynx in 2007 for the Nez Perce 

National Forest. The surveys were conducted according to established protocols outlined in the 

NRLMD (Ulizio et al. 2007). The surveys conducted in 2008 (hair snare) and 2009 (winter track 

surveys) were reduced in size and scope due to snow conditions, limited personnel and limited 

funding. No lynx were detected during any of these survey efforts (2007, 2008, or 2009). 

Due to inconsistencies on the status of lynx on the Nez Perce NF, the USFWS sent a letter 

addressed to the Forest Supervisor, Rick Brazell on December 10, 2012 stating that “there is 

consensus that transient lynx may be present on the NPNF, at least occasionally”. The USFWS 

referenced two pieces of information to come to this conclusion: 1) Ulizio et al. (2007) that noted, 

“Historical sightings that may have been confirmed may be the result of transient lynx moving 

through the forest, but the infrequency of such reports suggests lynx are incidental to the area”, 

and 2) McKelvey et al. (in Ruggiero et al. 1999) reported “numerous verified historical records 

from Idaho County”. The letter also stated that, “the issue of lynx occupancy on the NPNF is a 

separate but related matter that is not the focus of this letter”. Follow-up discussions with USFWS 

occurred on December 17, 2012 with NPNF personnel to assist in clarifying the letter. The 

USFWS stated that a Biological Assessment (BA) should be prepared and informal consultation 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 244
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

22 

would need to be completed with USFWS if a determination of a “May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect” determination was reached for NPNF projects. USFWS also clarified that this 

does not change the NPNF status as ‘unoccupied’, but further lynx surveys are needed to 

determine occupancy and any analysis for a BA should be focused on analyzing the project and 

its impacts on transient (not resident or breeding) lynx. As already stated, NPNF is coordinating 

with the John Squires, RMRS to conduct lynx surveys in the winter of 2013. 

Lynx Critical Habitat

In February 2009, the USFWS designated revised critical habitat in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho 

and Washington and other states [50 CFR Part 17, Volume 74 (No. 36), Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada 

Lynx; Final Rule, 2009]. Under the Critical Habitat Final Rule, Forest Service actions cannot 

result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (see below). “The key factor 

related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 

current ability for the Primary Constituent Elements to be functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the species.” (FR Volume 74 (No. 36), p. 8644). Critical habitat 

was not designated on the Nez Perce National Forest (74 FR 8616 8702 and USFWS 2009). 

North American Wolverine Critical Habitat

The USFWS ruling suggests that designation of critical habitat for wolverine is “not 

determinable” at this time for a variety of reasons. Areas that provide persistent spring snow 

cover are important to wolverine and are one of the limiting factors for wolverine in the lower 48 

states.

Evaluated Species Information, Effects, and Determinations 

Analysis Process

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, adopted in 1982, require that habitat be 

managed to support viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrates within the 

planning area (36 CFR 219.19). USDA regulation 9500-004, adopted in 1983, re-enforces the 

NFMA viability regulation by requiring that habitats on national forests be managed to support 

viable populations of native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife. The following 4-

step process is used in this analysis to assess changes in species or their habitat:

Step 1: Pre-field Assessment

The analysis process related to wildlife species started prior to identification of proposed 

activities. For example, unique habitats such as critical habitat, or uncommon habitats, were 

identified. As these areas are of public interest and are important to maintaining species viability 

and biodiversity, they were avoided for inclusion within proposed activities. Once the proposed 

actions were identified, information was collected and reviewed to identify species’ present 

conditions or affected environment. This information included species literature searches; Nez 

Perce project files and GIS data; aerial photos; past activities; relevant survey data (biological 

species surveys within and near the project area between 2005 and 2012); monitoring and 

observation databases for locations of known wildlife species and habitats within the project area.

Survey information relevant to this project is described below: 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 245
DRAMVU

23 

The Rocky Mountain Research Stations conducted surveys for lynx in 2007 for the Nez Perce 

National Forest. The surveys were conducted according to established protocols outlined in the 

NRLMD (Ulizio et al. 2007). The surveys conducted in 2008 (hair snare) and 2009 (winter track 

surveys) were reduced in size and scope due to snow conditions, limited personnel and limited 

funding. No lynx were detected during any of these survey efforts (2007, 2008, or 2009). 

Additional lynx surveys are occurring across portions of the Nez Perce NF during the winter of 

2013. 

Step 2: Field Assessment

The author reviewed existing project record data to better understand the purpose and need of the 

proposed activities; observations and incidental sign of wildlife use documented; and habitat 

conditions identified in the pre-field assessment validated.

Step 3: Wildlife Screening

Collectively, information from the pre-field and past field assessments were used to identify 

project design criteria (PDC) to be included as part of the proposed action that may be necessary 

to reduce or avoid impacts to species. No PDC or mitigation specific to lynx were identified as 

part of this project, due to the nature of this project being primarily administrative and likely 

resulting in fewer open roads and/or trails to motorized access during non-snow periods. This 

information was then used in combination with the most recent scientific literature, Forest, and 

Region-wide assessments and monitoring, and species conservation assessments to identify 

species and habitats most likely to be affected by the proposed activities and identify the 

appropriate level of analysis necessary to determine effects to them. Based on this analysis 

Canada lynx and wolverine were carried forward into step 4 for detailed analysis in this report. 

Step 4: Habitat & Species Assessment

The analysis of Canada lynx and wolverine was done using a multi-scale assessment that included 

the following basic strategies; 1) a coarse filter approach (described below) which is used to 

identify wildlife communities across the watershed. This approach assumes that if the species, 

genetics, functions, and processes are protected at the community level, then the bulk of the biotic 

species, both known and unknown, will also be protected, 2) the second strategy is to assess 

habitat and effects to those species considered most at risk and/or those species with potential 

viability concerns. These include federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species with 

habitat within or immediately adjacent to the project area.

Using information from steps 1-3, anticipated changes in habitat and the associated communities 

were predicted under the activities considered and associated effects to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat evaluated. Information from steps 1 and 2 were used to complete the coarse filter analysis, 

identify and evaluate spatial relationships between habitat(s), assess changes in landscape 

diversity, and predict changes and effects to species in general context. Site-specific data was 

used to assess specific project level changes in habitat and ensure that unique vegetative and 

physical habitat conditions were maintained and/or protected. 

4A – Environmental Baseline – The “environmental baseline” as defined under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and for NEPA analysis includes all past and present impacts of all federal 

actions within the action area. Within NEPA analysis, this can also be referred to as “existing 

condition. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 246
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

24 

4B – Scales of Analysis – The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to 

determine effects are influenced by a number of variables including the presence of species or 

habitat, the scope and nature of activities associated with the proposed actions and the potential 

risks that could ultimately result in adverse effects. Wildlife distribution and use of an area is 

largely determined by the availability of suitable habitat and can be influenced by site specific 

needs such as the vegetative structure or physical features on a site, as well as by landscape 

considerations such as the proximity to other habitat or the need for isolation or seclusion. As a 

result a multi-scale analysis that looks at site specific conditions in areas proposed for treatment 

(fine filter), as well as landscape considerations such as the proximity and availability to other 

habitat (coarse filter) will be considered. The multi-scale of analysis used in this assessment 

includes the following: 

4C – Project Level Assessment – Due to the large scale of this project (all NFS lands 

administered by the Nez Perce NF) this level of assessment involves evaluation of the entire 

proposed area of changes. Wildlife use is often influenced by specific conditions that can only be 

identified at the stand or site scale and this level of analysis identify stand level habitat conditions 

that influence wildlife use. This assessment is also used to identify habitat features that may need 

to be protected or enhanced and is used to identify site-specific mitigation measures or project 

design criteria.

Direct and indirect effects to wildlife are assessed by evaluating potential effects to individuals 

and changes in habitat or conditions on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the project 

area boundary. The Area of Analysis (Figure 1) was selected for analysis of direct and indirect 

effects on wildlife species because it includes all areas proposed for activities and contains an 

adequate diversity of habitat conditions (vegetative and topographic) to assess wildlife 

distribution and use. 

The existing condition of vegetation and the changes that would likely occur as a result of the 

proposed action, as it relates to wildlife habitat suitability, are quantified in this document. 

Changes in conditions are therefore correlated to changes in habitat suitability. This correlation 

provides a useful tool to estimate the direction and magnitude of changes in wildlife habitat 

suitability caused by changes in condition. 

Professional judgment is the basic method used to forecast effects. This judgment is backed by 

applying the most applicable scientific information related to wildlife on the NPNF, through 

experience assessing impacts from proposed activities to wildlife and wildlife habitat from similar 

proposed actions, and through informal consultation with USFWS. 

4D – Cumulative Effects Assessment – Cumulative effects (CE) as defined under ESA are those 

effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably 

certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. This 

discussion should describe the current baseline conditions, with emphasis on the important risk 

factors and habitat relationships that were described in the previous section. 

NEPA CE related to wildlife species are evaluated by looking at measureable past, present, and 

foreseeable future activities that are either directly connected to or are indirectly connected 

(interrelated and interdependent) to the project which could adversely affect them when 

considered cumulatively over time. When considering NEPA CE’s to species based on past and 

anticipated future disturbances, the primary sources of change include additional recreation 

development and use, wildfires, road construction and management, and other major changes to 

existing conditions. The NEPA CE boundary used in this analysis is defined spatially as all lands 

(including private) within the Nez Perce National Forest that is administered by the NPNF

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 247
DRAMVU

25 

(Figure 1) and temporally defined as the period of implementation (indefinite). This 

implementation period covers from the implementation of the regulations to when they might 

change in the future. Therefore, this implementation period will be used to describe short- and 

long-term effects. 

Rationale for selection of these areas and terms include: 

The environmental baseline (existing conditions) takes into account all activities that have 

occurred prior to the present, and which have led to the existing condition of habitat. If there are 

notable circumstances expected as a result of project implementation, such as the introduction of 

non-native plant species or habitat conversion, they will be brought forward in the effects 

discussion on a species by species basis.

Wolverines are wide-roaming forest carnivores that have very large home ranges. Due to the 

scale of the project, the entire project area was used to define the cumulative effects area for 

wolverine. 

The cumulative effects area for lynx is usually addressed at the LAU level. However, because of 

the scale of this project and because the project does not involve direct changes to vegetative 

conditions that quantify habitat abundance, the cumulative effects analysis considered all lynx 

habitat on the portion of the Nez Perce National Forest that is managed by the Nez Perce National 

Forest (Figure 1). Appendix C includes detailed information on all LAUs within the Nez Perce 

National Forest. 

The temporal short- and long-term periods were chosen because any expected changes to 

disturbance to Canada lynx would be realized immediately upon implementation and last until 

there is a change in direction.

Species Accounts, Effect Analysis, and Determinations 

Canada Lynx 

Life History

Lynx are medium-sized cats. Their large, heavily-furred feet easily hold their weight on snow. 

Long, dark ear tufts and a black tipped tail are distinctive, and their long legs are readily apparent 

in the summer when the pelage is short. Adults weigh between 8.5 and 10 kilograms on average 

and are around 80 centimeters from nose to tail, females being the smaller of the sexes (USFWS 

2012). 

Adult lynx are largely solitary animals; they come together for mating in the late winter and early 

spring (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFWS 2012). Kittens are born in May and June in Yukon 

(Ruediger et al. 2000), and likely a similar time throughout the rest of the distribution. In the 

Lower 48, females select den sites in mature spruce and subalpine fir forests with significant 

downed logs, rootwads, and wind throw. 

Snowshoe hares and squirrels are the primary prey, although a variety of other wildlife is 

consumed (USFWS 2003; USFWS 2007). Red squirrels are an important alternate food source 

for lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFWS 2003), and they may be particularly important prey when 

hare numbers are low (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 248
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

26 

Lynx home ranges are large, from roughly 20 to 215 square kilometers (USFWS 2007). Actual 

home range size and use depends on an individual’s gender, age, season, prey abundance, and 

local lynx population (ibid). Lynx may increase home range size if prey populations decline 

(ibid). Home ranges on the southern periphery of lynx distribution seem to be larger than in the 

core of the range (central Canada) (ibid).

Lynx seem to tolerate human activity or presence (Mowat 1999, in Ruggiero et al. 1999; 

Ruediger et al. 2000; USFWS 2007). Forest roads do not seem to adversely affect lynx 

movement, although roads and highways with high traffic volumes may influence how lynx move 

across the landscape between suitable habitat patches (USFWS 2003; USFWS 2007). Forest 

roads are not considered to have high-volume traffic. Forest roads are narrow and do not 

contribute to large areas of non-habitat within lynx analysis units, and road edges can provide 

early seral stage vegetation that is preferred by lynx prey. Road density does not appear to have 

an effect on how lynx select habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFWS 2007). Dispersed recreation is 

not suspected to have an adverse effect on lynx because human activity in such areas is generally 

predictable in location and time, and lynx are rare and unlikely to be encountered (USFWS 2007). 

Disturbance near den sites is believed to be a greater threat, yet such occurrences are believed to 

be extremely unlikely because lynx and den sites are rare (USFWS 2007). The greatest threat to 

individual lynx may be collisions with motor vehicles on forest roads, although there are no 

records of such fatalities (ibid). Furthermore, vehicle collisions are unlikely given the slow 

vehicle speeds on forest roads (ibid).

Habitat

Denning and foraging habitat are critical components of lynx populations. Lynx denning habitat 

has downed logs and rootwads that provide predator and thermal protection for kittens (USFWS 

2003). The amount of downed logs and other woody debris appears to be more important than the 

type of forest structure (ibid). The quantity of down wood may be greater in older forests than in 

young stands, however, regenerating stands can contain large quantities of downed material, for 

example, natural conifer regeneration after wind throw events. 

Foraging habitat very closely matches snowshoe hare distribution because the lynx is largely 

dependent on the hare for its food. In the western US, hares use habitats that provide food and 

cover from weather and predators (USFWS 2003). During the summer, the hare has wide variety 

of vegetation available; during the winter, the availability of forage is controlled by snow depth 

(Ruediger et al. 2000; USFWS 2003). During the winter, snowshoe hare forage, and subsequent 

lynx habitat use, is related to above-the-snow stems and twigs and cover (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

This food and cover combination is found in dense young conifer stands that protrude above the 

winter snowpack and in mature, dense stands that have layered crowns that are low enough to be 

reached during the winter. These stands most often contain a mix of tree species and have a 

hardwood shrub understory component. 

Forest databases categorize lynx habitat as denning, foraging, unsuitable, or not potential habitat. 

Appendix B provides a detailed description of the lynx habitat mapping completed for the Nez 

Perce NF. The denning and foraging habitat are intended to provide for these life history 

characteristics. Unsuitable is that habitat that is currently unsuitable but has suitable vegetation 

types such that in time it may grow to become foraging habitat, and at a later date, denning 

habitat. The “not potential habitat” classification group means the habitat type does not provide 

habitat characteristics necessary to meet life history needs for lynx and/or the elevation is too low 

or high, prey availability is low, or habitat patches are too small or far removed from suitable 

habitat. Much of the Forest is not habitat along the major river valleys from the downstream ends 

until reaching 4000 feet in elevation. Steep south- and west-facing slopes are typically unsuitable, 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 249
DRAMVU

27 

because habitat types are dry and snow cover is not maintained throughout the winter months 

unless very high in elevation. North- and east-facing slopes tend to be more suitable because the 

vegetation type is preferable, since the canopy and understory are dense, and the snow tends to 

remain deeper in the winter.

Distribution

The core of lynx distribution is across subarctic North America in boreal forests, and extends into 

southern Canada and the northern contiguous US along forested, high elevation mountain ranges 

as far south as Colorado (Ruediger, et al. 2000; USFWS 2003). Small populations also exist in 

northern Minnesota and Maine (ibid). The distribution of lynx is related to the distribution of its 

primary prey, the snowshoe hare (USFWS 2003). 

Lynx in the contiguous US are at the southern edge of their range, and occur in regions where 

snow levels are deep and they have an advantage over their prey because of their large feet 

(USFWS 2003). Adequate snow depth, denning habitat, and prey habitat are limited to the boreal 

forests of the Rocky Mountains and Cascades of Washington in the west, and suitable forest types 

are in a patchy distribution, both in space and time (ibid).

There are no recent, verified Canada lynx observations and evidence of lynx reproduction on the 

Nez Perce NF is absent (USFS 2007; Forest wildlife records database 2012). As such, the Nez 

Perce NF is considered unoccupied, secondary lynx habitat (USFWS 2005). The Clearwater and 

Lolo NFs to the north are occupied. Surveys are being conducted this winter (2013) for lynx. 

Canada Lynx Baseline Information

Lynx Analysis Units

Lynx analysis unit (LAU) delineations and habitat mapping actions directed by the Canada Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS – Ruediger et al. 2000) have been completed for 

the entire forest, which includes the project area (Appendix B). This mapping was completed in 

coordination with Northern Regional Office (Region 1) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service

(Refer to Appendix B for mapping criteria, including habitat definitions). In 2007, the NRLMD 

EIS reported 810,000 acres of lynx habitat (undifferentiated) on the Nez Perce National Forest. 

Subsequent updates and mapping efforts following recent fire events now indicate there are about 

981,246 acres of lynx habitat within the area of analysis. About 14.2 percent is suitable denning 

habitat, and 83.0 percent is suitable foraging habitat, and 2.8 percent is currently unsuitable. The 

suitable habitat, in general, occurs along an east-west line on the north side of the Salmon River, 

and then in a northerly direction near the Bitterroot National Forest to the Clearwater National 

Forest. The LAU is the area for which the effects of a proposed action are usually analyzed, as it 

approximates the size of an area that an individual lynx would use as a home range (USFS 2007). 

There are 54 LAUs within the area of analysis. Thirty-three of those LAUs have roads and/or 

motorized trails within them that are under management consideration for the DRAMVU project. 

The remaining LAUs are in the Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel-Hump, and Frank Church-River of No 

Return Wildernesses and do not allow motorized use. Appendix C contains detailed information 

about and Figure 2 displays the baseline information about each of the LAUs within the area of 

analysis.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 250
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

28 

Figure 2. Lynx habitat and LAUs within the DRAMVU area of analysis

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 251
DRAMVU

29 

As stated, analyzing individual LAUs is the standard method of analysis and is useful where 

changes in vegetation are expected to occur as a result of proposed activities and the scale of the 

project is such that one or more LAUs may be affected. However, because this project 

encompasses 54 LAUs and does not propose any direct or indirect changes to vegetation such 

detailed analysis is not as necessary. Appendix C brakes out suitable denning, foraging, and 

unsuitable habitat for each LAU. There are total acres, acres of lynx habitat, miles of open roads, 

and miles of motorized trails within lynx habitat (existing on FS lands only). The miles of open 

road and motorized trails within State and private lands are not identified by individual LAU for 

this analysis (as may be expected for a very detailed ESA “environmental baseline”) because

there is limited State or private lands with potential lynx habitat and open roads and motorized 

trails are not known to measurably affect lynx with the potential exception of inadvertent trapping 

due to easier access. In addition, all action alternatives for this project would reduce the amount 

of area open for cross-country motorized travel and the number of miles of open roads and 

motorized trails available for motorized access would be reduced in most alternatives, especially 

the preferred alternative (5 Modified). Again, the abundance of State or private lands within the 

area of analysis is a small percentage. Therefore, knowing the exact amount of open road and 

motorized trail would not modify the determination and any reduction of open road and/or 

motorized trails would reduce expected potential effects to lynx. 

Lynx Linkage Areas

A linkage area is defined in the NRLMD, Record of Decision as “providing connectivity between 

blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic areas, where 

basins, valleys, or agricultural lands separate blocks of lynx habitat, or where lynx habitat 

naturally narrows between blocks.” Linkages are designated or officially mapped by the Forest 

Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide for connectivity across areas that are 

generally non-forested. Figure 3 displays the baseline condition of linkage areas for the 

DRAMVU Project. 

Canada Lynx Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences section of this document is arranged by alternative, in general, 

although the effects of the proposed management action may be similar for several alternatives. 

The effects are not in particular precise due to the nature of this project and lack of measureable 

changes to lynx and their habitat. Qualitative discussion is used to review the potential effects.

Analysis Method

The primary concern for lynx is the road-associated activity originating from motor vehicle use 

on the Forest. Forest roads do not directly affect lynx habitat selection, and in general do not 

adversely affect lynx. Lynx habitat may be altered or lost with road construction, reconstruction, 

and maintenance. 

The Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy (LCAS; Ruediger et al. 2000) alluded to high 

road densities as those areas where there are more than two miles of road per square mile, yet at 

the time there was no evidence to support any recommendations for road density. The USFWS

(USFWS 2007) found that forest roads of the type being addressed in the DRAMVU Project do 

not adversely affect lynx, and furthermore cited research that indicated forest road density did not 

appear to affect lynx movements. In the NRLMD (USFS 2007), the Forest Service made no 

recommendations pertaining to road density. Part of the original concern stemming from the road 

density issue was that it was believed that other carnivores, like coyotes and mountain lions, 

would impact lynx directly (preying upon them) or indirectly (by competing for the same food 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 252
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

30 

Figure 3. Baseline condition of lynx linkage areas for the DRAMVU project

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 253
DRAMVU

31 

source) if winter roads were open to use (mostly snow machine), thereby allowing 

competitors/predators easier access to areas previously unavailable to them and exclusively to 

lynx, at least during the winter. It is now believed that over snow vehicle use does not have such 

an adverse impact as previously thought. Again, over snow use is not part of the DRAMVU 

management decision. 

• A lynx analysis unit (LAU) is the area for which the effects of a proposed action are 

usually analyzed, and it is approximately the minimum size of the area an individual lynx 

would use (USFS 2007); 

• Appendix C displays the specific expected changes in open roads and motorized trails for 

each LAU. The alternative discussions in this section of the BA are summaries of how 

the DRAMVU Project would change the open road and motorized trails within lynx 

habitat as a whole across the entire area of analysis. The rationale for this summary again 

is, forest roads and trails are not know to affect habitat selection; and lynx seem to be 

tolerant of human activity associated with forest roads and trails, especially during nonsnow periods (USFWS 2007). 

Lynx are expected to spend most of their time in suitable habitat. The primary concerns, despite a 

low potential risk for adversely affecting individuals, are disturbance to lynx during dispersal 

events or reducing habitat connectivity for dispersing individuals as a direct or indirect result of 

motorized access. With that in mind, the analysis will focus on miles of road and trail open to 

motor vehicles through suitable lynx habitat. That is, how many miles of motorized road and trail 

exist now and are proposed for management under the DRAMVU management alternatives. It is 

impractical to try to calculate the disturbance to an individual lynx from motorized use, or even 

the potential for a vehicle collision on Forest roads that generally have low speeds. Nonetheless, 

by examining the length of open roads and trails in suitable habitat, it may help us to understand 

the amount of habitat connectivity provided. Although the risk is negligible, motorized access 

may increase the risk that a vehicle could kill a lynx, result in incidental trapping, being shot, or 

harmed in some other way.

Comparison of alternatives is by relative differences between the amount of open motorized road 

and trail lengths in lynx habitat. Some alternatives will have will have more miles of road or trail 

than others, or less. For all action alternatives (Alternatives 1A-6) there would be no authorized 

motorized cross country travel (not including over the snow). 

Alternatives 1 and 1A 

Alternatives 1 and 1A would maintain the existing open road and motorized trail density (travel 

management) on the Nez Perce National Forest as outlined within the 2007 Road and Trail 

Access Guide. The only difference in the expected effects from implementation of these 

alternatives is Alternative 1 would not officially limit cross country travel outside of designated

wilderness. However, cross country travel is naturally limited because of factors like steep terrain 

and dense vegetation. However, large portions of the Forest would technically remain accessible 

to cross country travel. No specific analysis was completed to determine exactly how much lynx 

habitat is actually open to cross country travel due to variable skills in operators, variable 

densities of vegetation and down material within suitable lynx habitat, and variable slopes. 

Motorized cross country travel during snow-free periods is difficult if not impossible in the dense 

forest types associated within lynx habitat and therefore these alternatives are not believed to be 

substantially different in potential effects, although technically implementation of Alternative 1A 

would result in reduced disturbance to lynx and their habitats. Table 1 displays a summary of 

roads and trails currently open to motor vehicle use on the Nez Perce NF. Lynx habitat is 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 254
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

32 

categorized into suitable denning and foraging habitat, and the seasonal and yearlong trails and 

roads in each are displayed. These values would be the same for implementation of Alternative 1 

and Alternative 1A. There would not be an expectation for any measureable direct or indirect

effects to lynx or their habitat with implementation of this alternative from the existing baseline. 

Forest roads and their use are not known to influence lynx movements or use of habitats (USFWS 

2007). 

Table 1. Miles of roads and trails currently open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and foraging 

habitat (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 8 47 32 56

Foraging 39 187 270 233

Subtotal by season 47 233 303 289

Total 280 592 

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 there would be fewer miles of motorized trail and road access (although road 

miles are only slightly less) in lynx habitat and therefore an expectation of reducing potential 

direct and indirect effects to lynx if they are present even as transients to the area. There is an 

increase in total miles of seasonal road access, and reductions in total miles of motorized access 

create a net decrease in total motorized access. This would result in lowering the potential 

disturbance effects to lynx or their habitats from the existing condition, although not 

substantially. Table 2 contains the summary of miles of open roads and trails within suitable lynx 

habitat within the area of analysis for Alternative 2.

Table 2. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 2 (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 5 26 38 50

Foraging 30 110 284 214

Subtotal by season 35 135 321 264

Total 170 585 

Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in fewer miles of motorized trail access in lynx 

habitat, in particular for trails open yearlong and therefore an expectation of reducing potential 

direct and indirect effects to lynx if they are present even as transients to the area. Under 

Alternative 3, yearlong road access decreases, seasonal road access increases, and the net road 

access are slightly lower than the baseline condition. Even though Forest roads and their use are 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 255
DRAMVU

33 

not known to influence lynx movements or use of habitats (USFWS 2007), it could be surmised 

that fewer miles of motorized access would reduce the potential for disturbance to transient lynx. 

This reduction in disturbance and improved landscape connectivity is perceived, it is not expected 

to be measureable at a landscape scale such as a Forest Planning unit for a wide-ranging species 

such as a transient lynx. Table 3 contains the summary of miles of open roads and trails within 

suitable lynx habitat within the area of analysis for Alternative 3.

Table 3. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 3 (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 5 10 48 38

Foraging 19 21 328 156

Subtotal by season 24 31 376 194

Total 55 570 

Alternative 4

Implementation of Alternative 4 would be expected to result in fewer miles of motorized trail 

access and slightly more miles of open road access (primarily seasonal road access) in lynx 

habitat than the existing condition (Table 1). Although there would be a minor increase in open 

road miles within lynx habitat, this alternative would still be expected to result in a net reduction 

in potential disturbance to lynx from the baseline condition, since fewer miles of motorized trail 

would be authorized and all off-road areas would not be allowed for motorized travel. As stated 

under all Alternatives, the use of forest roads and trails is not known to affect lynx movement or 

use of habitats (USFWS 2007). Table 4 contains the summary of miles of open roads and trails 

within suitable lynx habitat within the area of analysis for Alternative 4. It is important to note 

that the trails proposed to be added through this alternative already exist on the ground. They are 

not currently listed as USDA FS system trails, so no lynx habitat would be removed as a result of 

this addition. 

Table 4. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 4 (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 4 41 39 51

Foraging 29 148 282 231

Subtotal by season 33 189 321 282

Total 222 603 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 256
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

34 

Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 modified

Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 modified (PREFERRED) would be expected to have the same 

potential effects on transient lynx and their habitat with a reduction in disturbance from the 

baseline conditions. The miles of open road and trail densities within lynx habitats are equivalent 

for these alternatives. Overall, seasonal trail and road access increases, and yearlong trail and 

road access decrease from the baseline conditions. Therefore, implementation of either of these

alternatives would result in a net decrease in motorized access within lynx habitats and improved 

habitat connectivity. Table 5 contains the summary of miles of open roads and trails within 

suitable lynx habitat within the area of analysis for Alternative 5 and 5 Modified. Figure 4 

displays the effects to linkage areas, a substantial reduction of open roads and trails for the two 

easternmost linkage areas.

Table 5. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 5 and 5 Modified (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 32 5 54 33

Foraging 104 26 352 147

Subtotal by season 136 31 406 180

Total 167 586 

Alternative 6

Implementation of Alternative 6 would result in substantially fewer miles of motorized trail and 

about 18 miles of road access in lynx habitats. Table 6 contains the miles of open roads and trails 

within suitable lynx habitat for Alternative 6. Because there would be fewer miles of motorized 

access, the potential for disturbance are reduced. However, because lynx have not been 

documented to be adversely affected from forest roads and trails or activity on them, the 

reduction in disturbance would not be expected to be substantial. 

Table 6. Miles of roads and trails proposed to be open to motor vehicle use in lynx denning and 

foraging habitat for Alternative 6 (values in miles).

Lynx habitat 

classification

Trail access Road access

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Denning 10 3 66 22 

Foraging 28 11 413 73 

Subtotal by season 38 14 479 95 

Total 52 574 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 257
DRAMVU

35 

Figure 4. Alternatives 5 and 5 Modified effects to lynx linkage areas.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 258
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

36 

Canada Lynx Alternative comparison

Table 7. Alternative comparison of motorized access in lynx habitat on all LAU’s on the Nez Perce National Forest (values in miles, unless indicated 

otherwise). 

Feature Alt. 1 & 1A Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 & 5 Mod Alt. 6

Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong Seasonal Yearlong

Roads 303 289 321 264 376 194 321 282 406 180 479 95 

Trails 47 233 35 135 24 31 33 189 136 31 38 14 

Total by season 350 522 356 399 400 225 355 471 542 211 517 109 

Percent by season 40% 60% 47% 53% 64% 36% 43% 57% 72% 28% 83% 17% 

Percent change from 

existing condition

0% 0% 2% 

increase

24% 

decrease

14% 

increase

57% 

decrease

1% 

increase

10% 

decrease

55% 

increase

60% 

decrease

48% 

increase

79% 

decrease

Total 872 755 625 826 753 626 

Total percent change 

from existing condition

(Alternative 1)

0% 13% decrease 28% decrease 5% decrease 14% decrease 28% decrease

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 259
DRAMVU

37

All action alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1A, propose a decrease in the miles of 

combined motorized roads and trails on the Forest that occur in lynx habitat. From this 

perspective, any action alternative could potentially be beneficial for lynx and their habitats. 

Moreover, because lynx are thought to be more sensitive to disturbance at den sites, roads and 

trails that are in denning habitat have the potential to alter their behavior, cause them to move to 

an alternate site, or otherwise affect their use of denning habitat. Lynx have not been documented 

to breed or den on the Nez Perce NF. The following analysis is presented theoretically if a lynx

were to den on the Forest. With that in mind, alternatives that decrease the motorized access in 

denning habitat would be expected to have a lower impact than alternatives that maintain or 

increase motorized access in denning habitat. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 either decrease or closely 

maintain similar values for miles of motorized access in lynx denning habitat. Alternative 5 and 5 

Modified increases seasonal motorized trail and road access and decreases yearlong road and trail 

access in lynx denning habitat. Alternative 6 proposes to decrease all but three miles of yearlong 

trail access in lynx denning habitat, increases seasonal road access, and decreases yearlong road 

access.

Intuitively, it would seem that reductions in motorized access in denning habitat may benefit lynx 

in denning habitat and that increase may adversely affect them. However, lynx, if they were on 

the Forest, likely already avoid any disturbing activities associated with roads and trails. As 

discussed at length, lynx are not known to currently occupy any habitat, breed, or den on the Nez 

Perce National Forest. They are believed to be transient (occasional) visitors to the area likely 

resulting from fluctuations of population densities and prey densities at a much larger scale than 

the Nez Perce National Forest. The changes in open road and trails within lynx habitat could 

cause disturbance to individuals and their habitat at some level, depending on the alternative. 

Reductions in open road and trail access would be expected to result in beneficial effects in 

improving habitat connectivity for dispersing lynx. Conversely, increases of open roads or trails 

to motorized vehicle use would be expected to result in potential increased disturbances to 

dispersing lynx and some reductions in habitat connectivity. 

Cumulative Effects

NEPA CE – Because there is no clear science that indicates how much open motorized or nonmotorized roads or trails may effect lynx or their habitat use or selection there would not be any 

measureable direct or indirect effects that could be listed as cumulative effects. This is not to say 

that no effects would be expected, just that no measureable effects would result from 

implementation of any alternative. As discussed, the action alternatives would be expected to 

reduce potential disturbance to transient lynx. Due to the lack of measureable effects to lynx or 

their habitat there could not be any cumulative effects associated with any alternative.

ESA CE – The Modified Alternative 5 would be expected to have an overall reduction of 

disturbance to lynx. As mentioned, there is limited State and private lands within the area of 

analysis and very limited lynx habitat within State and private lands. There are seven LAUs 

(3050602, 3050102, 3020404, 2090502, 2071003, 2090204, and 2071002) that would be 

expected to have a net increase of open road and/or motorized trails from baseline conditions. The 

last two LAUs have more than 30 percent of their lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition due to 

recent wildfire activities. See Appendix C for further details. These potential effects are not 

believed to be substantial because lynx are not known to regularly occupy secondary habitat on 

the Nez Perce National Forest, and forest roads are not known to affect lynx movements or use of 

habitats (USFWS 2007). 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 260
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

38

Canada Lynx Determination

The preferred alternative is 5 Modified. However, implementation of any alternative may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx or their habitats. This Biological Assessment 

will be sent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for informal consultation.

Rationale for this Determination

• Canada lynx have not been documented to breed or den on the Nez Perce NF and there 

have not been any confirmed sightings for many years. The Forest is considered to be 

unoccupied and contains secondary habitat for Canada lynx.

• None of the alternatives propose changes to any vegetation that is denning or foraging 

habitat on the Nez Perce NF, and as such lynx habitat would not be directly affected. The 

current estimate of denning and foraging habitat on the Nez Perce NF would remain the 

same: about 159,000 acres, and 1.01 million acres, respectively. 

• All action alternatives (1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 Modified, and 6) would restrict cross country 

motorized travel. If lynx were to occupy any of the secondary lynx habitats on the Forest, 

even temporarily, there would be less potential for disturbance or harm to individuals or 

habitat as a result of cross country travel. Because lynx habitat is not typically conducive 

to such motorized use, the already low probability of adverse effects would be further 

reduced. 

• Under all action alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1A, the combined miles of 

open motorized road and trail access would decrease.

North American Wolverine

Life History

Wolverine has a Holarctic (habitats found in the northern continents) distribution including 

northern portions of Europe, Asia, and North America. The currently accepted taxonomy 

classifies wolverines worldwide as a single species, Gulo gulo, with two subspecies. Old World 

wolverines are found in the Nordic countries of Europe, Russia, and Siberia and are part of the 

subspecies Gulo gulo gulo. New World wolverines occur in North America. The wolverines in 

the contiguous United States are a part of the New World subspecies, G. g. luscus: the North 

American wolverine. 

The wolverine is the largest terrestrial member of the family Mustelidae. Adult males weigh 12 to 

18 kilograms (kg) (26 to 40 pounds (lb)), and adult females weigh 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb) (Banci 

1994, p. 99). The wolverine resembles a small bear with a bushy tail. It has a broad, rounded 

head; short, rounded ears; and small eyes. Each foot has five toes with curved, semi-retractile 

claws used for digging and climbing (Banci 1994, p. 99). 

Reproduction is limited with the average age of first reproduction by females of 3.4 years 

(Presson et al. 2006, pp 76-77). By age 3 most female wolverine become pregnant every year, and 

energetic constraints due to low food availability result in loss of pregnancy in about half of them 

each year. Pregnant females commonly resorb or spontaneously abort litters prior to giving birth 

(Magoun 1985, pp.30-31; Copeland 1996, p. 43; Persson et al. 2006, p. 77). It is likely that, 

despite the high rate of initiation of pregnancy, due to the spontaneous abortion of litters resulting 

from resource limitation, actual rates of successful reproduction in wolverines are among the 

lowest known for mammals (Persson 2005, p. 1456). 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 261
DRAMVU

39

Breeding generally occurs from late spring to early fall (Magoun and Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; 

Mead et al. 1991, pp. 808-811). Females undergo delayed implantation until the following winter 

or spring, when active gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254-

257). Litters are born from mid-February through March, containing one to five kits, with an 

average in North America of between one and two kits (Magoun 1985, pp. 28-31; Copeland 1996, 

p. 36; Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland and Yates 2006, pp. 32-36). 

Breeding generally occurs from late spring to early fall (Magoun and Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; 

Mead et al. 1991, pp. 808-811). Females undergo delayed implantation until the following winter 

or spring, when active gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254-

257). Litters are born from mid-February through March, containing one to five kits, with an 

average in North America of between one and two kits (Magoun 1985, pp. 28-31; Copeland 1996, 

p. 36; Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland and Yates 2006, pp. 32-36). 

Female wolverines use natal (birthing) dens that are excavated in snow. Persistent, stable snow 

greater than 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet (ft)) deep appears to be a requirement for natal denning, 

because it provides security for offspring and buffers cold winter temperatures (Pulliainen 1968, 

p. 342; Copeland 1996, pp. 92-97; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1317-1318; Banci 1994, pp. 

109-110; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72; Copeland et al. 2010, pp. 240-242). Female wolverines 

go to great lengths to find secure den sites, suggesting that predation is a concern (Banci 1994, p. 

107). Natal dens consist of tunnels that contain well-used runways and bed sites and may 

naturally incorporate shrubs, rocks, and downed logs as part of their structure (Magoun and 

Copeland 1998, pp. 1315-1316). In Idaho, natal den sites occur above 2,500 m (8,200 ft) on rocky 

sites, such as north-facing boulder talus or subalpine cirques (steep-walled semicircular basin 

carved by a glacier) in forest openings (Magoun and Copeland 1994, pp. 1315-1316). In 

Montana, natal dens occur above 2,400 m (7,874 ft) and are located on north aspects in avalanche 

debris, typically in alpine habitats near timberline (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72). Offspring are 

born from mid-February through March and the dens are typically used through late April or 

early May (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1314-1317; Inman et al. 

2007b, pp. 55-59). Occupation of natal dens is variable, ranging from approximately 9 to 65 days 

(Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316-1317). 

Females may move kits to multiple secondary (maternal) dens as they grow during the month of 

May (Pulliainen 1968, p. 343; Myrberget 1968, p. 115), although use of maternal dens may be 

minimal (Inman et al. 2007c, p. 69). Timing of den abandonment is related to accumulation of 

water in dens (due to snow melt), the maturation of offspring, disturbance, and geographic 

location (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun 1985, p. 73). After using natal and maternal dens, 

wolverines may also use rendezvous sites through early July. These sites are characterized by 

natural (unexcavated) cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs (avalanche debris), and 

snow (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 55-56). Male wolverines likely mate with several females, and 

although they are not known to directly contribute to rearing young, they do tolerate subadult 

wolverines in their territories (usually their own offspring) until they reach maturity (Copeland 

1996, p. 72). 

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. 

They primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small animals and birds, and eat fruits, berries, 

and insects (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111-113). 

Wolverines have an excellent sense of smell that enables them to find food beneath deep snow 

(Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1297). 

Wolverines require a lot of space; the availability and distribution of food is likely the primary 

factor in determining female wolverine movements and home range size (Hornocker and Hash 

1981, p. 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117-118). Male wolverine home range size and location is likely 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 262
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

40

tied to the presence of active female home ranges and breeding opportunities (Copeland 1996, p. 

74). Female wolverines forage close to den sites in early summer, progressively ranging further 

from dens as kits become more independent (May et al. 2010, p. 941). Wolverines travel long 

distances over rough terrain and deep snow, and adult males generally cover greater distances 

than females (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117-118; Moriarty et al. 2009, 

entire; Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22-28; Brian 2010, p. 3; Copeland and Yates 2006, Figure 9). Home 

ranges of wolverines are large, and vary greatly in size depending on availability and distribution 

of food, and gender and age of the animal. Home ranges of adult wolverines also vary in size 

depending on geographic location. Average home ranges of resident adult females in central 

Idaho were 384 km2 (148 mi2), and males were 1,522 km2 (588 mi2) respectively (Copeland 1996, 

p. 50). These home range sizes are large relative to the body size of wolverines, and may indicate 

that wolverines occupy a relatively unproductive niche in which they must forage over large areas 

to consume the amount of calories needed to meet their life history requirements (Inman et al. 

2007a, p. 11).

Habitat 

In North America, wolverines occur within a wide variety of alpine, boreal, and arctic habitats, 

including boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains throughout Alaska and Canada. The 

southern portion of the species’ range extends into the contiguous United States, including highelevation alpine portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, and Colorado 

(Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 

1995, p. 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152; Moriarty et al. 2009, entire; Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22-

25). Wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat aspects, 

but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain 

deep persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010, entire). The requirement of 

cold, snowy conditions means that, in the southern portion of the species’ range where ambient 

temperatures are warmest, wolverine distribution is restricted to high elevations, while at more 

northerly latitudes, wolverines are present at lower elevations and even at sea level in the far 

north (Copeland et al. 2010, Figure 1). 

Across their worldwide distribution, wolverines are dependent on persistent spring snow cover 

for successful reproduction (Pulliainen 1968, pp. 338-341; Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Copeland 

1996, pp. 93-94; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1315-1319; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2153; Inman 

et al. 2012a, p.785; Copeland et al. 2010, entire). No records exist of wolverines denning 

anywhere but in snow, despite the wide availability of snow-free denning opportunities within the 

species’ geographic range. The snow tunnels and complex structure associated with dens are 

likely required to protect young from interspecific and intraspecific predation (Persson et al. 

2003, pp. 25-26; Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1318). A layer of deep snow may also add 

crucial insulation from cold temperatures and wind prevalent in wolverine habitat (Pulliainen 

1968, p. 342; Bjärvall et al. 1978, p. 24-25; Copeland 1996, p. 100; Magoun and Copeland 1998, 

p. 1318). 

Female wolverines have been observed to abandon reproductive dens when temperatures warm 

and snow conditions become wet (Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1316); this response indicates 

that the condition of the snow is also important to successful reproduction, and that the onset of 

spring snowmelt forces female wolverines to move kits into alternate denning sites with better 

snow conditions, if they are available. These movements may be energetically costly and subject 

females and kits to predation risk. The deep, persistent spring snow layer in the Copeland et al. 

(2010) model captures all known wolverine den sites in the distinct population segment (DPS); 

however, on average, most denning occurs at higher elevations within the area defined by the 

model. Female wolverines establish reproductive dens at elevations higher than average 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 263
DRAMVU

41

elevations used by non-reproductive wolverines (Copeland 1996, p. 94; Magoun and Copeland 

1998, pp. 1315-1316; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 71), suggesting that females find the conditions 

necessary for successful denning in the upper portion of their home range where snow is most 

persistent and occurs in the heaviest accumulations.

Wolverine year-round habitat use also takes place almost entirely within the area defined by deep 

persistent spring snow (Copeland et al. 2010, pp. 242-243). Within the DPS, this area is generally 

centered on the alpine tree line (the maximum elevation beyond which tree growth is precluded 

and only low-growing vegetation is found). In the contiguous United States, wolverine yearround habitat is found at high elevations centered near the tree line in conifer forests (below tree 

line) and rocky alpine habitat (above tree-line) and in cirque basins and avalanche chutes that 

have food sources such as marmots, voles, and carrion (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1296; 

Copeland 1996, p. 124; Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1318; Copeland et al. 2007, p. 2211; 

Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In the southern portion of wolverine range in North America which 

includes the DPS, wolverines are constrained by their need for cold conditions and persistent 

spring snow to using only the coldest available landscapes (Copeland et al. 2010, Figure 6). 

Mean seasonal elevations used by wolverines in the northern Rocky Mountains and North 

Cascades vary between 1,400 and 2,600 m (4,592 and 8,528 ft) depending on location, but are 

always relatively high on mountain slopes (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1291; Copeland et al. 

2007, p. 2207, Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2153; Inman et al. 2012, p.782). Elevation ranges used by 

historical wolverine populations in the Sierra Nevada and southern Rocky Mountains are 

unknown, but presumably wolverines used higher elevations, on average, than more northerly 

populations to compensate for the higher temperatures found at lower latitudes. In the contiguous 

United States, valley bottom habitat appears to be used only for dispersal movements and not for 

foraging or reproduction (Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22-28). Wolverine reproductive dens have been

located in alpine, subalpine, taiga, or tundra habitat (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Pulliainen 1968, pp. 

338-341; Bjärvall 1982, p. 318; Lee and Niptanatiak 1996, p. 349; Landa et al. 1998, pp. 451-

452; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1317-1318). Wolverines rarely, or never, den in lower 

elevation forested habitats, although they may occupy these habitats occasionally (Magoun and 

Copeland 1998, p. 1317). 

Portions of the project area provide suitable habitat for wolverine, with the majority of habitat 

occurring within the highest elevations of the Forest. 

Distribution 

Wolverines naturally occur in low densities with a reported range from one animal per 65 km2 (25 

mi2), to one animal per 337 km2 (130 mi2) (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292-1295; Hash 

1987, p. 578; Copeland 1996, pp. 31-32; Copeland and Yates 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 

10; Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218). No systematic population census exists over the entire current 

range of wolverines in the contiguous United States, so the current population level and trends are 

not known with certainty. 

However, based on our current knowledge of occupied wolverine habitat and wolverine densities 

in this habitat, it is reasonable to estimate that the wolverine population in the contiguous United 

States numbers approximately 250 to 300 individuals. The bulk of the current population occurs 

in the northern Rocky Mountains, with a few individuals in the North Cascades and one known 

individual each in the Sierra Nevada and southern Rocky Mountains. Within the area known to 

currently have wolverine populations, relatively few wolverines can coexist due to their naturally 

low population densities, even if all areas were occupied at or near carrying capacity. 

Given the natural limitations on wolverine population density, it is likely that historical wolverine 

population numbers were also low (Inman et al. 2007a, Table 6). Because of these natural 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 264
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

42

limitations, it is possible that densities and population levels in the northern Rocky Mountains 

and North Cascades where populations currently exist may not be substantially lower than 

population densities were in these areas prior to European settlement. However, historically, the 

contiguous United States population would likely have been larger than it is today due to the 

larger area occupied by populations when the southern Rocky Mountains, Bighorn Mountains, 

Sierra Nevada, and possibly also the Oregon Cascades and mountains of Utah, were occupied at 

full capacity.

Wolverines are expected to utilize portions of the project area at high elevations of the Nez Perce 

National Forest. Because wolverines are extremely wide-ranging, the exact distribution and 

population size would likely vary on an annual basis depending upon weather and reproductive 

success within this portion of the Northern Rocky Mountains. 

Wolverine Environmental Consequences

The USFWS Proposed rule for listing wolverine within the lower 48 states specifies that the 

primary threat to wolverine is loss of habitats with persistent snow cover as a result of climate 

change and increasing temperatures. The proposed rule found that dispersed recreational 

activities, infrastructure development, transportation corridors, and land management activities do 

not pose a serious threat to wolverines or their habitats. Localized effects may occur as a result of 

implementing such activities. However, wolverines have been shown to navigate around, through 

and over most of these disturbances.

The DRAMVU Project would not result in any new direct effects to wolverine as it is an 

administrative action. All Action Alternatives (1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 Modified, and 6) would result in 

an immeasurable reduction of both indirect and direct effects as a result of reducing potential 

disturbance from motor vehicle use and exposure to trapping and hunting from decreased areas 

open to wheeled vehicles during snow-free periods. These potential effects are not believed to be 

directly measureable because open forest roads and trails have not been shown to result in 

measureable responses from wolverine. The No Action alternative (Alt. 1) would not have any 

different potential effects on wolverine from the existing conditions. However, minor existing 

vulnerabilities to disturbances, inadvertent trapping, and hunting would continue to exist. 

Cumulative Effects

NEPA & ESA CE – Because none of the expected effects from any alternative (action or noaction) would be measureable for wolverine there would not be any potential for cumulative 

impacts as a result of implementing any of the alternatives regardless if any activities are 

occurring on State or private lands within the project area. 

Wolverine Determination

Implementation of any alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

wolverine within the project area. No conferencing with US Fish and Wildlife Service will be 

necessary, since the project will not jeopardize the wolverine.

Rationale for this Determination

• All Action Alternatives (1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 Modified, and 6) would reduce any potential 

direct or indirect effects to wolverine or their habitat that may be occurring by reducing 

the area accessible to and/or miles of open road density to motorized use. 

• According to the USFWS (2013) use or modification of forest roads and trails, or 

dispersed recreation would not be expected to pose a threat to the DPS of wolverine or 

their habitats. The USFWS (2013) does not go so far as to say that no impacts of any kind 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 265
DRAMVU

43

are occurring as a result of human modifications or use of forested lands expected to be 

occupied by wolverine at some point in time. They simply state that there is no scientific 

or commercial information available that would indicate substantial impacts to this 

species or their habitat has been confirmed by anything other than climate change. 

Therefore, there are no known measureable effects associated with open road density or 

modification of them.

• The No Action alternative would maintain potential direct and indirect impacts that 

wolverine may be experiencing within the project area.

References 

Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat 

relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:2147–2158.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.K. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyonand W.J. 

Zielinski (eds). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. American marten, 

fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Pp. 99-123. 

Bjärvall A (1982) A study of the wolverine female during the denning period. Transactions of the 

International Congress of Game Biologists 14:315–322. 

Bjärvall A, Franzén R, Nilsson E. 1978. Järvenenstöring i norr. Forskning och Framsteg 1: 21-28 

In Swedish. 

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.Sc. thesis, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, USA 

Copeland, J.P., and R.E. Yates. 2006. Wolverine population assessment in Glacier National Park 

spring 2006 progress report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Missoula, Montana. http://wolverinefoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/glacier05-06.pdf

Copeland, J. P., J. Peak, C. Groves, W. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, 

and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in Central Idaho. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2201–2212. 

Hash, H. S. 1987. Wolverine. In: Novak, M.; Baker, J. A.; Obbard, M. E., comps., eds. Wild 

furbearer management and conservation in North America. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources; 575-585. 

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286–1301. 

Inman, R.M., K.H. Inman, A.J. McCue, M.L. Packila, G.C. White, and B.C. Aber. 2007a. 

Wolverine space use in Greater Yellowstone. In: Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater 

Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report, May 2007. 

http://www.wcsnorthamerica.org/AboutUs/Publications/tabid/3437/Default.aspx

Inman, R. M., K. H. Inman, A. J. McCue, and M. L. Packila. 2007b. Wolverine reproduction in 

Greater Yellowstone. Chapter 4 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Study, Cumulative 

Progress Report, May 2007. Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program, 

General Technical Report, Bozeman, Montana, USA. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 266
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

44

Inman, R. M., A. J. Magoun, D. Pedersen, J. Persson, and J. Mattison. 2007c. Wolverine 

reproductive chronology. Chapter 3 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Study, 

Cumulative Progress Report, May 2007. Wildlife Conservation Society, North America 

Program, General Technical Report, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Inman, R.M., M.L. Packila, K.H. Inman, B. Aber, R. Spence, and D. McCauley. 2009. Greater 

Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Progress Report – December 2009. Wildlife 

Conservation Society, North America Program, General Report, Bozeman, Montana, 

U.S.A http://www.wcsnorthamerica.org/AboutUs/Publications/tabid/3437/Default.aspx

Krebs, J.A. and D. Lewis. 1999. Wolverine Ecology and Habitat Use in the North Columbia 

Mountains: Progress Report pp. 695-703 – in L.M. Darling, editor. 2000. Proceedings of 

a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, 

Kamloops, B.C., 15-19 Feb., 1999. Volume Two. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands 

and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Caribou, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp. 

Landa, A., O. Strand, J. D. C. Linell, and T. Skogland. 1998. Home range sizes and altitude 

selection for arctic foxes and wolverines in an alpine environment. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 76:448–457. 

Lee J, and Niptanatiak A. 1996. Observation of repeated use of a wolverine, Gulo gulo, den on 

the tundra of the Northwest Territories.Can. Field Nat. 110: 349-350. 

Magoun, A.J. 1985. Population characteristics, ecology and management of wolverines in 

northwestern Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, USA. 

Magoun, A. J. and J. P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1313–1320. 

Magoun, A. J. and P. Valkenburg. 1983. Breeding behavior of free-ranging wolverines (Gulo 

gulo). Acta Zool. Fenn. 174:175-177. 

Mead, R.A., M. Rector, G. Starypan, S. Neirinckx, M. Jones, and M.N. Don Carlos. 1991. 

Reproductive biology of captive wolverines. Journal of Mammalogy 72, 807–814. 

Moriarty, K. M., W. J. Zielinski, A. G. Gonzales, T. E. Dawson, K. M. Boatner, C. A. Wilson, F. 

V. Schlexer, K. L. Pilgrim, J. P. Copeland, and M. K. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine 

confirmation in California after nearly a century: native or long-distance immigrant? 

Northwest Science 83: 154–162. 

Myrberget, Svein. 1968. Jervens ynglehi (The breeding den of the wolverine) (in Norwegian with 

captions and summary in English – wolverine dens). Fauna (Oslo) 21(2): 108-115. 

Pasitschniak-Arts, M., and S. Lariviere. 1995. Gulo gulo. Mamm. Species, 499: 1–10. 

Persson, J. 2005. Female wolverine reproduction: reproductive costs and winter food availability. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1453–1459. 

Persson J, Willebrand T, Landa A, Andersen A, Segerström P. 2003. The role of intraspecific 

predation in the survival of juvenile wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildl. Biol. 9: 21-28 . 

Persson J, A. Landa, R. Andersen, and P. Segerström. 2006. Reproductive characteristics of 

female wolverines (Gulo gulo) in Scandinavia. Journal of Mammalogy 87:75–79. 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 267
DRAMVU

45

Pulliainen, Erkki. 1968. Breeding biology of the wolverine (Gulo gulo L.) in Finland. Annales 

Zoologici Fennicci 5(4):338-344. 

Rausch, R.A. and A.M. Pearson 1972. Notes on the wolverine in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 36:249–268. 

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, 

Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick 

Wenger, and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy, as 

amended. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, 

Missoula, MT. 142 pp. Available electronically at

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html. 

Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Koehler, Gary M.; Krebs, Charles J.; 

McKelvey, Kevin S.; Squires, John R. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United 

States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr030.html. 

Squires, J. R., M. K. Schwartz, J. P. Copeland, L. F. Ruggiero, and T. J. Ulizio. 2007. Sources 

and patterns of wolverine mortality in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71:2213–2220. 

Ulizio, T., Squires, J., Claar, J. 2007. Nez Perce National Forest 2007 Lynx Surveys Final Report. 

US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 5pp. 

USDA-FS (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service). 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction. Record of Decision. Missoula, Montana.

USDA-FS. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final 

Rule. (Travel Management Rule). Federal Register, Part IV, USDA-Forest Service. 36 

CFR 212, 251, 261, 295. November 9, 2005. p. 68264-68291. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf. 

USDA-FS. 1987. Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Nez Perce 

National Forest. Grangeville, Idaho. 

USDA-FS and USFWS. 2006. Occupied mapped lynx habitat amendment to the Canada Lynx 

conservation Agreement and Canada Lynx conservation agreement. USFS Agreement 

#00-MU-110115600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 18 pp. 

USFWS (US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous 

U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. Federal 

Register. Vol. 68, No. 128, 40076-40101. 

USFWS. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded 

Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of 

the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 

58, 16052-16086 

USFWS. 2005. Recovery Outline – Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx. Helena, Montana.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 268
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

46

USFWS. 2007. Biological opinion on the effects of the Northern Rocky Mountains Lynx 

Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis)(lynx) in the contiguous United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Helena, Montana. 85 pages.

USFWS. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada 

Lynx. Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 36, 8616-8702. 

USFWS. 2012. Species profile: Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis). Environmental Conservation 

Online System. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. 

USFWS. 2013. Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and 

Candidate Species With Associated Proposed and Critical Habitats in Idaho. Obtained at 

http://www.fws.gov/idaho/species/IdahoSpeciesList.pdf. 

Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-6562 in: J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild 

mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. John Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore Md.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 269
DRAMVU

47

Appendix A. 

Consistency Review of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and DRAMVU Project

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL) 

The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU) and in linkage areas, 

subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use.

Standard ALL S1

New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management projects 

must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area.

Yes. Met. Proposed New trails 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx 

Habitat.

The DRAMVU project does not propose any vegetation 

management activities.

Proposed activities would maintain habitat connectivity in 

LAUs, because road and trails proposed for designation 

currently existing on the landscape except proposed new 

trails that do not occur within lynx habitats. 

Proposed activities would maintain or improve habitat 

connectivity in linkage areas (Figures 3 and 4 above).

Guideline ALL G1

Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or 

reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. Methods could 

include fencing, underpasses, or overpasses.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Standard LAU S1

Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information 

and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 270
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

48

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJETS (VEG) 

The following objectives, standards and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU). With the 

exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards and guidelines do not apply to wildfire 

suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments like mineral operations, ski runs, roads and the like. None of 

the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas.

Standard VEG S1 – Stand initiation structural stage limits

Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management projects that regenerate 

timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface 

(WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

• Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a 

National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that 

substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages limit 

disturbance in each LAU as follows:

• If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a 

stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe 

hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation 

management projects. 

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Standard VEG S2 – Limits on regeneration from timber mgmt. projects

Standard VEG S2 applies to all vegetation management projects that regenerate 

timber, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) 

as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

• Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a 

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 271
DRAMVU

49

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 

percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period.

Guideline VEG G11 – Denning habitat 

Denning habitat should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large 

amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of 

small wind thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If denning habitat appears to be 

lacking in the LAU, then projects should be designed to retain some coarse 

woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Standard VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning limits

Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning projects, except for fuel 

treatment projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland 

urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

• Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a 

National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects that reduce snowshoe hare 

habitat, may occur from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no 

longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or

2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or

3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the 

regional levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where a written 

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 272
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

50

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

determination states: 

a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or

b. that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx 

or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its 

habitat; or

4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning around individual aspen 

trees, where aspen is in decline; or

5. For daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant white pine where 80% of the 

winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained; or

6. To restore whitebark pine. 

Standard VEG S6 – Multi-storied stands & snowshoe hare horizontal cover 

Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management projects that regenerate 

timber, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) 

as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

• Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a 

National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare 

habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests may occur only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation 

sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within 

permitted ski area boundaries; or

2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or

3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g. removal due to 

location of skid trails).

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 273
DRAMVU

51

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

(NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas that have potential to improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack 

dense horizontal cover [e.g. uneven age management systems could be used to 

create openings where there is little understory so that new forage can grow]).

Guideline VEG G1 – Lynx habitat improvement

Vegetation management projects should be planned to recruit a high density of 

conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available.

Priority should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage stands

for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands).

Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning habitat.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline VEG G4 – Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate 

snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should 

be avoided.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey species

Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel, should be provided in 

each LAU.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline VEG G10 – Fuel treatments in the WUI

Fuel treatment projects in the WUI as defined by HFRA should be designed 

considering standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ) 

The following objectives and guidelines apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU). They do not apply to linkage areas.

Guideline GRAZ G1 – Livestock grazing and openings

In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so 

impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 274
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

52

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

Guideline GRAZ G2 – Livestock grazing and aspen

In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the longterm health and sustainability of aspen. 

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline GRAZ G3 – Livestock grazing and riparian areas & willow carrs

In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to 

contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral 

stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance 

regimes.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline GRAZ G4 – Livestock grazing and shrub-steppe habitats

In shrub-steppe habitats, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation 

ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a 

preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have 

occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU)

The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, 

highways, mineral, and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU), subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to 

vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas.

Guideline HU G1 – Ski area expansion & development, inter-trail islands

When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for 

adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris, so winter 

snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. 

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline HU G2 – Ski are expansion & development, foraging habitat

When developing or expanding ski areas, foraging should be provided consistent 

with the ski area’s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as 

narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 275
DRAMVU

53

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

Guideline HU G3 – Recreation developments

Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both 

provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat.

Yes. Met. 

This Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD 

2007) does not have any specific management direction for 

summer motorized access other than taking lynx 

conservation into consideration before upgrading roads to be 

able to provide faster or substantially more traffic. Unpaved 

forest roads are not considered a direct threat to lynx or their 

movement. Lynx appear, in general, to have low susceptibility 

to displacement by humans during spring, summer, and fall 

(USDI 2003).

Alternative 1 would not change the current condition, with 872

miles of roads and trails open for motorized use in 

unoccupied lynx habitat.

Alternatives 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 Mod, and 6 would restrict 

motorized cross-country travel, except over-snow vehicles, to 

designated roads and trails. This would provide for lynx 

movement and improved effectiveness of lynx habitat. 

Alternative 1A would maintain 872 miles of roads or trails

open for motorize use (0% change).

Alternative 2 would maintain 755 miles of roads or trails 

open for motorize use (13% reduction).

Alternative 3 would maintain 625 miles of roads or trails 

open for motorize use (28% reduction).

Alternative 4 would maintain 826 miles of roads or trails 

open for motorize use (5% reduction).

Alternative 5 and 5 Modified would maintain 753 miles of 

roads or trails open for motorize use (14% reduction). 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 276
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

54

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

Alternative 6 would maintain 626 miles of roads or trails

open for motorize use (28% reduction).

Guideline HU G4 – Mineral & energy development

For mineral and energy development sites and facilities, remote monitoring 

should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline HU G5 – Mineral & energy development, habitat restoration

For mineral and energy development sites and facilities that are closed, a 

reclamation plan that restores lynx habitat should be developed.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline HU G6 – Roads, upgrading

Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx should be used in lynx habitat when 

upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be 

increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases 

in human activity or development.

Yes. Met.

Alternative 1 would not change the current condition.

None of the Action Alternative (1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 Modified, and 

6) would upgrade any of the roads to levels 4 or 5. No roads 

would be paved with implementation of this project. Some 

roads may change the maintenance levels, if designated to 

change, from motorized to non-motorized use, or vice versus. 

This would change maintenance levels from Level 2 or 3 to 

Level 1 or vice versus, primarily resulting in a decreased 

traffic speed, volume, and human activity with motorized 

vehicles, although some roads could marginally increase 

them.

Guideline HU G7 – Roads, locations

New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas 

identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. 

New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers.

Yes. Met.

No new roads are proposed to be constructed with this 

project.

Proposed New trails 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx habitat.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 277
DRAMVU

55

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

Guideline HU G8 – Roads, brushing

Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the 

minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Road maintenance is not part of this decision.

Guideline HU G9 – Roads, new

On new roads built for projects, public motorized use should be restricted.

Effective closures should be provided in road designs. When the project is over, 

these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other 

management objectives.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

No new roads are proposed to be constructed with this 

project.

Guideline HU G10 – Roads, ski area access

When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, access roads and lift termini 

to maintain and provide lynx security habitat.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline HU G11 – Snow compaction

Designated over-the-snow routes, or designated play areas, should not expand 

outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves 

to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This is calculated on an LAU basis, 

or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs.

This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to 

rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access 

regulated by Guideline HU G12.

Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU decision will not designate over-snow vehicle use.

Guideline HU G12 – Winter access for non-recreation SUP & mineral & 

energy development

Winter access for non-recreation special uses, and mineral and energy 

exploration and development, should be limited to designated routes or 

designated over-the-snow routes.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 278
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

56

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)?

Where direction is applicable and has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

LINKAGE AREAS (LINK) 

The following objective, standard, and guidelines apply to all projects within linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights.

Standard LINK S1 – Highway or forest highway construction in linkage 

areas

When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in 

linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

No new highways or forest highways are proposed to be 

constructed or reconstructed with this project.

Guideline LINK G1 – Land exchanges

NFS lands should be retained in public ownership.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

Guideline LINK G2 – Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats

Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats should be managed to contribute to 

maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to 

conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

No. Direction is not applicable to the DRAMVU project.

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 279
DRAMVU

57

Appendix B - Lynx Mapping Effort Overview

Lynx habitat was mapped on the Nez Perce National Forest per direction outlined in the 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (2000) and McAllister’s August 22, 2000 

lynx habitat mapping direction. The Nez Perce National Forest’s rationale used in 

mapping lynx habitat (2001) is as follows.

1) Elevations must occur between 4,000 and 7,000 feet.

2) Primary vegetation will consist of Habitat Type Groups (HTGs) 7 & 8. HTG 7 

consists of cool and moist subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce forests with 

Clintonia (queencup beadlily) and Menziesia (fools huckleberry) understories. 

HTG 8 consists of cool and wet subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce forests with 

Calamagrostis canadensis (bluejoint reedgrass) and Streptopus (twisted stalk) 

understories.

3) Secondary vegetation consists of HTG 4, 5, and 9 that are intermingled or 

adjacent to primary vegetation. To address the issue of other cool, moist 

vegetation adjacent and intermingled with primary habitat, the Nez Perce Forest 

applied a 2-mile radius around primary vegetation as a distance that closely 

approximates the mean daily travel distance of lynx in Montana (Ruggiero, L. F. 

et al. 2000:342). HTG 4 is moderately warm and moist grand fir forests with 

Asarum (ginger) and Clintonia understories. HTG 5 are moderately cool and 

moist western red cedar forests with Asarum (ginger) and Clintonia understories. 

HTG 9 are cool and moderately dry subalpine fir and lodgepole pine forests with 

diverse understories of Xerophyllum tenax (beargrass) and Vaccinium

(huckleberry species) understories.

4) Isolated areas of primary and secondary vegetation that were less than 5 acres 

were dropped.

5) The above categories were then classified as potential lynx habitat.

The next process was to take the potential lynx habitat and classify to whether it was 

denning, foraging, or unsuitable habitat. Both PI stratum and SILC data with regards to 

size class, canopy cover, and existing cover type were used to further refine denning 

and foraging habitat.

Denning was defined as those areas having >9” dbh lodgepole pine and >14” (PI data) 

or 21” dbh (SILC data) non-lodgepole pine with a canopy cover of 40% or greater. 

Primary denning habitat consists of those areas with a northerly aspect and secondary 

habitat were those with southery aspects.

Foraging habitat was broken into two categories: 1) primary forage consisting of 

seedling/sapling/shrub habitats or 2) secondary forage consisting of pole and medium 

size trees (not including lodgepole pine). Both primary and secondary forage consists of 

stands that have greater than 40% canopy cover.

Unsuitable habitat are those areas that did not meet the denning or foraging criteria, 

basically those stands that had less than 40% canopy cover or had a cover type of 

burned areas, ponderosa pine, or whitebark pine.

Not potential habitat are those areas that are 1) habitat type groups other than 

mentioned above, 2) those areas of secondary vegetation (HTGs 4, 5, and 9) that are 

not within the 2 mile buffer around primary subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce habitats, 3) 

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 280
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

58

young stands, basically at the stand reinitiation phase, or 4) stands with the correct 

habitat type group but wrong cover type.

The lynx map was then refined to address minimum size/contiguity of habitat and LAUs 

with insignificant amount of habitat (10 mi2 of primary vegetation). The warmer, dryer 

habitat conditions within the lower elevations of the Salmon River Canyon, lower Selway, 

and lower South Fork Clearwater River contained widely scattered, insignificant amounts 

of lynx habitat (mainly along major drainage divides and high elevation streams) and 

were well below the 10 square mile of primary and secondary vegetation limitation. 

These LAUs were discarded or incorporated into neighboring LAUs in the process per 

the mapping direction (LCAS page 7-4) and the result was the Feb. 21, 2002, final map.

Based on the review of lynx mapping efforts by the Lynx Science Team in 2003, another 

refinement was made to the Forest’s lynx habitat layer. The net changes in lynx habitat 

mapping which were recommended by the Lynx Science Team visit were:

 

Old Map (2001) Updated Map (2003)

Primary Habitat = habitat type groups (HTG) 

7, 8

Primary Habitat = HTGs 7, 8, 9

Secondary Habitat = HTGs 4, 5, 9 (within a 2 

mile radius of primary habitat)

Secondary Habitat = HTGs 3, 4, 5, 10 (within 1⁄4 

mile of primary habitat)

Unsuitable habitat = any stand with <40% 

canopy

Unsuitable habitat = recent clearcuts up to 15 

years post certification and permanent nonforest

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 281
DRAMVU

59

Appendix C – DRAMVU Area of Analysis Lynx LAU Detailed Analysis 

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3050602 (45,124 ac) 14,827 100 

Roads 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 7.6 0 7.6 0

Trails 4.4 0.3 4.4 0.3 0 0.3 4.4 0.3 4.7 0 0.3 0

Denning 2,294 15.5

Foraging 12,490 84.2

Unsuitable 43 0.3

3050601 (45,380 ac) 24,919 100 

Roads 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.8

Trails 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,843 15.4

Foraging 21,062 84.5

Unsuitable 14 0.1

3050401 (36,641 ac) 25,449 100 

Roads 8.2 17.5 8.2 17.5 8.2 17.5 8.2 18.1 9.1 16.6 9.1 16.6

Trails 0 18.8 0.2 6.6 0 6.6 0 9.6 2.5 6.6 0 6.6

Denning 7,032 27.6

Foraging 18,403 72.3

Unsuitable 14 0.1

3050305 (24,058 ac) 16,523 100 

Roads 0.2 12.7 0.2 12.7 0.2 12.7 0.2 12.7 0.2 12.7 0.7 12.2

Trails 0 8.4 0 6.6 0 4.3 0 8.4 3.4 0.3 3.8 0.3

Denning 7,989 48.4

Foraging 8,086 48.9

Unsuitable 448 2.7

3050302 (52,141 ac) 23,201 100 

Roads 0 8.2 0 8.2 0 8.2 0 8.2 1.2 7.0 1.2 7.0

Trails 0 2.9 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7

Denning 9,027 38.9

Foraging 13,936 60.1

Unsuitable 238 1.0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 282
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

60

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3050102 (30,518 ac) 25,409 100 

Roads 29.5 9.5 22.7 12.1 26.0 5.4 22.7 16.3 29.9 4.9 29.9 4.9

Trails 0 9.2 1.5 0.8 0 0.6 0.5 9.2 8.7 0.6 0 0.6

Denning 6,452 25.4

Foraging 13,390 52.7

Unsuitable 5,567 21.9

3020404 (18,585 ac) 16,996 100 

Roads 0 34.0 0 34.0 8.9 25.0 0 35.1 14.9 19.6 19.6 14.4

Trails 0 12.8 0 7.2 0 7.2 0 7.2 6.8 0.4 6.8 0.4

Denning 4,740 27.9

Foraging 12,001 70.6

Unsuitable 256 1.5

3020402 (75,417 ac) 38,846 100 

Roads 0 16.2 0 16.2 0 16.2 0 16.2 0.6 15.5 16.2 0

Trails 0 15.0 0 15.0 0 0 0 15.0 12.3 0 0 0

Denning 1,337 3.4

Foraging 37,510 96.6

Unsuitable 0 0

3020306 (39,597 ac) 19,751 100 

Roads 0 8.9 0 8.9 0 8.9 0 8.9 8.9 0 8.9 0

Trails 0 35.9 0 18.6 0 0 0 18.6 21.1 0 0 0

Denning 3,569 18.1

Foraging 16,056 81.3

Unsuitable 125 0.6

3020305 (55,704 ac) 31,607 100 

Roads 0 4.5 0 4.5 0 4.5 0 4.5 0 4.5 4.5 0

Trails 0 20.8 1.3 0.7 0 0 1.3 7.5 0.7 0 0 0

Denning 3,023 9.6

Foraging 28,583 90.4

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 283
DRAMVU

61

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3020304 (45,377 ac) 25,122 100 

Roads 17.3 9.3 19.4 7.3 19.9 5.0 19.4 5.5 24.4 0.5 26.7 0

Trails 0 26.0 0 17.1 0.3 0 0 23.7 19.0 0 0.3 0

Denning 4,614 18.4

Foraging 20,485 81.5

Unsuitable 22 0.1

3020302 (22,326 ac) 20,654 100 

Roads 11.8 0 11.8 0 11.8 0 20.8 0 11.8 0 11.8 0

Trails 3.4 5.3 3.7 0.1 0.1 0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Denning 2,061 10.0

Foraging 18,593 90.0

Unsuitable 0 0

3020301 (24,079 ac) 23,693 100 

Roads 2.7 0 2.7 0 2.7 0 2.7 0 2.7 0 2.7 0

Trails 0 10.4 0 9.9 0 0 0 9.9 4.9 0 0 0

Denning 1,600 6.8

Foraging 22,092 93.2

Unsuitable 0 0

3020204 (35,033 ac) 17,132 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,106 18.1

Foraging 14,026 81.9

Unsuitable 0 0

3020203 (28,139 ac) 20,348 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,025 14.9

Foraging 17,323 85.1

Unsuitable 0 0

3020202 (30,220 ac) 18,332 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,338 18.2

Foraging 14,994 81.8

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 284
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

62

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3020110 (35,352 ac) 17,754 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,389 19.1

Foraging 14,365 80.9

Unsuitable 0 0

3020109 (36,283 ac) 31,766 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,954 12.4

Foraging 27,812 87.6

Unsuitable 0 0

3020107 (29,798 ac) 26,005 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 4,103 15.8

Foraging 21,902 84.2

Unsuitable 0 0

3020106 (17,435 ac) 15,182 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 2,055 13.5

Foraging 13,127 86.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3020105 (23,838ac) 15,502 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,924 12.4

Foraging 13,578 87.6

Unsuitable 0 0

3020104 (35,686 ac) 22,887 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 4,465 19.5

Foraging 18,422 80.5

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 285
DRAMVU

63

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3020102 (22,483 ac) 15,443 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,402 9.1

Foraging 14,042 90.9

Unsuitable 0 0

3020101 (21,473 ac) 13,770 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 757 5.5

Foraging 13,014 94.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010706 (21,324 ac) 14,000 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,750 12.5

Foraging 12,250 87.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010705 (17,504 ac) 10,739 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,667 15.5

Foraging 9,072 84.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010704 (27,872 ac) 14,880 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 2,851 19.2

Foraging 12,029 80.8

Unsuitable 0 0

3010703 (16,499 ac) 8,694 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 388 4.5

Foraging 8,306 95.5

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 286
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

64

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3010702 (13,510 ac) 9,610 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,008 10.5

Foraging 8,602 89.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010701 (18,005 ac) 11,726 100 

Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails 0 1.3 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 766 6.5

Foraging 10,961 93.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010604 (45,019 ac) 23,019 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 2,199 9.6

Foraging 20,820 90.4

Unsuitable 0 0

3010603 (35,816 ac) 16,970 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 3,821 22.5

Foraging 13,149 77.5

Unsuitable 0 0

3010602 (31,158 ac) 13,278 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,824 13.7

Foraging 11,454 86.3

Unsuitable 0 0

3010503 (28,810 ac) 16,013 100 

Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trails 11.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,742 10.9

Foraging 14,271 89.1

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 287
DRAMVU

65

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

3010501 (24,363 ac) 19,492 100 

Roads 6.1 0 6.1 0 6.1 0 6.1 0 6.1 0 6.1 0

Trails 9.8 0.2 2.9 0 2.9 0 2.9 0 2.9 0 0 0

Denning 3,929 20.2

Foraging 15,563 79.8

Unsuitable 0 0

2090502 (60,718 ac) 26,262 100 

Roads 33.5 63.2 43.1 53.1 73.3 21.3 38.0 62.5 61.0 35.9 92.1 2.2

Trails 0 17.1 6.3 9.6 6.3 2.5 4.9 11.4 12.9 3.1 10.1 0.1

Denning 3,500 13.3

Foraging 22,321 85.0

Unsuitable 442 1.7

2090402 (37,102 ac) 18,775 100 

Roads 18.2 14.2 20.0 12.4 22.8 9.6 20.0 12.4 29.5 2.9 32.4 0

Trails 0 13.5 0 12.4 1.5 0.5 0 12.9 5.6 7.8 2.0 0

Denning 1,987 10.6

Foraging 15,526 82.7

Unsuitable 1,262 6.7

2090401 (29,671 ac) 26,895 100 

Roads 43.2 33.5 49.4 27.3 50.4 21.4 49.4 27.3 59.8 16.9 67.0 4.8

Trails 0.3 18.1 0.3 17.2 0.6 3.1 0.3 23.3 10.3 7.2 3.8 0

Denning 5,503 20.5

Foraging 20,099 74.7

Unsuitable 1,293 4.8

2090204 (37,107 ac) 14,238 100 

Roads 4.6 16.3 4.6 16.3 13.3 7.6 4.6 17.4 5.6 16.3 13.8 7.1

Trails 0 4.0 0 4.5 0 0 0 4.5 0.9 3.1 0 0

Denning 1,410 9.9

Foraging 7,293 51.2

Unsuitable 5,535 38.9

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 288
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

66

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

2071102 (28,735 ac) 15,700 100 

Roads 27.6 18.2 32.8 12.7 35.3 10.1 32.8 12.7 35.3 10.2 35.3 10.1

Trails 1.8 5.0 1.1 5.0 5.0 0 1.1 5.0 6.1 0 5.0 0

Denning 2,395 15.3

Foraging 13,141 83.7

Unsuitable 163 1.0

2071101 (27,769 ac) 8,918 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 817 9.2

Foraging 8,101 90.8

Unsuitable 0 0

2071004 (39,432 ac) 10,340 100 

Roads 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0

Trails 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0

Denning 589 6.3

Foraging 9,751 93.7

Unsuitable 0 0

2071003 (28,869 ac) 14,077 100 

Roads 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 2.1

Trails 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0.8 0 0 2.3

Denning 883 6.3

Foraging 13,194 93.7

Unsuitable 0 0

2071002 (17,941 ac) 13,364 100 

Roads 8.1 0 10.3 0 8.1 0 8.1 2.2 10.3 0 8.1 0

Trails 0 3.1 0.8 0 0 2.3 4.2 6.8 7.8 1.3 4.6 3.0

Denning 271 2.0

Foraging 7,430 55.6

Unsuitable 5,663 42.4

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 289
DRAMVU

67

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

2071001 (17,475 ac) 17,066 100 

Roads 27.1 10.4 25.8 8.4 25.8 8.4 23.7 10.5 25.8 8.4 25.8 8.4

Trails 4.2 3.4 4.6 1.3 4.6 3.0 3.4 2.1 1.7 0 0.8 0

Denning 774 4.5

Foraging 13,757 80.6

Unsuitable 2,535 14.9

2070804 (34,872 ac) 9,688 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,066 11.0

Foraging 8,622 89.0

Unsuitable 0 0

2070706 (37,792 ac) 14,103 100 

Roads 22.7 0 22.7 0 21.3 0 22.7 0 22.7 0 21.3 0

Trails 1.1 0.6 0.8 0 0.8 0 0 4.8 0.8 0 0 0

Denning 954 6.8

Foraging 13,149 93.2

Unsuitable 0 0

2070705 (15,167 ac) 11,110 100 

Roads 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 2.1

Trails 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 917 8.3

Foraging 10,193 91.7

Unsuitable 0 0

2070703 (15,524 ac) 9,552 100 Rd/Trl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 239 2.5

Foraging 7,934 83.1

Unsuitable 1,379 14.4

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 290
Biological Assessment for Canada lynx and wolverine

68

LAU (acres)

Habitat

Lynx 

Habitat 

acres

Percent of 

lynx 

habitat 

w/in LAU

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

2070702 (46,009 ac) 36,269 100 

Roads 16.8 1.0 16.8 1.0 16.8 1.0 16.8 1.0 16.8 1.0 16.8 1.0

Trails 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1

Denning 2,160 6

Foraging 31,878 87.9

Unsuitable 2,231 6.2

2070603 (24,204 ac) 8,878 100 

Roads 1.6 0 1.6 0 1.6 0 1.6 0 1.6 0 1.6 0

Trails 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 331 3.7

Foraging 8,547 96.3

Unsuitable 0 0

2070602 (22,622 ac) 15,122 100 

Roads 6.2 0 6.2 0 6.2 0 6.2 0 6.2 0 6.2 0

Trails 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 1,230 8.1

Foraging 13,892 91.9

Unsuitable 0 0

2070601 (23,081 ac) 20,372 100 

Roads 11.5 0 11.5 0 11.5 0 11.5 0 11.5 0 11.5 0

Trails 10.7 0 6.6 0 1.6 0 6.6 0 1.6 0 0 0

Denning 2,486 12.2

Foraging 17,886 87.8

Unsuitable 0 0

2070502 (27,737 ac) 10,978 100 

Roads 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.5 0

Trails 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denning 632 5.8

Foraging 10,345 94.2

Unsuitable 0 0

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 291
DRAMVU

69

54 LAUs 

(1,685,440 acres)

Acres of 

lynx 

habitat 

(981,246) 

Percent

FS Roads and Motorized Trails in Lynx Habitat (Does not include other jurisdiction or closed yearlong roads)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng Seas Yrlng

Roads 302.5 288.6 321.4 263.5 375.8 193.7 321.1 282.2 405.4 180.0 478.8 94.6

Trails 47.3 232.8 34.7 134.8 24.0 31.2 33.4 188.7 135.9 31.2 37.9 14.0

Denning 139,188 14.2

Foraging 814,828 83.0

Unsuitable 27,230 2.8

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 292
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 1

Attachment 4 - Forest Plan Amendment

Project –Specific Amendment Would Apply to the DRAMVU Project Only

Nez Perce National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan

Amendment No. 40

The purpose of this amendment is to allow wheeled motorized vehicles on specifically identified 

local roads in the winter, in Management Area 16– Elk/Deer Winter Range, only for the 

DRAMVU project.

The Nez Perce Forest Plan Standard for Wildlife – Access Management (Page III-46) currently 

reads as follows:

“1. Restrict all roads except specifically-identified arterials and collectors during winter 

to reduce disturbance, harassment, and poaching of animals. Roads to be open shall be 

identified on the motor vehicle use map.”

Standard #1 directs the use of certain roads as restricted in winter, in Elk/Deer winter range. The 

current conditions of certain roads in Management Area 16 do not meet this standard because 

they have not been restricted in winter.

This project-specific amendment exempts the DRAMVU project from the Wildlife – Access 

Management Standard #1 for certain roads within Management Area 16 to allow certain local 

roads to remain open to wheeled motorized use in the winter (Table ROD-5). In elk and deer 

winter range, this alternative will designate 39 miles of local roads as open for wheeled 

motorized use in winter, while 19 miles would be closed during winter. Sixty miles of road 

would remain closed yearlong to motorized vehicle use.

The DRAMVU decision specifically-identifies arterials and collectors that would be open for use 

in winter (Table ROD-6) and displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. Approximately 63 miles 

of arterial/collector roads would be designated as open yearlong and five miles as closed. This is 

consistent with the standard.

*** End of Amendment ***
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 2

Table ROD-5. Alternative 5 Modified - Forest Plan Amendment for Local Roads in 

Management Area 16. 

Road 

Number Name DISTRICT Provides access to:

Road Miles 

in 

Winter Range

Designation1

1100 SOUTH FORK 

CAMPGROUND Clearwater Campground 0.11 OYA

1108 MCALLISTER 

PICNIC AREA Clearwater Picnic Area 0.03 OYA

1116

MEADOW 

CREEK 

CAMPGROUND

Clearwater Campground 0.09 OYA

1400 SHEEP CREEK -

Adm Site Clearwater Administrative Site 0.07 OYA

1401 BIVOUAC -

Dispersed Site Clearwater Recreation Site 0.10 OYA

1402 NELSON CREEK 

CAMPGROUND Clearwater Campground 0.08 OYA

1403 JOHN'S CREEK 

TRAILHEAD Clearwater Trailhead 0.01 OYA

1404 COUGAR CREEK 

TRAILHEAD Clearwater Trailhead 0.04 OYA

1614A ALLISON CR 

CAMP Salmon River Recreation Site 0.15 OYA

1614B SPRING BAR 

BOATING SITE Salmon River Boat Ramp 0.05 OYA

1614C SPRING BAR 

CAMP Salmon River Campground 0.21 OYA

1614C1 WELL ROAD Salmon River Administrative Site 0.06 OYA

1870 PINNACLE 

RIDGE Salmon River Access to private land and Trail 325 2.29 OSF2

1899 BIG CEDAR Clearwater

Access to State 

Land. Majority of 

road is outside 

winter range.

0.28 OYA

2005 LEGGETT 

CAMPGROUND Red River Campground 0.20 OYA

2052 GRAVE CREEK Salmon River

Accessed from 

Road 410 and Trail 

45. Small portion in 

winter range.

0.01 OYS2

2110 SILVERS ADM. 

SITE Salmon River Administrative Site 0.11 OYA

2113 BOUNDARY 

PARKING AREA Clearwater Parking Area 0.06 OYA

221G CARLSON JEEP 

ROAD Salmon River Private Property 1.61 OSF1
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 3

222K MACKAY BAR 

CAMPGROUND Salmon River

Mackay Bar CG, 

Air strip and Blue 

Bird fishing area.

1.02 OSA6

Road 

Number Name DISTRICT Provides access to: Road Miles in Winter Range Designation1

223A TRAILER COURT Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.03 OYA

223A TRAILER COURT Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.08 OYA

223D CEDAR FLATS Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.33 OYA

223E GLOVER CR Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.15 OYA

223E1 GLOVER CR Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.02 OYA

223F 25 MILE BAR Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.06 OYA

223G YOUTH CAMP Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.07 OYA

223H DUMPSTER 

SITE Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.11 OYA

223I BOYD CR Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.05 OYA

223I1 BOYD CR Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.03 OYA

223J FENN POND Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.02 OYA

223K HISTORICAL 

RANGER STATI Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.03 OYA

223L CCC 

TRAILHEAD Moose Creek Trailhead 0.05 OYA

223M RACKLIFF CAMP Moose Creek Campground 0.04 OYA

223M1 RADCLIFF SPUR Moose Creek Campground 0.02 OYA

223N LOWER 

JOHNSON CR Moose Creek Recreation Site 0.38 OYA

223N1

LOWER 

JOHNSON CR 

SPUR

Moose Creek Recreation Site 0.15 OYA

223O 20 MILE Moose Creek Recreation Site 0.03 OYA

223P SLIDE CR Moose Creek Recreation Site 0.04 OYA

223P1 SLIDE CR Moose Creek Recreation Site 0.06 OYA

223Q RACETRACK 

PARKING Moose Creek Parking Area 0.13 OYA

223T RACE CREEK 

CAMPGROUND Moose Creek Campground 0.13 OYA

223W SELWAY FALLS 

WORKCENTER Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.17 OYA

223Z FENN R S Moose Creek Administrative Site 0.38 OYA

290 INDIAN HILL Moose Creek

Indian Hill LO, 

traditional season of 

use.

0.19 OYA

290 INDIAN HILL Moose Creek

Indian Hill LO, 

traditional season of 

use.

5.74 OSF4

307 MUD SPRINGS Red River

Access to private 

property. Remainder 

of road not in winter 

range.

1.33 OYA

309B HUNGRY RIDGE 

SPUR (4 segments) Clearwater

Access to Trail 

401/Private 

Property 1.41

OYA

319 FOG MOUNTAIN Moose Creek Big Fog Saddle and 

Trails 31, 343, 693 5.91 OSF4
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 4

319A FOG SADDLE Moose Creek Fog Mtn Saddle 0.20

OSF4

Road 

Number Name DISTRICT Provides access to: Road Miles in Winter Range Designation1

354 SLATE CREEK Salmon River

Access to Slate 

Creek and Road 

354G, Trailheads 

301, 309, 329. Main 

route.

0.17 OYA

354F HURLEY CREEK Salmon River

Short spur off Road 

354 to Trailhead 

324 and campsites.

0.16 OYA

354B N F SLATE CR -

Campground Salmon River Campground 0.08 OYA

354G LITTLE SLATE 

Trailhead Salmon River Trailhead 0.43 OYA

410 RACE CREEK Salmon River

Access to Road 

2052 and Trail 45 

that are outside of 

winter range. 

Access from private 

lands limits use.

1.39 OYS2

443

AMERICAN 

RIVER -

SELWAY

Moose Creek

Access to Falls 

Point, Selway Falls 

CG, Slims Camp. 

Main Route.

2.94 OSF4

443

AMERICAN 

RIVER -

SELWAY

Moose Creek

Access to Falls 

Point, Selway Falls 

CG, Slims Camp. 

Main Route.

1.48 OYA

443D SELWAY FALLS 

CAMP Moose Creek Access to Selway Falls Camp 0.11 OYA

484 FISHER PLACER Red River

Access to private 

property. Access to 

other roads outside 

winter range.

2.41 OYA

487B LOWER TONY 

SPRING Salmon River

Only small portion 

of road is in winter 

range.

0.03 OYA

492 SANTIAM 

SOURDOUGH Red River

Access to 

Sourdough CG, 

Lookout. 

Sourdough Decision 

2011

0.41 OYA

517C Salmon River

Short spur off 

R517 for dispersed 

camping.

0.14 OYA

536 KEATING RIDGE Salmon River

Access to Road 

221. Very small 

portion of road in 

winter range.

0.19 OYA
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 5

546 CASTLE CR. 

CAMPGROUND Clearwater Campground 0.01 OYA

546A CASTLE CR. 

CMPGRND SPUR Clearwater Campground 0.05 OYA

Road 

Number Name DISTRICT Provides access to: Road Miles in Winter Range Designation1

652 SOUTH SIDE Moose Creek

Access to State 

lands and short road 

in winter range.

0.39 OYA

76049 Salmon River Secondary access to 

private property. 0.19 OSF3

9337 WALKER ROAD 

(6 segments) Salmon River

Access to private 

property. Road 

travels on/off Forest 

difficult to 

administer use.

2.35 OYA

9448 BROWNS CREEK 

(2 segments Clearwater Access to State stockpile site. 0.10 OYA

9728 CRANE HILL

(2 segments) Clearwater

Access to private 

property. Mixed 

jurisdiction.

0.69 OYA

9868 JOE REED Red River

Starts on BLM land 

in Elk City 

township, and is all 

in winter range 

(small area). 

Consistency for 

access to small 

vehicles.

0.70 OYS1

9900 BERG RANCH Salmon River Access to private 

property. 0.89 OYA

Total Miles of Local Road in winter range in Amendment 39.3

1 Road Designation Descriptions– See also FEIS-Appendix B.

• OYA – Open Yearlong to All Vehicles (1/1 – 12/31).

• OSF1 – Open Seasonally to Full Size Vehicle (4/2 – 11/30), Open Yearlong to < 50” 

Vehicles (1/1-12/31).

• OSF2 – Open Seasonally to Full Size Vehicle (4/2 – 11/30); &

Open Yearlong to < 50” Vehicles (1/1-12/31), except motorcycles (4/2-11/30).

• OSF3 – Open Seasonally to Full Size Vehicle (6/16 – 11/30), Open Yearlong to < 50” 

Vehicles (1/1-12/31).

• OSF4 – Open Seasonally to Full Size Vehicle (6/16 – 11/4), Open Yearlong to < 50” 

Vehicles (1/1-12/31).

• OSA6 – Open Seasonally to All Vehicles (9/8-6/19).

• OYS1 or OYS2 – Open Yearlong to < 50” Vehicles (1/1-12/31).

• RYA – Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 6

Table ROD-6. Alternative 5 Modified - Designations on Arterial/Collector Roads in 

Management Area 16. 

Road 

Number

Road 

Name District Access to :

Road Miles

in

Winter 

Range

Designation1

1858 NEWSOME 

CREEK. Red River Traditional main route 1.9 OYA

1875 BLUE RIDGE Red River

Access to Trailhead. Past 

decision on WingTwenty-mile EIS/ROD0.5 OYA

2025 SKOOKUMCHUCK

Salmon 

River

Connects with County 

Roads. Main route. 0.1 OYA

221 GRANGEVILLE 

SALMON

Clearwater 

and Salmon 

River

Connects with County 

Road and access to 

private property. Early 

access into Allison Creek. 

Main route.

5.0 OYA

223 SELWAY 

RIVER

Moose 

Creek

Access to multiple 

dispersed camping sites 

along the river, Fenn RS 

and multiple recreational 

point of interest yearlong. 

Main route.

12.9 OYA

241 BEAN CREEK Salmon 

River

Access through winter 

range to larger landbase

outside winter range. 

Access to private 

property. Main route.

2.5 OYA

263 BERG MTN Salmon 

River

Access to large area 

outside winter range. 

Main route.

4.4 OYA

263 BERG MTN Salmon 

River

Access to area in winter 

range, has a seasonal 

restriction in place now.

1.7 OSA4

317 Coolwater Road Moose 

Creek

Access to Coolwater 

Lookout and wilderness 

trailheads 206, 703. 

Current seasonal 

designation.

1.2 OSF4

354 SLATE CREEK Salmon 

River

Access to Slate Creek and 

Road 354G, Trailheads 

301, 309, 329. Main 

route.

3.9 OYA

469 (FDR) 

PEASLEY CR Clearwater

See Peasley Creek Road 

decision 2011. Travel 

through winter range to 

other areas.

2.9 OYA
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 4 – FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT  PAGE 7

Road ID Name District Access to :

Road Miles

in

Winter 

Range

Designation1

470 (FDR) 

SWIFTWATER

Moose 

Creek

Access to some private 

property. Highway 

District use. Main route.

1.4 OYA

470 (FDR) 

SWIFTWATER

Moose 

Creek

Access to some private 

property. Highway 

District use. Main route.

5.0 OYA

487 (FDR) Salmon 

River

Access to private 

property. Main route. 1.2 OYA

492

(FDR) 

SANTIAM 

SOURDOUGH

Red River

Access to Sourdough CG, 

Lookout. Sourdough 

Decision 2011

2.4 OYA

517 SQUAW 

CREEK

Salmon 

River

Small portion of road in 

winter range. Access to 

larger area outside winter 

range. Access to portal to 

Hell Canyon Wilderness 

Area, Windy Saddle and 

Seven Devils CGs. 

Traditional main route.

0.5 OYA

624

(FDR) 

WHITEBIRD 

RIDGE

Salmon 

River

Access to checkerboard 

and private property. 

Main route.

0.8 OYA

648 (FDR) LOWER 

COUGAR Clearwater Access to private property. 5.1 OYA

649 (FDR) SILVERLEGGETT Red River

Access to other lands 

outside winter range. 

Main route.

1.7 OYA

651 (FDR) HAMBY 

FORK

Moose 

Creek Main route. 8.5 OYA

672

(FDR/PO) 

CROOKED 

ROAD

Red River Manage with Highway 

District. Main route. 1.1 OYA

9730

(FDR) 

COUGAR 

RIDGE

Clearwater

Access to multiple spur 

roads that are closed 

yearlong.

3.6 RYA

Total Miles of Arterial/Collector Roads in Winter Range 68.1

The End of Attachment 4
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 1

Attachment 5 – Consistency with Nez Perce Forest Plan and other Laws and Regulations

Nez Perce Forest Plan

Goals

Resource Area Goal Compliance Will

Be Achieved by

Recreation Forestwide Provide a wide range of dispersed and 

developed recreation opportunities and 

experiences by providing access, facilities, 

and education necessary to meet public 

demand.

The selected actions 

will provide a wide 

variety recreation 

opportunities

Recreation Forestwide Protect Forest resources to allow for their 

safe and orderly use.

The selected actions 

will designate use of 

motorized vehicles on 

the forest road and trail 

system, moving toward 

and safe and orderly 

use.

Facilities, Roads and Trails Forestwide Provide a stable and cost-efficient 

transportation system through construction, 

reconstruction, maintenance, or transportation 

system management

The selected actions 

will designate use of 

motorized vehicles on 

the forest road and trail 

system.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Forestwide Protect and enhance identified, outstandingly 

remarkable values and free flowing condition 

of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

The selected actions 

will move toward 

protection and enhance 

identified, 

outstandingly 

remarkable values and 

free flowing condition 

of Wild and Scenic 

Rivers.

Wildlife Forestwide Provide and maintain a diversity and quality 

of habitat to support viable populations of 

native and desirable non-native wildlife 

species.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Wildlife Forestwide Provide habitat to contribute to the recovery 

of Threatened and Endangered plant and 

animal species in accordance with approved 

recovery plans. Provide habitat to ensure the 

viability of those species identified as 

sensitive.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 2

Wildlife Forestwide Recognize and promote the intrinsic 

ecological and economic value of wildlife 

and wildlife habitats. Provide high quality 

and quantity of wildlife habitat to ensure 

diversified recreational use and public 

satisfaction.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Soils Forestwide Maintain soil productivity and minimize any 

irreversible impacts to the soil resource.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Water Forestwide Maintain or enhance stream channel stability 

and favorable conditions for water flow. 

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Water Forestwide Provide water of sufficient quality to meet or 

exceed Idaho State Water Quality Standards 

and local and downstream beneficial uses.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Fisheries Forestwide Provide and maintain a diversity and quality 

of habitat that ensures a harvestable surplus 

of resident and anadromous game fish 

species.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Fisheries Forestwide Provide habitat to contribute to the recovery 

of Threatened and Endangered plant and 

animal species in accordance with approved 

recovery plans. Provide habitat to ensure the 

viability of those species identified as 

sensitive.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Riparian Areas Forestwide Manage riparian areas to maintain cover and 

security for riparian-dependent species with 

emphasis on maintaining and enhancing 

habitats for threatened and endangered 

species. 

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Riparian Areas Forestwide Protect or enhance riparian-dependent 

resources.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal. 

Riparian Areas Forestwide Manage riparian areas to maintain cover and 

security for riparian-dependent species with 

emphasis on maintaining and enhancing 

habitats for threatened and endangered 

species.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 3

PACFISH Forestwide • Maintain or restore water quality to 

a degree that provides for stable and 

productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems

• Maintain or restore diversity and 

productivity of native and desired non-native 

plant communities in riparian zones

• Maintain or restore riparian and 

aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique 

genetic fish stocks that evolved within the 

specific geo-climatic region; and

• Maintain or restore habitat to 

support populations of well-distributed native 

and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and 

invertebrate populations that contribute to the 

viability of riparian-dependent communities.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Rare Plants Forestwide Provide habitat to contribute to the recovery 

of Threatened and Endangered plant and 

animal species in accordance with approved 

recovery plans. Provide habitat to ensure the 

viability of those species identified as 

sensitive.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.

Social and Economic Forestwide Provide a sustained yield of resource outputs 

at a level that will help support the economic 

structure of local communities and provide 

for regional and national needs.

Not considered because 

no alternatives propose 

access developments.

Cultural Resource Forestwide Locate, protect, and interpret significant 

prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources.

The selected actions 

will move toward this 

goal.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 4

Management Area Intent and Direction

Management

Area

Management Intent Appendix Q Direction Compliance Achieved by

1

Rock outcrops, 

scree, or areas 

of shallow 

soils along 

canyons and 

major 

drainages

Provide the minimum management 

necessary to provide for resource 

protection and to ensure public 

safety. Additional road construction 

will be allowed to manage adjacent 

areas.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails 

and areas are closed unless

displayed as open

on the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Does not apply to the DRAMVU 

project actions. No new activities 

are planned in this management 

area.

2

Ranger stations, 

work centers, 

and other 

administrative 

sites

Provide and maintain sites for 

facilities necessary for the 

administration of Nez Perce 

National Forest lands.

Does not apply to the DRAMVU 

project actions.

3

Cultural 

resource areas

Manage to ensure that prehistorical, 

historical, archaeological, and/or 

paleontological sites are studied, 

preserved, or protected.

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Cultural 

Resource Section and Standards 

below.

4

Mineral 

extraction and 

processing 

operations

Encourage valid exploration and 

development of mineral resources 

while minimizing surface impacts 

from mineral activities.

Does not apply to the DRAMVU 

project actions.

6

Research 

Natural Areas

Manage areas for non-manipulative 

research, observation, and study of 

undisturbed ecosystems.

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Research 

Natural Area Section and Standards 

below.

7

Developed 

recreation sites

Manage for developed recreation 

opportunities, providing 

interpretation and enhancement of 

cultural and natural resources. 

Maintain or enhance existing 

developed recreation sites.

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Recreation

Section. See Standards below.

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

8.1

"Wild" portion 

of the Salmon

Wild and Scenic 

River corridor Manage for outstandingly

remarkable values and free-flowing 

river conditions as specified in the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 

as amended.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails and areas

are closed unless

displayed as open

on the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map.

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Wild and 

Scenic River Section. See Standards 

below.

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

8.2

"Recreational" 

portion of the 

Middle Fork of 

the Clearwater

Wild and Scenic 

River corridor

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Wild and 

Scenic River Section. See Standards 

below.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 5

Management

Area

Management Intent Appendix Q Direction Compliance Achieved by

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

8.2

Wild" portion of 

the Middle Fork of 

the Clearwater 

Wild and Scenic 

River corridor

&

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

8.3

"Wild" portion of 

Rapid River Wild 

and Scenic River 

corridor

Manage for outstandingly 

remarkable values and freeflowing river conditions as 

specified in the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act of 1968, as amended.

Wild River—Motorized 

Recreation Prohibited

See FEIS, Chapter 3 – Wild and 

Scenic River Section. See 

Sandards below.

9.1, 9.2, 9.3

Selway Bitterroot 

Wilderness

Gospel-Hump 

Wilderness

Frank ChurchRiver of No Return 

Wilderness

Hells Canyon 

Wilderness

Manage the wilderness values as 

specified by the Wilderness 

Preservation Act of 1964.

Motorized recreation

prohibited

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

changes to wilderness areas are 

proposed.

See also FEIS, Chapter 3, Wild 

and Scenic River Section –

Salmon River

10

Lakes, lakeside 

lands, perennial 

streams, riparian 

areas

Manage to protect or enhance 

riparian-dependent resources.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails

and areas

are closed unless

displayed as open

on the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

See FEIS – Chapter 3, Aquatic 

Resources. See Standards 

below.

11

Forested lands 

that are, for the 

most part, 

unroaded

Manage for high fishery/water 

quality objectives, wildlife 

security, and high quality 

dispersed recreation with no 

additional roads.

See FEIS –Chapter 3, Idaho 

Roadless Areas; Wildlife, 

Aquatic Resources. and 

Standards below.

12

Forest Land

Manage for timber production and 

other multiple uses on a sustained 

yield basis.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.

13

Forest Land

Manage for timber production and 

other multiple uses on a sustained 

yield basis while meeting visual 

quality objectives of retention or 

partial retention on those areas of 

medium to high visual sensitivity. 

This management area consists of 

intermingled acreages of lands 

similar to those found in 

management areas 12 and 17. The 

heterogeneous spatial mix of these 

lands is the primary reason for 

identifying them as unique 

management areas.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 6

Management

Area

Management Intent Appendix Q Direction Compliance Achieved by

14

Forest Land

Manage for timber production and 

other multiple uses on a sustained 

yield basis while meeting visual 

quality objectives of retention or 

partial retention and improving the 

quality of winter range habitat for 

deer and elk. This management 

area consists of intermingled 

acreages of lands similar to those 

found in management areas 12, 16, 

and 17. The heterogeneous spatial 

mix of these lands is the primary 

reason for identifying them as 

unique management areas.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails

and areas

are closed unless

displayed as open

on the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.

15

Forest Land

Manage for timber production and 

other multiple uses on a sustained 

yield basis while improving the 

quality of deer and elk winter 

range. This management area 

consists of intermingled acreages 

of lands similar to those found in 

management areas 12 and 16. The 

heterogeneous spatial mix of these 

lands is the primary reason for 

identifying them as unique 

management areas.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails and areas

are closed unless

displayed as open

on the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.

16

Elk and Deer 

Winter Range

Manage to increase usable forage 

for elk and deer on potential 

winter range.

See FEIS Chapter 3, Wildlife.

See Standards below.

17

Forest Land

Manage for timber production and 

other multiple uses on a sustained 

yield basis while meeting visual 

quality objectives of retention or 

partial retention.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.

18

Forest Land

Manage to improve the quality of 

winter range habitat for deer and 

elk through timber harvesting or 

prescribed burning while meeting 

visual quality objectives of 

retention or partial retention on 

appropriate areas. This 

management area consists of 

intermingled acreages of lands 

similar to those found in 

management areas 16 and 17. The 

heterogeneous spatial mix of these 

lands is the primary reason for 

identifying them as unique 

management areas.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 7

Management

Area

Management Intent Appendix Q Direction Compliance Achieved by

19

Primary rangeland 

and Grasslands

Manage for livestock forage 

production and other multiple uses 

on a sustained yield basis.

Motorized recreation 

generally suited.

Roads, trails and areas

are closed unless

displayed as open

on the 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

See FEIS – Chapter 3. 

Vegetation. See Standards 

below.

20

Old Growth Habitat

Manage for old-growth habitat for 

dependent species.

Does not apply to the 

DRAMVU project actions. No 

standards related to road or trail 

management apply. No new 

activities are planned in this 

management area.

21

Moose Winter 

Habitat

Manage grand fir-Pacific yew 

communities for moose winter 

range and other multiple uses.

See FEIS – Chapter 3. Wildlife 

and MA 21 and Standards 

below.

22

Wall Creek 

Municipal 

Watershed

23

Elk Creek 

Municipal 

Watershed

Manage to ensure that the Idaho 

water quality standards for 

community public supply water 

uses are met.

See FEIS -Chapter 3 – Aquatic 

Resources. MA 22 and 23. See

Standards below.
Nez Perce National Forest

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY  PAGE 1

Standards

Recreation, including Wilderness Management Plans

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Forest Plan Standards–Recreation

Recreation

Forest-wide 1

Develop and administer an 

operating plan, consistent with 

management area goals for 

each outfitter and, when 

appropriate, for other 

recreation special use 

permittees.

The selected actions will affect special use 

Outfitter and Guide permittees, where a change in 

motorized or non-motorized opportunity is within 

an outfitters operating area.

Recreation

Forest-wide 2

Provide for appropriate access 

based on an evaluation of user 

needs and a transportation 

analysis.

The selected actions will change access 

designations on the forest with this project and 

have been evaluated within the FEIS.

Recreation

Forest-wide 3

Manage for a full array of 

recreational opportunities, 

from Primitive to Roaded 

Natural, as described by the 

Recreational Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). 

The Forest Plan anticipated changes in ROS over 

time to a more Roaded Natural setting. The 

Forest Plan Objective states that Primitive 

recreation acreage will remain the same as 40% 

of the forest; Semi-Primitive Motorized and Nonmotorized Recreation acreages will decrease 

from 39% to 11%, and Roaded Natural acreage 

will increase from 21% to 49%. (USDA – FS 

1987, Pg II-2).

The selected actions will change the percentage 

within each ROS Class across the Forest based on 

road and trail designations. (See FEIS ROS map

48). Ongoing and future activities on the Forest 

will also have the potential to modify the ROS 

offered. These activities would be evaluated at 

the project scale.

The following are in comparison to the proposed 

objectives in the Forest Plan for ROS settings. 

Alternative 5 Modified meets the predicted 

offering of 40% for Primitive recreational 

opportunities and slightly increases the 

opportunities within the Semi-Primitive NonMotorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized 

settings. The selected alternative maintains the 

percentage of Roaded Natural setting.

For Management Areas 1 through 23, Road and 

trail designations for Motorized use is with the 

selected alternative is consistent with ROS 

direction (FEIS Table 3-17). Alternative 5

Modified reflects a recent decision on access 

within the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River 

corridors.

See also FEIS ROS Effects, as well as W&S 

Rivers, RNAs, Cultural Resources, Aquatic 

Resources, and Wildlife sections.

Recreation

Forest-wide 4

Create additional 

opportunities for winter 

recreation where user needs 

indicate. 

No changes are planned with this project
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 2

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Recreation

Forest-wide 5

Encourage users to assist in 

the maintenance and 

development of recreation 

sites and facilities. 

Sites or facilities are not being planned.

Recreation

Forest-wide 6

Mitigate the physical impacts 

of increased dispersed 

recreation use. Rehabilitation 

efforts will be based on 

resource damage to soils, 

water, and vegetation. Efforts 

may include closing the site 

for the short or long term, 

revegetation by seed or plants, 

signing, visitor contact, and 

printed material.

The selected actions will change access to 

dispersed recreation sites. These changes will be

consistent with this standard. Future NEPA 

analysis may address revegetation efforts on 

dispersed recreation sites.

Recreation

Forest-wide 7 Maintain seasonal access to wilderness portals.

The selected actions will maintain access to 

Wilderness portals.

Recreation

Forest-wide 9

Review and update the motor 

vehicle use map to reflect 

access decisions. 

Designate areas for offhighway vehicle (OHV) use 

on the motor vehicle use map 

and in conformance with ROS 

designations for specific areas. 

Manage off-highway vehicle 

use to minimize resource 

damage and to promote public 

safety.

Designate areas for off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use through the 

Forest Plan and in 

conformance with ROS 

designations for specific areas.

Forest Travel Plan and Access Guide will be 

replaced by the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) and updated annually.

The selected actions will move toward minimizing 

resource damage and promoting public safety for 

use by OHVs.

No areas, as defined by the Travel Management 

Rule, have been designated for off-highway 

vehicle use. Road and Trail routes would be 

designated for motorized use on the MVUM, with 

the exception of over-the-snow vehicle use.

(See FEIS ROS discussion.)

Forest Plan Standards–Wilderness

Wilderness 

Forest-wide 1-10 Wilderness Management 

Direction

No treatment is proposed in any Wilderness.

No Wilderness trails are proposed for motorized 

trail opportunities

In addition to the Forest Plans, additional 

direction is contained within the specific 

Management Plans developed for the Gospel 

Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and 

Selway Bitterroot Wilderness areas. The selected 

actions will be consistent with these management 

plans.

The selected actions will change Prohibition 11 in 

the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness 

Plan.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 3

Resource

Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan

Recreation—Salmon River (2-63-75) (in FEIS under WSR) 

Frank Church 

River of No 

Return 

Wilderness 

Management 

Plan -

Salmon River 

WSR

General 1

Manage the ROS Setting 

(encounters) as SemiPrimitive Motorized. Number 

of encounters with other 

groups will have low to 

moderate contact frequency.

The selected actions will designate motorized 

use consistent with the ROS setting for the 

Salmon River.

Frank Church 

River of No 

Return 

Wilderness 

Management 

Plan -

Salmon River 

WSR

Prohibitions 11

The Painter Bar Road is 

closed to motorized vehicles, 

(upriver of the Mackay Bar 

Campground, USDA Forest 

Service 2003).

The selected actions will not completely close 

Road 222K after the Mackay Bar Campground. 

The designation is based on Nez Perce National 

Forest negotiations in 2008 motorized use above 

the MacKay Bar Campground is restricted: 

along 1.4 miles from June 20 to September 7 

(1.4 miles) and the last 1.2 miles yearlong. 

The selected actions will change management of 

Road 222K from the Frank Church River of No 

Return Wilderness Management Plan decision.

 Roads and Trails, including Management Areas 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Forest Plan Standards–Roads and Trails

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 2

Analyze economics of proposed access 

developments using proven tools, and 

incorporate them into the project design.

No new access developments are

selected. See proposed.

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 3

Evaluate all facilities using the Access 

Management Analysis Worksheet to determine 

use restrictions and access needs.

These documents and analysis were 

completed for the selected actions. 

(See project file for evaluations. 

See also Attachment 2 for road and 

trail access designations.)

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 4

Implement Access Management Plan to monitor 

and evaluate effects of access on forest 

resources and the ability of the transportation 

system to accomplish the designed use. Use the 

Road Density Index and Distribution Index as 

monitoring tools.

This standard is intended for 

application on a forest-wide basis; 

however, this project will apply the 

current policy relative to travel 

management.

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 5

Maintain access facilities to a level 

commensurate with use, user type, user safety, 

and facility-resource protection.

Under ongoing activities, access 

facilities will be maintained through 

regular maintenance, subject to 

funding availability.

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 6

Plan, design, and manage all access to meet land 

and resource management objectives, meet the 

State Water Quality Standards, and meet Best 

Management Practices (BMPs).

Access needs and opportunities 

were addressed in this analysis. 

(See Watershed section of the 

FEIS).

Roads & Trails

Forest-wide 10

Roads, Trails or Areas will be closed to 

motorized use unless displayed as open on the 

motor vehicle use map.

Forest Plan - Appendix Q - Motorized/Nonmotorized Recreation Management by 

Management Area

Following the decision, a Nez Perce 

National Forest Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) will be developed

and updated annually.

Appendix Q illustrates how 

motorized and non-motorized 

recreation would be managed 

within each Management Area.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 4

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Forest Plan Standards–Gospel Hump Multi-purpose Resource Development Area #1

Gospel Hump

MPRDA

#1

1

Control traffic, primarily to protect wildlife 

during calving or hunting seasons, at the Twenty 

Mile Creek–Rainy Day Creek saddle (Road 

1875)

The selected actions will control 

traffic on Twenty Mile Creek–

Rainy Day Creek Saddle Road 

1875during the hunting season. The 

recent Sourdough Access Decision 

provides more site-specific 

management of this road. (See FEIS 

Appendix C.)

Gospel Hump

MPRDA

#1

The Johns Creek Trail [Snoose Creek Trail 407]

will be maintained and kept open for early 

spring and summer recreational use.

The selected actions will provide 

non-motorized opportunities in 

early spring. 

Gospel Hump

MPRDA

#1

Maintain seasonal access to wilderness portals at 

Sourdough Peak, Wildhorse Lake, and Moore's 

Cabin; Roads 233 and 233I to Wildhorse 

Campground, 444 to Square Mountain, and 492 

to Sourdough Peak will remain open for their 

traditional uses (pickups and motorcycles).

 The selected actions will maintain 

seasonal access on Gospel Road 

444 to Square Mountain and 

Moore’s Cabin.

 The selected actions will maintain 

yearlong access on Santiam 

Sourdough Road 492. The recent 

Sourdough Access Decision 

provides more site-specific 

management of this road. (See FEIS 

Appendix C.)

 The selected actions will maintain 

yearlong long Access on Crooked 

River Road 233 and on Wildhorse 

Road 233I to the Wildhorse 

Campground.

The selected action will provide 

access for vehicles greater than 50 

inches in width.

Management Area 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 – Standard

MA 12, 13, 14, 

15 and 17

Dispersed 

Recreation

1

Manage for roaded natural recreation See Recreation Standard #9 above 

and effects for ROS.

MA 12, 13, 14, 

15 and 17

Facilities 

Roads & 

Trails

1

Maintain trails to provide for user safety 

commensurate with use (MA 12, 14, 13, and 15)

See above: Recreation Standard #9 

and Transportation Standard #5.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 5

Wild and Scenic River including Management Areas 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Applicable to this Analysis

Off-route motor vehicle use within the designated corridors will be limited to existing tracks under the Conditions of Use for 

motorized access and dispersed camping described in the ROD. Monitoring for fisheries and cultural resources will help 

identify routes that may need to be closed due to their proximity to stream banks or other resource impacts. Monitoring and 

actions taken as a result of monitoring, along with managing, constructing, and maintaining trails for their designated use 

will ensure the protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of designated and eligible WSR.

Forest Plan Standards—Wild and Scenic Rivers (Designated WSR)

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forestwide

Designated 

WSR

1

Maintain or enhance the recreation, visual, wildlife, 

fisheries, and water quality values of the existing 

and proposed "Wild," "Scenic," and "Recreation" 

Rivers. 

The selected actions will maintain the 

identified values. 

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forestwide

Designated 

WSR

6

Manage for recreation experiences in context with 

the existing or proposed designation. "Wild" -

primitive or semiprimitive nonmotorized. "Scenic" 

- semiprimitive motorized or semiprimitive 

nonmotorized. "Recreation" - semiprimitive 

motorized or roaded natural. 

The Salmon River Wild and Scenic 

River has been designated as Wild. 

Yes, see specific Management 

Area 8.1 standards listed below: 

Recreation 1. The Salmon River area 

is identified as semi-primitive 

motorized to allow for motorized jet 

boat use and motorized use of selected 

roads that provide trail-head and river 

access points. 

The Middle Fork Clearwater River 

WSR has been designated as 

Recreational, and there are two parts 

of the Selway River that have been 

designated as Recreational or Wild. 

Yes, see specific Management Area 

8.2 standards listed below: Recreation 

2 and 3.

The Rapid River Wild and Scenic 

River has been designated as Wild. See 

Management Area 8.3 standards below 

- Recreation 1.

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forestwide

Designated 

WSR

8

Cultural resource surveys for location and 

identification of significant resources are 

encouraged. 

See the Cultural Resources section
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 6

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Applicable to this Analysis

Forest Plan Standards—Management Area 8.1

Salmon River Wild and Scenic River

MA 8.1

Salmon River 

WSR

Recreation

1

Manage for semiprimitive motorized and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation. Private 

and commercial recreational use of the river will 

be managed by the issuance of river permits and 

outfitter and guide permits.

The Salmon River area is identified 

for semi-primitive motorized use to 

allow for motorized jet boat use and 

motorized use of selected roads that 

provide trailhead and river access 

points. The selected actions will 

provide a mix of motorized and nonmotorized use within the Salmon 

River Wild and Scenic River. 

MA 8.1

Salmon River 

WSR

Water

1

Meet established fishery/water quality objectives 

for all prescription watersheds as shown in 

Appendix A.

See the Aquatic Resources sections.

MA 8.1

Salmon River 

WSR

Facilities 

2

Maintain existing trails commensurate with use. 

Reconstruct to provide public safety and reduce 

environmental damage.

No work on Trail 224 will be needed

to accommodate the designated nonmotorized use.

Recreation—Salmon River (2-63-75)

Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan

River Plan General 1

Manage the ROS Setting (encounters) as SemiPrimitive Motorized. Number of encounters with

other groups will have low to moderate contact 

frequency.

Proposed designation of motor vehicle 

use would be consistent with the ROS 

setting for the Salmon River.

River Plan Prohibitions 

11

The Painter Bar Road is closed to motorized 

vehicles, (upriver of the Mackay Bar 

Campground, USDA Forest Service 2003).

The selected alternative will close 

Road 222K to motorized use, upriver 

of the Mackay Bar Campground, 

consistent with Prohibition 11.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 7

Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved by

MIDDLE FORK CLEARWATER & SELWAY RIVER WSR

River Plan - General Coordinating Requirements

MF & 

Selway WSR

River Plan

General

Recreation 3 Visitor use will be distributed or limited as 

necessary to prevent loss of river values.

The selected actions will eliminate 

off-route motor vehicle use within 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. If 

unregulated use occurs it may 

adversely affect Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values through soil 

compaction, vegetation loss, and 

discharge of petroleum products. 

Future actions to confine use may be 

needed if these effects are realized. 

The selected actions will be 

consistent with the River Plan.

MF & 

Selway

WSR

River Plan

General

Transportation 

2

Locate roads and trails to avoid encroachment on 

river banks and to harmonize with objectives for 

which the river area is established.

The selected alternative will not

construct any new roads or trails in

the river corridor.

The selected actions will eliminate 

off-route motor vehicle use within 

Wild and Scenic River corridors, 

including unauthorized trails being 

established that encroach river banks. 

The location and direct effects of this 

potential is difficult to predict.

Management Guide – Prescriptions

MF & 

Selway

WSR

River Plan

Prescriptions

Recreation 5

Visitor use in the future will eventually require 

controls; registration, and scheduling of users to 

prevent loss of river values as defined in the Act. 

Restrictions on use should not be applied until they 

are absolutely necessary.

The selected actions will eliminate 

off-route motor vehicle use within the 

Wild and Scenic River corridors. The 

selected actions would implement the

Management Guides of 1973

controls. Future actions to confine use 

may be needed.

Forest Plan Standards – Management Area 8.2

Middle Fork Clearwater River (including the Selway) - Wild and Recreational River

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Recreation

2

Recreation Segment: Manage for roaded natural 

appearing or semiprimitive motorized recreation.

The selected actions provide a mix of 

motorized and non-motorized use 

within the Middle Fork Clearwater, 

including the Selway River 

Recreational Rivers.

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Recreation

3 Wild Segment: Manage for primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation. Limit use 

as necessary to protect river values.

The selected actions maintain nonmotorized trail use within the Middle 

Fork Clearwater River (Selway) Wild 

River.

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Recreation

4 Identify and protect historic, scenic, geologic, and 

archaeological sites. See the Cultural Resources section

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Wildlife

1 Restore degraded anadromous and resident fish 

habitat. See the Aquatic Resources section

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Water

1

Meet established fishery/water quality objectives 

for all prescription watersheds as shown in 

Appendix A. See the Aquatic Resources sections.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 8

Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved by

Forest Plan Standards – Management Area 8.2

Middle Fork Clearwater River (including the Selway) - Wild and Recreational River

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Facilities

1

Recreation Segment: Maintain existing roads to 

minimize adding sediment to the river. Construct 

or reconstruct as needed to enhance recreation 

values and to provide for public safety.

No new roads are proposed in the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers corridors. 

Achieved through ongoing road 

maintenance activities of existing 

roads.

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Facilities

3

Recreation Segment: Maintain or reconstruct 

[trails] to enhance recreation values, user safety, 

and reduce environmental damage.

Achieved through ongoing trail 

maintenance activities on existing 

trails.

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

MA 8.2

MF & Selway

Facilities

4 Wild Segment: Maintain or reconstruct consistent 

[trails] with wild river objectives; conform to 

wilderness requirements within wilderness.

Achieved through ongoing trail 

maintenance activities on existing 

trails.

Forest Plan Standards – Management Area 8.3

Rapid River – Wild River

Recreation

1

Manage for semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation. Monitor visitor 

use through a voluntary registration program; if use increases to a 

point where resource damage occurs, limit use through a mandatory 

permit system.

Rapid River is identified as semiprimitive non-motorized All 

alternatives management for the nonmotorized experience.

Water

1

Meet established fishery/water quality objectives for all prescription 

watersheds as shown in Appendix A See the Aquatic Resources section.

Facilities 

2 Maintain existing trails to current standards.

All trails within the Rapid River area 

are non-motorized and are currently 

managed for those uses.

Rapid River WSR

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan Appendix C, Pg 85-87

Rapid River

Wild and 

Scenic 

River 

WSR-01

Manage use of motorized and mechanical equipment to be compatible 

with the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of each river designated 

recreation, scenic, and wild consistent with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act.

All trails within the Rapid River Wild 

and Scenic Rivers would be nonmotorized under all alternatives. 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

would be protected.

Rapid River

WSR – 04

Manage recreation and administrative facilities in a manner 

compatible with protecting and enhancing the values for which the 

river was designated.

See previous standard.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 9

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved by

Forest Plan Standards – Wild and Scenic Rivers (Eligible WSR)

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forest-wide

Eligible 

WSR

1

Maintain or enhance the recreation, visual, wildlife, 

fisheries, and water quality values of the existing and 

proposed "Wild," "Scenic," and "Recreation" Rivers. 

Designated (existing) Wild and Scenic 

Rivers were addressed in the previous 

section. The Nez Perce National Forest 

does not have any proposed Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (see Regulatory 

Framework).

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forest-wide

Eligible 

WSR

2

No management activities will be carried out that 

would alter the eligibility or potential classification 

of study waterways. 

The selected actions will not alter the 

free flowing character of any eligible 

Wild and Scenic River. The selected 

actions will not adversely affect any 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value for 

any eligible Wild and Scenic River or 

change shoreline development to cause 

classification to change. 

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forest-wide

Eligible 

WSR

6

Manage for recreation experiences in context with 

the existing or proposed designation. 

"Wild" - primitive or semiprimitive nonmotorized. 

"Scenic" - semiprimitive motorized or semiprimitive 

nonmotorized. 

"Recreation" - semiprimitive motorized or roaded 

natural. 

Management direction for recreation 

experiences for existing designated 

rivers is contained in specific 

Management Area direction for MA 

8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, and is consistent with 

this item see previous sections. 

Proposed designation, as used in this 

Forest-wide Management Direction is 

interpreted by the Nez Perce National 

Forest as a river segment that has gone 

through the suitability study process 

(FSH 1902.12, Chapter 83), an EIS has 

been prepared, a decision made and a 

recommendation for designation 

proposed to Congress. The direction 

makes clear the intent that once deemed 

suitable and a river segment is proposed 

for designation, that the river areas 

would be managed for these specific 

recreation experiences. This 

interpretation allows for management of 

a variety of recreation experiences 

along rivers that are considered eligible, 

but have not yet been studied for 

suitability. There are currently no rivers 

proposed for designation. 

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers 

Forest-wide

Eligible 

WSR

8

Cultural resource surveys for location and 

identification of significant resources are 

encouraged. 

See Cultural Resources section
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 10

Wildlife including MA 11, 16 and 21and the Lynx Amendment.

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Forest Plan Standards - Wildlife

Wildlife

Forest-wide 1

Maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desirable non-native vertebrate 

wildlife species

Viable populations would continue to be 

maintained on the Forest.

Wildlife

Forest-wide 6

Use “Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Managing Summer Elk Habitat in 

Northern Idaho” to manage for and to 

assess the attainment of summer elk 

habitat objectives in project evaluations.

The Forest uses these guidelines to assess 

existing condition and effects of site specific 

projects on the Forest.

Wildlife

Forest-wide 10

Maintain or improve elk habitat at, or 

near, optimum levels by applying elk 

guidelines in key wolf areas outside 

wilderness.

The North Idaho Guidelines for Evaluating 

and Managing Summer Elk Habitat was is 

used to evaluate the effects of site specific 

projects across the Forest, not only in key wolf 

areas.

Forest Plan Standards - Riparian

Riparian

Forest-wide 5

Manage riparian areas to maintain cover 

and security for riparian-dependent 

species with emphasis on maintaining and 

enhancing habitats for threatened and 

endangered species.

See Aquatic Resource Section of the FEIS.

Forest Plan Standards – Roads and Trails

Roads & 

Trails

Forest-wide

8

Minimize impacts from construction in 

identified key riparian and wildlife areas. 

Develop rehabilitation plans for existing 

access facilities that are producing 

significant impacts on riparian-dependent 

resources.

No construction is proposed with this project 

that would impact key riparian or wildlife 

areas.

Forest Plan Management Area Direction

MA

11

Roadless

11

Goal: Manage the areas to provide for 

high quality fish and wildlife habitat and 

water quality. Provide opportunities for 

high quality, semi-primitive, dispersed 

recreation.

See Idaho Roadless Area effects analysis 

section of this document and Appendix F for 

Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness percentages 

in MA 11.

MA 16

Winter 

Range

16

Wildlife/Fish – Access Management 

Standard. “Restrict all roads except 

specifically identified arterials and 

collectors during winter to reduce 

disturbance, harassment, and poaching of 

animals. Roads to be closed shall be 

identified in the Forest Travel Plan.”

The selected alternative includes a project 

specific Forest Plan Amendment (See 

Attachment 4 and FEIS, Appendix D) for 

detailed effects analysis. 

This alternative restricts motorized use in 

winter range on more roads that the existing 

condition, except on the roads under the 

amendment. Road designations are identified 

in Attachment 2 and 4 and all motorized routes 

would be identified on the Forest MVUM 

map.

MA 21

Moose 

Winter 

Range

21

Wildlife-Fish Standard: “Close all but 

specifically-identified roads during the fall 

and winter.”

The selected alternative general restricts 

motorized use in winter range by reducing the 

amount of roads open in fall and/or winter in 

winter range. All alternatives specifically 

identify road designations - See the following 

table (FEIS, Chapter 3, Wildlife Section –

Shiras Moose and project file).
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 11

Alternative 5, as modified. Specific roads and trails remaining open in moose winter range 

during fall and winter, or fall but not winter

Roads Open in Alternative 5, as modified

1103 1808F 1858A,D,H,I1 443 9437

1103A,B 1826 2021 464 9438

1106 1826A, B, C, 2021A, A2 471 9440

1107 1826D,D1, E 2022A 471B,C,E 9474

1111 1826F, G, G1 2023 478 9531

1121 1831 2024 492 9531A

1124 1831A,B,C,D 244 522H1, I 9532A

1150 1832 244B, C 648 9701

1151 1832C 279 649 9800

1166 1847 279C 650 9814

1172 1851 283 651 9814A,B,C,D

1185 1851A 283B 76886 9852

1199 1852 284 78556 9852A, B

1199A 1857 286 9435 9862

1808 1858 356 9436 9862A, A1

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Lynx

Forestwide

Standard 

ALL S1

New or expanded permanent 

developments and vegetation 

management projects must maintain 

habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or 

linkage area.

New trails 1, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx Habitat.

The selected actions do not propose any 

vegetation management activities.

The selected actions will maintain habitat 

connectivity in LAUs, because road and trails 

proposed for designation currently existing 

on the landscape except proposed new trails 

that do not occur within lynx habitats.

The selected actions will maintain or improve 

habitat connectivity in linkage areas.

Lynx

Forestwide

Guideline 

HU G3 –

Recreation 

developments

Recreation developments and operations 

should be planned in ways that both 

provide for lynx movement and maintain 

the effectiveness of lynx habitat.

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management 

Direction (NRLMD 2007) does not have any 

specific management direction for summer 

motorized access other than taking lynx 

conservation into consideration before 

upgrading roads to be able to provide faster 

or substantially more traffic. Unpaved forest 

roads are not considered a direct threat to 

lynx or their movement. Lynx appear, in 

general, to have low susceptibility to 

displacement by humans during spring, 

summer, and fall (USDI 2003).

The selected actions will restrict off-route 

motor vehicle use, except over-snow 

vehicles, to designated roads and trails. This 

will provide for lynx movement and 

improved effectiveness of lynx habitat. The 

selected actions will maintain 753 miles of 

roads or trails open for motorize use (14% 

reduction).
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 12

Lynx

Forestwide

Guideline 

HU G6 –

Roads, 

upgrading

Methods to avoid or reduce effects to 

lynx should be used in lynx habitat when 

upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance 

levels 4 or 5, if the result would be 

increased traffic speeds and volumes, or 

a foreseeable contribution to increases in 

human activity or development

The selected actions would not upgrade any 

of the roads to levels 4 or 5. No roads would 

be paved with implementation of these 

actions. Some roads may change the 

maintenance levels, if designated to change, 

from motorized to non-motorized use, or vice 

versus. This will change maintenance levels 

from Level 2 or 3 to Level 1 or vice versus, 

primarily resulting in a decreased traffic 

speed, volume, and human activity with 

motorized vehicles, although some roads 

could marginally increase them.

Lynx

Forestwide

Guideline 

HU G7 –

Roads, 

locations

New permanent roads should not be built 

on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas 

identified as important for lynx habitat 

connectivity. 

New permanent roads and trails should 

be situated away from forested stringers.

No new roads are proposed to be constructed 

the selected actions. 

New trails 1, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx habitat.

Soil Resources

Resource Standard 

number Subject nummary Compliance achieved by

Soils

Forestwide1

Evaluate the potential for compaction, puddling, 

mass wasting, and soil erosion for all grounddisturbing activities 

The standard does not apply to this project 

because there are no ground disturbing 

activities proposed.

Soils

Forestwide2

A minimum of 80% of an activity area shall not be 

detrimentally compacted, displaced or puddled 

upon completion of activities. This does not apply 

to permanent facilities such as roads or trails.

The standard does not apply to broad-level 

management decisions. Activity area 

analysis will be addressed in future site 

specific projects.

Soils

Forestwide3

Maintain sufficient ground cover to minimize rill 

erosion and sloughing on road cut-and-fill slopes 

and sheet erosion on other activity areas.

The standard is met in selected alternative 

that limit motorized vehicle use to 

designated routes of the transportation 

system. No areas are designated for use

and will minimize motor vehicle use on 

road and trail cut and fill slopes and 

reduce erosion.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 13

Watershed, including MA 22 and MA 23

Resource Standard 

number Subject summary Compliance achieved by

Forest-wide Watershed Standards

Watershed

Forestwide1

Apply State water quality standards 

and "Best Management Practices" to 

land-disturbing activities to ensure 

State water quality standards are met or 

exceeded. In Idaho, "Best Management 

Practices," are defined by State 

regulation or agreement between the 

State and the Forest Service, include 

the "Idaho Forest Practices Rules," 

"Best Management Practices for Road 

Activities," and "Rules and Regulations 

and Minimum Standards For Stream 

Channel Alterations." These documents 

are appended to, and are part of, this 

Forest Plan and are available upon

request (see [Forest Plan] Appendix L).

In the absence of established "Best 

Management Practices," activities will 

be conducted in a manner that 

demonstrates a knowledgeable and 

reasonable effort to minimize adverse 

water quality impacts.

The selected actions adhere to standards 

through the removal of off-route motor 

vehicle use on the forest where current 

Nez Perce National Forest orders are not in 

place. 

New trails currently exist on the ground with 

a bridge in place at one stream crossing, 

which would minimize impacts to water 

quality.

See FEIS, Chapter 3, Aquatics Section for 

information on other state laws and 

regulations.

Watershed

Forestwide3

Evaluate site-specific water quality 

effects as part of project planning. 

Design control measures to ensure that 

projects will meet Forest water quality 

goals; projects that will not meet State 

water quality standards shall be 

redesigned, rescheduled, or dropped.

Effects were evaluated for proposed new trail 

routes and designation of motorized use. 

Watershed

Forestwide8

Meet established fishery and 

water-quality objectives for all 

prescription watersheds as shown in 

Appendix A.

The selected actions will move toward 

objectives. See also Fish standards.

Management Area 22–Wall Creek Municipal Watershed Standards

MA 22

Recreation 

Management

1. Post, with signs, roaded-access 

points into the watershed informing 

users of the municipal watershed and 

encouraging caution with potential 

pollution sources and sanitation. 

2. Discourage overnight camping near 

streams.

3. Restrict use of camp sites if 

sanitation becomes a problem. 

4. Prohibit construction of developed 

recreation sites.

5. Restrict motorized recreation 

vehicles to designated collector routes. 

1. Signs will be installed at watershed access 

points.

2 and 3. The selected actions will apply

conditions of use for motorized access for 

dispersed camping found in the decision 

would move toward this standard.

4. No developed sites are proposed with this 

project.

5. The selected actions restricts motorized

recreation vehicles to designated collector 

routes. 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 14

Resource Standard 

number Subject summary Compliance achieved by

MA 22

Facilities

Roads and Trails

1. Design mitigation measures to assure 

that the existing beneficial uses of the 

waters of the watershed will be 

protected.

2. Minimize crossings in riparian areas. 

Avoid construction parallel to streams. 

Cross streams at as near a right angle as 

practical.

3. Minimize construction of additional 

roads within the watershed.

4. Restrict road use within the 

watershed during periods of wet 

weather if water-quality standards are 

being jeopardized by erosion from road 

surfaces.

1. See ROD, Conditions of Use for motorized 

access for dispersed camping to minimize 

new disturbances. See also the Fisheries 

section for support of beneficial uses.

2. New proposed trail routes are not located in 

the Wall Creek watershed.

3. No new roads will be constructed with this 

project.

4. The selected actions will reduce the 

number of miles of road open yearlong in the

municipal watershed. 

Management Area 23–Elk Creek Municipal Watershed Standards

MA 23

Recreation 

Management

1. Post access points into the watershed 

with signs informing users of the 

municipal watershed and detailing 

sanitation requirements.

2. Discourage overnight camping near 

streams.

3. Provide sanitation facilities at 

dispersed sites if necessary.

4. Prohibit construction of developed 

recreation sites.

5. Restrict motorized recreation 

vehicles to designated collector routes.

1. Signs will be installed at watershed access 

points.

2. The conditions of use for motorized access 

for dispersed camping will move toward this 

standard.

3. No sanitation facilities are proposed with 

this the selected actions.

4. No developed sites are proposed with this 

the selected actions.

5. The selected actions will designate 

motorized use on roads and trails. The 

conditions of use for motorized access for 

dispersed camping will move toward this 

standard.

MA 23

Facilities

Roads and Trails

1. Design mitigation measures to assure 

that the existing beneficial uses of the 

waters of the watershed will be 

protected.

2. Minimize crossings in riparian areas. 

Avoid construction parallel to streams. 

Cross streams at as near a right angle as 

practical.

3. Consider opportunities to remove 

existing roads and trails from riparian 

areas if they are contributing to the 

degradation of water quality.

4. Open road density will be minimized 

to protect water quality and to meet 

other land-use management objectives.

5. Restrict road use within the 

watershed during periods of wet 

weather if water quality standards are 

being jeopardized by erosion from road 

surfaces.

1. The selected actions eliminate off-route 

motor vehicles use and designate a system of 

roads and trails for use. This will improve 

conditions for beneficial uses. In addition, the 

conditions of use for motorized access for 

dispersed camping will minimize new 

disturbances adjacent to streams. See also 

Fisheries section for support of beneficial 

uses.

2. New trail routes are not located in the Elk 

Creek watershed.

3. Road decommissioning is not proposed 

with this project.

4. The selected actions slightly reduce the 

amount of open-road density and reduce the 

season of use on roads in the middle of the 

watershed from being open yearlong to being 

seasonally open in the summer (6/15 to 9/15), 

which will also help to protect water quality 

Many roads are currently closed yearlong in 

this watershed. 

5. The selected actions adjust the season of 

use on roads and reduce use during wet 

periods. See number 4 above.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 15

Fisheries, including Management Area 10 and PACFISH

Resource Standard 

number Subject summary Compliance achieved by

Fisheries

The 1987 Forest Plan contains fish/water quality objectives and sediment yield guidelines outlined in Appendix A. The 

selected actions will move the Forest in the direction of meeting these objectives because off-route motor vehicle travel will 

be closed unless designated open, thereby reducing unregulated use of motorized vehicles that could result in effects to 

habitat such as increased sediment delivery. Establishment of conditions for off-route motorized travel associated with 

dispersed camping will further prevent damage to stream banks and riparian areas. Implementation of the monitoring plan as 

described in the ROD (Biological Assessment - Appendix F) would track the effects of motorized use at specific sites and 

determine if trends in motorized use result in unacceptable adverse effects, at which point addition actions may be proposed 

to address these effects (e.g., construction of a bridge at a ford site where motorized use is adversely affecting the stream).

Fisheries

Forestwide

3

Monitor population levels of all 

Management Indicator Species on the 

Forest. Fish include westslope 

cutthroat trout, summer steelhead, and 

spring chinook.

Cooperative efforts between Nez Perce 

National Forest, BLM, Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, USFWS, and 

NOAA Fisheries.

Fisheries

Forestwide

5

Coordinate with the Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game to achieve mutual 

goals for fish and wildlife.

Continued involvement and annual meetings 

between agencies.

Fisheries

Forestwide

19

Restore presently degraded fish habitat 

to meet Forest Plan fish/water quality 

objectives.

The selected actions will contribute to 

improved conditions (see FEIS Fisheries 

effects to Indicator 3)

Fisheries

Forestwide

20

Use “Guide for Predicting Salmonid 

Response to Sediment Yield in the 

Idaho Batholith Watersheds” to 

evaluate fish habitat and attainment of 

objectives.

FISHSED model is not capable of modeling 

effects from designation of motorized routes.

Fisheries

Forestwide

21

Meet established fishery/water quality 

objectives

Designation of motorized routes and closure of 

the Forest to off-route motor vehicle use will 

move the Forest’s watersheds toward meeting 

fish/water quality objectives. 

Fisheries

Forestwide

22

Schedule fishery habitat and watershed 

improvements in those streams where 

the existing habitat potential is below 

the stated objective. Plan how 

objectives will be met.

Fish and watershed improvements have been 

scheduled and implemented in watersheds 

identified as below objective in 1987. 

Improvement projects continue to be planned 

and implemented in partnership with IDFG 

and the Nez Perce Tribe.

Management Area 10 – Riparian Areas

MA

10

Recreation

Dispersed 

recreation

Limit and distribute use as necessary to 

protect riparian areas.

Motorized access to dispersed campsites, 

including parking will be limited with the 

selected actions.

MA

10 Roads/Trails

Motorized recreation vehicles (other 

than on-snow types) should generally 

not be allowed off of roads and trails in 

riparian areas. 

The selected actions close the forest, including 

riparian areas, from off-route motor vehicle 

use. Motorized use for dispersed camping 

could occur up to 300 feet from routes, except 

adjacent to 18 miles of road and 34 miles of 

trail. Dispersed camping will be restricted to 

existing sites. Use of motorized recreation 

vehicles will be designated on roads and trails 

on the forest.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 16

Resource Resource 

element Subject summary Compliance achieved by

MA

10 Trails

Maintain trails to reduce environmental 

damage. Design reconstruction projects to 

mitigate sediment.

The selected actions will designates 

motorized routes and establishes conditions 

of use for motorized access for dispersed 

camping and parking. It does not include 

decisions regarding trail maintenance or 

reconstruction. Future decisions would 

include this standard. 

MA

10

Water

Meet established fishery/water quality 

objectives.

Designation of motorized routes and 

closure of the Forest to off-route motor 

vehicle use will move the Forest’s 

watersheds toward meeting fish/water 

quality objectives. 

Forest Plan Amendment 20 (PACFISH)

Amendment 

20 

PACFISH

Riparian

RM-1

Design, construct, and operate recreation 

facilities, including trails and dispersed 

sites, in a manner that does not retard or 

prevent attainment of Riparian 

Management Objectives and avoid adverse 

effects on listed anadromous fish. 

Site-specific analysis of facilities in 

RHCAs, including designated motorized 

routes, is needed and has been incorporated 

into the monitoring plan for this decisoin. 

Conditions of use for motorized access for 

dispersed camping would not be expected 

to reduce the risk of future adverse effects 

to RMOs and listed anadromous fish. 

Amendment 

20

PACFISH

Riparian

RM-1 (cont’d)

Complete a Watershed Analysis prior to 

construction of new recreation facilities in 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. 

The decision for this project would not 

result in the construction of any recreation 

facility. Construction and upgrades of 

existing facilities would be covered under 

separate decisions. 

Amendment 

20 

PACFISH

Riparian

RM-1 (cont’d)

For existing recreation facilities inside 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, 

assure that the facilities, or use of the 

facilities, will not prevent attainment of 

Riparian Management Objectives or 

adversely affect listed anadromous fish. 

The action alternatives would not change 

developed recreation facilities.

Site-specific analysis of facilities in 

RHCAs, including designated motorized 

routes, is needed and has been incorporated 

into the monitoring plan for this decision. 

(see ROD, Attachment 3; and FEIS, 

Chapter 2 and Appendix F ).

Amendment 

20 

PACFISH

Riparian

RM–2

Adjust dispersed and developed recreation 

practices that retard or prevent attainment 

of Riparian Management Objectives or 

adversely affect listed anadromous fish. 

 No change to developed recreation 

facilities are proposed with this project. 

Action alternatives would reduce erosion 

and effects to riparian areas by eliminating 

off-route motorized vehicle travel and 

reducing acres available for motorized 

dispersed camping and by applying specific 

conditions of use. 

 Site-specific analysis of facilities in 

RHCAs, including designated motorized 

routes, is needed and has been incorporated 

into the monitoring plan for this decision 

(see ROD, Attachment 3; and FEIS, 

Chapter 2 and Appendix F ).

 No areas area designated for motor 

vehicle use in any action alternative and 

would be expected to maintain or enhance 

RMOs and avoid adverse effects to listed 

anadromous fish.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 17

Resource Resource 

element Subject summary Compliance achieved by

Amendment 

20 

PACFISH

Riparian

RM-3

Address attainment of RMOs and potential 

effects on listed anadromous fish and 

designated critical habitat in Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and other 

Recreation Management Plans.

Closing the Forest to off-route motor 

vehicle use would be expected to maintain 

or enhance RMOs and avoid adverse 

effects to listed anadromous fish.

See Wild and Scenic River, Wilderness and 

Recreation standards.

ESA, Range, including ESA, Management Area 6 and 19

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Endangered Species Act

Wildlife

Fisheries

Rare Plants

In compliance with sub-section 7(a)(2) 

of the Endangered Species Act a 

biological evaluation will be prepared 

(as described in FSM 2672.42) for all 

proposed management activities.

Biological assessments and evaluations 

have been prepared. See Attachment 3 and 

project file.

Forest Plan Standard – Range

Range Range

3

Confine present infestations and prevent 

establishment of new noxious weeds

Chapter 2: Design criteria.

Ongoing invasive species management.

Management Area 6 – Research Natural Areas

MA 6

Research 

Natural 

Areas

Recreation 

Management

1

Discourage or forbid recreational 

activities which impair research or 

educational values.

New trails 1, 4 or 5 are not in RNAs. 

The selected action will eliminate off-route 

motor vehicle use in RNAs.

The selected actions designate motorized 

use on road and trails in RNAs and use that 

is commensurate with RNA objectives. The 

conditions of use for dispersed camping will 

mitigate potential recreational effects to 

meet the recreational standards.

Management Area – 19 - Grasslands

MA 19

Grasslands

Range 

3

Confine present infestations and prevent 

establishment of new noxious weeds

The selected actions include design criteria.

MA 19

Grasslands

Facilities

Roads

Trails

1. Construct and reconstruct to meet 

management objectives on adjacent 

lands.

2. Maintain to provide for user safety 

and reduce environmental damage.

1. No construction is proposed.

New routes are not in MA 19.

2. The selected actions will designate use of 

motorized roads and trails and provide a 

reduction of off-route motor vehicle use in 

grasslands. The selected actions will reduce 

the potential environmental damage through 

the elimination of off-route motor vehicle 

use and through the designation of 

motorized uses on roads and trails. The 

selected actions will reduce the number of 

acres of grasslands accessible to motorized 

use.

The conditions of use for dispersed camping 

will mitigate potential recreational effects to 

meet the facilities standards.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 18

Cultural Resources, including Management Area 3

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Cultural Resources – Forest-wide

Cultural 

Resources

Forest-wide

1 Survey all areas of potential land 

disturbance for cultural resources.

The selected actions will use the North Idaho 

Travel Management Protocol that was developed 

in conjunction with the Idaho State Historic 

Preservation Office to determine how and when 

cultural properties will be identified, evaluated, 

protected and potential adverse effects mitigated 

for. The Forest will follow this protocol. 

Cultural 

Resources

Forest-wide

2 Evaluate and protect sites and 

districts...

Cultural 

Resources

Forest-wide

3 Protect American Indian religious 

and cultural sites...

Government-to-Government and staff-to staff 

consultation has occurred

Cultural 

Resources

Forest-wide

4 Protect and preserve National 

Register eligible properties...

The selected actions will use the North Idaho 

Travel Management Protocol that was developed 

in conjunction with the Idaho State Historic 

Preservation Office to determine how and when 

cultural properties will be identified, evaluated, 

protected and potential adverse effects mitigated 

for. The Forest will follow this protocol.

Cultural 

Resources

Forest-wide

5 Consult with Nez Perce Tribe... Government-to-Government and staff to staff 

consultation has occurred 

Management Area 3 – Cultural Resources

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

1

Limit recreation to day use unless 

otherwise provided for in special 

site direction

Per the North Idaho Protocol #3—yearly 

monitoring would be performed along high use 

motorized routes to determine potential areas 

requiring protection from dispersed recreation 

activity. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

2

Identify National Register [sites] 

and eligible cultural resources that 

may be affected by an undertaking. 

An appropriate cultural resource inventory has 

been conducted for all new routes included in the 

preferred alternative. Per the North Idaho Protocol 

#3—additional survey activity would occur along 

high use motorized routes on a yearly basis. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

3

Identify, inventory, and determine 

National Register eligibility for 

unevaluated sites.....

No historic properties are associated with new 

routes included in the preferred alternative. Per 

the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional 

monitoring/survey/evaluation activity would 

occur along high use motorized routes on a yearly 

basis. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

3a

Identify the potential location of 

non-inventoried unevaluated sites 

and perform an archaeological 

reconnaissance

Per the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional 

monitoring/survey/evaluation activity would 

occur along high use motorized routes on a yearly 

basis. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

3b

Apply National Register criteria to 

identified unevaluated sites.

Per the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional 

evaluation activity would occur along high-use 

motorized routes on a yearly basis. The Idaho 

State Historic Preservation Office would approve 

all resulting evaluations. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

4

Protect National Register or eligible 

sites from deterioration or 

destruction.

No historic properties are associated with new 

routes included in the preferred alternative. Per 

the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional 

monitoring/survey/evaluation activity would 

occur along high use motorized routes on a yearly 

basis. The Idaho State Historic Preservation

Office would approve all protection measures.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 19

Resource Standard 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

4a

Identify eligible or potentially 

eligible resources subject to 

deterioration or destruction.

No historic properties are associated with new 

routes included in the preferred alternative. Per 

the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional survey 

activity would occur along high use motorized 

routes on a yearly basis. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

4b

Identify and carry out measures to 

protect or recover significant values 

of eligible sites

Per the North Idaho Protocol #3—additional 

monitoring/survey/evaluation activity would 

occur along high use motorized routes on a yearly 

basis. The Idaho State Historic Preservation 

Office would approve all protection measures.

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

5

Protect and preserve Native 

American religious cultural rights 

and practices

Forest Service and Nez Perce Tribe professional 

staffs, as well as FS line officers and NPT elected 

officials, meet regularly to ensure Treaty rights, 

religious cultural rights and practices are 

protected. This includes resource management 

issues associated with the Travel Management 

Rule. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

6

Visual Quality Objectives will be 

performed on a case-by-case basis 

by the Forest Archaeologist and 

Landscape Architect

VQOs have not been identified as needed to 

legally manage historic properties as a result of 

implementing the Travel Management Rule. 

MA 3

Cultural 

Resources

1

Protect sites with structural 

improvements where needed. Range related structural improvements are not 

being considered under the current decision.

Social Economics, including Forest Plan Goals

Resource Goal 

Number Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Forest Plan Goal – Social Economic

Forestwide

Goal

1

Provide a sustained yield of resource 

outputs at a level that will help support 

the economic structure of local 

communities and provide for regional 

and national needs.

Outputs relevant to the selected action s are 

recreational visits and party trips and are 

analyzed.

Forestwide

Goal

5

Provide a wide range of dispersed and 

developed recreational opportunities 

and experiences by providing access, 

facilities, and education necessary to 

meet public demand.

Outputs relevant to the selected actions are 

recreational visits and party trips by activity type 

and are analyzed. Comments were considered.

Forestwide

Goal

6

Recognized and promote the intrinsic 

ecological and economic value of 

wildlife and wildlife habitats. Provide 

high quality and quality of wildlife 

habitats to ensure diversified 

recreational and public satisfaction.

Alternatives emphasizing intrinsic ecological and 

economic wildlife values are evaluated and are 

part of the selected actions.

Forest Plan Standard

Forestwide 2

Analyze the economics of proposed 

access developments using proven 

tools, and incorporate them into the 

project design.

Not considered because no alternatives propose 

access developments.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 20

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

Delegation of Authority

Consistent with Forest Service Manual 1230, I have been delegated authority as Forest 

Supervisor of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, effective November 16, 2014. I am 

responsible to the Region One Regional Forester for management, development and 

administration of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

As directed by the ESA, Biological Assessments were completed for listed and sensitive fish, 

wildlife and plant species concurrent with Section 7 consultation with USDI – FWS and Wildlife 

Service and NOAA-Fisheries for Alternative 5, as Modified (see Attachment C). Letter of 

concurrence with the determinations and Biological Opinions have been received from the 

USFWS and NOAA-Fisheries. The effects analysis concluded the Alternative 5, as Modified, 

will result in the following determinations of effects: 

No Effect - Snake River Sockeye Salmon; Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon.

Likely to adversely affect - Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Salmon Basin;

Snake River Steelhead Trout and Columbia River Bull Trout.

Not likely to adversely affect - Canada Lynx; Spalding’ Catchfly and Macfarlane’s fouro’clock

Design measures and monitoring will be used to minimize the effects to species and their 

habitats. 

Executive Orders 11644, 11989 (Off-road Vehicle Use on Public Lands)

See also ROD. Section 3 of EO 11644, is met in the selected alternative through the designation 

of motor vehicle use on roads and trails. No areas for motor vehicle use are designated with this 

decision. The criteria to minimize damage to: soil, watershed, vegetation or other resources has 

been met (See FEIS, Chapter 3, Aquatics, Soils, Rare Plants, Invasive plants, Research Natural 

Areas and Wildlife). Damage to watershed or aquatic resources from roads and trails that would 

be designated for motor vehicle use has been evaluated in this analysis. Monitoring for aquatic 

and cultural resources, as describe in Section 8 of EO 11644, is planned with the selected 

alternative (see Decision & ROD-Attachment 3). The criteria to minimize damage to soils in 

Section 3 of EO 11644, is met in the selected alternative through the designation of motor 

vehicle use on roads and trails, and no areas for motor vehicle use are designated. The soil 

conditions of roads and trails that will be designated for motor vehicle use has been evaluated in 

this analysis. No monitoring for soil resources is planned with this decision.

Trails designated for motor vehicle use are located to minimize harassment of wildlife or 

significant disruption of wildlife habitats (See FEIS, Chapter 3, Wildlife). Motorized trails are 

located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed 

recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 21

uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors (See 

FEIS, Chapter 3, IRAs, Recreation, Social Economics).

No areas or trails will be designated for motor vehicle use in officially designated Wilderness 

Areas or Primitive Areas and will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.

Executive Orders 11988, 11990 (Floodplains and Wetlands)

The selected alternative is consistent with Executive Orders regarding floodplains, wetlands, and 

municipal water supplies because proposed activities would not adversely impact floodplains or 

wetlands. The implementation of Design Criteria and BMPs is fully expected to protect any of 

floodplain and wetland areas that may be adjacent to or downstream from the new trail routes. 

Activities proposed within the action alternatives would reduce the current risk of wetland and 

floodplain damage through restrictions on off-route motor vehicle use and the reductions in the 

miles of trail open to motorized use in this alternative.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

The selected alternatives will not disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income 

populations (including American Indian tribal members) because access will be afforded to these 

groups equally.

Executive Orders 13007 and 13175 – Tribal Consultation

The Forests will complete surveys of the entire project area, and consulted with the Nez Perce 

Tribe to identify and protect any sacred sites. Indian Sacred Sites were identified in the project 

area. Changes to access will occur. See Chapter 3, Cultural Resources and project record, for 

more information.

The Forests have discussed the proposed activities and the analysis of effects from the proposed 

activities with the Nez Perce Tribe. The Forests has completed consultation with the Nez Perce 

Tribe (See Final EIS, Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 for more information).

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)

The selected alternatives will reduce, to some degree, the introduction of invasive species, 

especially by reducing the amount of area open to off-road motor vehicle use. Existing invasive 

populations would continue to spread whether along roads and trails regardless if the use is 

motorized or non-motorized. Design measures will be implemented to minimize any harmful 

effects associated with the spread of invasive species on new routes (New-1, New-4 and New-5). 

These measures are designed to meet the guidance of Executive Order 13112.

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act)

An analysis of effects of this project on migratory birds has been completed. The selected 

alternative does not change the diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales for 

migratory birds on the Forest. Project design features will maintain or protect riparian areas 

which are primary habitat for many migratory bird species. The elimination of off-route 

motorized travel will benefit migratory birds by reducing disturbance and impacts to their habitat 

by motorized vehicles. No new construction is proposed in any of the alternatives which would 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 22

result in loss of habitat. There will not be a local or regional change in the population status of 

migratory birds as a result of this project. The intent of the law, policies, and regulations 

governing migratory bird landbird management on federal lands has been met.

Idaho Forest Practices Act

The selected alternative does not propose any timber harvest activities or any new road 

construction, reconstruction, or maintenance activities, thus BMPs in the Idaho Forest Practices 

Act are not applicable to this travel planning project that is specifically focused on designating 

areas and routes for types of use. The BMPs included in this act would continue to be reviewed 

and applied where relevant in other Nez Perce National Forest projects.

Clean Water Act and Idaho State Water Quality Standards

The selected alternative complies with the Clean Water Act and Idaho State Water Quality 

Standards described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Clean Water Act, Section 313 was addressed 

by complying with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements to prevent water 

pollution. Section 208 was addressed by including relevant BMPs and a critical evaluation by 

watershed and fisheries specialists of the potential aquatic resource impacts into this project.

The 303(d) list (combined Section 303(d)/Section 305(b) Report) was reviewed to identify 

sediment-impaired streams in the project analysis area, assist the Interdisciplinary Team when 

making route designation recommendations, and evaluate the effects of the alternatives on waterquality limited streams. The selected alternative will be consistent with the established TMDLs 

in: Crooked River, American River, and Red River drainages in the South Fork Clearwater River 

(sediment and water temperature); Crooked Creek in the Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain 

Creek (water temperature); Little Salmon River (sediment), and Allison Creek in the Lower 

Salmon River/Hells Canyon Tributaries to the Snake River (bacteria).

There are two municipal watersheds in the project area. Actions are consistent with Forest Plan 

direction for the Wall Creek and Elk Creek municipal water supply areas and would protect the 

existing beneficial uses. 

No activities in the selected alternative are expected to affect stream temperatures, nor is it 

expected that the proposed changes in motorized use will increase stream sediment or turbidity to 

an extent that will impair beneficial uses or exceed quantitative water quality criteria. 

The selected alternative will likely reduce the risk of negative effects on watershed and fisheries 

resources (i.e., riparian and streambank impacts, erosion, sedimentation, and redd disturbance) 

through reductions in off-route motor vehicle use and the designation of motorized travel on 

roads and trails. These actions will enhance protection of existing beneficial uses by at least 

maintaining, and likely improving in some instances, the physical, chemical, and biological 

integrity of the streams in the project area. 

Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act

The selected alternative does not propose any new ground disturbing activities (i.e., trail or road 

construction, obliteration, or infrastructure improvements); therefore no alteration of stream 

channel shape or alteration of the direction of flow will result from any actions. The BMPs 

included in this act would continue to be reviewed and applied where relevant in other Nez Perce 

National Forest projects. 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 23

Idaho Roadless Rule

The Regulatory Framework, the final Idaho Roadless Rule (USDA-FS 2008b) designated IRAs 

with management themes to direct future management activities in 19 Roadless Areas on the 

Forest. This Rule does not address grazing, fires, or travel management; therefore the selected 

alternative is consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule. Specific travel management decisions on 

roads and trails within the Idaho Roadless Areas will be made with this decision. See project 

record for details by IRA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Memorandum of Understanding

In the selected alternatives, project design features (Chapter 2) maintain or protect the riparian 

areas which are primary habitat for many migratory bird species. This alternative also restricts

off-route motorized travel. In addition, potential impacts to migratory species will be minimized 

from other management activities through adherence of Forest Plan Snag Management 

Standards, riparian reserve buffers, and road decommissioning. It is unlikely that the motorized 

uses on the new system trails in this alternative 5 would have a substantial effect to migratory 

bird species. For these reasons, substantial cumulative effects on migratory birds resulting from 

this project are unlikely. The selected alternative, “may impact individuals through disturbance, 

but would not indicate a local or regional change in population status of migratory birds”.

Mining Law of 1872

The Forest Service is required by law to provide reasonable access to valid existing mineral 

rights, regardless of their form, whether it be an unpatented claim, lease, or private property 

(such as a patented claim), or subsurface mineral right. Under the Selected Alternative 

reasonable access will be provided to prospect, explore, develop, and produce mineral resources 

for general access to a claim under currently approved Plans of Operation. 

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

Consistency with M60 (MYSA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Regional 

Soil Quality Guidelines is met by limiting motor vehicle use to designated routes of the 

transportation system. In addition, no areas for motor vehicle use would be designated in any 

action alternative.

Because soil productivity and watershed functions are not expected to be permanently impaired, 

the selected alternative complies with the intent of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960, which states that management of the National Forests must provide "sustained yields in 

perpetuity without impairment of the productivity of the land." Roads and trails are currently in 

place. The conditions of use and designation as motorized or non-motorized will not change the 

transportation system. The new trails in this alternative 5 will become a part of the transportation 

system.

There are no permanent vegetative habitat changing actions in the selected alternative, and 

specific actions can be taken to close roads or trails if concerns about wildlife are identified. The 

conditions of use and designation as motorized or non-motorized will not change the 

transportation system. Therefore, the productivity of wildlife or wildlife habitat is not expected 

to be permanently impaired, and comply with the intent of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 24

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The requirements of NEPA, as specified in 40 CFR Part 1500, have been fully applied through 

this project planning effort. The Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS and Final EIS, and the 

comprehensive analyses and public involvement steps which they incorporate, comply with the 

letter and intent of NEPA. The Final EIS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives, including 

no action, and discloses the expected environmental effects of each alternative within the context 

of identified issues. This ROD describes the selected actions and rationale for making these 

decisions. This project is in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Cumulative effects are discussed in the Final EIS in Chapter 3 for each resource. Final EIS, 

Appendix C displays and discusses the past, ongoing and reasonably future foreseeable activities 

in the project area and cumulative effects analysis areas. If other projects occur in the future that 

significantly affect the basis of this decision, the decision would be amended. See National 

Historic Preservation Act for more information about NEPA sections 101 and 106.

The entire process of preparing this EIS was undertaken to comply with NEPA.

National Forest Management Act 

The selected alternative consistency with National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is met by 

limiting motor vehicle use to designated routes of the transportation system. In addition, no areas 

for motor vehicle use would be designated in this alternative (Soils).

FSM 2670 directs the Forest Service to conserve endangered and threatened species, to utilize its 

authorities in furtherance of the ESA, and to avoid actions that would cause a species to become 

threatened or endangered. FSM 2670 also directs the Forest Service to maintain viable 

populations of native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats

distributed throughout their geographic range on system lands. A Biological 

Assessment/Evaluation has been completed describing effects to these species. The selected 

alternative is consistent with direction in NFMA to the extent that management actions would 

not adversely affect the viability of existing sensitive plant, fish or widlife populations.

The selected alternative was developed to comply with NFMA, and represent varying degrees of 

resource protection.

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth a framework for identifying and 

evaluating historic properties, and assessing effects to these properties (36 CFR 800 Subpart B). 

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the federal government 

to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. To 

accomplish this, federal agencies utilize the Section 106 process associated with the NHPA 

(codified in 36 CFR 800.3b and 800.8). Locally, the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests use a 

programmatic agreement signed between Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service, Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to 

implement the Section 106 process.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 25

Given the potential effects of the selected alternative, the Forest, in accordance with Section 106 

of the NHPA, has proposed and completed consultation on a protocol for conducting inventory 

and site condition assessments along motorized routes. The results of these efforts will be 

reported annually as part of the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement. On May 13, 2011 

the Idaho SHPO concurred with this approach and formally agreed that implementing the 

selected alternative would have No Adverse Effect to historic properties. Additional information 

is provided in the cultural resource section in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS.

National Trails System Act

Three National Recreation Trails (NRT) on the Nez Perce National Forest are: East Boyd –

Glover-Roundtop (703/704), Meadow Creek (726), and Anderson Butte (830/835). East Boyd–

Glover–Roundtop Trails 703 and 704 will be open seasonally to motorcycles (June 16–

November 4). Anderson Butte Trails 830 and 835 will be open seasonally to vehicles less than 

50 inches in width (April 2–November 30). These seasonal closures may appear to reduce 

opportunities, but the dates coincide with snow melt, when users can actually access the area and 

match the adjacent road systems designations. The selected alternative will designate the 

Meadow Creek Trail 726 for non-motorized use. These National Recreation Trails, on Federal

lands, will continue to provide outdoor recreation opportunities and to promote the preservation 

of access to the outdoor areas and historic resources of the nation.

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) Record of Decision (ROD) 

(USDA-FS 2007b, Attachment 1, p. 1) provides programmatic objectives, standards, and 

guidelines for lynx management are identified in the NRLMD in relation to developed recreation 

and travel management. The Nez Perce National Forest has reviewed the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction for the DRAMVU project, and has determined the selected alternative 

are consistent with the NRLMD standards and guidelines (FEIS; Table 3-59; Project file – BAAppendix A). For the selected alternative: 

Standard - ALL S1 will be met. New trails 1, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx Habitat and does not 

propose any vegetation management activities. This alternative will maintain habitat connectivity 

in LAUs, because road and trails proposed for designation currently existing on the landscape 

except the new trails that do not occur within lynx habitats. Proposed activities would maintain 

or improve habitat connectivity in linkage areas.

Guideline HU G3 – Recreation developments – will be met. This Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction (USDA-FS 2007c) does not have any specific management direction for 

summer motorized access other than taking lynx conservation into consideration before 

upgrading roads to be able to provide faster or substantially more traffic. Unpaved forest roads 

are not considered a direct threat to lynx or their movement. Lynx appear, in general, to have low 

susceptibility to displacement by humans during spring, summer, and fall (USDI-FWS 2003). 

The selected alternative will restrict off-route motor vehicle use, except over-snow vehicles, to 

designated roads and trails. This would provide for lynx movement and improved effectiveness 

of lynx habitat. Alternative 5 would maintain 753 miles of roads or trails open for motorize use 

(14% reduction).
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 26

Guideline HU G6 – Roads, upgrading- will be met. The selected alternative will not upgrade any 

of the roads to levels 4 or 5. No roads will be paved with implementation of this project. Some 

roads may change the maintenance levels, if designated to change, from motorized to nonmotorized use, or vice versus. This would change maintenance levels from Level 2 or 3 to Level 

1 or vice versus, primarily resulting in a decreased traffic speed, volume, and human activity 

with motorized vehicles, although some roads could marginally increase them.

Guideline HU G7 – Roads, locations – will be met. No new roads are proposed to be constructed 

with this decision. New trails 1, 4, or 5 are not in Lynx habitat.

Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 2814)

This analysis and evaluation of invasive species has been completed for this project based on the 

direction contained in the Noxious Weed Act (as amended). The selected alternative will 

continue to recognize invasive species according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 

U.S.C. 2814).

Travel Management Rule; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

See ROD Decision and Rationale.

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” in the Federal Register (36 CFR Parts 212, 

251, 261, 295 Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final 

Rule (Federal Register 2005: 70FR68264)). The Rule requires each National Forest to complete a 

local analysis before the Rule can be implemented. This decision will designate those roads, 

trails, and areas where motorized travel will be permitted, and to display them on the Nez Perce 

National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Once the MVUM is published, public motor 

vehicle use on the Nez Perce National Forest will be allowed only on the designated routes 

displayed on the map. The MVUM will show routes designated for public motorized use, by type 

of vehicle and season of use. The DRAMVU project will not designate use for over-snow 

motorized vehicles. The selected alternative will comply with this direction.

The 2005 Travel Management Rule also requires National Forests to develop a minimum road 

system to accommodate resource needs. In 2006 a Forest-level Roads Analysis was completed. 

This analysis, among other conclusions, established a minimum road system for arterial, 

collector and important local class National Forest roads on the Nez Perce National Forest. It is 

at the project level scale that a site specific analysis of all roads both National Forest System and 

unauthorized can be studied and pertinent conclusions and recommendations made. NFS roads 

that are deemed surplus to current needs and other road like features such as skid trails and old 

temporary roads can be identified and recommended for decommissioning and returned to 

natural resource production. This process will continue under the guidance of FSM 7700 –

Travel Management and FSH 7709.55 – Travel Planning Handbook to identify the minimum 

road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection 

of National Forest System lands. The Forest-wide scale of this travel planning effort is not the 

appropriate level to determine a minimum road system for all roads on the Nez Perce National 

Forest; the process of identifying and establishing a minimum road system across the Forest 

continues independent of this analysis.
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 27

Aquatics. The general and specific criteria in the Travel Management Rule were considered in 

this analysis for aquatic resources. By alternative, designations for roads, trails and areas were 

analyzed for the effects to watershed and aquatic resources. All action alternatives minimize 

damage to watersheds and aquatic resources through the designation of motor vehicle use on 

roads and trails, and no areas for motor vehicle use are designated. In addition the conditions of 

use for motor vehicle access for dispersed camping would limit new damage to watersheds and 

aquatic resources.

Soils. The general and specific criteria in the Travel Management Rule were considered in this 

analysis for soils. By alternative, designations for roads, trails and areas were analyzed for the 

effects to soil damage. All action alternatives minimize damage to soils through the designation 

of motor vehicle use on roads and trails, and no areas for motor vehicle use are designated. In 

addition the conditions of use for motor vehicle access for dispersed camping would limit new 

damage to soils.

Wildlife. The selected alternatives minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of 

wildlife habitats by the elimination of off-route motorized travel. This alternative reduces the 

total miles of open motorized road and trails in important wildlife habitats from the existing 

condition.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The selected alternative is consistent with River Management Plans. See Forest Plan Standards in 

the previous section.

Wilderness Acts

The Nez Perce National Forest manages all or portions of the Selway Bitterroot, Frank Church 

River of No Return, and Gospel Hump Wildernesses. The selected alternative will not designate 

any motorized routes in Wilderness areas. 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Vehicle Use

Record of Decision – Attachments

DRAMVU-ROD – ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS AND REGULATIONS  PAGE 28

The End of Attachment 5