United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern Region

Clearwater 

National Forest

November 2011

 

Travel

Planning

Record of Decision

RECORD OF DECISION

Travel Planning

Clearwater National Forest

Idaho, Clearwater, Latah, Benewah, and Shoshone Counties, Idaho

November 2011

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Rick Brazell

Forest Supervisor

Clearwater National Forest

12730 U.S. Highway 12

Orofino, ID 83544

For Further Information, Contact: Kathy Rodriguez

North Fork District Ranger

(208) 476-4541

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

Supervisor for the Clearwater National Forest Travel Management Plan. It documents 

the Forest Supervisor’s rationale for the selection of Alternative C Modified, as described 

in the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS), August 2011. Alternative C Modified minimizes effects on resources and values 

identified in the Clearwater National Forest Plan while responding to a broad range of 

public sentiment regarding management of motor vehicles. The FEIS analyzed five 

alternatives, including No Action, for managing motorized travel within the 1,827,380-

acre Clearwater National Forest. Alternative C Modified provides the best mix of 

motorized and non-motorized opportunities. The selected actions include an amendment 

to the 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan. The new Travel Plan will establish a system of 

designated routes for summer motorized uses. Off-route travel by motorized vehicles will

be prohibited, except for snowmachines in winter.

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 individuals 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). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 5

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 9

BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................... 10

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION........................................................................................................ 10

2005 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE: DESIGNATION OF MOTORIZED ROUTES ........................................................... 10

SYSTEM TRAILS............................................................................................................................................. 11

OVER-SNOW VEHICLES................................................................................................................................... 12

BICYCLES..................................................................................................................................................... 12

RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS ......................................................................................................................... 12

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................. 13

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION........................................................................................ 14

DECISION CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Summer Recreation Opportunities...................................................................................................... 14

Winter Recreation Opportunities........................................................................................................ 15

Resource Protection ............................................................................................................................ 15

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 16

DECISION .................................................................................................................................................... 16

Screening Criteria for User-Suggested Routes .................................................................................... 16

Table ROD-1: Single-Track Trails (106, 167, 191, 445, 594, and 632 (N. Section)) That Would Change in 

Alternative C Modified, Compared to Alternative C: ................................................................................. 18

Alternative C Modified Road Actions .................................................................................................. 18

Alternative C Modified Trail Actions ................................................................................................... 18

Alternative C Modified Over-Snow Vehicle Actions............................................................................. 19

Table ROD-2: Alternative C Modified Route-Based Restrictions for Over-Snow Vehicles ........................ 19

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVE C MODIFIED ........................................ 21

Roads Actions Common to All Action Alternatives.............................................................................. 21

Trails Actions Common to All Action Alternatives............................................................................... 22

Bicycle Actions Common to All Action Alternatives............................................................................. 22

Over-snow Vehicles Actions Common to All Action Alternatives ........................................................ 22

Forest Plan Amendment...................................................................................................................... 23

Tribal Treaty Rights............................................................................................................................. 23

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation ................................................................................. 23

REASONS FOR THE DECISION........................................................................................................................... 25

General Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 25

Summer Recreation Opportunities................................................................................................................. 25

Winter Recreation Opportunities.................................................................................................................... 26

Resource Protection........................................................................................................................................ 27

Forest Plan Standards, Goals, and Objectives................................................................................................. 28

Table ROD-3: Compliance With Forest Plan Standards............................................................................. 28

Rationale by Forest Plan Management Areas and Other Areas of Public Interest.............................. 37

Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs) ...................................................................................................... 37

Inventoried Roadless Areas............................................................................................................................. 38

Management Areas C1, C6, and C8S ............................................................................................................... 39

Management Areas C3 and C4........................................................................................................................ 41

Rationale for Other Components of the Travel Management Plan .................................................... 41
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 6

Bicycles............................................................................................................................................................ 41

Over-snow Vehicles......................................................................................................................................... 42

Forest Plan Amendment ................................................................................................................................. 42

Seasonal Restrictions - “Date Combination Package”..................................................................................... 42

Access for Dispersed Camping and Parking..................................................................................................... 42

Lands Acquired in the Beaver-Cedar Land Exchange (Former DAW Lands).................................................... 43

User-Suggested Routes................................................................................................................................... 43

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES ....................................................................................................................... 44

Significant Issues................................................................................................................................. 44

Effects on Motorized/Non-motorized Recreation and Wilderness Character ................................................ 44

Wildlife Habitat............................................................................................................................................... 44

Non-Significant Issues......................................................................................................................... 46

ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL ................................................................................................................... 46

Alternative A: No Action..................................................................................................................... 47

Alternative B: Minimal Travel Management Rule Implementation ................................................... 47

Alternative C: Motorcycle Loop Trails and Wildlife Habitat ............................................................. 47

Alternative C Modified: Alternative C With Additional Motorized Trail Opportunities...................... 47

Alternative D: Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness Emphasis ..................................................... 47

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. 48

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT STUDIED IN DETAIL .................................................................................... 48

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................. 48

Road and Trail Construction, Reconstruction, Decommissioning, or Obliteration.............................. 48

Summer Cross-Country Travel Areas................................................................................................... 49

No Off-Route Access for Dispersed Camping ...................................................................................... 49

Motorized Travel in Inventoried Roadless Areas................................................................................. 49

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 50

SCOPING..................................................................................................................................................... 50

DEIS COMMENTS......................................................................................................................................... 51

CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY COMMENTS............................................................................... 51

Comments on the Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 52

A Petition to Restrict Motorized Travel Due to Adverse Effects.......................................................... 52

Comments on the DEIS........................................................................................................................ 52

Collaboration and Consultation .......................................................................................................... 53

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT................................................... 53

RELATED DECISIONS NOT SUPERCEDED ............................................................................................... 54

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICY..................................................... 55

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN ................................................................................................................... 55

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT ............................................................................... 55

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT; DESIGNATED ROUTES AND AREAS FOR MOTORIZED USE (36 CFR 212, 251, 261); USDA FOREST 

SERVICE (2005)........................................................................................................................................... 56

General Criteria for Designation of Roads Trails and Areas................................................................ 56

Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 56

Public Safety.................................................................................................................................................... 56

Provision of Recreational Opportunities......................................................................................................... 56

Access Needs................................................................................................................................................... 57

Conflicts Among Uses of National Forest System Lands ................................................................................. 57

The Need for Maintenance and Administration of Roads, Trails, and Areas that Would Arise if the Uses 

Under Consideration are Designated.............................................................................................................. 57

The Availability of Resources for that Maintenance and Administration ....................................................... 57

Specific Criteria for Designation of Trails and Areas........................................................................... 58

Damage to Soil, Watershed, Vegetation, and Other Forest Resources........................................................... 58

Harassment of Wildlife and Disruption of Wildlife Habitats........................................................................... 58
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 7

Conflicts Between Motor Vehicle Use and Existing or Proposed Recreational uses of National Forest System 

Roads............................................................................................................................................................... 58

Conflicts Among Different Classes of Motor Vehicle Uses of National Forest System Lands or Neighboring 

Federal Lands.................................................................................................................................................. 58

Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use With Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking Into Account Sound, 

Emissions, and Other Factors.......................................................................................................................... 59

Specific Criteria for Designation of Roads........................................................................................... 59

Speed, Volume, Composition, and Distribution of Traffic on Roads; Compatibility of Vehicle Class with 

Road Geometry and Surfacing ............................................................................................................ 59

RIGHTS OF ACCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 59

IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................................. 59

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES..................................................................... 60

CONTACT PERSON............................................................................................................................... 61

SIGNATURE AND DATE ........................................................................................................................ 62

Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 9

INTRODUCTION

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

recognized. The Chief of the Forest Service identified unmanaged recreation, including 

OHV 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 Clearwater 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 Clearwater 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. 

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 to include over-snow vehicles in this analysis so that suitable areas, routes, 

and seasons for their operation can be provided as envisioned in the Clearwater Forest 

Plan. 

MINIMIZATION

When designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System 

lands, the 2005 Travel 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 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 10

of the action alternatives analyzed in the EIS would meet these requirements, any of them 

would minimize effects on Forest resources if selected.

BACKGROUND

Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 8, 1972), “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the 

Public Lands,” as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977), directs 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 uses.

The 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan was prepared when motorized use levels were 

considerably lower than they are today. The spectrum of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities was not explored in depth, since user conflicts and resource 

issues were few. There was little distinct land area allocation between motorized and 

non-motorized uses, other than for Wilderness. This regulatory structure required 

analysis, formal decisions, and Forest Supervisor’s orders to implement restrictions on 

motorized travel. This situation, coupled with a management approach that lagged far 

behind the increase in motorized use, over time led to the establishment of motorized 

uses in many areas on the Forest where it was not specifically restricted. In the current 

climate, and with an eye toward the future of the Forest, its resources, and its users, there 

is a need to identify routes suitable for motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized 

travel.

The Clearwater National Forest transportation system has been continuously monitored 

since the Forest Plan was published in 1987, and over time, adjustments have been made. 

The existing travel plan represents many years of management decisions based on 

monitoring, public comments, and the need to minimize effects on resources. Motorized 

recreationists currently use some roads and trails that are not restricted to motorized 

travel, but are not part of the official Clearwater National Forest transportation system. 

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

adoption into the designated motorized system. On the other hand, some other routes are 

currently part of the official transportation system, but are not travelable with vehicles 

due to vegetation growth or loss of the road or trail template. Routes that are not 

travelable in their current condition would not be designated for motorized travel.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

2005 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE: DESIGNATION OF 

MOTORIZED ROUTES

The Existing Condition: The 2005 Travel Guide describes the existing condition for the 

analysis presented in the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning EIS. It represents 

almost three decades of monitoring and adaptive decision-making. The 1987 Clearwater 

Forest Plan did not prohibit cross-country motorized travel, except in a few specific 

Management Areas such as B1 (Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness) and the non-motorized 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 11

portions of A3 (Lochsa Face, Coolwater Ridge, and Moose Mountain areas). Currently, 

motorized recreationists use some routes that are not part of the official Clearwater 

National Forest Transportation system. Some of these routes are referred to as “usercreated.” Although routes that are not part of the Clearwater National Forest 

Transportation system may not have been authorized by the Forest Service, they may not 

have violated the Forest Plan, travel 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. 

Need: There is a need to designate the type of vehicle and season of use for all routes 

that will be used by motorized traffic, and to eliminate unmanaged cross-country 

motorized traffic.

SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS

The Existing Condition: The Clearwater National Forest Travel Guide currently lists 

seasons of use for motor vehicles, including over-snow vehicles, on system roads and 

trails. There are more than 35 different date combinations for the different seasonal use 

restrictions. Both the public and the Forest Service find the variety of seasonal 

restrictions confusing. 

The Desired Condition: Minimize the number of different seasonal restrictions to only 

those necessary to provide for resource protection and opportunities in accordance with 

Forest Plan goals and objectives.

Need: There is a need to combine similar seasonal restrictions where resource 

protection objectives can be achieved while still providing for a variety of 

recreational opportunities.

SYSTEM TRAILS

The Existing Condition: In contrast to the planned road system, the existing trail system 

evolved from trails built or used for fire control, access to Forest Service stations, or 

activities such as mining, hunting, and grazing. The 1987 Forest Plan provided direction 

for trail use, but was developed when motorized trail use was limited. Since then, trail 

vehicle numbers and capabilities have increased dramatically. However, the Forest Plan 

did provide goals, objectives, and standards for trails in each Management Area. 

The Desired Condition: The system of trails on the Forest should be managed to meet the 

goals, objectives, and standards for each Forest Plan Management Area. 

Need: There is a need to evaluate and identify a system of motorized trails that 

provide for a variety of recreational opportunities while meeting Forest Plan 

Management Area direction.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 12

OVER-SNOW VEHICLES

The Existing Condition: At the present time, cross-country over-snow vehicle use is not 

restricted except in Management Areas where motorized use is prohibited by the Forest 

Plan, Wilderness Areas, and some small restricted areas that have been previously 

identified for resource protection. Many existing over-snow vehicle restrictions are routebased. Over-snow vehicle use is allowed on some routes in big game winter range on the 

Lochsa Ranger District. 

The Desired Condition: The desired condition is to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives 

for big-game winter habitat without unnecessarily restricting over-snow vehicle use.

Need: There is a need to restrict motorized over-snow travel on routes within big 

game winter range in the Lochsa drainage.

BICYCLES

The Existing Condition: Some trails and roads currently have bicycle restrictions, and 

the objectives for those restrictions are not clear. Some MAs in the Forest Plan include 

direction for the management of mechanized uses, and bicycles are a form of mechanized 

travel that has not been previously managed in these areas.

The Desired Condition: The desired condition is to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives 

without unnecessarily restricting bicycle recreational opportunities.

Need: There is a need to remove bicycle restrictions that do not serve a clearly 

identifiable purpose, and to manage mechanized travel as necessary to address 

Forest Plan goals for certain Management Areas. 

RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS

The Existing Condition: The Forest Plan recommends some areas (Management Area 

B2) to be considered for future wilderness designation, and provides goals, objectives, 

and standards for the management of those areas (Forest Plan p. III-36-39). Lands 

allocated to MA B2 meet the criteria for being considered, by Congress, for wilderness 

designation in the future. Currently, summer motorized travel is allowed on some trails, 

and over-snow vehicles and mechanized vehicles like bicycles are allowed in all of the 

recommended wilderness areas.

The Desired Condition: Areas that were recommended for wilderness designation should 

be managed to protect and preserve their wilderness character, consistent with the goals 

and objectives described for these areas in the Clearwater Forest Plan. Forest Plan forestwide management direction includes a) Maintain potential wilderness values on those 

areas that are being recommended for classified wilderness (Forest Plan Forest-wide 

Goal, p. II-1), and b) Manage recommended additions to the wilderness system to prevent 

changes in character that would be inconsistent in wilderness until Congress makes 

classification decisions (Forest Plan Forest-wide Standard p. II-23). Forest Plan direction 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 13

for MA B2 includes a) Manage each recommended wilderness to protect its wilderness 

character (Forest Plan Goal, p. III-36), and b) Manage all uses to maintain wilderness 

qualities and retain semi-primitive settings (Forest Plan Standard, p. III-36).

Need: There is a need to evaluate the motorized and mechanized activities that 

currently occur in recommended wilderness areas, and to manage those uses so that 

they do not adversely impact the wilderness character of those areas.

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

The Clearwater National Forest’s 2005 Travel Guide was released to the public in July 

2005. It described what a designated system of motorized routes on the Clearwater 

National Forest would look like, and invited the public to provide comments. The 2005 

Travel Guide was the basis for the Existing Condition described in the Travel Planning 

FEIS. Public involvement efforts have been ongoing since 2005. The Forest developed a 

proposed action that addressed the Purpose and Need for Action described above, while 

incorporating public input received during the pre-scoping phase.

On November 13, 2007, a legal notice announcing the proposed action was advertised in 

the Lewiston Morning Tribune (the Clearwater National Forest’s newspaper of record), 

initiating the formal scoping period. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2007. To 

provide ample opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the proposal, the 

scoping period was extended through February 2008. More than 4,000 comment 

documents were received.

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 Clearwater 

National Forest. However, in response to the large number of comments that were 

received during the scoping period, Alternatives B, C, and D were developed by the 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and the original proposed action was not carried forward to 

be analyzed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

The DEIS analyzed four alternatives, including No Action. Alternative A, the “No 

Action” alternative, represents the existing condition, based on the 2005 Travel Guide. 

Alternative B is the “Minimal Travel Management Rule Implementation” alternative. 

Alternative B would take only the actions necessary to implement the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. Alternative C, the “Motorcycle Loop Trails and Wildlife Habitat” 

alternative, would respond to public comments about providing motorized single-track 

and loop trail opportunities, while moving Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness 

resource conditions toward the goals and objectives described in the Forest Plan. 

Alternative D is the “Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness Emphasis” alternative. It 

would respond to public comments about protecting wildlife habitat and recommended 

wilderness characteristics. It would also respond to public comments about providing 

less motorized access than the proposed action. All of these alternatives were carried 

forward for analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 14

Two site-specific Forest Plan amendments were proposed in all of the DEIS alternatives. 

One amendment would modify the periods of restriction for on-road use described in 

Appendix F of the 1987 Forest Plan. This proposed amendment has been carried forward 

in the FEIS as an action common to all action alternatives; it is described in Appendix D 

of the FEIS. The other site-specific Forest Plan amendment that was proposed in the 

DEIS would have removed current Forest Plan elk habitat potential standards in selected 

areas. Based on an updated effects analysis for wildlife, the proposed elk habitat

amendment was not carried forward into the FEIS. 

The DEIS was advertised for public comment from July 17, 2009 through October 2, 

2009; 545 comment documents were received. In response to comments on the DEIS, 

the IDT developed Alternative C Modified for analysis in the FEIS. Alternative C 

Modified includes additional motorized trail opportunities, compared to Alternative C. 

Alternative C Modified would respond to requests for more motorized loop trails, while 

minimizing effects on wildlife habitat in Management Areas C1, C6, and C8S by 

implementing seasonal restrictions on some trails.

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, 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. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

DECISION CRITERIA

In making my decision for the Clearwater National Forest Travel Management Plan, I 

focused on the following criteria:

Summer Recreation Opportunities

I considered the degree to which each alternative would provide well-distributed 

opportunities for motorized recreational uses and quiet, non-motorized uses of the trail 

system outside of Wilderness. I evaluated each alternative based on the following 

considerations:

• Would the alternative provide opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreational travel to destinations such as lakes, peaks and vistas?

• Would the alternative provide opportunities for backcountry trail trips of varying 

length on single track trails for both motorcycles and non-motorized users?

• Would the alternative provide ATV opportunities on both roads and ATV trails?

• Would the alternative provide opportunities for full-sized OHVs like SUVs, 

4x4’s, and UTVs to explore the forest on roads?
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 15

• Would the alternative minimize damage to forest resources, wildlife and wildlife 

habitats, conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed 

recreational uses of National Forest lands, and conflicts among different classes of 

motor vehicle uses?

Winter Recreation Opportunities

I considered the degree to which each alternative would provide well-distributed 

opportunities for both snowmobiling and quiet, non-motorized winter recreation such as 

cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. I evaluated each alternative based on the 

following considerations:

• Would the alternative provide groomed and marked snowmobile opportunities for 

trips of varying length in a variety of settings?

• Would the alternative provide cross-country ski and snowshoeing opportunities in 

quiet, non-motorized settings?

• Would the alternative provide opportunities for snowmobiles on existing roads in 

a variety of settings?

• Would the alternative provide opportunities for cross-country snowmobile travel 

off of roads?

• Would the alternative minimize damage to forest resources, wildlife and wildlife 

habitats, conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed 

recreational uses of National Forest lands, and conflicts among different classes of 

motor vehicle uses?

Resource Protection

I considered the degree to which each alternative would achieve desired conditions for 

other resources, particularly wildlife species that are affected by human uses and areas 

recommended for Wilderness by the Forest Plan. I evaluated each alternative based on 

the following considerations:

• Would the alternative be consistent with laws, regulations, policy, the Forest Plan, 

and other direction applicable to managing other resources, thereby minimizing 

adverse effects on Forest resources?

• Would the alternative move conditions toward the goals for management areas in 

the Forest Plan?

• Would the alternative be consistent with existing or anticipated conservation 

strategies for species listed as Threatened or Endangered?
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 16

• Would the predicted effects of the alternative fall within accepted parameters or 

identified thresholds of maintenance and protection that are supported by research 

or monitoring information?

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

I considered the degree to which each alternative would move Forest resources closer to 

the goals and objectives described in the 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan.

DECISION

After careful consideration of the potential effects of the alternatives disclosed in the 

FEIS, I have selected Alternative C Modified as the Travel Management Plan for the 

Clearwater National Forest. My decision is described in detail below, supplemented by 

the maps and information included in the FEIS.

Alternative C Modified was added to the alternative array for the FEIS in response to 

comments received for the DEIS. Alternative C Modified was based on Alternative C, so 

many features of these two alternatives are the same. However, Alternative C Modified 

responds to issues and concerns about opportunities for motorcycle loop trips to a greater 

degree than Alternative C. Like Alternative C, Alternative C Modified will minimize 

effects on Forest resources, while addressing Forest Plan goals for wildlife and providing 

quality motorcycle loop trips in areas of the forest that were of greatest interest, including 

Weitas Creek, Cayuse Creek, and Pot Mountain.

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

will be implemented.

Alternative C Modified road actions and bicycle actions will be the same as those 

described in the FEIS for Alternative C. 

Over-snow motorized vehicle use will be restricted yearlong in Management Area B2, 

and on Fish Lake Trail 419 the same as in Alternative C.

Restrictions will be different from Alternative C for some trails; these are described in 

Table ROD-1 below, and in Table 2-3 in the FEIS. The “Actions Common to All Action 

Alternatives” described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS will apply to Alternative C Modified, 

but the “Actions Common to Alternatives B, C, and D” will not.

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.

Screening Criteria for User-Suggested Routes

The 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan did not prohibit cross-country travel. Currently, 

motorized recreationists use some routes that are not part of the official Clearwater 

National Forest Transportation system. Comments received during scoping and the 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 17

public comment period for the Draft EIS suggested that some of these routes should be 

added to the official transportation system. Alternative C Modified includes some of 

these “user-created” routes. To minimize potential adverse effects on Forest resources 

and users, I selected these routes based on the following criteria:

• Selected user-suggested routes had to be free of unmanageable resource issues, 

with maintainable grades that would not require relocation and free of obstacles 

that would require reconstruction.

• User-suggested routes selected for analysis had to go somewhere that would be of 

general interest to many people, and did not simply dead-end at a location that 

would be of interest to relatively few people.

• Selected user-suggested routes had to meet the goals and objectives for motorized 

and non-motorized areas described in the Forest Plan.

• Because construction or reconstruction would be better analyzed at a more sitespecific scale, selected user-suggested routes had to physically exist at the present 

time in a condition that would be suitable for most users.

• User-suggested routes were not selected if they were already part of the initial 

designated road or trail system; in other words, they were not already in the 2005 

Travel Guide.

• User-suggested routes that were selected had to be accompanied by a map 

showing the route location.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 18

Table ROD-1: Single-Track Trails (106, 167, 191, 445, 594, and 632 (N. Section)) That Would 

Change in Alternative C Modified, Compared to Alternative C:

Trail Miles

Alternative 

A

(No Action)

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative C 

Modified* Alternative D

106 7.1 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Open 9/1 –

11/15

Closed 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

167 (N. 

Section) 14.8 Open Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

Open 8/1 –

11/15

Closed 

Yearlong

191 13.2 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Open 9/1 –

11/15

Open 8/1 –

11/15

Closed 

Yearlong

445 5.3 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

594 .9 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

632 (N. 

Section, 

from Road 

555 to 

Windy 

Ridge 

Trail) 

2.7 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

Closed 

Yearlong

691 1 Open 

Yearlong

Open 

Yearlong

Open 9/1 –

11/15

Open 8/1 –

11/15

Closed 

Yearlong

*For all other trails and roads, Alternative C Modified will be the same as Alternative C. Alternatives A, B, and D would not change 

in the FEIS. They are included in this table only for reference purposes.

Alternative C Modified Road Actions

Road actions for summer uses remain the same as for Alternative C. 

Alternative C Modified Trail Actions

To protect wilderness character, motorized travel will be restricted yearlong on all trails 

in Management Area B2, except for Fish Lake Trail 419. Fish Lake Trail 419 will 

remain open to summer motorized traffic.

Alternative C Modified will include user-suggested motorized trails that passed the 

screening criteria, and that contribute to loop opportunities, in Management Areas E1/E3 

and motorized portions of Management Areas A3 and C8S. 

Alternative C Modified will not include user-suggested motorized routes in Management 

Areas B2, C1, or C6 since additional motorized use would run counter to Management 

Area goals for those areas.

Alternative C Modified will restrict motorized use on most trails within Management 

Areas C1 and C6. The motorized trails that would be retained would be those that would 

minimize potential adverse effects on soil, watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and other 

resources in Management Areas C1 and C6. Motorized use in Management Area C1 will 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 19

be allowed only during the fall, in keeping with Management Area goals to minimize 

summer disturbance and provide for motorcycle use associated with big game hunting.

Retaining motorized use on selected trails in Management Area C8S will minimize 

effects on wildlife by retaining large blocks of secure habitat, while continuing to provide 

motorized loop opportunities.

Trails 31 and 32 in Management Area E1 will be closed to protect riparian habitat and 

fish in Eldorado Meadows.

Alternative C Modified Over-Snow Vehicle Actions

Route-based restrictions for over-snow vehicles that would be dropped in Alternatives B, 

C, and D will be retained in Alternative C Modified, with some modifications as shown 

in Table ROD-2 below and Table 2-4 in the FEIS. Instead of the variety of seasonal 

restrictions shown in Alternative A, the restriction dates will be simplified. These 

simplifications are intended to make the restrictions and the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

clearer.

Table ROD-2 shows the variety of seasonal restrictions that are currently in place for 

roads and trails, as well as the restrictions that will be implemented under Alternative C 

Modified. For example, a road that is currently restricted from 10/1 to 5/15 will be 

restricted Yearlong under Alternative C Modified. At first glance, it may appear that a 

yearlong closure is more restrictive than a 10/1 to 5/15 closure. However, 5/16 through 

9/30 is the snow-free season, when motorized over-snow recreation is not possible. 

Extending the restricted season to include snow-free months will not reduce motorized 

winter recreation opportunities.

Table ROD-2: Alternative C Modified Route-Based Restrictions for Over-Snow Vehicles

Type of Route

(Road or Trail)

Alternative A

(Current) Restriction

Alternative C Modified

(Proposed) Restriction

Road 0 0

Road 10/1 – 12/1 10/1 – 11/15

Road 10/1 – 5/15 Yearlong

Road 11/1 – 4/1 Yearlong

Road 11/1 – 5/15 Yearlong

Road 12/1 – 4/15 Yearlong

Road 12/1 – 5/15 Yearlong

Road 4/1 – 11/30 10/1 – 11/15

Road 6/1 – 12/1 10/1 – 11/15

Road Yearlong Yearlong

Trail 0 0

Trail 10/1 – 5/15 Yearlong

Trail 12/1 – 5/15 Yearlong

Trail 5/15 – 12/1 10/1 – 11/15

Trail Yearlong Yearlong
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 20

Alternative C Modified – Conditions for Motorized Travel to Dispersed 

Campsites

Dispersed camping is very popular across the Forest and there are numerous existing 

campsites. Many of the potential impacts associated with dispersed camping are related 

to motor vehicle use. Some of the potential impacts associated with this activity may 

include driving across streams or down stream banks, developing multiple tracks into or 

between campsites as a result of repetitive OHV travel, and pioneering new campsites 

and motorized tracks to them. 

In response to public comments, a standard set of conditions has been developed that will 

apply Forest-wide. The conditions below are designed to meet the intent of the Travel 

Rule and to minimize the potential adverse effects on Forest resources and users 

associated with motor vehicle travel to dispersed campsites:

• 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 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 minimize damage to Forest resources while providing 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. 

• To minimize adverse effects to Forest resources, barriers of logs, rocks, or earth, 

gates, and/or signs have been or may be placed to restrict vehicles from sensitive 

or damaged areas such as wet areas, streamside zones, 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 (36CFR261). 

Examples of resource damage associated with motorized travel to dispersed 

campsites include but are not limited to: 

o Cutting, harming or unreasonably disturbing vegetation 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 21

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. 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING 

ALTERNATIVE C MODIFIED

The following actions were described in the FEIS as common to all action alternatives, 

and are included in Alternative C Modified.

• Cross-country motorized summer travel off of designated routes will be 

prohibited. 

• The Travel Planning analysis will not include the construction, reconstruction, or 

decommissioning of roads or trails. These actions would be better addressed at a 

more site-specific scale.

Roads Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following roads actions were described in the FEIS as common to all action 

alternatives, and are included in Alternative C Modified. 

Existing road restrictions have normally been developed during smaller-scale project 

analyses, using detailed site-specific information, and will not be reconsidered in this 

broad-scale analysis except in specific situations as described below

• System roads that were not displayed in the 2005 Travel Guide because they are 

generally overgrown or otherwise impassable would not be designated as 

motorized routes. In the Travel Planning reports (see Appendix B); a code of 

“Overgrown Not in Travel Guide” identifies these roads. Not designating these 

roads for motorized travel, even though they were not previously restricted, 

reflects the existing situation, rather than an actual change in usable road miles.

• The “date combination package,” consisting of proposed changes to seasonal road 

restrictions that are intended to reduce the number of use seasons, is included. 

See Appendix B, “All Travel Codes Defined,” for a detailed description of the 

proposed date combinations that would be implemented.

• Restrictions and designations proposed for roads on the lands formerly owned by 

DAW Forest Products Company in the upper North Fork River drainage are 

included. These roads were not in the 2005 Travel Guide, and have not been 

previously considered in project-level analyses, because they had been in private 

ownership (see Appendix B).

• Restriction changes that have been proposed to make restrictions consistent on 

related roads are included in actions common to all action alternatives.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 22

Trails Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following trails actions were described in the FEIS as common to all action 

alternatives, and are included in Alternative C Modified. 

Existing trail restrictions that have mostly been developed during smaller-scale project 

analyses will not be reconsidered except in specific situations as described below.

System trails that are in “storage” status (have not been maintained for 10 or more years), 

and that are generally overgrown and impractical for motorized travel, will not be 

designated for motorized use. In the Travel Planning Reports (see Appendix B), a code 

of “STO Trail/Maint Cost” identifies the storage trails that are not proposed for 

motorized use. With few exceptions these trails are not travelable with motor vehicles 

now and not designating them for motorized use represents little actual change in 

motorized opportunity. The “date combination package,” consisting of all the changes to 

seasonal trails restrictions that have been proposed to reduce the number of use seasons, 

will be implemented. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the proposed date 

combinations that will be implemented. Also see Appendix B for restriction changes and 

the reasons for those changes.

Error corrections to the 2005 Travel Guide for Trail 330 (Sand Mt), Trail 607 (Morgan 

Gul), and Trail 3610 (Disalto Cr) are included in all action alternatives.

Bicycle Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following bicycle actions were described in the FEIS as common to all action 

alternatives, and are included in Alternative C Modified. 

Appendix B lists all system trails where bicycle travel will be restricted.

Two new bicycle restrictions are common to all action alternatives. They are on Trails 

790 and 790-A near the Lolo Pass visitor center.

Over-snow Vehicles Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following over-snow vehicles actions were described in the FEIS as common to all 

action alternatives, and are included in Alternative C Modified. 

Cross-country travel by motorized over-snow vehicles will continue to be permitted.

To minimize adverse effects on wildlife, over-snow motorized vehicle use will be 

prohibited Forest-wide from October 1 through November 15 annually to provide for big 

game security during the core of the big game hunting seasons. This would replace a 

variety of route-based, seasonal restrictions that had the same purpose.

The reports in Appendix B do not show area restrictions to over-snow travel. See the 

Motorized Winter Use Map in Appendix A for that information. Area-based over-snow 

motorized vehicle restrictions will be retained for Forest Plan Management Areas B1 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 23

(Wilderness), A3 (Those parts identified as Non-Motorized Recreation), and A2 (Elk 

Creek Falls), as well as in several specific areas that were previously described in the 

Travel Guide. 

Van Camp Trail 16 will be restricted yearlong in all action alternatives.

All currently groomed routes will be retained for over-snow vehicle winter travel.

Forest Plan Amendment

The following forest plan amendment was described in the FEIS as common to all action 

alternatives, and is included in Alternative C Modified. It would modify the periods of 

restriction for on-road use described in Appendix F of the 1987 Forest Plan. 

The periods of restriction listed under Item IV, “ON-ROAD USE,” for Items IV. D. 2 and 

IV. D. 3 would be modified as described below:

1) Item IV. D. 2 would be changed to “Areas subject to erosion and/or watershed 

damage may be restricted seasonally, with the period of restriction to be 

determined based upon a site-specific review. Where conditions or levels of use 

by certain vehicles would not cause significant damage, such vehicles may be 

exempted from restrictions.”

2) Item IV. D. 3 would be changed to “Key wildlife habitat – YEARLONG TO 

ALL VEHICLES. Where habitat is of seasonal importance, use will be 

constrained for only the period of time appropriate to protect wildlife from undue 

harassment, to be determined based upon a site-specific review.”

Based on a more detailed review of the Forest Plan and its Record of Decision since the 

DEIS was published, I have concluded that the standards for Elk Habitat Effectiveness in 

the Forest Plan were applicable only to motorized traffic on roads, not on trails. 

Therefore, in this decision I have decided not to proceed with a forest plan amendment 

that was included in the DEIS for Alternatives B, C, and D that would have removed 

these standards in certain backcountry areas. 

Tribal Treaty Rights

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

American Tribes who use the Clearwater 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 

Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning proposal.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 24

The following Terms and Conditions are included in the USFWS Biological Opinion:

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions

1. In addition to the provisions in the proposed Monitoring Plan, the Forest will 

monitor the 14 motorized stream crossings on bull trout streams on a yearly 

basis for 5 years. If monitoring results indicate that continued use of these 

crossings is resulting in increasing levels of impacts at the crossings (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 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 NEPA decision and may affect listed species.

2. The Forest will conduct bull trout redd surveys and fish demographic surveys 

at the four crossings with the highest potential for occupancy by spawning and 

early rearing bull trout (Liz, Windy, Corral, and Johnagan Creeks). Should 

the Forest find redds or juvenile bull trout at these (or any of the other 10 

stream crossings), the Forest will close the crossing and reinitiate consultation 

with the Service.

The following Terms and Conditions are included in the NOAA Biological Opinion:

2.8.3.2. Terms and Conditions

To be exempt from theprohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the CNF 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 descrution or adverse modification 

of designed critical habitats.

1. To implement RMP #1, the CNF shall:

a. Maintain hardened fords on trails that are open to motorized use in 

streams occupied by steelhead. 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. To implement RMP #2, the CNF shall:

a. Devise a monitoring plan to assess incidental take at the stream 

fords open to motorized use. The plan shall assess turbidity caused 

by vehicles crossing the fords to determine if:
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 25

(1) Turbidity equals or exceeds 25 NTUs above background at 

a distance of 275 feet downstream from the fords for a 

duration of 6 hours or more within a 24-hour period, on 10 

or more days during a single season of use;

(2) Turbidity is increased by 25 NTU or more for any duration 

at a distance greater than 275 feet.

b. Submit all monitoring reports annually by March 15, to: NMFS, 

North Idaho Branch Office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 

83530.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

General Rationale

In making my decision, I considered a variety of choices within specific areas, and for 

specific routes. From a broad, Forest-wide perspective, I was guided by the following 

criteria:

Summer Recreation Opportunities

One of my objectives was to provide well-distributed opportunities for both OHVs and 

exclusive non-motorized uses of the Clearwater National Forest outside of Wilderness, 

while moving toward Forest Plan goals and objectives for other resources.

Some people who commented on this project expressed interest in particular destinations 

like lakes, and ridgelines or peaks that provide expansive views. For persons seeking 

quiet recreation these opportunities are provided in areas like the Mallard Larkins, Moose 

Mountains, and Great Burn where there will be no motorized use. Motorized routes to 

similar features will be maintained in places like the Lolo Motorway, Fish Lake, the 

Elizabeth Lakes area, and ridgeline routes in Clarke Mountain, Sheep Mountain, and to a 

number of lookouts.

During scoping and the comment period for the DEIS, recreationists mentioned that 

motorized users desire ATV and/or motorcycle trail rides of varying lengths within a 

reasonable travel distance from local communities. 

They also mentioned that non-motorized users desire similar duration hiking, horseback 

riding, and mountain biking opportunities within the same distances of local 

communities. Commenters mentioned that trails open to motorized use do not provide 

the type of experience many non-motorized users are looking for. Motorcyclists as well 

as non-motorized users prefer relatively narrow or single track trails and both groups 

appreciate trails that provide travel in a loop instead of back and forth on the same route. 

Places like the Mallard Larkins, Great Burn, and Selway Bitterroot additions that are 

recommended for wilderness designation in the Forest Plan will provide the bulk of the 

exclusively non-motorized opportunities. Trails that are open seasonally to motorcycles 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 26

in parts of Weitas, Fourth of July, and Junction Creeks will provide loop opportunities for 

motorcycles during part of the season (8/1 to 11/15) while providing an exclusive nonmotorized experience earlier in the summer. Long loop opportunities for motorcyclists of 

varying skill levels will be retained in places like Pot Mountain/Sheep Mountain and 

seasonally in Weitas Creek. 

Many of the existing backcountry motorcycle opportunities are in Forest Plan 

management areas that emphasize goals for wildlife and/or fisheries, and some are in 

areas recommended for wilderness. In most of these areas I have attempted to retain 

motorcycle opportunities including loops, and to include motorcycle trails that 

commenters told me were most important to them. But there is a direct conflict between 

uses in these areas, and in making my decision I have given considerable weight to the 

primary Forest Plan goals for these management areas. This means that motorcycle 

opportunities will be reduced in the backcountry and non-motorized opportunities will 

increase.

Past monitoring has indicated that potential damage to wildlife resources could be 

minimized by restricting motorized travel on Weitas Creek Trail 626. Other ATV trails 

are relatively unaffected by the selected actions.. Motorized recreationists who enjoy 

travel on National Forest System Roads will also see few effects: there will be some 

minor seasonal adjustments, and a few roads on lands acquired from DAW Corporation 

will be restricted. The vast majority of the currently travelable road system will remain

available to motorized traffic.

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

Based on comments and discussions I’ve received during the travel planning process, I 

know that many motorized users, especially motorcyclists, will strongly disagree with my 

decision. Other interests may disagree with the decision as well, thinking that restrictions 

to motorized uses, particularly for motorcycles in the backcountry, do not go far enough. 

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.

Winter Recreation Opportunities

My objective was to provide well-distributed opportunities for snowmobiling while 

moving toward Forest Plan goals and objectives for other resources. Moving toward 

Forest Plan goals and objectives will minimize potential adverse effects on Forest 

resources. Again, public comments indicated that there is a need for winter recreation 

opportunities in both motorized and non-motorized settings. 

Opportunities for snowmobile and other over-snow vehicle trips along groomed routes 

remain unchanged from the current situation and this is where most motorized winter 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 27

activity occurs. Similarly, no groomed ski trails are converted to motorized use in my 

decision. 

For over-snow vehicle users who travel roads that are not groomed, few changes will be 

apparent. My decision to restrict over-snow vehicles Forest-wide during the core of the 

big game hunting seasons from 10/1 to 11/15 does not affect the winter recreationist and 

will affect few hunters in typical fall weather. I have decided not to modify or remove a 

variety of scattered over-snow vehicle restrictions with this decision, although those 

changes were analyzed in Alternatives B, C, and D. Since a number of these restrictions 

were implemented as a result of site specific analyses, I will defer any reconsideration of 

them to analysis and decision with future projects as they come along. 

Much of the Forest remains open to cross-country travel with over-snow vehicles during 

winter once the snow is deep enough to make this travel possible. Some snowmobilers 

desire a high altitude remote experience that might include hill climbing or “high 

marking”. Commenters expressed concerns over the loss of opportunities like this if 

areas that were recommended for Wilderness in the Forest Plan were restricted to 

motorized vehicles. In making my decision to eliminate most motorized travel in 

recommended wilderness I have given the most weight to the goal of retaining wilderness 

character. (“Manage recommended additions to the wilderness system to prevent 

changes in character which would be inconsistent in wilderness until Congress makes 

classification decisions,” (FP pg. II-23)) This will minimize the potential for adverse 

effects to Forest resources and conflicts between uses. Though similar opportunities for 

high elevation snowmobile use exist regionally, the Great Burn area and some other 

locations on the Powell District will be missed by those who have snowmobiled there. 

The change will create quiet environments for non-motorized winter users though I 

recognize that sheer remoteness will limit the numbers of non-motorized users to these 

areas.

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:

• Eliminate motorized and bicycle travel in recommended wilderness except for 

summer motorized travel on Fish Lake Trail 419.

• Manage motorized use in MAs C1, C6, and C8S to minimize effects on wildlife 

and fisheries resources while moving closer to goals and objectives in the Forest 

Plan.

• Retain motorized uses to the greatest extent possible in MAs where motorized 

uses are consistent with goals and objectives in the Forest Plan.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 28

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 Recommended Wilderness, 

wildlife, and fisheries were also factors in my decision not to choose Alternative B. 

Beyond that, my decision was largely based on my desire to provide an appropriate mix 

of recreation opportunities, while minimizing adverse effects by complying with laws, 

regulations, policy, and the Forest Plan.

Forest Plan Standards, Goals, and Objectives

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 trails in certain 

management areas that were developed by the IDT for Alternative C 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 Appendix A and Appendix B of the Final EIS.

Forestwide standards are described in the Forest Plan on pages II-20 through II-40. 

Forest Plan standards for individual Management Areas are described on pages III-3 

through III-77. PACFISH and INFISH were amended to the Clearwater Forest Plan in 

1995. PACFISH and INFISH standards also apply to this project.

Table ROD-3: Compliance With Forest Plan Standards

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

General Forest-wide Comprehensive area transportation 

planning. (FP pg. II-21)

The selected actions 

will accomplish this.

Recreation 

and Visual Forest-wide

Use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) and Recreation Opportunity Guide 

(ROG) as guides to provide a full array of 

recreation. (FP pg. II-21)

See the FEIS, Appendix 

E for a discussion of the 

effects analysis for 

Recreation and the use 

of ROS for this 

analysis.

Recreation 

and Visual Forest-wide

Designate areas, roads, and tracts for offroad vehicle (ORV) use in accordance with 

management area goals and standards. (FP 

pg. II-21).

The selected actions are 

consistent with 

direction outlined in 

Appendix F of the 

Forest Plan. Please see 

specific items elsewhere 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 29

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

in this table for a

discussion of MAspecific Forest Plan 

standards.

Recreation 

and Visual Forest-wide

Include analysis of the trails to determine 

whether to abandon or retain; and if retain, 

whether to relocate temporarily or 

permanently when conducting 

environmental analysis in areas that contain 

system trails. (FP pg. II-22)

The Travel Planning 

analysis addressed the 

designation of trails for 

motorized use. It did 

not address trail 

construction, 

reconstruction, 

decommissioning, or 

obliteration. These 

actions would be better 

analyzed at a smaller 

scale. (FEIS pg. 2-75)

Recreation 

and Visual Forest-wide

Manage the Lolo Pass and North-South 

winter sports areas for winter recreational 

opportunities (cross-country skiing, 

snowmobiling, snowshoeing, etc). Regulate 

ORV use to minimize user conflicts and 

public safety hazards. (FP pg. II-22)

Over-snow motorized 

travel and ORV use are 

addressed in the Travel 

Planning EIS.

Recreation

and Visual Forest-wide

Regulate use of roads, trails, and specified 

areas along with designating areas for ORV 

use per Executive Order 11644. (FP pg. II22)

The selected actions 

include road- and trailspecific restrictions that 

are described in detail 

in Appendix B of the 

FEIS.

Cultural 

Resources Forest-wide

Standard b. Identify and evaluate 

appropriate sites for nomination to the 

National Register of Historic Places, 

primarily in conjunction with surveys of 

potential impact project areas, but also 

backlog areas on a priority basis. (FP pg. II22)

Ongoing inventory and 

evaluation in 

accordance with the 

Programmatic 

Agreement.

Cultural 

Resources Forest-wide

Standard c. Protect cultural resources from 

vandalism and other human depredation and 

natural destruction through signing, 

patrolling and/or monitoring. (FP pg. II-22)

Signing, monitoring, 

and public education.

Cultural 

Resources Forest-wide

Standard g. Ensure that Forest actions are

not detrimental to the protection and 

preservation of Indian Tribes’ religious and 

cultural sites and practices and treaty rights. 

(FP pg. II-23)

Ongoing inventory and 

evaluation in 

accordance with the 

Programmatic 

Agreement. 

Government-togovernment 

consultation has 

occurred.

Wilderness Forest-wide

Manage recommended additions to the 

wilderness system to prevent changes in 

character which would be inconsistent in 

wilderness until Congress makes 

classification decisions. (FP pg. II-23)

To protect wilderness 

character, the selected 

actions will eliminate 

most motorized travel 

in recommended 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 30

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

wilderness areas.

Wildlife and 

Fish Forest-wide

Provide the proper mix of hiding and 

thermal cover, forage, and protection from 

harassment during critical periods on biggame summer range (primarily elk), in 

accordance with criteria contained in the 

“Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing 

Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho.” 

(FP pg. II-23)

The selected actions 

will provide large 

blocks of secure habitat 

by restricting motorized 

use on specific trails 

and by implementing 

seasonal restrictions on 

some motorized trails 

within key elk habitat.

Wildlife and 

Fish Forest-wide

Manage use of motorized vehicles off roads, 

on roads, and on trails in areas of key 

wildlife habitat features such as elk licks, 

wallows, and calving areas to accomplish 

habitat objectives. (FP pg. II-23)

The selected action 

eliminates cross country 

motorized travel by 

limiting motor vehicles 

to designated routes. 

The selected actions 

will provide large 

blocks of secure habitat 

by restricting motorized 

use on specific trails 

and provides calving 

security in the most 

critical calving areas by 

implementing seasonal 

restrictions on some 

motorized trails.

Water Forest-wide

Manage water quality and stream conditions 

to assure that National Forest management 

activities do not cause permanent or longterm damage to existing or specified 

beneficial uses. (FP pg. II-27)

Evaluation of effects

Water Forest-wide

Apply best management practices to project 

activities to ensure water quality standards 

are met or exceeded. (FP pg. II-27)

Adherence to standards

Water Forest-wide

Manage all water in the Forest under 

appropriate Clearwater Forest Plan 

Appendix K standards to maintain the 

physical and biological stability of streams 

on the Forest. (FP pgs. II-27 to II-28)

Project will reduce 

future risks to aquatic 

resources by: Limit 

motorized vehicle use 

to designated routes of 

the transportation 

system. Regulate 

motorized vehicle use 

in riparian areas and 

stream crossings

including specific 

conditions for 

motorized travel to 

dispersed campsite

Water Forest-wide

Design, construct, and operate recreation 

facilities, including trails and dispersed 

sites, in a manner that does not retard or 

prevent attainment of RMOs and avoids 

Project will not change 

stream conditions (i.e. 

substrate, temperature, 

spawning and rearing 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 31

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish 

(inland native fish). Complete Watershed 

Analysis prior to construction of new 

recreation facilities in RHCAs. For existing 

recreation facilities in RHCAs, assure that 

the facilities or use of the facilities will not 

prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely 

affect listed anadromous fish (inland native 

fish). Relocate or close recreation facilities 

where RMOs cannot be met or adverse 

effects on listed anadromous fish (inland 

native fish) avoided. (PACFISH/INFISH)

habitat) for streams 

meeting objectives and 

will not retard recovery 

of streams not currently 

meeting objectives. 

Project will reduce 

future risks to aquatic 

resources by: Limit 

motorized vehicle use 

to designated routes of 

the transportation 

system. Regulate 

motorized vehicle use 

in riparian areas and 

stream crossings

including specific 

conditions for 

motorized travel to 

dispersed campsites.

Water Forest-wide

Address attainment of RMOs and potential 

effect on listed anadromous fish (inland 

native fish) and critical habitat in Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and other 

Recreation Management Plans. 

(PACFISH/INFISH)

Project will not change 

stream conditions (i.e. 

substrate, temperature, 

spawning and rearing 

habitat) for streams 

meeting objectives and 

will not retard recovery 

of streams not currently 

meeting objectives. 

Project will reduce 

future risks to aquatic 

resources by: Limit 

motorized vehicle use 

to designated routes of 

the transportation 

system. Regulate 

motorized vehicle use 

in riparian areas and 

stream crossings.

Wilderness 

and Unroaded Forest-wide

Manage recommended additions to the 

wilderness system to prevent changes in 

character which would be inconsistent in 

wilderness until Congress makes 

classification decisions. (FP pg. II-23)

Motorized and 

mechanized travel in 

Recommended 

Wilderness will not be 

permitted except for 

summer motorized 

travel on Fish Lake 

Trail 419.

Facilities 

(Trails) Forest-wide

Restrict use of roads as needed to prevent 

resource damage and close roads and restrict 

the use of ORVs to protect road beds and to 

protect wildlife from undue harassment. 

Restrictions may be seasonal or yearlong to 

accomplish resource management 

objectives. (FP pg. II-34)

Motor Vehicle Use Map 

will specify routes 

available for motorized 

travel including type of 

vehicle and season of 

use.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 32

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

Facilities 

(Trails) Forest-wide

Prohibit ORV use on trails which enter 

wilderness when:

• The boundary is not well defined

• User conflicts or unsafe conditions 

will result from ORV use

• Cross-country use of ORVs is 

prohibited in the potential 

recreation and scenic river corridor 

segments of Kelly Creek, Cayuse 

Creek and the North Fork of the 

Clearwater (FP pgs. II-34, II-36)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Elk Creek 

Falls

A2

Facilities

Do not permit vehicle use off roads. (FP pg. 

III-5)

The selected actions do 

not permit motorized 

travel off of designated 

routes.

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Areas

A3

Recreation

Manage recreational use and management 

activities to the lowest level necessary to 

maintain a semiprimitive setting. (FP pg. 

III-7)

The selected actions 

include criteria for 

permitting motorized 

travel to dispersed 

campsites.

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Areas

A3

Recreation

Manage the Lochsa Face, Coolwater Ridge 

and Moose Mountain areas as 

semiprimitive, non-motorized recreational 

settings. (FP pg. III-7)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Areas

A3

Recreation

Manage the Elizabeth Lakes and North 

Lochsa Slope areas as semiprimitive, 

motorized recreational settings. (FP pg. III8)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Areas

A3

Facilities

Do not construct new Forest system roads. 

(FP pg. III-9)

The selected actions 

will not construct new 

system roads.

Lolo Trail 

National 

Historic 

Landmark 

Corridor

A6

Facilities

Provide and maintain a variety of trail 

settings from developed to primitive. (FP 

pg. III-22)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Middle Fork 

of the 

Clearwater 

River – Wild 

and Scenic 

River, 

Recreational 

Segment

A7

Recreation

Provide developed and dispersed 

recreational opportunities in a rural or 

roaded natural- appearing setting as 

landownership patterns permit.

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Middle Fork 

of the 

Clearwater 

River – Wild 

and Scenic 

River, 

Recreational 

Segment

A7

Recreation

Permit camping in dispersed areas within 

site capability. (FP pg. III-26)

The selected actions 

include conditions for 

motorized travel to 

dispersed campsites.

Selway- B1 Prohibit any motorized vehicle use except at This is the existing 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 33

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

Bitterroot 

Wilderness

Facilities the emergency airfield at Fish Lake. (FP pg. 

III-34)

condition, and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Recommended 

Wilderness

B2

Recreation

Manage all uses to maintain wilderness 

qualities and retain semiprimitive settings. 

(FP pg. III-36)

The selected actions 

protect wilderness 

character by eliminating 

most motorized travel 

in Recommended 

Wilderness Areas.

Recommended 

Wilderness

B2

Facilities

Do not construct new Forest system roads. 

(FP pg. III-39)

The selected actions

will not construct new 

system roads.

Key Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C1

Recreation

Manage for dispersed recreation in a 

semiprimitive motorized setting oriented to 

big-game hunting activities. (FP pg. III-40)

The selected action 

provides for motorized 

opportunities on some 

trails in this MA 

primarily in late 

summer and fall, 

thereby avoiding 

disturbance to calving 

elk which are the major 

focus of this MA.

Key Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C1

Facilities

Do not construct new Forest system roads. 

(FP pg. III-42)

The selected actions 

will not construct new 

system roads.

Key Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C1

Facilities

Permit trail bike use on trails to extent that 

use does not damage trails, result in unsafe 

conditions for other users, or prevent 

achievement of fish and wildlife 

management goals. (FP pg. III-42)

The selected action 

provides for trail bike 

use on some trails 

within the MA under 

seasonal restrictions in 

key elk habitat.

Big-game 

Winter Range

C3

Recreation

Manage for dispersed recreation in a roaded 

natural setting on areas that occur within or 

adjacent to management areas designated 

for development. Limit motorized vehicle 

use during winter periods when big-game 

animals are vulnerable to harassment. (FP 

pg. III-43)

Route-based restrictions 

for over-snow vehicles 

will be retained in big 

game winter range, as 

described in Table 

ROD-2.

Big-game 

Winter Range

C3

Facilities

Close roads to all motor vehicles when 

conflicts with big-game winter use could 

occur. (FP pg. III-45)

Winter Use Map will 

specify routes available 

for over-snow vehicles. 

Several route 

restrictions in winter 

range are added.

Big-game 

Winter Range

C3

Facilities

Do not construct roads for management of 

the area. Roads needed for mineral 

development or to access adjacent areas are 

permitted, excepted as noted in c. below. ... 

Construct no new Forest system roads in C3 

areas associated with MAs C1, A3, and C6. 

(FP pg. III-45)

The selected actions 

will not construct new 

system roads.

Big-game 

Winter Range 

C4

Recreation

Manage for dispersed recreation in a roaded 

natural setting. (FP pg. III-47)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 34

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

and Suitable 

TimberProducing 

Land

selected actions will not 

change it.

Big-game 

Winter Range 

and Suitable 

TimberProducing 

Land

C4

Recreation

Manage motorized vehicle use during the 

winter when big game is vulnerable to 

harassment, and at any time when conflicts 

may occur with timber management. (FP 

pg. III-47)

Motor Vehicle Use Map 

will specify routes 

available for motorized 

travel including type of 

vehicle and season of 

use

Big-game 

Winter Range 

and Suitable 

TimberProducing 

Land

C4

Facilities

Close roads and trails to motor vehicles and 

ORV use when potential conflicts with biggame winter use could occur. (FP pg. III48)

Motor Vehicle Use Map 

will specify routes 

available for motorized 

travel including type of 

vehicle and season of 

use.

High Fishery 

Stream Values

C6

Recreation

Manage for dispersed recreation in a 

semiprimitive motorized setting. (FP pg. III50)

Opportunities for 

dispersed camping are 

retained subject to 

conditions for 

motorized travel to 

dispersed sites.

High Fishery 

Stream Values

C6

Facilities

Do not construct new Forest system roads. 

(FP pg. III-51)

The selected actions 

will not construct new 

system roads.

High Fishery 

Stream Values

C6

Facilities

Permit trail bike use on trails to extent use 

does not damage trails, result in unsafe 

conditions for other users, or prevent 

achievement of fish and wildlife 

management goals. (FP pg. III-51)

The selected action

provides for trail bike 

use on some trails 

within the MA under 

seasonal restrictions in 

key elk habitat. Most 

trails adjacent to 

streams or with multiple 

fords are not designated 

for motorized use.

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Recreation

Provide opportunities primarily for 

nonmotorized dispersed recreation in a 

roaded natural setting. (FP pg. III-53)

This standard is 

associated with, and 

mitigation for timber 

harvest and road 

construction that was 

envisioned for C8S in 

the Forest Plan. With 

only minor and very 

localized exceptions 

that development has 

not taken place and the 

Roaded Natural setting 

does not exist. The MA 

becomes primarily nonmotorized (79% of 

trails) as a result of 

restrictions 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 35

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

implemented with the 

Travel Plan. 

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Wildlife and 

Fish

Manage big-game summer range for a 

minimum of 75 percent of elk habitat 

potential. (FP pg. III-53)

Roads constructed since 

the Forest Plan are 

restricted to motorized 

use to achieve the 

standard. This MA 

overall meets the 75% 

standard.

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Wildlife and 

Fish

Avoid or provide mitigation for special 

wildlife areas such as big-game calving 

areas, wallows, travel routes, and licks when 

designing roads and timber sales. (FP pg. 

III-53)

The selected actions do 

not include road 

construction or timber 

sales. .

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Facilities

Plan and implement transportation systems 

to avoid:

1) Crossing of major fishery streams 

where possible or to provide for 

mitigation if required to cross.

2) Special big-game habitat components 

such as calving areas, licks, wallows, 

and concentration areas or to provide 

for mitigation if required to cross. (FP 

pg. III-55)

The selected actions do 

not include road or trail 

construction. No new 

stream crossings will be 

created. Selected trails 

are not designated for 

motorized use or are 

restricted seasonally to 

avoid impacts on big 

game habitat.

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Facilities

Prohibit public use of motorized vehicles on 

all new roads constructed in the 

management area, except permit 

snowmobiles during the winter period 

(December 1 through March 1). (FP pg. III55)

Roads constructed since 

the Forest Plan are 

already restricted to 

motorized vehicles. The 

selected actions do not 

include road 

construction. Selected 

actions will not change 

the existing condition 

for snowmobiles.

Big-game 

Summer 

Range

C8S

Facilities

Permit trail bike use on trails suitable for 

trail bikes until the area is roaded, at which 

time the entire area will be closed to all 

public use of motor vehicles. (FP pg. III55)

The road construction 

envisioned by the 

Forest Plan for this area 

(FP pg. III-56) has not 

yet occurred. Trail bike 

use is still permitted on 

selected trails.

Timber 

Producing 

Land

E1

Recreation

Manage a roaded natural setting for 

dispersed recreation. (FP pg. III-57)

This is the existing 

condition and the 

selected actions will not 

change it.

Timber 

Producing 

Land

E1

Wildlife and 

Fish

Manage for a minimum of 25 percent 

maximum elk potential habitat 

effectiveness. During plan implementation 

and further analysis, determine whether 

remaining areas of E1 have potential for 

providing elk habitat. When analysis shows 

elk potential is limited by factors other than 

National Forest management, 

Selected actions do not 

reduce Elk Habitat 

Effectiveness for MA 

E1 Forestwide and it 

remains around 45%.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 36

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

determinations may be made not to manage 

for elk. When habitat conditions warrant, 

managers are urged to exceed the 25 percent 

habitat standard. (FP pg. III-58)

Timber 

Producing 

Land on Steep 

or Unstable 

Landscapes

E3

Facilities

Restrict public use of motor vehicles as 

needed, to protect road facilities. (FP pg. III62)

The Date Combination 

Package (FEIS pg. 2-64 

and Appendix B) is 

included in the selected 

actions. Changes to 

existing seasonal 

restrictions for roads 

and trails would 

simplify the number of 

use seasons; however, 

the resulting seasons of 

restriction would 

continue to protect road 

and trail facilities.

Research 

Natural Areas

M1

Recreation

Permit use of motor vehicles only on Forest 

trails where use would not adversely affect 

RNA values. (FP pg. III-65)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions would 

not change it.

Research 

Natural Areas

M1

Facilities

Prohibit new road or trail construction 

within the boundaries of all RNAs and 

unique areas with the following exceptions:

1) Provide possible road access 

through the proposed Bull Run 

RNA to access adjacent private 

land.

2) Provide possible road access 

through the proposed Aquarius 

RNA north of the Clearwater 

River, if needed.

3) Conduct maintenance of existing 

roads and trails within RNAs with 

the least possible impact on the 

particular RNA values. (FP pg. III66)

This is the existing 

condition, and the 

selected actions would 

not change it.

Riparian 

Areas

M2

Wildlife and 

Fish

Maintain streamside vegetation to provide 

adequate cover and habitat components for 

fish. (FP pg. III-69)

An aquatic monitoring 

plan has been

developed (FEIS 

Appendix F) to ensure 

that fish habitat at 

stream crossings is not 

adversely affected.

Riparian 

Areas

M2

Facilities

Design mitigation measures that will 

effectively reduce sediment from road 

construction, use, and maintenance. (FP pg. 

III-71)

An aquatic monitoring 

plan has been 

developed (FEIS 

Appendix F) to ensure 

that fish habitat at 

stream crossings is not 

adversely affected.

Riparian M2 Design stream crossings for protection of An aquatic monitoring 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 37

Resource Area Standard Compliance Will

Be Achieved By

Areas Facilities water resource values such as fish passage, 

non-erosive velocities, channel stability, to 

avoid ponding and flooding, and to provide 

erosion control of road fills and surfaces. 

(FP pg. III-72)

plan has been 

developed (FEIS 

Appendix F) to ensure 

that fish habitat at 

stream crossings is not 

adversely affected.

Rationale by Forest Plan Management Areas and Other Areas of Public 

Interest

Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs)

The Clearwater Forest Plan (1987) identified 16 inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) 

totaling 950,311 acres of which 198,200 acres were recommended for wilderness 

designation; portions of Hoodoo, Mallard Larkins, North Fork Spruce - White Sand, and 

Sneakfoot (Forest Plan Record of Decision p. 11). Areas recommended for wilderness in 

the Clearwater Forest Plan (1987) are defined in the plan as Management Area (MA) B2 

(Forest Plan p. III-36-39). Lands allocated to MA B2 meet the criteria for being 

considered, by Congress, for wilderness designation in the future. 

Of the four RWAs, Hoodoo (Great Burn) and Mallard-Larkins are contiguous to areas on 

other National Forests that have also been recommended for wilderness designation and 

the others are contiguous to the existing Selway Bitterroot Wilderness For Hoodoo and 

Mallard-Larkins the current management of motorized and mechanized (bicycle) 

transportation, as well as non-motorized travel, is not consistent across Forest boundaries. 

The 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan identified RWAs only as Semi-Primitive (without the 

typical “motorized” or “non-motorized” suffix) in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

discussion and did not address bicycles. This indicates that the either motorized or nonmotorized uses are acceptable in B2 and that the Forest Service has the discretion to 

determine how to balance wilderness character with motorized use. This travel plan 

effort provides the opportunity to make decisions that provide that balance.

Motorized and mechanized use in these RWAs has increased over the years as 

technology for motorized and mechanized equipment has advanced and this trend is 

likely to continue. The primary goal for RWAs in the Forest Plan is: “Manage 

recommended additions to the wilderness system to prevent changes in character which 

would be inconsistent in wilderness until Congress makes classification decisions,” (FP 

pg. II-23). I believe there is a need to address current and projected motorized and 

mechanized recreation uses in areas recommended for wilderness. To meet the primary 

goal for recommended wilderness and to balance wilderness character with motorized 

use, I have decided to exclude motorized and mechanized vehicles from all areas of 

recommended wilderness with the exception of the Fish Lake Trail 419. I believe that this 

action best addresses the overall intent of the Forest Plan regarding the future of these 

areas.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 38

I am making one exception and that is for summer use of the Fish Lake Trail which is 

centralized in a small, localized area along the boundary of the Hoodoo (Great Burn) 

RWA. I am doing this for a couple of reasons: First, this trail is established on a former 

dozer road that once supported large vehicle traffic. This trail was included in the 

Hoodoo recommended wilderness in the 1987 Forest Plan. Shortly after that forest plan 

was completed, a group of volunteers worked extensively to convert the former dozer 

road into an ATV trail that provides short and gentle access to Fish Lake. They worked 

carefully to install resource protection facilities to limit motorized use to the access trail 

and campsite specific parking areas. These resource protection measures are currently 

enforced under a Forest Supervisor Order. In addition, the resource impacts to 

wilderness character are limited to the area accessing Fish Lake. Over 110,000 acres of 

the Hoodoo IRA would be unaffected by this motorized access. In the meantime, the trail 

provides access to Fish Lake for many people who don’t have the capability to ride on 

most ATV trails. Second, although the Forest Plan recommendation for wilderness 

included this trail, the most recent revision of wilderness legislation crafted by a member 

of the Idaho Congressional delegation did not. I am restricting winter use of this trail in 

its entirety; however, as the trail itself without access to adjoining lands and without a 

notable winter destination provides little in the way of a snowmobile opportunity and 

more likely would facilitate motorized intrusions into adjacent restricted lands. 

Continued motorized and mechanized use of the Fish Lake Trail is a compromise that 

will allow some motorized and mechanized recreational uses to continue that have 

become established since the Forest Plan was published, while moving other areas within 

RWAs closer to the goals established in the Forest Plan. This approach is consistent with 

management decisions that have been made for adjoining Forests. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Clearwater Forest Plan (1987) designates 16 inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) 

totaling 950,311 acres, of which 198,200 acres are recommended for wilderness 

designation. Four of these IRAs, Hoodoo, Mallard Larkins, North Fork Spruce - White 

Sand, and Sneakfoot contain areas recommended for wilderness designation. 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 

Forest Plan IRA areas are used in this analysis to compare alternatives (GIS acres were 

used in area restriction and RNA calculations). Table 3-16 in the FEIS displays the 

acreage associated with the 16 IRAs including the 4 IRAs that contain recommended 

wilderness (RWA) acres.

The Forest Plan guidance for IRAs is found within the direction for each management 

area. There is no specific management area that encompasses all IRAs.

The Forest Plan includes the following forest-wide management direction:

a. Maintain the natural integrity of those lands designated for unroaded 

management, and provide the management of the their key resources 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 39

(dispersed recreation, big-game summer range, anadromous and resident 

fishery habitat) found within each area (FP Forest-wide Goal p. II-1)

With few exceptions, the 1987 Forest Plan is discretionary regarding motorized v. nonmotorized use in IRAs. 

Currently, management of IRAs is also covered by Idaho Roadless Rule. The Idaho 

Roadless Rule was promulgated on October 16, 2008 (73 FR 61456). It formally 

designated roadless areas of Idaho and established direction for them under a series of 

management “themes”. As noted in the rule in 36 CFR Part 294.26(a), the rule does not 

provide any direction regarding travel management and specifically relegates travel 

decisions to the individual National Forests. However, the rule does guide the 

assessment of roadless area character and that guidance was used along with the Forest 

Plan to identify the roadless lands considered in this Travel Plan.

Management Areas C1, C6, and C8S

Forest Plan standards, goals, and objectives in these MAs emphasize fish and wildlife 

habitat though the plan recognizes motorized recreation, primarily in the form of 

motorbikes, as a legitimate use. The effects of motorized traffic on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat have long been recognized. Here I am faced with a classic set of important yet 

competing interests. In making my decision I considered the relative importance of trails 

in these MAs to motorized users as well as their likely effects on fish and wildlife. I will 

address my rationale for each management area separately as there are notable 

differences.

Management area C1 is represented in only one location (Mostly the Fourth of July 

Junction, and Barnard Creek drainages of the North Fork District) and recognizes the best 

big game summer range and most important elk calving areas on the Forest. Clearly the 

most important goal for this area is to provide quality big game summer range. People 

who commented on the initial proposed action and draft EIS often noted the importance 

of trails within or adjacent to this MA to completing motorcycle loop trips including 

providing loops appropriate for lesser skilled motorcycle riders. Other comments noted 

the serious decline in elk herds on the North Fork and concern for motorized traffic 

effects to this low elk population. Even though there are only a couple trails within the 

core of this MA, the only way I can see to provide a motorized trail opportunity here is to 

limit amount and timing of motorized traffic. Accordingly, I have decided to completely 

exclude all non-winter motorized uses from Trail 106. To provide for the much desired 

motorcycle loop opportunities I am restricting Trail 191 and 691 within the core of the 

management area and part of Trail 167 on the southern/western edge to a season from 8/1 

to 11/15 annually. This season avoids the primary calving and weaning periods for elk. 

Further restricting the single remaining trail of any length (191) within the interior of this 

MA would render the MA essentially non-motorized which I believe would be counter to 

the semi-primitive motorized setting envisioned by the Forest Plan.

Management area C6, though it also has high wildlife goals, is more focused on 

protecting water quality and fish habitats from the effects of human activity. This MA 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 40

occurs in several locations around the forest but significant changes in motorized 

opportunity are proposed only in the Cayuse Creek drainage on the North Fork and 

Powell Districts. In consideration of the primary goals of protecting streams and water 

quality, the selected alternative would restrict nearly all motorized travel along the major 

streams of Cayuse, Rasberry and Monroe Creeks. Restricting motorized travel here 

reduces the traffic across a number of stream fords along these trails. Opportunity for 

motorcycle trips are retained along the ridgelines including Lunde Ridge and Lookout 

Peak/Windy Bill. An ATV opportunity to visit Scurvy Lookout is also retained. 

Management Area C8S is an interesting situation. C8S areas occur in multiple locations 

around the Forest and had a combination of wildlife, fishery, and timber goals. The areas 

affected by the Travel Plan include Upper North Fork/Vanderbilt, Osier/Pollock Ridge, 

Pot Mountain, and Weitas Creek. The 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan envisioned 

that much of the then roadless country would be developed with road systems and timber 

harvest and that development was expected to occur in C8S, not in the C1, C6, B2, or A3 

MAs. Some of the goals for this management area were set with the expectation that C8S 

areas would be developed. These include closing all new roads to motorized traffic and 

even closing all trails to motorized traffic once the area had been developed. But, the 

future envisioned for these C8S areas in the plan has not occurred and is unlikely to. So, 

rather than a developed “roaded natural” landscape envisioned by the Forest Plan, with 

few exceptions, we are dealing with a semi-primitive landscape with little development to 

mitigate for. All new roads constructed in C8S have been restricted to motorized traffic 

as soon as they were built. But the trail system in C8S receives motorized traffic, 

primarily motorcycles, wherever the physical condition of the trail permits it. People 

who commented on the Travel Plan at various stages raised several issues often including 

the importance of C8S areas to big game but also the importance of the single track trails 

to a backcountry motorcycle experience. Motorcyclists particularly valued the Pot 

Mountain and Weitas Creek areas and the opportunity to make loop trips that are possible 

for riders of various skill levels. 

As a way to address the competing wildlife and recreation goals, the ID team looked to 

provide large blocks of secure habitat while retaining opportunities for the most 

important motorcycle loops, particularly those that can complete a loop without extensive 

road travel. Eliminating motorized use on a single trail, 373, accomplishes that for the 

Upper North Fork/Vanderbilt area and restricting two trails secures the Osier/Pollock 

country. Neither of these routes connects as well into loops as trails elsewhere in C8S. 

In Pot Mountain and Weitas, most connector trails will be restricted to retain the large 

blocks of secure habitat but the primary loop routes will remain open to motorcycles. 

Within Weitas Creek there are several areas of considerable importance to wildlife 

including big game and trails in a couple of these locations are also critical links in a 

loop. Alternative C, the preferred alternative in the draft EIS did not retain these links for 

motorcycle traffic. Based on comment, I have decided to provide these connections for 

motorcycle travel but in doing so I must demonstrate how this decision would minimize 

effects on wildlife. The majority of changes from Alternative C to the selected 

Alternative C Modified are associated with these issues. Trail 167 across Cook Mountain 

and down to Fourth of July Pack bridge will be available to motorcycles but only during 

the period from 8/1 to 11/15 each year. This trail traverses an important wildlife area on 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 41

the border of C8S and C1 MAs. This seasonal restriction will avoid the core of the 

calving and weaning period for elk that was of greatest concern. Trail 632 which had 

been open to motorcycles in Alternative C will be restricted in Alternative C Modified. 

This eliminates loop traffic on Road 555 relegating it to back and forth use which 

historically is not as popular.

I feel that Alternative C Modified best minimizes effects on wildlife habitat while

providing motorized recreation opportunities. 

Management Areas C3 and C4

These management areas define the big game winter range on the Forest and occur 

primarily within roaded country. Management direction in the Forest Plan recognizes the 

potential for big game to adversely affected by motorized traffic during the winter period 

and provide for restrictions as necessary to avoid those affects. There are two major big 

game wintering areas on the Forest, the Lochsa River/US Highway 12, and the North 

Fork Clearwater River/Forest Roads 247/250/255. The winter situations are decidedly 

different and I recognize that difference in this decision. 

The entire Lochsa corridor is highly accessible to vehicles of all types during the winter 

owing to the presence of US Highway 12. Most Forest roads or sections of roads within 

the winter range have been restricted to motorized travel during winter. The Travel Plan 

analysis has identified several unrestricted roads in this area and these will be restricted to 

all motorized traffic in winter as part of this decision.

The North Fork corridor on the other hand, is far from communities and roads leading to 

the North Fork are not plowed in winter. Snow depths on those access roads preclude 

travel by wheeled vehicles. In the past these roads have not been restricted to motor 

vehicles in winter as distance from town and difficulty of travel even with snowmobiles 

has effectively limited the motorized traffic to few vehicles. When the Forest Service or 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game have observed severe snow conditions we have 

restricted all motorized travel in these winter range areas by a special order. 

Some commenters have asserted that the winter range roads on the North Fork should be 

closed to all vehicles in winter based MA C3/C4 direction. I believe that the intent of 

that direction is met by the current approach and that big game is adequately protected. I 

will continue to implement special restrictions when snow conditions warrant additional 

protection. 

Rationale for Other Components of the Travel Management Plan

Bicycles

While there is little mountain bike use within the areas recommended for wilderness by 

the Forest Plan with the exception of Trail 419 to Fish Lake, owing to the difficult trail 

conditions, bicycle travel is a non-conforming use in wilderness. To retain the wilderness 

character of these areas I have decided to exclude bicycles with the single exception of 

the Fish Lake Trail. See the RWA section for further discussion of this issue.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 42

Restrictions to bicycles on a number of other roads and trails across the forest will be 

removed with this decision. The remaining areas of the forest will provide a wide variety 

of bicycle opportunities of varying challenge and in a variety of settings.

Over-snow Vehicles

For over-snow vehicles, the proposed action and purpose and need use the Forest level 

scale to appropriately address and analyze this use. However, in response to public 

comments, areas being proposed for restriction to over-snow vehicle use in adjacent high 

alpine areas were also evaluated. Unlike summer use, winter use is an area-based, rather 

than route-based, opportunity for motorized vehicles; therefore, expanding the evaluation 

area beyond the Forest boundary is prudent. The results of this evaluation show that on 

the Lolo NF, the adjacent portion of the Great Burn roadless area has been restricted for 

many years to over snow vehicles. Eliminating over-snow vehicle use in the Great Burn 

area will result in consistent management practices across the boundary between these 

National Forests. All IRAs, with the exception of the ones recommended for wilderness 

designation (Hoodoo, Mallard Larkins, North Fork Spruce-White Sand and Sneakfoot 

Meadows) remain open to snowmobiling so there will continue to be opportunities for

over-snow motorized recreation in back-country areas. 

The minimization criteria described in the 2005 Travel Rule and EO 11644 do not apply 

to roads.

See the “Winter Recreation Opportunities” section earlier in this Record of Decision for 

additional discussion regarding rationale for the decision.

Forest Plan Amendment

The selected actions include one forest-wide Forest Plan amendment. It will modify the 

periods of restriction for on-road use described in Appendix F of the 1987 Forest Plan. 

The full text and description of the proposed restriction period amendment is included in 

Appendix D of the FEIS. This amendment will allow management flexibility to 

implement seasonal restrictions that are appropriate based on site-specific conditions.

Seasonal Restrictions - “Date Combination Package”

The “date combination package,” consisting of proposed changes to seasonal road and 

trail restrictions, is intended to reduce the number of use seasons. The date adjustments 

are minor and will not result in a loss of resource protections at the local level. These 

adjustments will make the MVUM clearer to read, without significantly affecting 

resource conditions. See Appendix B of the FEIS, “All Travel Codes Defined,” for a 

detailed description of the proposed date combinations that would be implemented.

Access for Dispersed Camping and Parking

Dispersed camping may well be the most popular recreational activity on the Clearwater 

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 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 43

allows for motorized travel to dispersed campsites to be included in the designation under 

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 dispersed campsites in certain areas and under certain conditions, as 

described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under “Alternative C Modified – Conditions for 

Motorized Travel to Dispersed Campsites.” Alternative C 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.”

Lands Acquired in the Beaver-Cedar Land Exchange (Former DAW Lands)

For the most part, I am not reconsidering road restrictions as part of the Travel Planning 

process because the vast majority of them have come from past project-level decisions. 

Roads on lands formerly owned by DAW Forest Products Company in the upper North 

Fork River drainage are an exception. Since they had been on privately owned lands, 

they were never evaluated for travel management purposes and did not appear in the 2005 

Travel Guide. The decision will add these roads to the Forests transportation system and 

designate them for or restrict them to motorized travel as necessary to protect resources. 

Please see the FEIS, Appendix B, for more detailed information about the restrictions that 

will be implemented for these roads.

User-Suggested Routes

Before and during the formal scoping period for the Travel Planning EIS, we asked for 

public suggestions for routes that should be evaluated in the Travel Plan. The suggested 

routes were screened against several criteria to make sure they fit within the scope of the 

Travel Plan analysis. The screening criteria are described in detail under the description 

of Alternative B in the FEIS. In short, we were looking for routes that were not already 

part of the system as described in the Travel Guide (since these routes would 

automatically be evaluated), routes that physically existed already since the Travel Plan is 

not analyzing construction or reconstruction, and routes that would be of general interest. 

Some suggested routes did not meet these criteria and were not included in any of the 

alternatives in the EIS. Those that met the criteria were included in one or more of the 

alternatives with most included in Alternative B as shown in Table 2-1 of the FEIS. 

In deciding which routes to adopt into the system I relied on the primary goals for the

management area where they were located. If the route contributed to those goals or 

moved the area toward the areas desired condition it would be adopted. Most of the 

suggestions, however, were in management areas like C1, C6, C8S, or B2 where a 

reduction in motorized traffic seemed to be warranted to address the goals for those 

management areas. As a result, only Trail 9012, the Swede Creek Connector on the 

Lochsa District, is adopted into the transportation system as part of this decision.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 44

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

Effects on Motorized/Non-motorized Recreation and Wilderness Character

Comments associated with areas recommended for wilderness by the Forest Plan 

generally fell into two camps: either supportive of protecting wilderness character and 

ultimately supportive of Congressional action to designate areas as wilderness, or 

supportive of motorized use and either discounting its effect on wilderness character or 

opposing the very idea of wilderness designation.

The bottom line here is that the Forest Plan after considerable analysis of values, public 

comment and discussion did recommend several areas for wilderness designation. 

Through that rigorous analysis, the Forest Service found compelling reasons that elevated 

them above all the other roadless areas on the Forest and led to the wilderness 

recommendation in the Forest Plan. Therefore, until such time as Congress designates 

these areas as Wilderness or clearly rejects them, I feel that I need to adopt a management 

scheme for those areas that provides a balance of uses and interests across the Clearwater 

National Forest while protecting the very values that resulted in them being 

recommended. 

Motorized and mechanized vehicles continue to increase in capability and popularity and 

given this trend, increased pressure on areas recommended for Wilderness seems 

inevitable unless those uses are restricted. I think that continuing or expanding use of 

vehicles will do nothing but reduce the chances of these areas being designated as 

Wilderness. Accordingly, I am deciding to restrict all motorized use and bicycle use in 

these areas with the exception of summer use on the Fish Lake Trail. See the 

Recommended Wilderness Area section for more discussion.

Wildlife Habitat

Most people who commented on the DEIS and during scoping believed that motorized 

recreation has adverse effects on fisheries and wildlife habitat, although some 

commenters felt that motorized recreation generally does not adversely affect wildlife or 

their habitat. I believe backcountry motorized opportunities can be retained while 

minimizing effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat by completely avoiding the most 

sensitive areas, or by managing use seasonally to minimize the effects of motorized 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 45

traffic. The selected actions represent the best possible way to provide motorized 

recreation opportunities while minimizing effects on wildlife habitat and moving wildlife 

resources closer to the goals and objectives outlined in the Clearwater Forest Plan. See 

the discussion for Management Areas C1, C6, and C8S later in this ROD for more 

information about this issue.

The Forest Plan recognized that motorized traffic can be a major impact on elk use of 

summer habitat. It provided standards for certain management areas and for the use of a 

model to estimate elk habitat effectiveness (EHE). The standard applies to motorized 

traffic on roads, not motorized trail traffic. Table ROD-4 shows the evaluation of elk 

habitat effectiveness for the applicable management areas. Some management areas (B2, 

A3, C6, C8S) appear in multiple distinct locations around the forest and these are noted 

as to their location.

Table ROD-4: Elk Habitat Effectiveness

Management Area Group

Forest Plan 

Standard

Elk Habitat 

Effectiveness

A3 Motorized – North Lochsa Slope 100 100

A3 Motorized - Elizabeth Lakes 100 100

A3 Non-Motorized – Lochsa Face 100 100

A3 Non-Motorized - Coolwater 100 100

A3 Non-Motorized – Moose Mountains 100 100

B1 Wilderness 100 100

B2 – Great Burn 100 100

B2 – Mallard Larkins 100 100

B2 – Selway Bitterroot Additions 100 100

C1 – Junction Mountain 100 100

C6 – Cayuse Creek 100 100

C6 – Colt Killed Creek 100 100

C6 – Fish Creek 100 100

C8S - Coolwater 75 95

C8S – Fish Creek 75 75

C8S – Moose Creek 75 95

C8S – Pot Mountain 75 90

C8S – Powell Area 75 90

C8S – Upper North Fork/Meadow Creek 75 80

C8S – Weitas Creek 75 75

E1,E3 25 45

It is my interpretation that the evaluation of EHE for MAs that are not expected to be 

developed (A3, B 1, B2, C1, and C6) would not consider roads adjacent to or within 

those MAs that existed at the time of the Forest Plan decision. The Forest Plan ROD 

assumed 100% EHE for these areas, yet the effect of motorized traffic on roads even on 

the perimeter of the MA would make that unattainable. The prominence of these roads,
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 46

including FR 500, the Lolo Motorway, FR 360 Elk Summit, FR 720 Fly Hill, and FR 250 

Pierce-Superior, among others, leads me to believe that these roads are "grandfathered" 

into the existing condition and their effects on EHE must be discounted in the evaluation 

of EHE. I find no discussion or indication in the Forest Plan that any of these roads were 

considered for restriction or decommissioning to achieve the 100% EHE assumed for the 

adjacent MAs.

A similar situation exists in MA C8S where roads existed in the interior and along the 

boundaries of many C8S areas at the time the Forest Plan was analyzed and adopted.

These are also prominent roads and the Forest Plan offers no indication that any of them 

were to be restricted or decommissioned despite the fact that their effects make

compliance with the 75% EHE standard for C8S unattainable (even with all new roads 

constructed since the Forest Plan restricted) in a number of the Elk Habitat Effectiveness 

Analysis Units.

Since the Travel Plan is a Forest-wide effort, I relied on the overall EHE for an entire 

Management Area with the effects of pre-Forest Plan roads discounted (with caveats 

noted above) in determining whether the Forest Plan standard for that MA has been met.

Non-Significant Issues

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. Some of the potential effects of travel management decisions include 

changes in the type of use on National Forest Trails and developed ATV trail systems; 

effects on soil and watershed resources; effects on habitat used by aquatic species; 

establishment or spread of invasive plants and aquatic nuisance species; and effects on 

historic properties. A detailed effects analysis in the FEIS addresses these resource 

concerns.

Non-significant issues that met one or more of the following criteria were not carried 

through the analysis:

• Outside the scope of the proposed action;

• Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;

• Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or

• Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL

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.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 47

Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A, the “No Action” alternative, represents the existing condition, based on the 

2005 Travel Guide. 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 B: Minimal Travel Management Rule Implementation

Alternative B would take only the actions necessary to implement the basic requirements 

of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 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 fish, wildlife, and Recommended 

Wilderness closer to the goals and objectives described in the Clearwater Forest Plan.

Alternative C: Motorcycle Loop Trails and Wildlife Habitat

Alternative C would respond to public comments about providing motorized single-track 

and loop trail opportunities, while moving Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness 

resource conditions toward the goals and objectives described in the Forest Plan. This 

alternative was the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS. Based on public comments 

received for the Draft EIS, I felt that Alternative C would further minimize potential 

effects on Forest resources if it were modified slightly.

Alternative C Modified: Alternative C With Additional Motorized Trail 

Opportunities

Alternative C Modified includes additional motorized trail opportunities, compared to 

Alternative C. Alternative C Modified would minimize effects on wildlife habitat in 

Management Areas C1, C6, and C8s, while responding to requests for more motorized 

loop trails, by implementing seasonal restrictions on some trails. This alternative 

provides opportunities for non-motorized and motorized recreation in a variety of settings 

while addressing Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards for wildlife. 

Alternative D: Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness Emphasis

Alternative D would respond to public comments about protecting wildlife habitat and 

recommended wilderness characteristics. It would also respond to public comments 

about providing less motorized access than the proposed action. Alternative D would do 

more than the other alternatives to move wildlife and Recommended Wilderness 

resources toward the goals and objectives outlined in the Clearwater Forest Plan; 

however, these changes would move motorized recreation opportunities away from 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. Also, of the alternatives analyzed, Alternative D would 

do the least to address public concerns about providing a wide range of motorized 

recreation opportunities. 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 48

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives B, C, C Modified, and D would improve environmental conditions over 

current Forest Travel Management, and therefore would be environmentally preferable to 

Alternative A (No Action).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT STUDIED IN DETAIL

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 Clearwater 

National Forest, nor is the Forest Service required to do so. 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. 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 

Clearwater NF. 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 Clearwater Forest Plan.

Proposed Action

In response to the purpose and need for action, a proposed action was developed and 

advertised for public scoping beginning in November 2007. The public scoping period 

was extended through February 2008. The Forest received more than 4,000 comment 

documents. 

The 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 and mechanized travel. However, in 

response to the large number of comments that were received during the scoping period, 

other alternatives to the proposed action were developed by the IDT, and the original 

proposed action was not carried forward to be analyzed in detail.

Road and Trail Construction, Reconstruction, Decommissioning, or 

Obliteration

Because of the potential resource impacts that can result from the construction of new 

roads and trails, or the reconstruction of existing routes, those activities would be better 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 49

analyzed in detail at the site-specific level. I chose not to include construction, 

reconstruction, decommissioning, or obliteration in the alternatives that were analyzed in 

detail.

Prior to and during scoping for this project, many people offered proposals for new routes 

including short links to connect existing routes to create loop opportunities. These 

proposals could not be considered in the Travel Plan, which concentrates on designation 

of routes, not their construction or reconstruction. 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 cultural resources. The Forest Service 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.

Summer Cross-Country Travel Areas

The 2005 Travel Management Rule allows National Forests to designate areas where 

summer cross-country motorized travel could be allowed. However, because no suitable 

areas for this kind of activity were identified by the IDT or proposed in public comments, 

I chose not to include any cross-country travel areas in the alternatives analyzed in detail.

No Off-Route Access for Dispersed Camping

An alternative that would allow motorized travel on designated routes only, without 

permitting travel to adjacent dispersed campsites, was discussed on in Chapter 2 of the 

FEIS under “Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail.” That alternative 

would not meet my goal of continuing to provide motorized access to dispersed 

campsites or opportunities to park vehicles along designated routes. My decision to 

include motorized travel to adjacent dispersed campsites in the designation under certain 

conditions is consistent with travel planning decisions that have been made, or will be 

made, on adjacent National Forests.

Motorized Travel in Inventoried Roadless Areas

I considered eliminating motorized travel from all Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 

An alternative that would accomplish this was not analyzed in detail because it would not 

be consistent with the goals and objectives for most of the management areas involved. 

Areas where the Forest Plan specifically prohibits motorized travel (A3 Non-Motorized, 

B1 etc.) are currently non-motorized and would remain so. Alternative D does 

substantially reduce but does not eliminate motorized use in IRAs. 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 50

ROAD RESTRICTION CHANGES OTHER THAN THE “DATE 

COMBINATION PACKAGE”

I considered additional road restriction changes beyond the “Date Combination Package”, 

and the designations or restrictions for roads on former DAW land that are common to all 

action alternatives, but decided not to evaluate them in detail with the Travel Planning

analysis. Most of the existing road restrictions are well founded on past project analyses 

and forest plan standards associated with these roads are already met. Evaluation of the 

need for road restrictions and even of the need for the roads themselves is a component of 

most large vegetation or watershed improvement projects. Since these are smaller scale 

analyses than the Travel Plan, they allow for a more focused, site specific look at 

conditions and needs in the project area and we will continue to evaluate the need for 

road restrictions with these projects. Accordingly I am not defining a minimum road 

system for the Forest with this Travel Plan decision. The evaluation of the Forest road 

system will continue to be accomplished both with project NEPA analyses and with other 

evaluations that will cover areas not included in projects. That process will ultimately 

identify a minimum road system.

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS

I considered eliminating all motorized travel from Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 

Alternative D does eliminate all motorized use in parts of IRAs recommended for 

wilderness (management area B2) in the Clearwater Forest Plan but does not eliminate 

motorized use in all IRAs However, an alternative that would eliminate motorized uses 

from IRAs outside of MA B2 was not analyzed in detail because this would not be 

consistent with the goals and objectives for the management areas involved. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

SCOPING

The Clearwater National Forest 2005 Travel Guide was released to the public in July 

2005. The 2005 Travel Guide provided the public with a preview of how the Forest 

Service would approach travel management in the future. It described the roads and trails

in the 2005 guide as the Clearwater National Forest’s idea of a designated system, and 

invited comments about what a designated system should include. A formal news release 

was advertised in July 2006, encouraging anyone interested in travel on the Clearwater 

National Forest to get involved in the travel planning effort. The Forest requested 

suggestions for motorized routes that already existed on the ground, but were not part of 

the initial designated system described in the 2005 Travel Guide. Public information 

packets were available at the Supervisor’s Office and at each Ranger District Office, and 

included forms to be used for suggesting additional routes that might not appear on the 

current designated system. Additional information about travel planning, the Travel 

Management Rule, and how to suggest a route for consideration has been posted on the 

Clearwater National Forest website since 2006. The Clearwater National Forest Travel 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 51

Planning EIS has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since April 

2007.

Beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2010, representatives from the Clearwater 

National Forest met with county commissioners, local outfitters and guides, the Nez 

Perce Tribe, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Congressional staff, and various 

industry and recreational groups to share information about the Clearwater National 

Forest’s travel planning effort and to solicit participation by interested individuals. 

On November 13, 2007, a legal notice announcing the proposed action was advertised in 

the Lewiston Morning Tribune (the Clearwater National Forest’s newspaper of record), 

initiating the formal scoping period. Legal notices were also published in the Clearwater 

Progress and the Clearwater Tribune, local newspapers based in Kamiah and Orofino, on 

November 15, 2007. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2007. To provide ample 

opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the proposal, the scoping period was 

extended through February 2008.

Open Houses were held in Moscow, Idaho on December 17, 2008, in Kamiah, Idaho on 

December 18, 2008, and in Orofino, Idaho on December 19, 2008. Forest Service 

representatives were present at the Open Houses to share information about the 

Clearwater National Forest’s travel planning project with interested persons, and to 

answer questions. Forms were available at the Open Houses so that attendees could 

easily submit comments and suggestions. 

The Forest received over 4,000 scoping comments, including letters, emails, and 

comments that were presented at the Open Houses. 

DEIS COMMENTS

The DEIS was advertised for public comment beginning July 17, 2009. The comment 

period was extended through October 2, 2009. 545 comment documents were received, 

containing more than 3,000 individual comments. The IDT evaluated these comments to 

identify the significant issues that drove alternative development for the FEIS. Issue 

identification and alternative development are discussed in more detail in the FEIS in 

Chapter 2.

CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY COMMENTS

As discussed above, thousands of comment documents were received during the scoping 

period and during the extended comment period for the DEIS. The IDT has prepared 

responses to the comments that were received for the DEIS, and they are available in 

Appendix H 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.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 52

Comments on the Proposed Action

To allow ample time for all interested parties to comment, the proposed action was 

advertised for public scoping from November 2007 through February 2008. Over 4,000 

comment documents were received during the scoping period. Scoping comments ranged 

from comments asking that no motorized uses be allowed on the Clearwater National 

Forests, to comments asking that the existing motorized system be dramatically 

expanded. Because of the large number of comments that were received and the wide 

range of issues that were brought up, the IDT developed an array of alternatives that 

would best address those issues while moving Forest resources toward Forest Plan goals 

and objectives, and the proposed action itself was not carried forward in the DEIS for 

detailed analysis. The proposed action is discussed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under 

“Alternatives Considered but not Studied in Detail.”

A Petition to Restrict Motorized Travel Due to Adverse Effects

In August 2009, during the development of the Travel Plan, the Forest received a petition 

referencing the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Travel Rule and several 

Executive Orders alleging that “...the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing 

considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural 

or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands ....” This document 

identified numerous trails and areas around the Forest where these effects were 

supposedly occurring and petitioned the Forest to immediately restrict motorized travel in 

those locations. The Forest reviewed conditions on the ground and did not identify 

anything that would be considered a “considerable adverse effect” or require immediate 

restriction to motor vehicles. The Forest responded to the petitioners with this 

information and also addressed other elements of the petition on December 15, 2009. 

While not specifically submitted as a comment on the Travel Plan, I did consider the 

content of the petition in the development of the plan as the information and/or concerns 

are pertinent to this effort.

Comments on the DEIS

Again, to allow ample time for interested parties to comment, the DEIS was advertised 

for public comment from July 2009 through October 2009. 545 comment documents 

were received, reiterating many of the issues that had been raised during scoping. The 

comments on the DEIS were analyzed by a contractor experienced in this work and by 

the IDT. Based on the issues raised, the IDT modified Alternative C to address requests 

for more motorized trail opportunities, while continuing to protect wildlife habitat and 

move Forest resources toward Forest Plan goals and objectives. Alternatives B, C, and D 

were carried forward for analysis in the FEIS, as well. The variety of actions included in 

this array of alternatives meets the requirement under NEPA to analyze an adequate 

range of alternatives. Many of the changes presented in the FEIS resulted from 

comments that were received for the DEIS.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 53

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 was an important part of the NEPA process as well. A 

representative from Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation participated on the IDT. 

The public involvement log in the project file for the EIS documents many meetings with 

representatives from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and local County 

Commissioners that were held during the development of the EIS. 

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANT FOREST 

PLAN AMENDMENT

The selected actions under Alternative C Modified include a single amendment to the 

Forest Plan to provide for road restriction seasons tailored to site specific conditions. It 

is described in detail in the Final EIS in Volume 2, Appendix D.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations allow for amending Forest 

Plans (16 USC 1604(f)(4), 36 CFR 219.10(f), 1982). My decision amends the Clearwater 

Forest Plan to remove direction that is outdated, does not effectively provide limitations 

on management activities, or could be in conflict with the concept of establishing a 

forest-wide travel planning area and route-by-route management direction. NFMA 

regulations require the decisionmaker to determine whether the amendment would result 

in a significant change to the Forest Plan based on an analysis of the objectives, 

guidelines, and other contents of the Plan.

Based on the analysis and other information provided in the FEIS, I have determined that 

my amendment decision is not significant. The Forest Service handbook at FSH 

1909.12(5.32) provides a list of factors to be considered in making this determination. 

These include: timing; location and size; goals, objectives and outputs; and management 

prescriptions. These are my conclusions for each of these factors:

Timing: This Forest Plan amendment is to become effective immediately, or at 

such time that any stay of this decision is lifted. It also applies indefinitely.

Location and Size: This Forest Plan amendment modifies Appendix F of the 

1987 Forest Plan, and applies Forest-wide.

Goals, Objectives, and Outputs: This Forest Plan amendment does not alter the 

long-term relationships between the levels of goods and services projected by the 

Forest Plan. Appendix F of the Forest Plan pertains to travel management or road 

and trail facilities. No concerns about this amendment were identified during the 

public comment period, and there are no identified consequences associated with 

implementing it.

I have determined that my decision to amend the Clearwater Forest Plan does not alter 

the desired future condition of the land, nor does it affect the level of goods and services 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 54

targeted by the plan. The goods and services to be managed under the Forest Plan 

include recreation, scenery, water, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered 

species habitat, timer, livestock forage, fire protection, and cultural resources. The 

standard I am removing is applicable to travel management, access, and the transportation 

network. As I discussed above, the current standard is not effective and is no longer 

needed in light of the decisions made through the Travel Plan. I could find no basis to 

conclude that this amendment will have any bearing on providing the goods and services 

of the Forest Plan. The selected amendment is described in detail in the Final EIS in 

Volume 2, Appendix D.

The purpose of this amendment is to modify Clearwater Forest Plan Appendix F, Forest 

Travel Planning. The periods of restriction listed under Item IV, “ON-ROAD USE,” for 

Items IV. D. 2 and IV. D. 3 would be modified as described below:

1) Item IV. D. 2 would be changed to “Areas subject to erosion and/or watershed 

damage may be restricted seasonally, with the period of restriction to be 

determined based upon a site-specific review. Where conditions or levels of use 

by certain vehicles would not cause significant damage, such vehicles may be 

exempted from restrictions.”

2) Item IV. D. 3 would be changed to “Key wildlife habitat – YEARLONG TO 

ALL VEHICLES. Where habitat is of seasonal importance, use will be 

constrained for only the period of time appropriate to protect that habitat, to be 

determined based upon a site-specific review.”

RELATED DECISIONS NOT SUPERCEDED

The Travel Planning analysis has spanned more than four years from initial scoping to 

this decision. During that time, a number of other projects have made travel management 

decisions in specific project areas within the Clearwater National Forest. Several reports 

included in the Travel Planning FEIS display road and trail restrictions and designations 

that this decision will not change. They are included to promote understanding of the 

complete motorized travel picture on the Forest. As previously noted in the FEIS, the

Travel Planning analysis did not reconsider earlier travel decisions made with the North 

Lochsa Face ROD (2000) or Upper Palouse ATV DN (2005), with the exception of 

adjusting some seasonal restriction dates to improve consistency across the Forest.

Nothing in this Travel Plan decision overrules or supercedes travel restrictions or 

designations made in recent decisions for the following projects:

• Cherry Dinner ROD, 3/3/08

• Yakus Creek ROD, 5/22/08

• Swede Thinning DN, 9/9/08

• Corralled Bear DN, 12/2/08

• Low Gap 373 Road Reroute DN, 2/8/10

• Walde Placer Rd Decommissioning DN, 5/21/10
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 55

• Powell Divide Veg DN, 12/3/10

• Preacher Dewey Thin DN, 1/3/11

• Robo Elk Veg ROD, 4/18/11

• Lochsa Thin DN, 5/18/11

• Smith Rd Decommission DN, 6/22/11

• Orogrande OHV DN, 9/1/11

• Deer Cr. Meadow Restoration DN, 9/5/11

• Lodge Point Thin DN, 9/30/11

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS, 

REGULATIONS, AND POLICY

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN

The National Forest Management Act implementing regulations require me to ensure that 

my decision is consistent with the Clearwater Forest Plan (36 CFR 219.10(e); 1982). See 

Table ROD- 3 in this document for a brief summary of how the selected actions comply 

with Forest Plan standards. 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 amendment described earlier in this document, my decision is consistent 

with the Forest Plan. 

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT 

I have reviewed the September 13, 1993, Stipulation of Dismissal agreement between 

The Wilderness Society et al., and the Forest Service. I find that the Travel Plan project 

complies with the 1993 Stipulation of Dismissal, as follows:

1. The settlement agreement primarily addresses timber harvest, and road 

construction and the effects of those activities on roadless areas, old growth, and 

water quality. No timber harvest or road construction is proposed in the Travel 

Plan. 

2. The Forest agreed in the settlement to manage certain areas in relation to timber 

harvest and road construction under the direction for management area B2 which 

precludes both these activities. Commenters have asserted that this B2 

management approach requires that motorized travel be excluded from those 

areas. That is not the case as Forest Plan direction for management area B2 does 

not preclude motorized travel. 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 56

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 Natural and Cultural Resources

I considered the effects on both natural and cultural resources in the development of the 

Travel Plan. In fact, the development of the National Travel Rule and this Travel Plan 

were based primarily on concern for these resources. The elimination of summer cross 

country travel is a giant step in protecting resources of all types. The Clearwater Travel 

Planning FEIS addresses the effects of five alternatives (including No Action) on natural 

and cultural resources. Refer to Chapters 2 and 3.

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. Since the Travel Plan does not 

propose new route construction, all the alternatives are similar with respect to the route 

standards and conditions involved. 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. An example of this is on trails groomed and promoted for cross country skiing, 

and the concern is addressed by restricting over-snow vehicles on those routes. Trails 

with motorized and non-motorized 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 this Travel Plan, 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 Recreational Opportunities

Providing recreation opportunities is one of the primary purposes for the Travel Plan. 

The analysis and this decision considered providing for a variety of winter and summer 

motorized and non-motorized opportunities. 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.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 57

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. 

Conflicts Among Uses of National Forest System Lands

My decision criteria, beginning on page ROD-12 of this ROD, demonstrate my desire to 

provide well-distributed opportunities for both OHVs and exclusive, quiet, nonmotorized uses of the Clearwater National Forest trail system. My rationale for this 

decision, beginning on page ROD-13 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. 

The Need for Maintenance and Administration of Roads, Trails, and Areas 

that Would Arise if the Uses Under Consideration are Designated

With the exception of a single short trail, this decision does not designate any roads or 

trails for motorized uses that are not already open to such uses. No areas are designated 

for motorized summer use off of designated routes. As a result, the administration of the 

transportation system does not become any more complex than it is at present. A few 

roads on lands acquired in the Beaver-Cedar land exchange are not designated for 

motorized use thereby reducing their traffic generated maintenance workload. I have 

considered that making some trails non-motorized may reduce the level of volunteer 

maintenance of the trail system. Transportation system implementability was discussed in 

the FEIS in the Roads and Seasonal Restrictions section of Chapter 4.

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 still generate a maintenance workload unrelated to 

traffic. I believe that significant road maintenance cost savings are more likely to be 

gained not with this Travel Plan 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. 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 58

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 summer 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 

resources. Effects on a variety of resources are addressed 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 trails and how many trails 

should be designated for motorized use in most of the management areas where trails are 

the primary transportation system. My decision addresses this issue not only by reducing 

motorized trail mileage but it makes the largest reduction in those areas with the highest 

Forest Plan goals 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, C1, C6, and C8S 

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 welldistributed opportunities for both OHVs and non-motorized uses of the Clearwater 

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.

Conflicts Among Different Classes of Motor Vehicle Uses of National Forest 

System Lands or Neighboring Federal Lands

A desire for additional ATV routes was often expressed in public comments but the 

construction or reconstruction needed to accommodate ATV’s puts this suggestion 

outside the scope of this Travel Plan. A potential vehicle conflict exists on ATV trails as 

they are open to both ATV’s and motorcycles. 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 ATV’s are not permitted in their comments. Any 
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 59

vehicle conflicts associated with adjacent federal lands are minimal as no motorized trails 

cross from the Clearwater onto adjacent National Forests and no areas are designated for 

off-route motor vehicle use on adjacent National Forests near their boundary with the 

Clearwater National Forest. 

Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use With Existing Conditions in Populated 

Areas, Taking Into Account Sound, Emissions, and Other Factors

Most of the Clearwater 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 issues. Most unsurfaced roads are either closed 

yearlong or seasonally to large vehicles to prevent surface damage. Some unsurfaced 

roads remain open to smaller vehicles like ATV’s or motorcycles because these lighter 

vehicles are less likely to damage the surface even in wet weather. 

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.

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the Travel Plan is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2012 upon 

signing a special order pursuant to 36 CFR 261, and release of the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map and Over-snow Vehicle use map.
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 60

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEAL 

OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. Only individuals or 

organizations that submitted substantive comments during the comment period may 

appeal under this rule. A written appeal must be submitted within 45 days following the 

publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Morning Tribune. It 

is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that their appeal is received in a timely 

manner. The publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the newspaper of 

record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should 

not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Paper appeals must be submitted to: 

• USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, P.O. 

Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807; or 

• USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, 200 East 

Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802. 

Office hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., MST; Fax (406)-329-3411.

Electronic appeals must be submitted to appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us. For 

electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. 

An automated response will confirm that your electronic appeal has been received. 

Electronic appeals must be submitted in Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text 

Format (RTF).

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity- specific 

evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the decision should be 

reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a 

minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of c6 CFR 215.14, and include 

the following information: 

• The appellant’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; 

• A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature 

for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal):

• When multiple names are on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and 

verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;

• The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name 

and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;

• The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to 

appeal under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C;
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision

ROD - 61

• Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for 

those changes;

• Any portion of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation 

for the disagreement;

• Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider 

the substantive comments; and

• How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or 

policy.

If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 

five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, 

implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeal disposition.

Offer to meet: When an appeal is received under the rule, the Responsible Official (me), 

or my designee, must contact the appellant and offer to meet and discuss resolution of the 

issues raised in the appeal (36 CFR 215.17). If the appellant accepts the offer, the 

meeting must take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal (i.e., 45 

to 60 days from the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston 

Morning Tribune). These meetings, if they take place, will be open to the public. For 

information about if, when, and where such a meeting is scheduled, please visit the 

following web site: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r1/appeal-meetings

My decision to amend the Clearwater Forest Plan is also appealable under 36 CFR 217. 

Written appeals under this rule must also be submitted within 45 days following the 

publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Morning Tribune, 

Lewiston, Idaho, and should be sent to the same addresses indicated above for appeals 

under 36 CFR 215. Under the 36 CFR 217 rule there is no requirement that I make an 

offer to meet with the appellant. Appeals cannot be filed under both 36 CFR 215 and 36 

CFR 217.

CONTACT PERSON

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, 

contact 

• Kathy Rodriguez, North Fork District Ranger, Clearwater National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, Idaho 83544; 208-476-8223; or 

• Lois Hill, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Kamiah Ranger Station, 903 3rd Street, 

Kamiah, Idaho 83536; 208-935-4258.

Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 1
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 2
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 3
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 4
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 5
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 6
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 7
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 8
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 9
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 10
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 11
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 12
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 13
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 14
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 15
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 16
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 17
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 18
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 19
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 20
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 21
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 22
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 23
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 24
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 25
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 26
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 27
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 28
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 29
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 30
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 31
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 32
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 33
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 34
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 35
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 36
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 37
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 38
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 39
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 40
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 41
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 42
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 43
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 44
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 45
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 46
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 47
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 48
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 49
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 50
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 51
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 52
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 53
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 54
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 55
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 56
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 57
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 58
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 59
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 60
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 61
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 62
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 63
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 64
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 65
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 66
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 67
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 68
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 69
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 70
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 71
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 72
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 73
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 74
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 75
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 76
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 77
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 78
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 79
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 80
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 81
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 82
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 83
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 84
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 85
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 86
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 87
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 88
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 89
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 90
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 91
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 92
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 93
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 94
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 95
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 96
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 97
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 98
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 99
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 100
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 101
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 102
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 103
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 104
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 105
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 106
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 107
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 108
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 109
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision 

Attachment 1: Biological Assessment BA - 110
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

Letter 

103

Letter 

224

Letter

243

1 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

22

23

24

25

28

29

30

35

41

43

46

48

52

54

55

56

57

58

59

63

64

66

100 Action 

Not Specified

The comment does 

not contain enough 

substantive 

information to 

indicate what the 

desired response 

from the Forest 

might be.

The DEIS lacks sufficient information on which to make truly 

informed decisions. There’s much work yet to be done to 

complete a thorough environmental analysis.

This is an enormous shift in responsibility form a public that 

formerly was expected to take care of itself, to the government, 

requiring specific behavior under penalty of law.

It is the intention of the US Forest Service to create millions of 

acres of land into the land of non use and non management for 

equal recreation.

Some motorized vehicle advocates say they also want to get into 

the wilder backcountry and enjoy the solitude and beauty that 

hikers do, and that it is their right to be able to get there on a 

motorbike, four-wheeler or snowmobile. We are 70 years old and 

are thankful we can still get into the wilderness. 

...federal stimulous money for forest recovery, recreation and 

preservation needs to be advocated and promoted. Please plan 

for improving the forest, not the motor vehicle industry.

Landscapes of relatively undisturbed areas, such as roadless 

backcountry, serve as a barometer for scientists when measuring 

the effects of development on other areas.

The Forest is a very spiritual place to native people. It is the place 

that sustained us through the generations. Motorcycles in our 

forests – Do you ever feel shame?

Letter 103

Letter 224

Letter 243

Letter 454

2021

2023

2027

2029

2031

2040

2043

2045

2055

2056

2064

2089

2091

2092

2093

2094

2095

2097

2098

2101

2105

2107

2110

2132

2134

2138

2143

2155

2156

2164

2181

2189

2195

2208

2211

2218

2234

The comment does not present a conce

desired response is not clear. 

Response to Comments - 1
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

67

69

70

72

74

75

76

77

78

84

86

89

90

92

94

2235

2324

2326

2328

2331

2368

2398

2409

2414

2462

2463

2469

2477

2479

2482

2487

2488

2494

2495

2529

2532

2538

2595

2604

2605

2608

2620

2669

2675

2676

2683

2684

2692

2701

2708

2716

2745

2751

2752

2756

2765

2766

Response to Comments - 2
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

2767

2774

2777

2778

2783

2789

2793

2797

2798

2811

2859

2867

2882

2891

2893

2898

2907

2908

2909

2917

2919

2924

2933

2938

2939

2941

2954

2962

2966

2973

2974

3010

3022

3026

3027

3036

3037

3038

3046

3056

3058

3062

Response to Comments - 3
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

3064

2813

21

25

201

Methodology 

and 

Assumptions

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should include 

monitoring of trail 

use and impacts. 

There are no monitoring or management measures or trigger 

points upon which to prevent future damage. There is no 

requirement for registration at trailheads so monitoring or 

gathering use information is impossible. Current information is 

also lacking. This is also a violation of the Travel Management 

Rule.

2271

2367

2367

2404

2404

2405

2426

2862

Neither the Forest Plan nor the Travel ru

monitoring. All alternatives meet Forest 

Monitoring will continue after this decis

1 

21

25

201

The Clearwater 

National Forest is 

confusing OHV 

registration with 

use. There is no 

supporting data to 

indicate local levels 

of use.

The Motor Vehicle Use Rule was implemented to address the 

problem of unmanaged recreation, particular OHV use. The DEIS 

gives the perception that OHV use is greatly expanding over 

historic use. 

 

While this may be true for some forms of OHV recreation, it is not 

applicable to other OHV recreation activities. For instance, the 

2002 and 2004 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Surveys show a rapidly 

increasing participation in ATV recreation. Motorcycle use on the 

other hand was stable.

2052

2308

2329

2330

2358

2404

2501

2502

Other than Forest level NVUM data, the

local levels of use. However, regional O

indication of OHV use.

25 201

The Clearwater 

National Forest’s 

assumption that 

OHV technologies 

have changed over 

the preceding years 

is flawed.

Off-highway motorcycles have not changed significantly over the 

past 25 years. Around 1980, suspension travel hit its peak with 

around 12 to 13 inches of travel. Most off-road motorcycles 

intended for serious trail riding today have 11 to 12.5 inches of 

travel. Engines have changed from two-strokes to four-stroke 

engines, but peak horsepower has not increased. In fact, most 

expert motorcycle riders prefer a bike with a little less 

horsepower when riding technical routes.

2360

2361

2362

As you indicate, technologies have chan

21

61

202 Adequacy 

of Studies

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should reference 

studies that show 

most OHV riders do 

not ride 

responsibly. 

The premise in the analysis is based upon lack of information, 

wrong information, or faulty logic. For example, the DEIS 

provides no information that suggests most ORV users ride 

responsibly. Studies provided in our scoping comments show 

otherwise.

2275

2895

2896

OHV operators should be responsible rid

responsible use of the National Forests i

Educational programs such as “Tread Lig

promote responsible riding.

21 202

The Clearwater 

National Forest’s 

suggestion that 

mixed use is 

tolerated by most 

users is 

unsupported. 

The DEIS suggests “many” recreationists tolerate mixed use 

(motors and non-motorized) but “some” do not. The DEIS 

provides no information to justify the clear perception that more 

recreationists approve mixing of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation. What data do you have that support this contention? 

Please provide them to us.

2276

The majority of trail miles on the Clearw

wilderness, permit mixed motorized and 

motorized and non-motorized users use 

mixed use is tolerated by trail users.

Response to Comments - 4
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

21 202

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should recognize 

the desires of 

nonmotorized 

users in its effects 

analysis. 

One of the worst aspects of the DEIS is that non-motorized users 

are treated as second-class citizens. There is almost no mention 

of dissatisfaction of nonmotorized users and extensive mention of 

dissatisfied motorized users. As such, the analysis violates NEPA’s 

requirements for objectivity and accuracy. It also conflicts with 

data the agency has gathered about forest use.

2279

2280

2671

2678

2902

2989

The effects analysis in Chapter 3 for Tra

Associated with Travel Routes addresse

motorized and non-motorized users.

36

283 202

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

does not have 

scientific 

justification for 

restricting bicycle 

use in 

recommended 

wilderness.

The decision to close recommended wilderness does not appear 

to have scientific justification. These trails have been ridden for 

decades without appreciable impact. Concerns about user 

conflicts are overstated, even in areas of high use only a minority 

of hikers and equestrians have concerns.

...the travel plan does not contain any discussion of the impacts of 

mountain biking on lands, wildlife or vegetation, and no 

substantive discussion of erosion impacts, or how mountain bikes 

impair “primeval character and influence” or “natural conditions,” 

create “permanent improvements,” or make the “imprint of 

man’s work” substantially noticeable, beyond that of a hiker or 

equestrian. ... IMBA urges that the Travel Plan be modified to 

continue to allow mountain biking in Recommended Wilderness, 

until such time as Congress makes any new Wilderness 

designations. 

Letter283

2635

Alternative B provides for bicycle use in 

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do no

address this concern. The Forest Plan d

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

wilderness. See Chapter 3, Inventoried 

Wilderness Areas.

300

327

334

202

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

does not have 

scientific data to 

show motorized 

uses have effects 

on wildlife.

Frequently closures and restrictions on public land are driven by 

effects on wildlife and endangered species, but I find these are 

unjust reasons as there is not any scientific data showing that 

motorized vehicles have any effect on the success rates of 

wildlife.

I have asked for the scientific studies that you keep referring to 

that indicate what (impacts) motorized travel has on wildlife. 

Since you have never produced these studies, I assume it is safe 

to say they don’t exist.

I believe you have no counts as to how many people use the 

(motorcycle) trails at any given time. If you don’t have any 

studies showing the numbers and types of users you shouldn’t be 

able to exclude anyone by saying there are too many of them and 

they disturb wildlife.

2124

2162

2243

2818

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to 

Methods, Environmental Consequences

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and c

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern. 

422 202

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider 

Recent research from the Starkey Research Station in Oregon 

clearly indicates that motorized incursion into elk and deer 

country is detrimental to those species, causing them to move 

2881

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to 

Methods, Environmental Consequences

Response to Comments - 5
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

research from the 

Starkey Research 

Station.

more frequently and farther than is desirable for healthy, viable 

herds. We urge you to consider quality hunting as an important 

feature of the Clearwater National Forest and ask that you place

reasonable restrictions on increased motorized access into the 

forest.

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and c

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

21 202/514

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should include an 

area by area 

evaluation of all 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas that 

discloses the 

effects of each 

alternative on the 

roadless 

characteristics. 

The DEIS should have a detailed discussion about each 

roadless/wilderness area that fully evaluates and discloses how 

motorized use will affect the characteristics for which that land 

has been specially designated.

2298

2660

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadles

Wilderness Areas has been updated to a

21

203

Update/Chan

ge/Add Data 

to Existing 

Studies

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should identify a 

minimum road 

system with this 

analysis. 

This travel plan cannot achieve a “minimum system” if there are 

roads that are unneeded and if there is not enough money to 

maintain the system.

By providing this direction, we feel that Congress has removed 

any ambiguity about the agency’s responsibility to conduct a 

scientific-based roads analysis for all maintenance level roads, 

and identify roads for decommissioning in order to achieve the 

minimum road system. 

2261

2282

2306

See the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section Roads a

Affected Environment, National Forest R

Forest Roads analysis and the scope and 

also Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered 

25 203

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should update the

Motor Vehicle Use 

Map annually.

We recommend the travel maps be issued on an annual basis 

until analysis shortcomings are corrected and differences 

between interests can be resolved into a suitable, long-term final 

Travel Plan.

2411

The Travel Planning Rule requires that M

annually.

34

35 203

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should do 

additional small, 

site-specific 

projects to add 

OHV opportunities 

in the future.

Each Ranger district should be required to slowly put forth 

projects for OHV use that will include many loops systems tying in 

with roads and trails that are not on the current maps. 

Public Lands Year Round would like to see motorcycle access in 

the Weitas Creek, Cook Mountain, Cayuse and Great Burn area 

stay at current levels. Site specific projects in these areas could 

then occur to repair, replace or relocated undesirable trails. At 

minimum Trail 167-Fourth of July to Cook Mountain trail-Windy 

Ridge trail should be incorporated into ALT C. This trail has had 

trail cat work done on it in the past and is an easy trail for riders. 

2152

2590

2600

2610

The need for additional motorized road 

continue to be evaluated as part of sma

2, Section: Scope of the Travel Plan and 

Response to Comments - 6
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Trails 650-651 and 173 in the Weitas-Liz Butte area should also be 

in ALT C. Trail 594 to road 581-thru Raspberry Butte and Spy Point 

should also be in ALT C. Trails 513-565-478-429 in the Great Burn 

area should also be in ALT C. Trail 373-Meadow Point should also 

be in ALT C. 

3 210 Planning 

Document

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should provide 

rationale for 

changing existing 

management 

practices.

This change is not a minor simplification of codes, but rather an 

assault on many existing oversnow closures, which were designed 

to protect wildlife habitat and minimize user conflict...

This change will eliminate a large number of existing oversnow 

closures that were designed to protect wintering deer and elk on 

numerous site-specific project analyses...

...Many of these closures are the result of numerous hours of 

fieldwork and discussion by inter-disciplinary team members. The 

closures all went through the NEPA process and were approved 

by the appropriate line officer. Many of the closures have been in 

place for over 20-years and have been accepted by the public.

2075

Alternative C Modified was added to the 

concern. Route-based restrictions for ov

Alternative C Modified as shown in the D

modifications. Instead of the variety of 

Alternative A, the restriction dates woul

intended to make the restrictions and th

Although some of the changes appear m

that over-snow recreational opportuniti

during the snow-free portions of the yea

Alternatives Studied in Detail.

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to 

Methods, Environmental Consequences

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and c

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

20

335

211 Scope of 

Analysis

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should separate 

summer and winter 

plans.

. . . the summer and winter plans should be separate. There are 

too many issues to lump them together. The winter people 

shouldn’t suffer because of something you feel compelled to do in 

the summer plan and visa versa.

I am suggesting either the Winter planning process not be 

included at this time until the Forest Plan revision has occured to 

define aspects of how snowmobiling activities will be affected.

Letter335

2241

 The 2005 Travel Management Rule allo

uses as well as summer motorized uses. 

chosen to analyze winter uses. The reas

travel in the analysis are discussed in the 

Need, Over-Snow Vehicles. The FEIS is c

snow motorized travel is easy to distingu

motorized uses.

40 211

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider 

motorized 

watercraft in this 

analysis. 

[This group] supports the continued implementation of these 

closures to protect the outstandingly remarkable values of both 

the designated Lochsa Wild and Scenic River Corridor and the 

eligible North Fork Clearwater Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

In addition to these two existing restrictions on motorized 

watercraft, we also recommend that the Clearwater National 

Forest restrict the use of amphibious vehicles in the water bodies 

and waterways on the Forest.

2666

Section 212.51 of the Travel Manageme

from designation.

Response to Comments - 7
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

In particular, the Forest Service should restrict the use of 

amphibious vehicles in alpine and subalpine lakes like Fish Lake. 

Under the preferred alternative, the Fish Lake Trail would remain 

open to vehicles less than 50 inches in width. This designation 

would permit the use of amphibious vehicles ...

No doubt, the Forest Service did not foresee the current issues 

and levels of use associated with off-road vehicles coming when 

the latest forest plan was developed. Now the Forest Service is 

playing catch-up and trying to get a handle on the escalating use 

of four-wheelers. It would be wisely proactive to preempt the use 

of amphibious vehicles in waterways on the Forest now.

57 211

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

selected significant 

issues and the 

purpose and need 

for action based on 

arbitrary 

assumptions.

Refer to pages 1-5 to 1-7 in the Summary. The unproven belief 

system inserted into the Purpose and Need and the unsupported 

Background statements now control the selection of the 

significant issues. Certainly all of these issues and many more 

were raised by the public. The key is which ones the Forest 

Service decides are significant. This set of decisions can seriously 

skew the options available for the deciding officer since the 

alternatives must be constructed to address only those issues, 

and all others will be considered outside the scope of the analysis. 

Yet the issues selected as significant by the Agency are either 

created by the proposed action itself, irrelevant to the decision to 

be made, conjectural and not supported by scientific fact, or a 

belief system inserted into the Purpose and Need and the 

unsupported Background statements. The Clearwater NF hears 

loud and clear about issues related to unproven beliefs, but is 

barely able to hear anything about the very real Forest access 

issues raised by the general public.

2775

2336

The overarching purpose of this project 

Management Rule. The FEIS describes “

Significant Issues. Non-significant issues 

Other (Non-Significant) Issues. 

57 211

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

removed some 

routes from 

consideration 

before scoping 

began.

... it appears the Forest Service wishes to conceal that decision 

from the public. We say this because the DEIS provides no 

information about these miles and acres dropped prior to 

analysis. 2779

The FEIS describes how “existing conditi

Alternative A: No Action. The Affected 

of the alternatives, is described for all re

Environmental Consequences of implem

described in Chapter 3 for all resources 

93 211

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

misinterpreted the 

2005 Travel 

Management Rule 

by proposing to 

The DEIS fundamentally misconstrues and misrepresents the 

Travel Management regulations ... That rule provides for 

motorized travel on designated “roads, trails, and areas.” .... 

Express inclusion of the reference to “areas” was specifically 

designed to provide authority to on-the-ground personnel to 

accommodate “user demands” ... as well as “access needs” and 

3050

3051

3052

The 2005 Travel Management Rule is su

Section: Travel Management: Designate

use; Final Rule (2005). The rule at 212.5

opportunity to designate “...limited use 

distance of designated routes...” but doe

summer cross-country travel were ident

Response to Comments - 8
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

eliminate crosscountry travel off 

of designated 

routes, and by 

failing to include 

motorized “areas” 

in the alternatives.

“provision of recreational opportunities.” ... the DEIS is founded 

on the incorrect notion that these regulations provide only for 

motorized travel on designated “routes” or roads and trails and 

that a “prohibition on cross country use is fundamental to the 

national travel rule.” ... Similarly, the DEIS opens with this 

statement: “All of the action alternatives in this DEIS would 

comply with the Travel Management Rule by allowing motorized 

travel only on Routes that are designated as open to motorized 

use” ...This critical misunderstanding of the regulation leads 

directly to the proposed blanket closure of all existing cross 

country motorized vehicle use in the Clearwater. ... this approach 

will prohibit important public use and access that has been 

permitted within the Forest for many years and provides the vast 

bulk of the existing motorized access ..

57 212 Purpose 

and Need

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not 

implement the 

2005 Travel Guide 

because that would 

be predecisional.

The 2005 Travel Guide was crafted to reflect the changes which 

would occur if the proposed action were implemented, thus 

revealing that the restrictions were pre-decisional. CEQ expressly 

prohibit any action on the part of the Agency which may prejudice 

the analysis or the Decision. ..Additionally, the 2005 Travel Guide 

did not reveal the secret that the plan to restrict snowmobiles in 

the Great Burn was also pre-decisional, but not made public until 

12-14-07 in a news release. No analysis and discussion has been 

provided regarding the social benefit of keeping Great Burn open 

to winter motorized.

2768

The 2005 Travel Guide describes the roa

be the existing designated motorized sy

motorized system described in the 2005 

2005 Travel Guide only serves to describ

the actions being proposed.

29 212

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should have 

considered the 

construction and 

reconstruction of 

new routes.

Page 2-4 – The decision to categorically reject any and all public 

recommendations that might require construction or 

reconstruction of new routes is arbitrary and capricious. 2481

2590

Constructing or reconstructing routes w

analysis, which focuses on route designa

reconstruction, relocation, restoration, 

FEIS, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered 

2, Scope of the Travel Plan and Analysis

1 

6 

7 

213

Alternative A 

(No Action)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should take no 

action and leave 

existing uses and 

restrictions 

unchanged. 

Alternative A is good option as it supports all the historical use of 

the areas, satisfying the needs of all recreationalist motorized or 

otherwise, while still affording a good degree of environmental 

protection. 

...we have been informed that Alternative A is considered 

inconsistent with forest polices, and the other isn’t. Why is this? 

2051

2103

2104

2113

2131

2157

2433

2599

2755

2824

Alternative A (No Action) could be selec

Alternative A would not meet the purpo

35 213 The Clearwater I would like to see all the existing motorized roads and trails put 2594 A map of Alternative A has been to the 

Response to Comments - 9
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

National Forest 

should include a 

map in the EIS for 

Alternative A. 

onto the travel map. Many existing roads and trails on the ground 

have not been put onto a current map.

78

90 213

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should select 

Alternative A.

I strongly support the no action alternative, as I see the document 

as a thinly veiled attempt to limit public access to public lands 

based on no science or poorly documented science. If the no 

action alternative is not accepted then my second choice is the 

“Modified Alternative B”.

I would like to see alternative A which is a no change alternative. 

Actually what I would like to see is some more area opened to 

snowmobile use but there is no option for that.

2963

3030

3040

All of the alternatives in the FEIS meet F

objectives, although the different altern

objectives for various resources in differ

consider all of the alternatives in the FE

Alternative A would not meet the purpo

12

15

25

26

27

33

34

47

61

214

Alternative B

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should select 

Alternative B. 

Alternative B could also possibly be an acceptable option to serve 

the needs of all citizens using these lands.... Unfortunately this 

alternative eliminates 1.3 million acres previously open to OHVs 

cross country use, which I do agree needs some control but not 

necessarily to be eliminated.

...would like to go on record as being in support of Alternative B in 

regards to the Travel Planning DEIS. With a few modifications this 

alternative will provide plenty of single track loop opportunities 

while meeting the objectives of the Forest Plan

SAWS Prefers a Modified Alternative B....with no early season, 

forest wide closure, where it is not scientifically imperative to the 

needs of big game animals during their seasonal migration to 

wintering grounds.

The Nez Perce County Board of Commissioners would like to take 

this opportunity to support Alternative B of the Travel Planning 

DEIS. With a few modifications, this alternative will provide plenty 

of single track loop opportunities while meeting the objectives of 

the Forest Plan.

Management unit C8S POT Mountain: This comment is based on 

utilizing Alternative B as the base layer for my comments. 

Close trail #160 – To decrease trial mileage and due to little usage

Close trail #154- Close due to hazardous trail locations/ alignment 

(rock slab crossings)...Management unit C6 Cayuse: 

Close trail # 249- Decreases trail mileage and due to little usage....

Management C8S Weitas: ...Close Trail #667 Reduces mileage and 

2147

2148

2149

2150

2151

2154

2158

2341

2347

2366

2433

2440

2451

2458

2563

2574

2577

2580

2611

2637

2642

2685

2686

2750

2825

2861

2943

2996

3001

All of the alternatives in the FEIS meet F

objectives, although the different altern

objectives for various resources in differ

consider all of the alternatives in the FE

Alternative C Modified was added to the 

motorized trail opportunities.

The forest-wide closure to snowmobiles 

common to all of the action alternatives 

game security during the big game hunt

Vehicle Actions common to All Action A

Response to Comments - 10
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

trail receives little to no usage.Close Trail #627 from Weitas Cr. To 

RD 555. Reduces mileage. Areas can be reached via other open 

trails. Close Trail #580 Reduces mileage. Expands Elk habitat 

security areas. Close Trail #670 Reduces mileage and trail receives 

little to no usage. Allows for hiking users to access area from 

Weitas GS rental. Close Trail #650 Reduces mileage and trail 

receives little to no usage.

Management Unit Mot. Bald Mountain: ...Close Trail # 231 

Reduces mileage and trail is a dead end.

Trail# 167 Cook Mtn: This trail is a primary loop route utilized by 

novice-motorized users, esp. the trail segment from Forth of July 

Cr. Bridge to the intersection with trail number 627. All of the 

trails south of trail #167 are relatively easy to use by novice riders. 

By allowing these trail segments to be available multiple loop 

rides may be created....Trail # 649, #651, and a segment of #173 

create a loop so that Liz creek cabin and Liz butte cabin may be 

utilized for motorized camping opportunity. These trails are also 

relatively easy for a novice rider to negotiate ( i.e. family rides).

...(DEIS page 1-6) It is not appropriate to use increase in numbers 

and capabilities as a purpose and need statement for the 

Clearwater's travel plan. Despite any increase in capability, 

motorized uses have not significantly expanded their traditional

geographic range in the areas address by this decision. The 

statement fails to disclose that trail motorcycle use, which is the 

predominant trail use on the Clearwater, has had only moderate 

to low increase in the region. Indeed, several trails have been 

“lost” due to lack of use.

 ...Of the Alternatives presented, we believe a modified 

alternative B best meets the need to provide a enjoyable trail 

system while also protecting natural resources. 

3002

84 215

Alternative C

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should select 

Alternative C.

I agree with the USFS that Alternative C (the preferred 

alternative) is the best alternative for the forest. 3011

3013

All of the alternatives in the FEIS meet 

objectives, although the different alter

objectives for various resources in diffe

consider all of the alternatives in the FE

28

48

52

66

68

216

Alternative D

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should select 

Alternative D.

...This alternative would manage recommended wilderness as 

wilderness, but it also has a great respect for the needs of wildlife 

and watershed protection. These last two concerns are the real 

reason to adopt it.

2200

2464

2693

2698

2699

All of the alternatives in the FEIS meet 

objectives, although the different alter

objectives for various resources in diffe

consider all of the alternatives in the FE

Response to Comments - 11
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

I support Alt D because it best protects the trails of the Great 

Burn, Mallard Larkins and other scenic destinations for hiking and 

horseback riding.

Support for Alternative D

HHA [Hellgate Hunters and Anglers] supports Alternative D 

because it would provide the highest number of benefits for 

hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, backpackers and campers. -

Alternative D allows 139 miles of motorized use in roadless areas 

compared to 243 miles in Alternative C. This provides 

innumerable benefits to hunters, anglers, fish, and wildlife by 

enhancing the roadless area values discussed above. -Alternative 

D would largely restore the backcountry characteristics of the Pot 

Mountain roadless area, a very important elk and deer hunting 

destination. -Alternative D provides important motorized route 

restrictions in the Weitas Bighorn Roadless area (encompassing 

the Weitas, Cayuse, and Junction areas in the proposed travel 

planning map). Weitas and Cayuse creeks provide extremely 

important trout fishing and this roadless area offers key low 

elevation big game habitat. HHA recommends that the CNF go 

one step further than Alternative D and close the a section of the 

trail that runs parallel to Weitas Creek starting at the junction 

with forest road 555 all the way to forest road 500 to provide at 

least some backcountry fishing along Weitas Creek.

2714

2742

2890

2894

2991

34

61

217

Alternatives 

(Add, Change, 

Delete)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should create an 

alternative that 

does not close 

single-track trails.

The Blue Ribbon Coalition appreciates the desire to create a single

track loop focused alternative. The Clearwater certainly has 

single track motorcycle and mountain bike niche. However, 

Alternatiove C, the alternative that purports to provide this, 

doesn’y. Alternatiove C cuts several prenier single track loops. It 

fails to provide needed snowmobile areas and is an unacceptable 

loss of recreational opportunity.

2576

2581

2814

2815

All of the alternatives in the FEIS meet F

objectives, although the different altern

objectives for various resources in differ

this concern by maintaining as much mo

possible.

1

5 

9 

22

25

27

28

34

35

47

58

217

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should develop 

new alternatives 

that include more 

or less motorized 

opportunities.

I suggest the Forest Service go back to the drawing board, 

eliminate all options that do not provide the wildlife protections 

promised in the 1987 forest plan, and reissue the DEIS for public 

comment.

I object to the fact that with the current Travel Plan the agency 

refused to develop even one alternative that did not further 

significantly reduce motorized trail opportunities.

. . . there is no change (other than the restriction of cross-country 

travel) being required to any current travel plan in any national 

2002

2004

2006

2010

2017

2018

2020

2035

2036

2037

2039

The Interdisciplinary Team developed th

DEIS to meet Forest Plan standards, goa

resources. 

Chapter 1 of the DEIS explains that cons

of routes were not considered as part of 

activities will be addressed on a case by 

Allowing continued unmanaged cross-co

routes would not meet the purpose and 

Management Rule. 

Response to Comments - 12
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

61

70

75

269

318

448

453

forest. . . . I can only ask that planners set no cross-country travel 

up as the only change. . . .

I am concerned that the DEIS does not include an alternative that 

closes all of the Weitas Creek and other roadless areas within the 

Clearwater National Forest to motorized abuse.

As shown in the attached comments, there is a great shortage of 

ATV and motorcycle trails in the Clearwater National Forest. For 

this reason, we [Capital Vehicle Trail Association] strongly 

recommend and support the development of a Pro-Recreation 

Alternative. 

 

All roads to be closed to full-size vehicles should be converted to 

atv routes. This is a reasonable alternative for all existing roads. 

A summer alternative should be added to limit ORV travel to 

forest roads only. A winter alternative should limit snowmobile 

use to far less acres in order to more effectively protect wildlife.

In my opinion the maximum mileage of roads and trails should 

remain open for all types of use and traffic.

... National Forests are managed by LAW for multiple use. These 

uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over 

another.

There isn’t a proposed new motorized route on the forest just a 

decrease in motorized use.

... The arbitrary decision to simply eliminate now all cross-country 

use rather than consider reasonable intermediate alternatives to 

“confine” or manage such use is a fundamental flaw in the DEIS.

The needs of the public for motorized recreational opportunities 

include a variety of trails for different skill levels. 

In order to protect the natural resources of the Clearwater 

National Forest I strongly suggest you limit motorized travel to 

roads only. This will be a win-win-win situation for the natural 

resources and people.

2041

2042

2044

2046

2047

2057

2065

2084

2086

2087

2090

2135

2136

2137

2140

2163

2322

2323

2332

2333

2337

2337

2338

2338

2456

2470

2472

2507

2508

2513

2573

2607

2688

2794

2796

2812

2818

2880

2903

2934

2942

2957

Response to Comments - 13
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

2978

21 217

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should develop a 

range of 

alternatives for 

roads. 

Why is there not a range of alternatives in regard to roads?

2282

See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered 

Restriction Changes Other Than The “Da

25

310

343

217

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should develop a 

compromise 

alternative.

Here’s an idea to consider where both parties compromise. Open 

the Montana side of the Great Burn within the Lolo National 

Forest, in exchange close an unused area within the CNF.

I think if you are going to close something you should swap the 

areas around and keep area B2 open and close all of the stuff next 

to the Highway 12 with the exception of the roads that would be 

needed to access area B2.

...IDFG would be able to support a compromise Alternative 

developed collaboratively with a range of stakeholders and with 

adequate mitigations for impacts from motorized trails (e.g., 

seasonal closures) to protect fish, wildlife and other resources. 

2102

2420

The Interdisciplinary Team developed th

DEIS to meet Forest Plan standards, goa

resources, and to address a wide variety 

Modified was added to the alternative a

comments about motorized trail opport

opportunities, Alternative C Modified re

Alternatives B and C.

34

51 217

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should modify 

Alternative B.

...a modified Alternative B will best balance impacts on wildlife 

and habitat with the need to provide a wide range of recreational 

uses. 

2242

2569

2572

2578

2691

2718

3003

The Interdisciplinary Team developed th

DEIS to meet Forest Plan standards, goa

resources. 

23

25 217

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should modify 

Alternative C.

Alternative C needs modification in order to provide quality 

looping trail opportunities desired by single-track trail 

motorcyclists. 

The DEIS preferred Alternative C, in our opinion, does not offer a 

satisfactory resolution either to environmental concerns or to 

conflicts between various interests. 

...we suggest as we have in other comments, that the Blacklead 

trailhead is relocated approximately one mile west to the junction 

with FR 581. If the trailhead is not moved, we recommend closing 

this road (FR 581D) to all motorized use because of its proximity 

to the Great Burn proposed wilderness. 

2327

2397

2408

2452

2758

2956

Alternative C Modified has been added t

See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered 

Restriction Changes Other Than The “Da

25

48 217 The Clearwater National Forest 

I strongly urge the Forest Service adopt a modified version of 

Alternative D to include a year-round motorized prohibition in all 

2418

2700

The FEIS has been updated to address th

“Inventoried Roadless Areas and Recom

Response to Comments - 14
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

431

432

should select a 

modified 

Alternative D.

Inventoried Roadless Areas.

I urge you to adopt “D” and drop the proposed (elk) amendment.

ID Fish and Game recommends Alternative D as the preferred 

Alternative, with the EHE standard retained regardless of the 

Alternative chosen 

We [EPA] recommend the selection of Alternative D. Alternative D 

is the most environmentally protective – especially in the 

provision of wildlife security habitat – and is simultaneously the 

most consistent with CNF’s recreation niche....If Alternative D is 

inconsistent with water quality standards we recommend the 

incorporation of additional water quality emphasis elements.

2707

In response to public comments and bas

Forest Plan amendment for elk habitat e

project.

29 217

The Clearwater 

National Forest did

not present an 

adequate range of 

alternatives in the 

DEIS.

... there is an inadequate range of alternatives presented and 

considered in the DEIS... 2483

2485

2582

The Interdisciplinary Team developed th

DEIS to meet Forest Plan standards, goa

resources. Alternative C Modified was 

FEIS.

21

218

Cumulative/C

ombined 

Effects

The Clearwater 

National Forest has 

not analyzed the 

effects of opening 

trails that may 

currently be 

impassable.

Because the analysis does not indicate what trails are currently 

used by motor vehicles, it is impossible to assess the impacts from 

“opening” trails to ORV use where there is little or no use. 

Stimulus money could open trails to ARV use that never received 

it in the past. Those impacts are not assessed in the DEIS. 2272

None of the alternatives would open tra

closed with the exception of the user-cr

Section: Alternative B: Minimal OHV Ru

Routes Criteria. The analysis for trail ma

annually within the Forest’s Small NEPA 

Travel Planning, route designation decis

1 

9 

56

218

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should display the 

cumulative effects 

of limiting 

motorized uses 

including the 

effects of 

neighboring 

Forest’s decisions 

and the impacts of 

concentrating use 

on fewer trails. 

The agency can no longer ignore the significant cumulative effect 

that all of the motorized closures over the past 30 years have had 

on motorized recreationists. We [Capital Trails Vehicle 

Association] cannot tell you how many times we have met 

motorized recreationists (many of them families from the project 

area) and they have asked us “What is going on?” This question 

will be even more prevalent if the travel plan is pushed by the 

public in a short time frame. In all of the hundreds of federal 

actions in the past 7 years, we have yet to see a meaningful 

evaluation this cumulative effect. It seems that both the BLM and 

Forest Service are using forest planning and travel management 

planning as an opportunity to close as many motorized 

recreational opportunities as fast as possible. We are asking that 

this project establish a baseline evaluation and address this 

2005

2012

2013

2014

2015

2025

2053

2054

2114

2117

2442

2499

2575

2585

The cumulative effects analysis in the FE

concerns. See Chapter 3, “Trails and Re

Travel Routes.” 

Response to Comments - 15
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

significant impact.

Nowhere in the project documents do I see any analysis on what 

the cumulative impacts will be to the remaining motorized 

recreation facilities on the Forest due to the reductions in 

motorized recreation opportunity. Can you please address this in 

a probative manner with statistical evidence to support the 

rationale?

... the Clearwater NF is just one of the Region 1 management units 

proposing to close between 30 and 50% of the existing routes on 

the Forest, and thus large numbers of useable snowmobile 

opportunities.

If all of these [RWA] areas are still in pristine enough condition to 

be rated for RWA status then the current Forest 

Management/Travel Plan is working and does not require any 

major changes. The 2005 rule does not say you have to close any 

motorized route just to designate them for use.

2588

2754

2757

2780

2781

2782

2784

2785

2786

2790

63 218/443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should display the 

cumulative effects 

of limiting bicycling

uses including the 

effects of 

neighboring 

Forest’s decisions. 

I urge the Region One to thoroughly consider the widespread loss 

of trails across adjacent National Forest, not just one particular 

district.

2210

2864

The cumulative effects analysis in the F

concerns. See Chapter 3, Inventoried 

Wilderness Areas. 

15 218

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should analyze the 

potential for

increased use and 

demand in the 

future

The DEIS has a number of shortcomings, one being it ignores the 

growth in recreation use of all kinds and especially motorized use 

in the future to come, land managers should be very well aware 

of the ramifications of forcefully concentrating land users...

From a CEQ-compliance standpoint, the consequences of the 

proposed action are not analyzed. 

2008

2161

2791

2792

The potential effects of the alternative

the FEIS. 

9 

29 218 

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should admit that 

OHV management 

is as much as social 

issue as a resource 

issue

We reject the notion that B only “minimally implements” the 

2005 TM rule. There is also another of the unacceptable 

conjectural statements: “Cumulative effects include the possibility 

of growing recreational user dissatisfaction over the inconsistent 

management of recommended wilderness and inventoried 

roadless areas...” (emphasis added). That this is another 

indication that OHV management is dominantly a social rather 

2133

2141

2491

The FEIS includes a discussion of the so

recreation. See Chapter 3, Social and E

Response to Comments - 16
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

than a resource issue.

Travel Management and planning is largely a social issue. ... Social 

issues should have little influence when you are trying to provide 

for use by all users. Resource issues should be the main driving 

factor.

57 218

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should analyze the 

cumulative effects 

of past actions on 

motorized trail and 

winter over-snow 

recreation 

opportunities.

CEQ “requires a review of past actions to the extent that the 

review informs Agency decision-makers regarding proposed 

actions.” No such review is provided with regard to motorized 

trail opportunities and winter over-snow opportunities. A goal of 

the recreation resource manager is to provide opportunities for 

obtaining satisfying experiences. (ROS User Guide)

... the Clearwater NF is just one of the Region 1 management units 

proposing to close between 30 and 50% of the existing routes on 

the Forest, and thus large numbers of useable snowmobile 

opportunities.

2772

2780

The FEIS includes a cumulative effects a

over-snow recreation opportunities in 

29

222

Document 

Composition/

Clarity

The Clearwater 

National forest 

should correct a 

discrepancy in the 

number of miles 

for the same 

alternative in the 

DEIS.

Page 3-24 – Table 3-8 indicates that B provides 3084 miles of 

motorized road. The 7/15/09 “Effects” document (see p. 3-17 

above) states B provides 2947 miles of such road access.

2492

The FEIS has been updated to use the m

27 222

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should ensure that 

the maps displayed 

in the FEIS are 

correct.

I feel the USFS staff has intentionally tried to deceive and confuse 

the public with false information in the displayed maps.

2450

2862

The maps displayed in the DEIS were d

the course of the analysis for the Trave

have been updated and finalized.

34 222

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should make the 

page-specific 

corrections and 

clarifications 

suggested by those 

who commented 

on the DEIS.

In the current climate, and with an eye toward the future of the 

Forest, its resources, and its users, there is a need to identify 

routes suitable for motorized, non-motorized, and nonmechanized travel. ...(DEIS page 1-4) In the BlueRibbon Coalition 

scoping comments we specifically asked that the DEIS define the 

term “climate” in the context of this sentence as how that may 

affect the purpose and need. 

2586

3055

The sections cited in these comments h

commenters’ concerns.

 

29 222 The Clearwater Page 1-3 – ... this document fails to adequately identify the user 2474 Chapter 2 of the FEIS, Section User-Sug

Response to Comments - 17
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

National Forest 

should identify the 

user-created roads 

and trails.

crated or non-system roads and trails. 2476 suggested routes that were included in 

48 222

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should ensure that 

the web-based 

documents are 

accessible.

...Unfortunately—and for most of the final days of the public 

comment period—the Forest Service file server that maintains the 

maps needed to fully understand Alt. D has been inoperative. I 

was able to access it for just five minutes to quite briefly view the 

Alt. C maps. This electronic failure sure makes useful comments 

on the draft plan very hard to write.

2698

The Clearwater National Forest will ma

documents that are distributed electro

25 223

Definitions

The Clearwater 

National forest 

should define oversnow vehicles as 

any vehicle capable 

of traveling over 

snow.

ID Fish and Game recommends that the definition for over-snow 

vehicle be any vehicle capable of travel over snow. Seasonal 

closures should apply to all such vehicles. 

2428

Over-snow vehicles are defined in the F

26

109

224

Consistency 

with Forest 

Plan Direction

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not 

complete travel 

planning until the 

Forest Plan is 

revised. 

The travel plan needs to be put on hold until the forest plan is 

completed to avoid apparent inconsistencies between the two.

Winter travel should never have been part of this travel plan, due 

to the delays in completing the Forest Plan. ..Once Forest 

Planning resumes, there should be significant alterations to RWA 

boundaries, due to unquestionable Significant Historical 

Snowmobile Usage in the RWA's...Snowmobile Alliance of 

Western States suggests that the Summer and Winter Travel 

Planning portions be broken into two separate plans. With the 

Winter Travel half being delayed until the Forest Plan can be 

completed...Region 1 has a policy of removing high motorized 

usage areas from RWA boundaries. This is done in the Forest 

Plan, not the Travel Plan. Since the Forest Service is claiming high 

snowmobile usage in the RWAs, then the RWA boundaries should 

be altered to reflect this.

2261

2439

One component of the purpose and ne

implementation of the 2005 Travel Man

Forest Service to include winter motori

analysis, and does not require Forests t

complete before doing Travel Planning. 

indefinitely would not meet the require

unclear how soon Forest Plan Revision 

National Forest. 

3 

25 224

The Clearwater 

National Forest has 

developed 

alternatives that do 

not meet Forest 

Plan standards.

...Alternative C would likely violate the Forest Plan management 

direction for fish and wildlife resources.

Some of the negative directions proposed by the Forest will have 

permanent or long-term impacts that are inconsistent with Forest 

Plans goals, objectives and standards. 

2068

2122

2400

All alternatives meet Forest Plan standa

move away from Forest Plan goals or o

moving toward the goals and objectives 

21

225

Consistency 

with Forest 

The Clearwater 

National Forest has 

not complied with 

The Forest Plan settlement agreement changed management 

direction for areas that have appeared in bills sponsored by 

members of the Idaho congressional delegation. These areas—

2263

All of the alternatives comply with the F

Settlement Agreement. The Forest Plan 

(recommended wilderness) guides man

Response to Comments - 18
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Plan 

Settlement 

Agreement

the settlement 

agreement to 

manage Weitas 

Creek and Upper 

North Fork 

Roadless Areas as 

Recommended 

Wilderness (B2). 

including most of the Weitas Creek and Upper North Fork 

roadless areas--are to be managed as B2 or recommended 

wilderness according the settlement. This fact has been 

completely ignored in the DEIS.

does not contain specific direction regar

in the summer as motorized or non-mot

winter motorized use. It is within Forest 

defined in the Settlement Agreement co

others would not be depending on the e

protection of character for these areas.

66

158

165

226 Proposed 

Forest Plan 

Amendment

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not drop Elk 

Habitat 

Effectiveness 

standards.

. . . I urge the Forest Service to PLEASE drop the proposed Forest 

Plan amendment which proposes to remove Elk Habitat 

Effectiveness Standards from the Forest Plan. I think it is critical 

to continue (to) analyze the impact of road and trail densities on 

elk security and habitat.

. . . I urge the abandonment of the proposed Forest Plan 

Amendment. The removal of standards from the Forest Plan 

would jeopardize important analyses of roads, trails, and elk 

security and habitats.

2067

2069

2070

2071

2072

2073

2074

2145

2193

2260

2267

2343

2344

2401

2412

2422

2471

2561

2565

2648

2652

2653

2654

2655

2656

2657

2672

2681

2749

2892

In response to public comments and bas

Forest Plan amendment for elk habitat e

project.

9 226

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should drop the 

Forest Plan 

The amendment for the change of restrictions has been 

addressed and changed in the 2005 Travel Plan Rule 

(36CFR212.52 (2). There isn’t any need for this amendment. 2121

The 2005 Travel Management Rule did n

road use restriction periods found in Ap

Plan. There is a need to amend this stan

date combinations for seasonal use rest

Response to Comments - 19
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

amendment for 

seasons of use.

25 226

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should amend the 

Forest Plan to 

eliminate 

motorized travel in 

some MA’s. 

IDFG recommends that the Forest use this opportunity to amend 

the Forest Plan to fully implement the vision expressed in the 

Forest Plan for the Bighorn-Weitas MAs...The amendment we 

recommend would close C6 and C8S MAs to all motorized travel, 

except on essential roads. 

2423

It is beyond the scope of this project to e

amend the Forest Plan, beyond any that 

current proposal. It would be more app

the current Forest Plan is revised. 

3 

9 

25

61

418

230 Resource 

Analysis

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider the 

impacts of 

motorized vehicle 

use.

There is no way to deny that ORV use is damaging to the 

environment, in particular meadows, riparian areas and trails. . . . 

In addition, there is a factor of noise. Please consider the impact 

of ORV use and how that would have adverse effects on fish, 

wildlife and people who wish to hike without the sound of dirt 

bikes.

How much cross country ORV use by wheeled vehicles actually 

takes place on the Clearwater National Forest and what are its 

impacts on wildlife (and other resources)? The DEIS does not 

quantify the current use and impacts to wildlife, it merely notes 

that this is a big “policy’ change, not a big on-the-ground change. 

Indeed, it is likely that cross country travel by wheeled vehicles is 

currently not very extensive on the Clearwater due to the 

vegetation. The Clearwater is wetter and has thick vegetation. 

Contrast that with forests in Region I east of the continental 

divide, which have vast open areas.

As far as fish and wildlife concerns, trail machines have been 

accessing these trails since the early sixties and there is no proof 

(actual data) showing any direct or indirect impacts to fish and 

wildlife populations. If there is proof, I demand to see it. I work in 

the field of fisheries biology, and as a result, have a good

understanding of multiple use recreation with respect to fish and 

wildlife. I see no measureable affects to wildlife in terms of 

reducing population abundance, unless there is actual data to 

support the affects of motorcycling on the success of elk calving 

during that time for that specific area. Black bears and wolves 

have much more of a direct affect on the success of elk calving 

than someone passing through on a motorcycle. Wildlife are used 

to living near travel corridors, whether it be highways, dirt roads 

or trails.

2008

2010

2012

2021

2035

2036

2079

2128

2262

2287

2288

2289

2290

2342

2399

2403

2407

2514

2598

2602

2625

2626

2627

2628

2679

2687

2743

2769

2787

2820

2823

2860

2904

The effects analysis in the FEIS for all of t

effects of motorized vehicle use. Appen

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

Response to Comments - 20
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

2905

2958

2959

2960

2968

50 230

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider the 

effects of climate 

change.

Climate Change...Likely impacts from an increased number of 

warm days and changes in the amounts and season distributions 

of rainfall and snowpack include; altered water quantity and 

quality (e.g. temperature); timing of flow; spatial and temporal 

shifts of vegetative communities and wildlife habitat; increased 

frequency and intensity of wildfires; increased potential for bark 

beetles and other insects; potential increases for invasive species 

to mitigation measures; and increased opportunities for warm 

weather recreation.

2715

We recognize that vehicles emit greenho

climate change; however, this project wo

motorized activity would occur on the Fo

We have seen no evidence to indicate th

alter the amount of their motorized use 

National Forest lands, whether their pre

hike, tour in a passenger vehicle, or to re

off the Forest. Under the action alternat

motorized use than is currently legally av

this would result in less motorized use b

21

25

31

237 Resource 

Analysis

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider the 

impacts of 

motorized vehicle 

use on TES and 

other important 

wildlife species

Where is the analysis of grizzlies? One was recently killed 

(illegally) in the North Fork.

Fisher

The questions Friends of the Clearwater, Wildlands CPR, Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies, WildWest Institute, the Lands Council, the 

Idaho Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Montana Chapter of the 

Sierra Club raise about lynx are also valid for fishers. How many 

ORV tails and miles of trails would be open to either winter or 

summer to motorized use in riparian or old growth habitat under 

the various alternatives (this is also true for other riparian or old 

growth species)? How might that affect habitat security under 

the various alternatives in terms of percentages or other 

measurable criteria? Why wasn’t the latest Forest Service 

research from Missoula on fishers which shows that Clearwater 

fishers are unique and endemic fishers and not necessarily from 

reintroductions?

Disturbance effects and source habitat

Elk and other big game species are not the only wildlife impacted 

by motorized activity. Many species of wildlife are displaced from 

habitats adjacent to roads and motorized trails. Disturbance 

effects of roads and trails are species-specific and vary 

considerably with terrain, vegetation and other factors. However, 

a growing body of literature shows that, in highly motorized 

areas, the ability of many species to make efficient use of 

otherwise suitable habitat near motorized roads and trails is 

2291

2292

2293

2294

2295

2296

2297

2402

2413

2415

2416

2417

2419

2421

2424

2425

2515

2516

2517

2518

2519

2520

2521

2522

2523

2524

2525

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

Response to Comments - 21
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

compromised. For instance, Wisdom et al. (2000) provides 

information on 91 species of wildlife at risk; they concluded that 

motorized travel was a primary factor in the loss of source habitat for 74 of the 91 at-risk species. Elk, the focal species for much of 

the DEIS analysis, are particularly susceptible to roads and motor 

vehicle traffic (Wisdom et al. 2005). Protections for elk habitat 

are, therefore, useful as a surrogate for protecting some, but not 

all, wildlife, especially those with larger home ranges and 

different habitat needs. 

The wildlife impact evaluation – other species

The wildlife assessment of potential impacts to species other than 

elk is far from complete. For impacts to boreal owl, American 

three-toed woodpecker, pygmy shrew, red-tailed chipmunk, black 

swift, Idaho giant salamander and others, for instance, the DEIS 

presents a brief species synopsis, each containing the statement 

“There has been no study of the effects of human activity on (this 

species).” This was the extent of the attempt made to assess 

potential impacts from roads and trails. In our opinion, this is not 

an acceptable level of effort to predict impacts. The Forest should 

at least attempt to infer impacts to all of those species based on 

reported impacts to similar species (surrogate species) or on 

expected impacts to source habitat and home range. For 

example, a number of the sensitive species mentioned in the DEIS 

are snag dependent or use snags when available; snags are most 

prevalent in mature forest. The analysis could describe the 

differences in disturbance area between Alternatives on snag-rich 

old growth, likelihood of loss of snags as a result of motorized 

access (firewood cutting), etc. Similarly, the DEIS effects determination for most of the non

-

game species is that the proposed action “may impact individuals 

but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing 

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.” (Forest 

Service emphasis.) This infers that impacts to individuals of a 

species is acceptable, even though the natural population density 

of those species may be very low across the Forest. IDFG does 

not agree that impacts to individuals of a species is always 

acceptable. Wolverines, for example, could well be present in low 

enough densities that effects to individuals would cause loss of 

viability of a local population. The Forest should attempt, first, to 

avoid impacts to wildlife, then estimate the cost of unavoidable 

2526

2527

2528

2530

2539

2540

2541

2542

2544

2546

2547

2548

2549

2550

2551

2552

2553

2554

2555

2556

3004

3012

3018

3034

Response to Comments - 22
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

impacts and identify suitable mitigations. Is motorized access 

more valuable than protecting individuals of a sensitive wildlife 

species?

We [Defenders of Wildlife] do not have access to the GIS files of 

lynx and wolverine habitat found in the DEIS, but it is evident 

there are many areas of overlap, particularly in the eastern 

portion of the Clearwater. Also, we would like to see an analysis 

of the newly opened roads to snowmobiles and the groomed 

snowmobile routes, since besides plowed roads, the groomed 

snowmobile routes are likely to provide the easiest access to the 

newly opened roads, and can indicate which roads are most likely 

to receive significant levels of use by snowmobiles. This kind of 

analysis falls under the Forest Service’s obligation to take a hard 

look at impacts to habitat security with regard to motorized 

winter use under NEPA, which it has failed to do in its preparation 

of the DEIS.

1 231 Water

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should compare 

sediment 

production from 

roads to natural 

sediment 

production when 

making decisions 

about road 

closures because 

sediment 

production from 

roads and stream 

crossings is much 

less than that from 

natural 

disturbances. 

A sense of magnitude must be used when making decisions about 

road closures based on indicators such as sediment production.... 

The sediment yield must be compared to naturally occurring

conditions which includes normal runoff, floods and fires. The 

recent fires in the Clearwater National Forest discharged 

thousands of cubic yards of sediment to the area streams which is 

more than all of the motorized routes in the project area for the 

next 100 years.

If you consider the total length of a stream, a crossing a few feet 

wide a few places along its length, is miniscule. The amount of 

disturbance on the stream bottom and the banks would be hard 

to detect a few yards below the crossing. The natural disturbance 

in a watershed are so overwhelmingly greater, that it does not 

make sense to make an issue out of a few stream crossings. 

2030

2821

Route designation was based on a wide 

standards, and directives described in th

laws. (FEIS: Chapter 1: Purpose and Nee

production from natural phenomena is p

often of large magnitude. In this Travel P

from travel routes on aquatic resources 

determinants in most route designation

damage from motorized use (i.e. stream

sedimentation,riparian wetland degrada

travel restrictions and route designation 

adjacent trails presented an evident risk 

Eldorado Cr.), and especially in high fish

Cayuse Cr.). 

38 231

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

Travel Plan should 

adhere to language 

within applicable 

TMDL documents 

produced by the 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) offers the 

following comments relative to the above referenced Clearwater 

National forest Planning Document. DEQ request that the travel 

planning process be aware of and adhere to language contained 

within the following DEQ documents as is applicable:

- South Fork Palouse River TMDL

- Palouse River TMDL

2640

The applicable DEQ documents indicate 

temperature as water quality concerns i

The Clearwater National Forest consider

designating motorized-use as negligible 

Resources-Aquatics). These DEQ docum

streambank and riparian areas as source

quality and aquatic habitat and recomm

Response to Comments - 23
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Idaho Department 

of Environmental 

Quality.

- Upper North Fork Clearwater River TMDL

- Lower North Fork Clearwater River TMDL

- Jim ford Creek TMDL

- Lochsa River Subbasin Assessment

- Potlatch River TMDL 

- Lower Selway River Subbasin Assessment

- Palouse Tributaries TMDL

decommissioning in watersheds with im

closure, and decommissioning are not in

continue its active program of closing an

and sediment-producing roads through 

The Clearwater National Forest acknowl

trails, motorized, and non-motorized use 

Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershed Resourc

this travel plan will decrease the risk of r

erosion due to motorized use across the 

condition and water quality (i.e., decrea

condition, thus positively contributing to 

applicable TMDLS. All action alternatives 

country travel and dispersed use and co

motorized use in riparian areas than the 

alternative C-modified, and alternative D 

miles open to motorized use within ripa

stream crossings open to motorized use 

areas. 

1 231

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should provide 

empirical evidence 

of the detrimental 

impacts of 

motorized crosscountry travel on 

watershed 

resources.

Page 3-158 – An unsubstantiated statement is made that “all of 

the action alternatives should allow a gradual recovery of areas 

currently impacted by motorized cross-country travel.” (Emphasis 

added). Nowhere in the DEIS is any evidence presented regarding 

such alleged degradation or effects. Until the existing 

environment section contains such empirical evidence, these 

conclusions are unwarranted.

Page 3-142 – There is a critique of “mud bogging” and allegations 

of associated resource damages. We [Specialty Vehicle Institute of 

America and the Motorcycle Industry Council] are unaware that 

this is an issue in the Clearwater and urge this to be deleted from 

the document as unsubstantiated conjecture.

2509

2510

3054

The Clearwater National Forest has reco

soil, and aquatic resource damage by off

FEIS (Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershed Re

Watershed (DEIS pg. 3-142)). Detailed do

available at the Clearwater National For

29 231

The Clearwater

National Forest 

should recognize 

that aquatic 

habitats are 

affected by a wide 

array of activities 

over long time 

periods in addition 

to OHV use.

Page 3-163 – It is important that the DEIS expressly recognize that 

a wide array of activities over an extended period of time are 

responsible for effects on aquatic habitats in the Clearwater. OHV 

use is only one very limited factor.

2511

The Clearwater National Forest recogniz

variety of activities over time, including 

Section 2: Watershed Resources-Aquatic

163).

Response to Comments - 24
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

1 

40 231

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

must analyze the 

effects of the 

various alternatives 

on water quality

(i.e., sediment) and 

should describe 

how the 

alternatives 

improve water 

quality over the 

existing (no action) 

condition. 

Restricting stream 

crossings and 

exceptions for 

dispersed camping 

should be 

considered near 

water qualitylimited (listed) 

waterbodies.

The FEIS should explain the contribution of the alternatives to the 

improvement of water quality over the existing (no action) 

condition. Where water quality-limited (listed) water bodies exist, 

limitations on stream crossings and exceptions for dispersed 

camping should be considered.

We [EPA] ....We recommend the consideration of the following 

suggestions for the implementation and administration plan of 

the FEIS’s preferred alternative...Prioritize OHV’s contribution to 

the sedimentation of streams within the implementation and 

adaptive management planning framework. Providing a 

management trigger related to water quality standards for 

sediment may be a useful method of ensuring benefits to the 

aquatic environment are realized.

-Identify likely problem areas for compliance and enforcement 

(e.g., traditional dispersed camping areas proposed to be closed)

We have concerns about potential impact of the proposed Travel 

Management Plan (TMP) on water quality and have therefore 

assigned an Environmental Concerns – Insufficient Information 

(EC-2) rating to the EIS based on Alternative C.

.....the use and continued existence on the ground of motorized 

roads and trails has been proven to increase sediment 

distribution to nearby water bodies. This should have been 

analyzed in both the direct and cumulative effects sections. This 

must be accounted for and degradation of water sources 

prevented.

2009

2026

2283

2664

2704

2713

The effects of the travel plan alternative

are described in the FEIS (Chapter 3-Sec

Environmental Consequences-Watershe

comparisons of erosion and sedimentat

waterbodies. Alternatives C, alternative 

the trail density and trail miles open to m

reduce the number of stream crossings 

existing condition. The potential for aqu

and streambed degradation, sedimentat

prominent factor in designation in speci

stream adjacent trails presented an evid

Eldorado Cr.), and especially in high fish

Cayuse Cr.). The FEIS contains updated r

travel and dispersed recreation to only e

Chapter 2: Alternatives-Actions Commo

17, Table 2-3). Additionally, the FEIS con

and potential impacts of motorized stre

on aquatic resources (i.e. sedimentation

degradation) in select watersheds to inf

regarding trail and dispersed recreation 

maintenance (see Appendix F). The prop

decrease the risk of riparian and stream

motorized use across the CNF and will li

condition and water quality over the exi

21 231

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

must disclose the 

existence of water 

quality limited 

stream segments, 

the motorized 

route densities 

within 300 ft of 

them, and the 

effects of dispersed 

motorized camping 

on these water 

bodies.

The Forest Service must...disclose the existence of water quality 

limited stream segments, the motorized route densities within 

300 ft of them, and the effects of dispersed motorized camping 

on these water bodies.

2283

The FEIS has been updated and includes 

impaired streams. See Chapter 3, Aquat

address this concern, the FEIS includes u

Modified that would limit off-route mot

only existing tracks and dispersed sites w

Chapter 2. Additionally, the FEIS contai

potential impacts of motorized stream c

aquatic resources (i.e. sedimentation, ch

degradation) in select watersheds to inf

regarding trail and dispersed recreation 

maintenance. See Appendix F. The pro

decrease the risk of riparian and stream

motorized use across the CNF and will li

condition and water quality over the exi

Response to Comments - 25
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

50 231

The CNF Travel 

Plan DEIS does not 

provide sufficient 

information to 

conclude that all of 

the action 

alternatives will 

meet water quality 

standards. The FEIS 

should include 

additional 

information 

explicitly linking 

the predicted 

impacts of each 

alternatives route 

designations to 

relevant water 

quality standards 

and policies from 

TMDLs, Subbasin 

Assessments, Idaho 

Anti-degradation 

Policy, BMPs, and 

PACFISH/INFISH 

RMOs. 

We also believe the DEIS’s watershed resources analysis 

insufficiently supports the conclusion that the action alternatives 

will meet water quality standards.

...difficult to enforce off-route exceptions for special corridors. 

(e.g., complex conditions for “selecting a Route to a Campsite”) 

may inadequately reduce environmental risks from dispersed 

recreation under each of the action alternatives.

Table 1-3 in the DEIS states that the project will move toward fish 

an water quality objectives and adhere to State water quality 

standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs), but there is no 

additional specific information to support this conclusion.... we 

are unsure whether the proposed reductions will meet water 

quality standards.

...we(EPA) recommend the FEIS include additional information 

linking proposed route designations to relevant specific water 

quality standards. We are particularly interested in how the 

action alternatives will meet standards such as those found in 

relevant Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations and 

subbasin Assessments. Other specific water quality standards 

include stream habitat variables associated with Pacfish/Infish 

Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) and sediment, turbidity 

and temperature goals from Idaho’s Anti-degradation Policy 

(DEIS, p. 1-27).

We [EPA] are concerned that the DEIS does not include sufficient 

information to conclude that any of the action alternatives meet 

all relevant water quality standards and policies. The DEIS 

contains a high level of detail, but does not sufficiently link the 

aquatics and fisheries affected environments to environmental 

consequences.

2706

2709

2710

2711

The effects of the travel plan alternative

are described in the FEIS (Chapter 3-Sec

This section includes comparisons of ero

water quality. Erosion from roads, trails

identified as sources of sediment on the 

Assessments). The proposed actions in t

erosion and sedimentation due to moto

have positive effects on riparian conditi

existing condition. All action alternative

on off-route motorized travel and dispe

motorized use to only existing tracks an

ft. of designated routes. These updated 

and aquatic resource protection which w

PACFISH/INFISH RMOs and improve wa

Actions Common to all Alternatives (DE

restrictions are more simplified than tho

easily interpreted by the user and enfo

contain slightly less road miles open to 

no action alternative. Alternatives C, alt

reduce the trail density and trail miles o

areas and reduce the number of stream 

high fishery value management areas. 

21 231

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should analyze the 

localized, rather 

than broad-scale, 

impacts of the 

proposed actions 

on waterbodies.

The forest has artificially skewed the analysis of potential effects 

on waterbodies and failed to take a hard look at these impacts by 

analyzing a too large area, rather than analyzing the localized 

impacts of roads on an affected waterbody. 2284

The geographic scope of the watershed 

Forest-wide scale of the proposed actio

alternatives on watershed and fisheries 

(Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershed Resou

50 231 The Clearwater In addition, difficult to enforce off-route exceptions for special 2706 All action alternatives in the FEIS contai

Response to Comments - 26
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

National Forest 

should identify 

areas with current 

and predicted 

future 

unacceptable 

resource impacts 

from dispersed 

recreation and 

disclose a schedule 

for future 

designation of 

dispersed 

campground areas. 

The off-route 

exceptions for 

special corridors 

will be difficult to 

enforce and may 

not reduce 

environmental risks 

under each of the 

action alternatives.

corridors. (e.g., complex conditions for “selecting a Route to a 

Campsite”) may inadequately reduce environmental risks from 

dispersed recreation under each of the action alternatives.

EPA prefers designated motorized routes and areas for dispersed 

recreation over corridors. In special corridors, we prefer 

designated campgrounds to off-route exceptions based on 

conditions that may be difficult to enforce and comply with.

We recommend that the FEIS include a list of the areas with 

current, and predicted future, unacceptable resources impacts 

from dispersed recreation. Please prioritize and disclose a 

schedule for future designation in especially problematic areas.

2712 motorized travel and dispersed recreatio

only existing tracks and dispersed recrea

routes. These updated restrictions provi

resource protection which will contribut

RMOs improve water quality (FEIS, Cha

all Alternatives (DEIS, pg 2-15 to 2-17, Ta

simplified than those presented in the D

user and enforced by the CNF.

All action alternatives include provisions 

impacts of dispersed recreation on aqua

This monitoring will be used to inform fu

trail and dispersed recreation designatio

maintenance consistent with the Forest 

guidelines for recreation management.

21 232

Soil

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should have 

analyzed an 

alternative that 

closed roads and 

trails to motorized 

use in areas with 

high mass wasting 

potential, sediment 

delivery efficiency, 

and soils surface 

erosion potential.

Why was no alternative analyzed that closed roads and trails in 

areas with high mass wasting potential, high and very high 

sediment delivery efficiency, and high soils surface erosion 

potential? 

2286

An analysis of routes within areas of high 

sediment delivery efficiency, and surface 

landslide locations (1995-1997) within 3

The results of this analysis indicated a ne

routes in these areas. 

101

342 235 Wildlife

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not restrict 

snowmobile use 

due to conflicts 

with wildlife

Snowmobiles cause no environmental impact and do not compete 

with other users of the area. There is no evidence of conflicts 

with wildlife during the winter months.

I haven’t seen anything biological or geological that has been 

damaged by motorized wintertime use in the areas to which I’ve 

2658

2674

2862

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

Response to Comments - 27
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

gone. Elk, moose, deer are all mostly at lower elevations, bears 

are in dens, lynx and wolverines are a maybe, but I’ve never seen 

tracks.

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

268 235

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should protect 

wildlife 

connectivity.

I ask you to consider keeping or enhancing wildlife connectivity to 

other nearby wild areas. This could be extremely important with 

global warming causing some species to seek favorable habitat as 

habitats evolve with climate change. 2659

3016

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to 

Methods, Environmental Consequences

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and c

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

3 

21 236 Fish

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should have 

evaluated the 

impact of each 

alternative on fish 

species and 

habitats, including 

the effects of 

dispersed camping.

The analysis should also have looked at how the each alternative 

would impact the fish species, looking at both the known 

populations in high value C6 areas and at the rest of the planning 

area. This would include an analysis of dispersed camping impacts 

on these species and their associated habitats.

2077

2078

2285

The effects of the alternatives on waters

the FEIS (Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershe

Consequences-Watershed and Fisheries

and riparian areas are often identified a

impact fish. Compared to existing condit

plan will likely decrease the risk of ripari

and sedimentation due to motorized use 

on fish species and habitat across the Fo

fish, fish habitat, and water quality (i.e. 

channel alterations, sedimentation) wer

travel routes in C6 management areas (

values) where Forest Plan goals prioritiz

alternatives include restrictions on cross

contain slightly less road miles in riparia

Compared to the exisitjng condition, alte

alternative D all reduce the trail density 

reduce the number of stream crossings 

areas. The updated FEIS also contains p

potential impacts of motorized stream 

aquatic resources (i.e. sedimentation, ch

degradation) in select watersheds (see V

monitoring will be used to inform future 

and dispersed recreation designation, lo

61 236

The Clearwater 

National Forest is 

inappropriately 

using a small 

amount of resource 

damage from 

motorized use of 

stream crossings to 

You mention any stream as a riparian area that must be protected 

and that we could cause resource damage. How far do you carry 

the definition of resource damage? If someone rides through a 

creek and turns a few rocks over is that resource damage? My 

professional (fisheries) judgment is that the small amount of 

impact to banks and creek bottoms that may occur on a stream 

crossing should not be blown out of proportion and used as an 

excuse to deny forest users recreational opportunity....

2822

The FEIS defines and discusses aquatic r

crossings (Chapter 3-Section 2: Watersh

Indicator 5; pg. 3-141 (DEIS)). The effect

habitat, and water quality (i.e. mortality

alterations, sedimentation) were major 

routes in C6 management areas (critica

where Forest Plan goals prioritize suppo

armoring ford banks and constructing br

Response to Comments - 28
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

restrict motorized 

recreation, when 

trail maintenance

and bridge 

construction at 

crossings could 

alleviate erosion 

and general 

resource damage. 

We can armor the bank crossings in areas of concern, and build 

bridges to minimize erosion.

crossings on aquatic resources. However

not included in this travel planning analy

40 236

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

must disclose how

the alternatives 

meet or do not 

meet the Riparian 

Management 

Objectives 

contained in 

PACFISH and 

INFISH, and also 

state whether or 

not trails were 

relocated or closed 

where RMOs could 

not be attained or 

adverse effects to 

fish avoided. The 

Clearwater 

National Forest 

should validate and 

improve Table 3-75 

to accurately 

display stream 

crossing data in 

High Fishery Value

(C6) management

areas. 

..the FEIS must describe if the action alternatives meet the RMOs 

contained in PACFISH and INFISH and whether or not the Forest 

Service relocated or closed routes where RMOs could not be 

attained or adverse effects to fish avoided.

....the data contained in Table 3-75 appears to be in error.

2663

The effects of the action alternatives on 

FEIS (Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershed Re

Consequences-Watershed and Fisheries) 

PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Management O

Chapter 1 of the FEIS (Chapter 1: Purpos

Plan Direction-Aquatics). The Clearwater 

substantial impacts of the action alterna

attainment of RMOs and consider the ac

contributions toward maintaining and re

conditions. All action alternatives include 

travel and dispersed use and include pro

potential impacts of motorized stream c

aquatic resources (i.e. sedimentation, ch

degradation) in select watersheds (see V

will be used to inform future manageme

recreation designation, location, restora

PACFISH/INFISH standards and guideline

Furthermore, alternatives C, alternative 

trail density and trail miles within riparia

stream crossings in C6 high fishery value 

result in additional positive effects on rip

40 236

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should validate and 

improve Table 3-75 

to accurately 

....the data contained in Table 3-75 appears to be in error.

For example, Table 3-75 indicates that there are no motorized 

stream crossings for fish-bearing streams in the Fish Creek 

drainage under any of the action alternatives. We know for a fact 

2663

FEIS Table 3-75 (Chapter 3-Section 2: Wa

Environmental Consequences-Watershe

number of trail/stream crossings located 

land parcels with high fishery values) use

analysis. The Clearwater National Forest 

Response to Comments - 29
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

display stream 

crossing data in the 

Fish Creek 

watershed. 

that the Fish Butte Saddle Trail #229 is open to four-wheelers and 

crosses Fish Creek itself. Fish Creek is a very important fishbearing stream on the Clearwater National Forest for both 

anadromous and inland native fish. The effects of this stream 

crossing to fisheries and the RMOs is not discussed in the DEIS.

for motorized use and crosses Fish Cr. Th

Management Area within the Fish Cr. wa

3-75, These management area directions 

including motorized travel. The routes m

considered in the North Lochsa Face trav

being reconsidered in the current Travel 

provisions for monitoring the existing an

crossings and dispersed recreation on aq

channel alterations, streambank degrada

Cr. (see Volume 2, Appendix F) 

29 238

Vegetation

The statements 

about effects of 

cross-country 

travel on rare 

plants lack 

specificity.

Page 3-229 – The statements about effects on rare plants lack 

specificity and are merely conclusory.

2531

In addition to the information available C

Resources-Rare Plants (DEIS 3-225-231) 

presence and distribution of threatened, 

Clearwater National Forest is available t

Center (CDC) (http://fishandgame.idaho

the management direction stated in the 

protect sensitive plant species and their 

to designated routes or within the off-ro

restrictions will decrease cross-country t

degradation and/or direct damage to se

action and continued cross-country trave

21 238

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should update the 

noxious weeds and 

rare plants 

analyses in the 

DEIS.

...the DEIS does not quantify the impacts of various alternatives 

nor does it analyze impacts from clearing trails which according to 

the DEIS are technically open to motorized use, but are not used 

by motorized vehicles now....Similarly, the rare plan analysis is 

cursory. It suggests that alternative D is the best, but does not 

quantify differences among alternatives. 

2310

The analysis in the FEIS has been update

Plants” and “Noxious Weeds” sections o

48 

239

Heritage/Cult

ural/Tribal 

Resources

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should protect 

prehistoric and 

historic cultural 

resources.

Fish and Hungery Creek Roadless Area. While many of the 

roadless and recommended wilderness areas on the CNF have 

great wildlife and recreational values, this low elevation roadless 

area deserves special consideration because of its historical 

values. There is growing evidence that the presence in this area of 

ancient (i.e., Nez Perce and their ancestors) trails and sites is 

more extensive than previously thought. There is also some 

debate about the most likely location of the particular ancient 

trail in this area that was traversed by Lewis and Clark. Since I 

have no access to the FS archaeological site files, I have no idea 

about just how much of this region’s history is fully understood by 

the Forest Service. In any case, a good concern for historic 

preservation (and “preservation” is the right word to use) 

indicates that this whole roadless area should be maintained for 

2309

2694

The potential effects of motorized use o

Effects Analysis section and consulted on 

Officer. Please see the effects analysis s

Response to Comments - 30
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

access by historical methods—by foot and horse only. In the past, 

Supervisor Caswell made decisions that kept much of this area 

free from machine use (Trail 224 near Mex Mtn for instance), so 

the real concern now is, I think, Trail 224 right at the mouth of 

Fish Creek, near the historic ranger station. This trail is, at best, 

suited only for foot, horse, and trail bike use. It is little used for 

the latter, and because of the likely presence of important historic 

sites near Obia Creek, the time has come to end all motorized use 

down in the bottom of the Fish Creek valley.

4 239

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

roads and trails 

with historic value 

because otherwise 

the historic value 

will be lost.

These trails and roads also have a historical value but when these 

trails and roads are gone, they will be gone forever and the 

history that goes with it.

2906

From an historical perspective, the trails 

have been documented in many forms a

not lost, although a particular route may 

indefinitely.

415 240 Social 

Impacts

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should retain 

access for retirees 

and families.

It would be wrong to deny these people (retirees) that have 

worked their whole lives and that finally get a chance to get out 

and enjoy this beauty, the ability to see it in the years they have 

left. Families as well are usually of a complex makeup that often 

includes retirees, children, disabled people, etc. They too would 

be hindered if more roads were closed or only opened for hiking.

2082

3057

On the Clearwater NF hundreds of miles 

and thousands of acres are open to snow

not all trails, roads and acres of the Nati

access, however this is not considered to 

not physically able to access National Fo

1 240

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should look at the 

impacts to public 

who own private 

land and want to 

recreate with OHVs 

on public lands.

Each route must include a socio-economic analysis that includes 

the impacts on the public owning OHVs and looking for 

opportunities to use them and landowners who purchased 

property with the intent of being able to access and recreate 

using motor vehicles. 2028

Purchasing land adjacent to National For

landowners will receive their own motor

57 240

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not attempt 

to resolve conflicts 

between local 

users because 

there is no legal 

definition for them.

On 1-3, under Background, the Agency states that it tasked “to 

minimize conflicts among local users.” The Agency, however, 

documents no conflicts for which resolution would require the 

wholesale closure of 200,000 acres of snowmobile opportunities. 

The insertion of this task is unlawful. Why? Because no forest 

visitor, winter or summer, has any way to adjust his/her behavior 

such that the agency perceives less (or more) “conflict”. Why? 

Because the DEIS provides no lawful definition (in fact there is no 

definition at all) of what these “conflicts between local users” 

may be. This suggests that it is philosophical differences, or 

2762

2763

The FEIS includes analysis of the potentia

analysis is presented in Chapter 3, Socia

titled Recreational National Forest Use, S

Response to Comments - 31
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

cultural values, that drive these “conflicts”. Such “conflicts” have 

no legal standard because their occurrence (reporting) is 

ephemeral: any claimed “damage” is ephemeral, and there is no 

evidence. We [Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association] refer to 

the Agency to the abundant social research, by both the Agency 

and academic community that details the elements of this type of 

“conflict” and details it in every recreational setting regardless of 

the activity, and thus it will become self evident to the Agency, 

the appeal review, and the court if necessary, that any attempt to 

“minimize” this type of conflict is a task that the Agency must be 

deterred from pursuing.

75

215

241 Economic 

Impacts

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider the 

economic impacts 

of restrictions.

Have you thought about the tourist money your state is loging by 

taking away more travel access in your forests? What about 

snowmobiles? How much money are you going to lose there? 

What about your own state’s off-highway vehicle users and the 

taxes they pay? You will lose even more money.

Reduced access to public lands will have a NEGATIVE economic 

impact to surrounding communities. What steps are proposed to 

mitigate these impacts? Loss of revenue from logging and mining 

activities has had a very negative impact on communities – how 

will the schools be funded?

2501

2504

2592

2645

2935

2937

2971

The FEIS reports existing contributions a

economic impacts on a the five-county r

and Economic acknowledge that travel p

businesses, the agency is not required to 

impacts to specific individuals because t

affect business decisions and success; be

trends and the fact that most if not all b

revenues from activity on National Fores

has been tied to historic not current out

that travel planning will not affect schoo

(when the current extension of the Secu

Even after that, recreation fee contribut

portion they are not expected to change 

end of Chapter 3, Social and Economics.

1 241

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should address 

how the OHV gas 

tax is being used to 

maintain, develop, 

and mitigate issues 

of OHV use.

Motorized recreationists generate significant levels of funding 

that would be available if the agency would pursue them and the 

system was working to distribute them equitably. Basically OHV 

recreationists generate a significant amount OHV gas tax. These 

monies should be used to maintain, develop, and mitigate issues 

but, unfortunately, it is being diverted elsewhere. This significant 

issue must be addressed. 

2032

There are three reasons not to include th

affected by the Clearwater National Fore

suspect that if OHV users are displaced f

National Forest economic impact area, t

purchase the same amount of gasoline a

same amount to the Idaho State Highwa

are contributions to fuel taxes from all u

and which would be affected in ways wh

alternative these were not reported. Ple

fuel taxes from one activity group would 

recreational visitors to the Clearwater N

drive to recreation destinations. In other 

one activity would not provide balanced 

mechanism to convey gas tax revenues t

management. 

264 300 Decision- The Clearwater The USFS must recognize that a firmer stance now will more easily 2270 The 2005 Travel Management Rule ackn

Response to Comments - 32
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

making 

Philosophy

National Forest 

should take a firm 

stand to limit 

motorized use 

now.

allow for future leniency regarding motorized use assuming 

bioscience data supports it. Added pressures of a growing 

population and additional motorized technologies will not be 

abated. A minor step in the right direction will only create 

additional difficult decision processes in the future. Further 

degradation is therefore predictable, and scientific data will 

support additional restrictions and a need to conduct more 

DEIS/EIS/NEPA studies in the future (which are preventable) 

unless you take the extra regulatory action now.

kind of off-road motorized uses that hav

example, the Background section of the 

intensity of motor vehicle use have incre

11644 and E.O. 11989 cannot be met wh

country travel.” A primary Purpose and 

to implement the 2005 Travel Managem

302 300

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should leave routes 

open unless there 

is a reason to close 

them.

When you are doing motorized travel planning it must e 

approached from the standpoint “It is open. Do we have a 

legitimate reason to close?” . . . You do not need a reason to leave 

a trail open but you must have a reason to close. Letter302

Alternative B would provide the greates

while still meeting Forest Plan standards 

25

302

Coordination/

consultation

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should discuss any 

future changes to 

the Travel Plan 

with IDFG.

... we would like the Travel Plan to include language that ensures 

that IDFG can initiate discussions with the Forest and that would 

allow the Forest to amend the Travel Plan whenever both parties 

determine changes are necessary. 

2431

3048

3049

IDFG may initiate discussions about trav

at any time. In the future, any changes 

issued for the Travel Planning FEIS woul

public notice and comment, consistent w

Environmental Policy Act. 

34 302

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consult with 

the Idaho 

Department of Park 

and Recreation as 

well as 

representatives of 

the Idaho State 

Snowmobile 

Association.

...The Rule does not contemplate closing such a large percentage 

of the existing trail system or snowmobile areas, and your DEIS 

contains no compelling reason for such closures. ...We strongly 

recommend that the decisionmaker discuss possible management 

options with the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation as 

well as representatives of the Idaho State Snowmobile 

Association as you move toward a final plan. 

2570

2579

A representative from the Idaho Depart

participated as an ad hoc member of the 

The Forest Supervisor, North Fork Distric

Interdisciplinary Team met with represe

Snowmobilers Association on several oc

project.

285

303

Consistency w 

laws, rules, 

policies

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not restrict 

bicycles from 

recommended 

wilderness.

I wholeheartedly disagree with any alternative that would 

prohibit bicycles from WSAs. Region One is the only region in the 

country that proposes such prohibitions. This is not the law and is 

not required by Forest Service regulations. Letter285

Alternative B provides for bicycle use in 

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do no

address this concern. The Forest Plan d

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

wilderness. See Chapter 3, Inventoried 

Wilderness Area. See also comments an

512 and 443 in this document. 

294 303 The Clearwater 

National Forest 

Due to age I can no longer hike into the mountains as I did in the 

past. . . . Please do NOT close these trails and roads. I feel placing Letter294 All Alternatives comply with the AmericaForest hosts a handicapped access prog

Response to Comments - 33
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

should not violate 

the Americans with 

Disabilities Act

too many restrictions on ATV use is in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act.

activities.

20 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

does not have the 

authority to close 

Recommended 

Wilderness Areas 

to motorized use.

... the forest service does not cite any law, policy, or directive to 

close Great Burn (HooDoo), Mallard-Larkins, or the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness additions. 2254

2753

2759

The Interdisciplinary Team developed th

DEIS to meet Forest Plan standards, goa

resources. The IDT considered maintena

motorized use and hiking, biking, horseb

non-motorized settings outside of Wilde

57 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not analyze 

winter uses under 

the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule.

We [Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association] would point out 

that the TMR explicitly exempts winter use. Thus the Agency has 

assumed an extra task, not mandated by any planning cycle or 

any regulation in matters of OVS activities. These issues are 

already settled by the existing LRMP and its amendments. The 

Agency has provided no data, monitoring results or sociological 

studies that show what has changed over time, to compel the 

proposed action at this time.

2760

The analysis of winter motorized uses du

under the 2005 Travel Management Rul

address over-snow vehicles and motoriz

Wilderness Areas is discussed in the FEIS

Management: Designated Routes and A

(2005), and Section: Purpose and Need 

21

57 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not reduce 

OHV recreation 

opportunities 

under the 2005 

Travel 

Management Rule 

because the Chief’s 

statements about 

the need for the 

Rule were 

unsupported by 

scientific analysis 

and predecisional.

In the Agency request for scoping comments it states that “The 

Chief of the Forest Service identified unmanaged recreation, 

including OHV use, as one of the 4 greatest threats to forests of 

all kinds in the U.S.” (USDA-FS, June 2004). The request for 

comments characterized this as something produced by the 

Forest Service, perhaps a study, or a research project. This is false. 

It is a statement made by a former Chief of the Forest Service, 

with No supporting documentation. What a former Chief of the 

Forest Service said in 2004 may or may not be appropriate to the 

Clearwater National Forest. Under any legal standard, the 

statement is hearsay. The burden under the EIS is to show 

whether or not this unsupported claim is true for the Clearwater 

NF. Placing this statement at the beginning of what CEQ intends 

to be an objective, scientific analysis is pre-decisional. (Page 1-4)

2268

2761

The 2005 Travel Management Rule was 

2004 in the Federal Register. Over 80,00

Rule was developed in response to the c

Executive Orders 11644 (1972) and 119

21 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should comply with 

all laws, 

regulations, 

executive orders, 

and the Forest 

Plan.

The DEIS fails to meet the intent of the Forest Plan, the Executive 

Orders, NEPA, NFMA, and the ESA. Given the failure of the DEIS, 

Friends of the Clearwater, Wildlands CPR, Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies, WildWest Institute, the Lands Council, the Idaho Chapter 

of the Sierra Club, and the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club 

suggest the agency finally implement direction made in the Forest 

Plan and take steps to comply with the Executive Orders to 

protect wildlife habitat including TES species habitat, 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities, cultural resources, and 

2259

All of the alternatives comply with State 

Forest Plan.

Response to Comments - 34
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

other values.

21 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider 

their ability to 

maintain, operate, 

and enforce the 

system.

... the planners should consult with law enforcement officers to 

ensure that routes and areas are realistically enforceable given 

current and foreseeable constraints...The final decision should 

include a Law Enforcement Strategy to ensure that visitors and 

forest resource values are protected, and to guide law 

enforcement activities.

2307

2499

2587

2713

The ability to “realistically” enforce moto

measurement. Under the Travel Manag

designated routes will be prohibited wit

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will be p

designated routes and the season of use

the Forest will not rely on signing to imp

enforcement will use the MVUM to dete

use is allowed.With the reduction of rest

simple and clear as possible which shoul

compliance.

The Roads and Seasonal Restrictions sec

road maintenance processes on the Clea

20 303

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should comply with 

the Multiple Use 

and Sustainability 

Act.

As an advocate for snowmobilers, my personal snowmobile 

activities and multiple use, I ask that solid ground be worked upon 

throughout the planning processes occurring in the CNF, that the 

Multiple Use and Sustainability Act provide some direction and 

that all user groups be considered.

2239

All of the alternatives comply with State 

25

279

361

471

305 Public 

Involvement 

Process

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should have 

meetings in 

Montana.

I further encourage you to get additional comments (have a 

session in Missoula) so that members of the public can get 

involved and provide comments on the pending decision.

I feel that you have been neglecting w3stern Montana, as far as 

the public meetings go. . . . Most snowmobilers in the Missoula 

area don’t even know about this proposed closure. Orofino and 

Kamiah are too far to drive to go to one of your public meetings.

We, the undersigned, sincerely request that the Clearwater 

Planning Team host a travel plan open-house in Missoula, MT 

regarding the proposed Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan 

and that the comment period be extended for an adequate time 

period subsequent to such open house to allow ample time for 

thoughtful imput to be provided to the team.

It’s clear that issues that divide non-motorized and motorized 

interests are far from resolved. Progress in resolving those 

differences should not fall entirely to the Forest Service but 

should involve other stakeholders. 

2206

2209

2410

2863

The Forest acknowledges that the Trave

users far beyond the boundaries of the C

Unfortunately, it is not possible to sched

that may be affected by the Forest’s Trav

received during the formal scoping perio

far from the project area as California, M

Alaska. 

Nevertheless, the Forest offered ample o

to participate in the scoping process and 

addition to news releases, legal notices, 

the local news media, information about 

provided on the forest website since 200

listed in the Schedule of Proposed Action

2007. A Notice of Intent to prepare an E

on November 28, 2007, and a Notice of A

the Federal Register on August 7, 2009. 

periods were both extended significantly 

The Public involvement process for the T

detail in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. 

39 305 The Clearwater 

National Forest 

The Board of Idaho County Commissioners represents all of the 

residents of this great count and we request “coordinating status” 2646 The Public involvement process for the Tdetail in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The Fores

Response to Comments - 35
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

should coordinate 

with the Idaho 

County 

Commissioners 

before making a 

final decision.

with the Forest Service on all matters affecting Idaho County 

including the final travel plan. This would include reasonable 

advanced notice be given to Idaho County prior to consideration 

of any Federal regulation affecting Idaho County. 

members of the public and local govern

process and to offer comments on the D

notices, and open houses that were adv

information about the Travel Planning p

website since 2006. The Travel Planning 

Proposed Actions (also available on the 

to prepare an EIS was published in the F

and a Notice of Availability for the DEIS 

August 7, 2009. The formal scoping and 

extended significantly in response to pu

The Public Involvement Log in the Trave

Forest met with Idaho, Clearwater, and 

different occasions.

25 305

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should take as 

much time to 

complete the 

Travel Plan as 

necessary, rather 

than adhering to an 

arbitrary schedule.

...the Travel Plan is important enough that the schedule for 

developing the Final should be “as long as it takes to get it right” 

and that developing that final Plan should involve collective 

participation by all interested parties. 

2411

One component of the purpose and nee

meet the requirements of the 2005 OHV 

analysis indefinitely would not meet the 

20

64 305

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should collaborate 

with local groups 

and agencies.

Alan and I would be happy to serve on a user advisory committee 

(which was suggested by the CNF staff last fall and never followed 

up upon by the CNF) to help resolve the motorized use issues that 

you are facing. After our meeting with IDPR and IDFG I feel they 

would not be opposed to this process either. 

It appears many forests, now including the Clearwater National 

Forest have negated the comments made by motorized and 

mechanized users during the scoping processes especially with 

regard to snowmobilers. This makes no sense to the average 

citizen who attempts to participate in the comment process.

2237

2885

The Public Involvement Log in the Trave

Clearwater NF has met with local user g

beginning as early as 2006. Local user g

detailed written comments during scop

IDT considered the input offered during 

Public Involvement Log, as well as writte

alternatives analyzed in the FEIS.

28

31

308 Influence 

of Interest 

Groups and 

Politics

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not cater to 

special interests

... management of public lands should not be dictated by the 

tender sensibilities of some user groups, representing a very small 

portion of Forest users who object to the presence of motorized 

vehicles and access.

Nearly one-third of Clearwater users engage in off-highway travel. 

Over 45% engage in “driving for pleasure on roads.” In contrast, 

2009

2500

2503

Forest wide management direction for r

of quality outdoor recreational opportu

broad range of dispersed activities with 

density compatible with public expectat

Response to Comments - 36
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

backpackers constitute a mere 2.5% of users and is the “primary 

activity” for only 0.4% of Forest visits. We [Specialty Vehicle 

Institute of America and the Motorcycle Industry Council] 

maintain that the “tail shouldn’t wag the dog” and that OHV 

management not unduly restrict existing motorized access to 

accommodate the sensibilities of a small fraction of users.

...if there is a need for non-motorized trails, then the agency 

should consider options that do not reduce the existing 

opportunity for motorized users.

16

404 Permitted 

Uses

(Outfitters)

The Clearwater 

National Forest has 

not evaluated 

impacts to the 

outfitters who 

operate on the 

Forest.

High Country Outfitters rely on snow machines to remove their 

equipment or transport clients.

2186

Alternative B best addresses this concer

all acres across the Forest. While the se

could have a slight effect on outfitter op

operations of High Country Outfitters as 

of Idaho or permitted by the Forest Serv

NF.

401

410

Government 

Activities on 

Public Lands 

(General)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should educate 

users about 

responsible 

motorcycle use.

You might want to try to do some education about the best type 

of motorcycles to use in the forests and the best type of tires. 

Lots of people are using radial trials tires now and seem to be 

getting better traction and thus reducing erosion. Letter401

Motorcycle operators should be respon

responsible use of the National Forests 

Educational programs such as “Tread Lig

promote responsible riding.

361

411

Enforcement/

Staffing 

Funding

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should sign areas 

of illegal use.

Over the last several years there have been complaints about 

snowmobilers illegally using the Clearwater national Forest to

access the Great Burn on the Montana side. A few signs where 

people illegally access Irish Basin or Heart Lake would eliminate 

99% of the illegal access.

Letter361

The Clearwater NF does attempt to sign 

especially in the Lolo Pass and Great Bu

of the over snow vehicle user to determ

1253 411

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should disclose the 

effectiveness of 

past enforcement 

actions to minimize 

OHV damage and 

focus future law 

enforcement 

efforts on sites of 

illegal use.

There are two things any Forest Supervisor should do to decrease 

ORV damage to public land: 1) run random LE checks of popular 

sites illegal for ORV use. . . .

2273

All alternatives comply with the Forest P

ongoing and will continue to address oc

existing route or area based travel desig

situations resulting in enforcement actio

will also continue after this decision.

1 411

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

Forest Service and BLM law enforcement has taken the position 

that OHVs cannot legally ride on forest or BLM roads unless the 

road is designated dual-use.

2048

All of the alternatives comply with State 

Response to Comments - 37
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

dual use routes

21

383 411

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should disclose 

funding levels for 

road maintenance 

and road 

decommissioning

The DEIS did not disclose its current and projected road 

maintenance funding levels, or how many miles of roads it can 

afford to actually maintain. Additionally, the forest should have 

discussed the availability of funds to address non-system 

routes...”

Please consider asking Congress for increased funding to meet the 

demand of the users.

Letter 383

2306

See the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section Roads a

Direct and Indirect Effects, Road Mainte

Considered But Not Studied in Detail. 

50

69

75

411

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should develop a 

MVUM that will be 

enforceable.

We [EPA] believe that providing for motorized recreation that 

does not harm sensitive environmental resource can be as much a 

function of the effective implementation and administration of 

the MVUM as it is a function of the specific combination of 

designated routes. Based on our review of this and other Travel 

Management Plans we are providing the following list of 

recommendations to supplement your implementation planning.

Recommendations: 

We recommend the consideration of the following suggestions 

for the implementation and administration plan of the FEIS’s 

preferred alternative.

-Develop supplementary navigational maps in conjunction with 

the MVUM (e.g., Fishlake National Forest in Utah has been noted 

for its color maps).

-Improve enforcement through collaboration. See, for example, 

http:/www.idahoohv.org to learn more about the Idaho OffHighway (OHV) Public Information Project...........

-Identify likely problem areas for compliance and enforcement 

(e.g., traditional dispersed camping areas proposed to be closed).

-Consider special signage about the environmental impacts of 

firewood gathering in snag habitat.

-Develop partnerships to leverage resources. See “The National 

Assessment of Travel Management Planning” (footnote 3) for:

--“Example Charter (protocols and Ground Rules) for 

Collaborative Stakeholder Involvement.” (p. 79)

--“Example of Volunteer Recruitment (Building Partnerships)” (p. 

76) 

--“Example of User Education: Sharing Resources” (p. 84)

Rumor has it if a road or trail is not posted as open then it is 

closed. That means anyone can close a road by just pulling out a 

"open" sign.

2713

2899

2936

The Forest Service is directed to prepare 

requirements outlined in Forest Service 

Service Handbook 7709.55. The intent o

are consistent with and effectively imple

Response to Comments - 38
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

I do own a snowmobile and observe road closures. However, 

invariably whenever travel road closures exist, signs of blatant 

disregard by motorized users exist.

9 

16

16

20

51

57

65

78

79

80

82

91

100

423

Motorized 

Winter 

Recreation

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should reconsider 

the plan’s effect on 

snowmobile use.

The Forest Service’s claim that they are only closing 11.2% of the 

forest to snowmobiles fails to mention the fact that the 11.2% 

they are closing includes the bulk of useable off trail riding that 

exists in the Clearwater Forest. 

...here is an inadequate range of alternatives for winter 

recreation. Since Alternative A is not viable, and C & D are the 

same, there are actually only two alternatives—B and C. Idaho 

State Snowmobile Association recommends a third alternative 

that either 1) does the use analysis of RWA’s and revises the 

boundaries as outlined in Regional Forester Tidwell’s memo, 

amending the forest plan with this environmental impact 

statement, or 2) postpones winter travel planning until the 

analysis and adjustments can be completed as part of the 

postponed forest planning process.

...No analysis and discussion has been provided regarding the 

social benefit of keeping Great Burn open to winter motorized.

Page 2-23: Table 2-4: Comparison of alternatives: Alternative C 

preferred alternative: The loss of 1012 miles of motorized use and 

the loss of 196,280 acres lost to snowmobile use is unacceptable. 

Of all the users of the Forest snowmobile use has the least impact 

on resources. 1. Sign of there presence is gone with the melting 

of the snow in the spring 2. Have minimal impact on Wildlife. 

Most snowmobile use occurs in the high country while most 

wildlife winters in the low country. 3. Packing the snow has 

several benefits; Slows down runoff in the spring, less erosion, 

retaining more water helps promote new tree growth, and helps 

reduce winter die-off of wildlife by making it easier for them to 

travel to wintering ranges in the low country. 4. Costs incurred by 

the forest service, related to snowmobile use are minimal to nonexistent. No trail/roads to do maintenance on and little if any 

other resource damage.

Snowmobilers have used many of the RWA’s on the CNF and 

elsewhere for over 25 years with no negative effect. While 

modern snow machines are easier to ride in the more extreme 

2126

2139

2165

2167

2168

2170

2182

2183

2184

2188

2236

2238

2246

2251

2252

2255

2437

2444

2720

2768

2770

2887

2964

2967

2969

2977

2983

2992

3041

3042

Alternative B provides for winter motor

areas; Alternatives C, C Modified, and D 

to best address this concern. The Fores

wilderness character in recommended w

management direction is best met by m

recommended wilderness during both s

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including 

Alternative B would allow existing area-

Recommended Wilderness (Manageme

Alternatives in the FEIS analyzes the pot

in MA B2.

Response to Comments - 39
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

areas, these areas have been used as long as the snow machines 

have been around. The new machines are safer, cleaner and 

quieter; they pose no threat to RWA’s or any roadless area.

. If the travel plan excludes us before reassessing the RWA’s and 

their boundaries, we will no longer have significant motorized 

use. 

Idaho State Snowmobile Association primary concern is the 

banning of snowmobiles in RWA’s in Alternatives C and D. Of 

special importance to the snowmobiling community are the 

Selway Bitterroot additions and the Great Burn. The areas are 

simply too remote to access by any means other than 

snowmobiles. There are no significant wildlife issues and 

snowmobiles do not affect in any way the qualification of these 

areas as future wilderness. Snowmobile access should be allowed 

to continue, at the very least until the forest plan and its review of 

roadless areas and RWA’s [are] complete. There is no pressing 

need to complete winter travel planning at this time. Alternative 

B is the only reasonable alternative in the DEIS as it relates to 

winter recreation.

Snowmobilers in the spirit of the true meaning of compromise 

expect that any area closed, should reciprocally be replaced with 

the opening of currently closed acreage in equal land acreage. 

An example would be opening the Montana Side of the Great 

Burn within the Lolo National Forest, in exchange for closing an 

unused area within the CNF, as a possible true compromise, 

where all sides get something they want, but not everything and 

at the same time an equitable settlement is reached. I suggest 

that the Clearwater National Forest recommend designations, 

such as a NRA (National Recreation Area) that both 

congressionally protects an area from further development, while 

writing into law the right of snowmobilers to enjoy off trail riding 

within it's protective bounds. Over the last 20 years, high 

mountain alpine riding has been drastically reduced across Idaho 

and Montana. The Clearwater contains some of the last remaining 

areas that provide this very valuable opportunity. Generally I am 

concerned about winter travel on a snowmobile. Of the three 

large volumes of the DEIS which I have seen, there is very little 

reference to winter travel.

Response to Comments - 40
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Over the snow motorized travel is historic travel and allows us to 

recreate in areas that would be in accessible by snow shoe or 

cross country skiing. 

The cumulative impact of forcing snowmobiliers into a smaller 

area into potential conflict with other members of the public has 

not been considered.

Many of these proposed areas are totally inaccessible in the 

summertime. They are simply to rocky, steep, and rugged for foot 

travel by even the fittest of Forest users. The same goes for the 

winter months when there is 6-20' of snow covering the 

landscape. It is a grueling snowshoe hike for anyone to 

experience these areas. The proposed travel plan for the 

Lochsa/Powell and the North Fork districts will eliminate 7 

different backcountry snowmobile areas: Tom Beal, Elk Summit, 

Beaver Ridge, Blacklead Mt, Surveyor, Hoodoo and Crooked Fork. 

. I have been riding these same areas since the middle 80s and we 

still ride in the same areas; they have not expanded by any 

measurable acreage so the fear that snowmobiles will spread to 

more of the forest is unfounded.

15

16

29

41

42

45

78

423

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider 

special area 

designations for 

winter motorized 

recreation.

The 2005 TM rule does not require analysis of winter recreation 

issues, but the agency’s decision to conduct a winter recreation 

analysis here makes its unwillingness to consider meaningful 

“area” designations particularly suspect.

Snowmobile use should never be allowed in sensitive wildlife 

habitat - and kept away from areas used by snowshoers, crosscountry skiers and other quiet recreationists. Doing so will reduce 

user conflict and will ensure that important winter habitat for 

wildlife is protected.

If the Forest Service is serious about protecting forest lands, then 

you should recommend designations, such as a NRA (National 

Recreation Area) that both congressionally protects an area from 

further development, while writing into law the right of 

snowmobilers to enjoy off trail riding within it's protective 

bounds. This comment is only approved if snowmobiles are 

granted off trail rights. 

2159

2169

2473

2667

2673

2682

2975

Alternative B provides for winter motori

wilderness areas; Alternatives C, C Mod

be selected to best address this concern

protect wilderness character in recomm

this management direction is best met b

in recommended wilderness. See Chapt

including Recommended Wilderness Are

178

425 Access 

and Use 

General

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should concentrate 

Motorized use is certainly a legitimate activity on national forest 

lands, but the use should be concentrated on the roaded and 

developed areas of the forest.

2277

2486

Forest Plan Management Are direction a

the developed and undeveloped areas o

the concerns of this commenter

Response to Comments - 41
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

motorized uses in 

developed areas.

6 

71

361

425

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

snowmobilers to 

disperse.

Lolo pass is continuing to get busier and busier and user conflicts 

are evident. The last several years I have had trouble parking at 

the Pass and have had to turn away and head home. Why would 

you want to push more and more snowmobilers to the already 

crowded Lolo Pass, instead of letting people spread out across the 

state line?

Snowmobilers should be able to have loop routes too.

[The Crooked Fork area] could be an excellent place to disperse 

snowmobilers to get them away from the overcrowded areas 

such as Lolo Pass Winter Recreation Area

Letter361

2096

2099

2100

2916

With the exception of recommended w

restricted to protect wildlife, all acres o

available for snowmachine use in all alte

immediately adjacent to Lolo Pass are p

recommended wilderness and are prop

to snowmachine use but in Alternative 

1 

9 425

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should provide 

equal amounts of 

recreation 

opportunities for 

all users. 

Adequate recreational opportunity for all visitors is the supreme 

issue that must be addressed by this action. ...

Table 3-24: Alternative C preferred alternative:

The table shows that there is an imbalance of use when compared 

to the NVUM data presented. The highest percentage of users, 

are the motorized users. This needs to be reevaluated and put 

more in balance as to the required need.

2001

2003

2007

2129

2497

2593

3009

The existing alternatives address an ade

for both motorized and non-motorized 

seasons.

21

25

427

Recreation

Opportunity/

Recreation

Opportunity 

Spectrum

The Clearwater 

National Forest did 

not correctly apply 

ROS guidelines 

and/or should have 

used alternative 

analysis methods. 

The Travel Plan must include a map of current Recreational 

Opportunity Spectrum (“ROS”) classifications for forest lands 

within the planning area, as found in the currently approved 

Forest Plan. At a minimum, the Travel Plan should identify and 

summarize the extent of motorized routes, including a description 

of their general condition or state of repair, that currently cross or 

are located within lands identified in the Forest Plans SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) areas. Forest Plans and agency 

policy generally prohibit motorized use in these areas,1 but in 

situations where they do not expressly forbid it, we believe that 

these areas should not contain designated motorized routes. 

Thus, the Travel Plan must also identify routes proposed to be 

designated for motorized use that occur within the SPNM 

classification while providing a rationale for the need to designate 

each route. The justification, if any, should be accompanied by a 

description of the environmental consequences of the 

corresponding decrease in the Forest Service’s ability to provide 

SPNM recreational settings where the public would otherwise 

have enjoyed a relatively quiet and motor-free recreational 

2264

2265

2348

2349

2350

2351

2352

2353

2396

Implementation of the Travel Rule does 

Opportunity Spectrum Analysis (ROS). A 

address effects for all alternatives. Tab

maps are available in the project file.

Response to Comments - 42
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

experience. Motorized use conflicts with SPNM management 

objectives, which are to provide isolation from the sights and 

sounds of humans while promoting tranquility, and self-reliance 

through the application of outdoor skills.

The motorized influence zone analyzes how many acres are within 

1⁄2 mile of a motorized route. This analysis shows areas where a 

non-motorized visitor can likely see or hear a motorized vehicle 

and where a non-motorized visitor can escape motorized vehicles 

throughout the range of ROS. The FEIS should use the motorized 

influence zone to show how non-motorized use is impacted 

through the range of alternatives. This motorized influence zone

was recently used in the Salmon-Challis National Forest Travel 

Plan FEIS

57

430

Transportatio

n System Mgt 

General

The Clearwater 

National Forest will 

have an increase in 

traffic and can 

expect additional 

maintenance and 

safety issues

...so we would “expect to find” that in the next few years roads 

may require more repair and, eventually, reconstruction due to 

these increases; shifting traffic to the developed ML3 and ML4 

roads will require more intense maintenance; heavy maintenance 

causes increased erosion; smooth, recently maintained roads 

increase vehicle speeds, increased vehicle speeds cause minors 

safety issues to become major safety problems.

2788

See the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section Roads a

Direct and Indirect Effects, Road Mainte

Considered But Not Studied in Detail.

21

310

431 Seasonal 

Restrictions

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should explain the 

rationale for 

seasonal 

restrictions.

Why has the date been changed from Nov. 4 to Nov. 15 for the 

forest wide closure? No explanation was given for this, and the 

general elk hunting season ends Nov. 3.

The DEIS notes that minor adjustments to roads and trails which 

are seasonally closed or which are closed to mechanized vehicles 

but open under every action alternative would occur... 

...For example, changes that open routes earlier and/or close 

them later could cause serious soils, watershed, and wildlife 

habitat damage. Changes in mechanized vehicle closures affect 

the wild character of an area. These changes are not explicitly 

addressed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

Appendix B of the DEIS is often confusing and contradictory. For 

example, the section in Appendix B on mechanized vehicles seems 

to suggest some trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness are 

open to mechanized vehicles and that contradicts current policy. 

Some changes reported in Appendix B are actually no change at 

all—from RYA to YEARLONG for all vehicles.

2274

The rationale for seasonal restrictions on 

in Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Act

updated to address this concern.

 

9 431 The Clearwater Page: 1-10: Over-snow use prohibited from Oct 1 to Nov 15. This 2120 The rationale for seasonal restrictions on 

Response to Comments - 43
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

16

60

Forest should 

explain the 

rationale for 

closing routes to 

snowmobiles from 

Oct 1 to November 

15.

could be under bad weather conditions the only way that there 

could be a reasonable harvest of animals. This needs to be 

addressed in the DEIS and allowed under certain conditions.

There is a contradiction in the data presented the paragraph says 

that roads will be closed forest wide Oct 1 to Nov. 15. Under the 

opportunity for over snow paragraph line 3 Says that 3484 miles 

of road where over-snow vehicle use will be permitted during the 

winter season Oct 1 until Nov 15.

Hunting season closure Oct. 1 to Nov. 15: As was stated in our 

scoping comments, Idaho State Snowmobile Association 

questions why it is necessary to close the entire forest to 

snowmobiles from October 1 to November 15. For most of the 

forest, in all but an unusual year; snow depths are self-limiting. 

When early snows do hit the high country snowmobiles may be 

the only way people can travel or meet emergencies. 

If wildlife protection road closures during the hunting season are 

your only concern, close the roads to both terrestrial vehicles and 

snowmobiles from October 1 to November 15 rather than the 

entire forest. If an unusual year is encountered with snows deep 

enough for cross-country travel with snowmobiles, issue a special 

closure order for that year and the problem areas. If you proceed 

with the blanket closure, at least provide for exceptions when 

weather conditions make the use of snowmachines necessary.

2185

2187

2803

in Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Ac

date is Dec 1, the alternatives move thi

3 431

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should explain the 

rationale for 

dropping some 

snowmobile route 

restrictions.

... that individual changes to several existing roads that were 

previously the closed to oversnow vehicles...

2067

2075

The FEIS has been updated to address t

restrictions that would be dropped in A

in Alternatives A and C Modified.

16

25

50

431

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should include 

additional seasonal 

closures to protect 

wildlife.

The Department recommends seasonal closures, from May 1 to 

June 30 in the elk calving areas identified in maps provided in the 

DEIS by the Forest.

In addition, the Department recommends prohibition of use of 

over-snow vehicles in areas with spring snow cover persisting 

from late April to mid-May, utilizing persistent snow areas 

mapped by Copeland (USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Missoula.

2427

2428

2429

2430

2705

Current seasonal closures are considere

while providing for other goals and obje

Additional seasonal restrictions for som

have been included in Alternative C Mo

Response to Comments - 44
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

The Travel Plan should include a provision that allows temporary 

or permanent closures of motorized trails when natural events or 

human activities occur that alter the impacts of those trails on 

wildlife, fisheries or other resources.

EPA acknowledges that the TMP process is a positive step in 

addressing resource impacts from motorized uses. The 

permanent prohibition of cross country travel, simplification of 

season restrictions and inclusion of over snow vehicles in travel 

planning will likely contribute to the achievement of significant 

environmental benefits. We especially commend the Clearwater 

National Forest (CNF) for including over the snow vehicle travel in 

this travel planning process.

25

433 CrossCountry 

Travel

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should prohibit 

travel off 

designated routes 

to retrieve game.

Travel off designated routes for the purpose of retrieving game 

should be prohibited in the Travel Plan.

2406

2661

Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Altern

motorized travel off of designated route

off of designated routes for game retriev

alternatives. 

40 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest’s 

special corridor 

restrictions should 

apply Forest-wide. 

The most important difference between accessing dispersed 

campsites generally versus those in special corridors (listed on 

pages 2-15 and 2-16) is the requirement to use “existing tracks” 

and campsites in special corridors. The use of existing tracks and 

campsites is only “encouraged” on the remainder of the Forest. 

Our question to the Forest Service is why distinguished between 

special corridors versus the general forest in this instance? Why 

not just require the use of both existing routes and campsites 

across the entire forest? It seems that this would help the Forest 

Service to better accomplish their goal of protecting resources 

from the effects of off-highway vehicles.

2662

The FEIS incorporates the recommendat

Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Altern

a forest-wide approach for limited moto

camping and day use activities.

29

34 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should include 

designated areas in 

addition to routes 

for summer time 

cross country 

travel, tot lots, and 

play areas.

... reevaluate the need for open areas. In the discussion of off 

route exceptions associated with dispersed camping we noticed a 

concern regarding camping areas being used for recreational 

riding and also riding between campsites. This indicates there is a 

need to look at potential open areas. 

 

Tot lots, training loops and managed open areas are a very 

valuable recreation feature. Such are and have been successfully 

managed in Forests across the U.S., and also here in Idaho. 

2475

2480

2584

2603

2643

The 2005 Travel Management Rule is su

Section: Travel Management: Designate

use; Final Rule (2005). 

The FEIS explains how this concern was 

Alternatives Considered But Not Studied 

Areas.

The rule at 212.51 gives the responsible 

“...limited use of motor vehicles within a 

Response to Comments - 45
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

Page 1-4 – There is recognition that the TM rule provides for 

designation of “areas” open to motorized use but this recognition 

is ignored elsewhere in the document.

routes...” but does not require it. No su

travel were identified by the IDT.

17

21 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest’s 

assumptions 

regarding the 

amount and 

damage caused by 

cross-country 

travel are 

unsupported.

Assumptions about cross country motorized travel are not 

supported. What data show that wheeled vehicles extensively 

use the Clearwater National Forest for cross country use? What 

about snowmobiles?

This is one of the first conclusory statements not supported by 

evidence or any fact-based explanation: “damage from growing 

cross-country travel is obvious.” We [Specialty Vehicle Institute of 

America and the Motorcycle Industry Council] do agree that 

adverse effects can arise from “irresponsible use of OHV’s” but a 

fundamental purpose of managed OHV use, including cross 

country or area se, is to reduce or minimize adverse effects.

2278

2489

2496

Carol: to follow-up after FEIS draft for R

The Clearwater National Forest has reco

soil, and aquatic resource damage by of

FEIS (Chapter 3-Section 2: Watershed Re

Watershed (DEIS pg. 3-142)). Detailed d

available at the Clearwater National For

35 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should develop a 

permit system to 

allow motorized

travel off of 

designated routes 

for game retrieval. 

A game retrieval permit system should be looked at and put into 

place. 

2609

Developing a permit system of this type 

for action for the Travel Planning projec

50 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should control 

travel off of 

designated routes 

to gather firewood.

Recommendations: ... -Consider special signage about the 

environmental impacts of firewood gathering in snag habitat.

2713

See FEIS, Chapter 2, Actions Common to 

to reflect a forest-wide approach for lim

dispersed camping and day use activitie

be permitted for the purposes of cutting 

29 433

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not limit 

cross country travel 

because the 

amount of area 

available for cross 

country travel is 

limited by terrain.

The terrain and topography of most of the Forest prevent crosscountry travel, as reflected by the relatively low “user created 

trail” mileage compared to other Forests. From this reality should 

flow the closely-connected conclusion that “cross country” travel 

on the Clearwater has historically been minimal, with associated 

negligible impacts. There are likely large areas where limited or 

appropriately managed cross country travel would have only 

minimal effects on resources. 

2493

2512

The 2005 Travel Management Rule is su

Section: Travel Management: Designate

use; Final Rule (2005). 

The FEIS explains how this concern was 

Alternatives Considered But Not Studied 

Areas.

The rule at 212.51 gives the responsible 

“...limited use of motor vehicles within a 

routes...” but does not require it. No su

travel were identified by the IDT.

50 434 Travel to The Clearwater EPA prefers designated motorized routes and areas for dispersed 2712 See FEIS, Chapter 2, “Actions Common t

Response to Comments - 46
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Designated 

Campsites

National Forest 

Travel Plan should 

utilize designated 

campgrounds 

instead of off-route 

exceptions in 

special corridors to 

reduce 

environmental risks 

of off-route travel. 

The FEIS should 

include a list of 

areas with current 

and predicted 

unacceptable 

resource impacts 

from dispersed 

recreation along 

with a schedule for 

future route 

designations in 

these problematic 

areas. 

recreation over corridors. In special corridors, we prefer 

designated campgrounds to off-route exceptions based on 

conditions that may be difficult to enforce and comply with.

We recommend that the FEIS include a list of the areas with 

current, and predicted future, unacceptable resources impacts 

from dispersed recreation. Please prioritize and disclose a 

schedule for future designation in especially problematic areas.

Modified,” and the description of Altern

updated to reflect a forest-wide approac

for dispersed camping and day use activ

permitted with any action alternative. F

be allowed only on existing tracks within 

Campsites would not be designated as p

future.

21 434

The Clearwater 

National Forest’s 

special corridor 

restrictions are in 

violation of the 

Travel Rule and are 

unenforceable. 

The dispersed camping exemption is not in compliance with the 

travel management rule’s direction that it be applied on “certain” 

designated routes, 36 CFR 212.51(b), or the Chief’s direction that 

it be applied “sparingly.” The minimal restriction that has been 

placed on dispersed camping in “special corridors” does not bring 

this proposed action into compliance. In these “special 

corridors,” travel is restricted to existing routes, which have not 

been designated or otherwise distinguished, while in the general 

area users can create new routes. The obvious problem with this 

method is the very real possibility that people will illegally create 

new routes in special corridors, and the next person that comes 

along will see an existing route and be able to legally use it. There 

is no way to enforce this type of restriction on dispersed 

motorized camping, and as such this creates an administrative 

nightmare, and the restriction itself is essentially an exercise in 

paper production. The impacts from this lackadaisical 

management policy have not been fully analyzed under NEPA and 

the policy itself is in violation of the travel management rule.

2305

2662

See FEIS, Chapter 2, Actions Common to 

reflect a forest-wide approach for limite

dispersed camping and day use activities

alternatives are consistent with section 2

responsible official the opportunity to de

within a specified distance of designated 

There will always be certain individuals t

CFR 261.12©, 261.9 will remain in effect 

motorized use designations and cause re

34 434 The Clearwater Dispersed camping is a highly valued experience. We encourage 2583 See FEIS, Chapter 2, Actions Common to 

Response to Comments - 47
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

National Forest’s 

exceptions to allow 

off-route travel for 

dispersed camping 

should include 

designating sites in 

sensitive areas. 

the Clearwater to include options that allow campsites to be 

designated in sensitive areas.

to reflect a forest-wide approach for lim

dispersed camping and day use activitie

permitted with any action alternative, o

feet of designated routes. Campsites wo

action, but may be in the future.

1253

435 Road 

Management/ 

Designation

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

the Forest closed 

to ORV use except 

posted and restrict 

ORVs to cars.

There are two things any Forest Supervisor should do to decrease 

ORV damage to public land: . . . 2) designate the entire national 

forest as “closed to ORV use except posted.” Of course ORVs 

would be allowed on roads intended for cars. Letter1253

The purpose and need for action specific

motorized uses should occur only on de

Purpose and Need for Action, Designatio

25 435

The Clearwater 

national Forest 

should designate 

this route for 

motorized use

In Section 22, just off Mission Mountain, the Skyline Drive diverts 

from Forest Road 4716. The Skyline Drive Road should be 

designated for all vehicles. The short road segment (less than 200 

meters) allows park visitors to experience travel opportunities 

similar to when the park was created. We have attached a 

shapefile and a map showing where this route should be 

designated.

2395

This road is in the Clearwater N.F. travel 

NFSL. This is a designated route with no 

296 440 Trails 

Management

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow OHVs 

on all motorized 

trails.

I find it interesting that you would differentiate motorized use 

between motorcycles and ATVs by designating single track 

motorcycle use only. I think to keep from future problems 

between users and law enforcement, that all motorized trails 

should be open to OHVs under 50 inches in width. The 50 inch 

width designation would include all ATVs currently in production, 

but keep four wheel drive vehicles from using the trail systems.

...Impact information developed based on roads should not be 

used to estimate impacts from ATV and single-track motorcycle 

trails... 

Letter296

2011

On the Clearwater National Forest, the p

constructed and are maintained to acco

what is commonly referred to as a “sing

cannot physically accommodate “double

land adjacent to the trail tread incurring 

1 

9 

17

302

440

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should/should not 

leave user created 

routes open; 

connect roads and 

trails to increase 

opportunities for 

ATVs.

User created routes should be left open. You should be looking at 

ways to connect dead end roads and trails to increase 

opportunities for ATVs.

People proposed connector routes and loops. These proposals 

could not be considered in the Travel Plan which is concentrating 

on designation of routes, and not their construction or 

reconstruction. The overall purpose of a travel plan is to look at all 

aspects of travel management. These proposals should be 

reconsidered and put in as part of the DEIS.

2049

2050

2127

2194

2281

2484

2490

2505

2591

2564

On the Clearwater NF there is a trail syst

motorized use, OHV use and large vehic

wide. This precludes the use of these tr

systems on the Forest specifically design

have tread widths greater than 24 inche

systems (i.e. Musselshell, etc) are open 

they have a duel designation. There are 

on the Forest open to both OHV’s and la

state registration OHV use is accommod

vehicles.

Response to Comments - 48
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

We believe that the Forest Service has been incredibly tardy in 

addressing the issue of ORV use in our forests, and that the 

agency has helped create the problem of illegal motorized trails 

by not addressing this issue earlier. It makes no sense to 

“grandfather” illegal ORV use, legitimizing user-created ORV 

routes and rewarding the destructive behavior of ORV riders.

325 440

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider the 

social and 

biological impacts 

of closing trails.

What you fail to realize is how much more damage is done when 

you close trails. You can’t expect anyone to believe that the 

number of users will decrease with fewer trails. You may cause 

fewer people to get into the sport as beginners, but the rest of us 

will remain and all of use will be forced to use the same few trails, 

increasing sediment and what ever other environmental 

arguments there are. More lives will be in danger because you’ve 

put so many people on the same trail.

Letter325

Alternative B analyzes and best address 

miles open to motorized use, thus dispe

C Modified and D. The FEIS, Chapter 3 e

fisheries/aquatics and social resources a

80

337 440

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should expand and 

diversify its trails 

system.

Your Clearwater National Forest Travel plan should not only retain 

the current trails but include plans to open new trails for various 

levels of experience.

The Clearwater National Forest has closed 40% of the motorcycle 

acreage since the 1987 Forest Plan, and appears to be ready to 

close another 40% of the motorcycle acreage in this Travel Plan, it 

also appears that snowmobiles will loose 40% of their usable 

acreage in this travel plan. How many 40% losses of acreage, can 

a sport survive? It appears the Clearwater National Forest has a 

trend developing.

Letter337

2986

Trail construction and reconstruction is o

purpose and need of this analysis is to d

or closed to motorized use. The scope o

in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Section: Scope of 

51

58 441 OHV

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

does not have any 

ATV trails, only 

roads open to ATVs 

There is no balance as what you have on your map and in color 

coded is a misrepresentation as you are including gravel and 

paved roads as trails. There is only one trail in the Clearwater 

National Forest that is a true trail and not a road that has been 

labeled as a trail that is open to ATV’s. Where is the balance

We are new to OHV recreation and have not had the opportunity 

to even explore some of the areas slated for closure. We know 

the Clearwater area quite well, but are just now beginning to give 

serious time to off-road use of the national forest. Multiple-use 

designation should never be forbidden to the recreating public. 

You can’t hike these trails as your body ages. But the outdoor 

experience is too valuable to forego. Motorized recreation is the 

answer to a population whose forests still mean a great deal to 

them even as their bodies break down. Don’t let us be shut out of 

the forests. We love them. And we need more trails, not less.

2795

2224

2717

The Clearwater National Forest has a nu

ATV use. These routes consist primarily 

accommodate ATV use. These ATV trails 

roads to provide “loop-riding” opportun

OHV, Deception, Sheep Mountain, Muss

Response to Comments - 49
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

As an Off-Highway Vehicle enthusiast, I strongly oppose the level 

of closures proposed by the Clearwater National Forest. I object 

to the fact that the agency refused to develop even one 

alternative that did not significantly reduce motorized trail 

opportunity.

1 441

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep open 

all trails and roads 

currently open to 

OHV’s.

Because of the shortage of OHV routes necessary to reasonably 

meet the needs of the public, every existing motorized route is 

extremely important. 2016

2152

Alternative B would best address this c

33

47

331

442

Motorcycles

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should expand 

opportunities for 

motorcyclists.

Please maintain and expand our (motorcycle) access, specifically 

the single track aspect, so that these spectacular areas are 

accessible to a wider group of enthusiasts as well as to encourage 

proper maintenance.

The single track opportunities have decreased significantly since 

1991 when there were 885 miles available. Alternative B has 547 

miles available. Alternative C cuts that by almost half and 

Alternative D would cut off an additional 100 miles. No other user 

group is losing opportunities at this alarming rate. Trail use is 

already limited by weather. Much of the upper country is not 

passable until mid July because of snow and closes again in mid 

October for the same reason. Rider skill level also limits many of 

the trails to expert riders only. The average motorcycle enthusiast 

is limited in his choices many of which would be taken away 

under Alternative C and D. The 168 Trail from Fourth of July Creek 

to 12 Mile Saddle is probably the best place for beginners to ride 

but it would be closed under Alternative C and D.

The single track opportunities have decreased significantly since 

1991 when there were 885 miles available. Alternative B has 547 

miles available. Alternative C cuts that by almost half and 

Alternative D would cut off an additional 100 miles. No other user

group is losing opportunities at this alarming rate. Trail use is 

already limited by weather. Much of the upper country is not 

passable until mid July because of snow and closes again in mid 

October for the same reason. Rider skill level also limits many of 

the trails to expert riders only. The average motorcycle enthusiast 

is limited in his choices many of which would be taken away 

2196

2339

2340

2566

Alternative B would best address this c

Response to Comments - 50
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

under Alternative C and D. The 167 Trail from Fourth of July Creek 

to 12 Mile Saddle is probably the best place for beginners to ride 

but it would be closed under Alternative C and D.

1 

88 442

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep open 

all trails and roads 

currently open to 

motorcycles.

I ride a motorcycle throughout the Clearwater and St. Joe 

National Forests, many hundred of miles. Generally, I am on FS 

roads, but also use trails open to motorized use when I have my 

smaller motorcycle. These trails include those from the North 

Fork of the Clearwater River road most often near Washington 

Creek campground (Trails 600, 617, 20 for example). I have also 

access motorized trails from the Lolo Motorway most often near 

12 Mile Saddle (Trails 20 and 167 for example). I would like to 

maintain all these motorized trails open to motorcycles. Use is 

very low by motorized and non-motorized uses based on my 

direct observations, and so the potential for user conflict is low. I 

have not seen much abuse of the motorized rules in these areas 

but additional enforcement would be prudent to avoid a future 

issue.

The availability of motorized single-track trails has declined 

dramatically. At the same time, nearly all of the single-track trails 

see very little hiking or other use. It is not reasonable to segregate 

users on single-track trails. We can all get along and have done so 

for years. It is also consistent with the desegregation of public 

places as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, it is a 

reasonable alternative to designate all existing single-track trails 

on multiple-use lands within the project area open to motorcycle 

use. Additionally, single-track challenge trails are needed for 

expert riders and trials type motorcycles.

Motorcycle trail riders enjoy riding single-track trails. Motorized 

single-track recreation trails are limited at this time and continue 

to decline. .. the evaluation must be differentiated between ATV 

and motorcycle trails. 

2019

2022

3035

Alternative B best addresses this concer

the specific concerns with Trails 600, 617

19 443 Bicycles

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

erred in not 

actively involving 

the bicycling 

community in the 

planning process.

Bicyclists across Montana have become organized as a result of 

the Region One philosophy. Historically, organization happens 

when a group of individuals are being treated unfairly. Bicyclists 

care deeply about trail access and land preservation, both for

themselves and others. Caught in the middle of the wilderness 

versus motorized acrimony, bicyclists can see a middle ground, 

one that is being ignored so far in forest plans, travel plans, and 

wilderness group’s plans. Bicyclists represent a more neutral

2224

2232

2537

2868

2869

2870

2875

2879

Alternative B provides for bicycle use in 

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do no

address this concern. The Forest Plan di

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

in recommended wilderness during both 

Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Areas in

Areas).

Response to Comments - 51
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Res

viewpoint than any other user group, and deserve a seat at the 

“planning table”. Alternative B would allow bicycle use in 

(Management Area B2) to continue. Th

analyzes the potential effects of changin

19 443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should be familiar 

with the national 

MOU between the 

FS and 

International 

Mountain Biking 

Association.

This memorandum generally states that mountain bikers will work 

with the Forest Service and vice versa. ...Item 10 states, “Consider 

the potential impacts of land management proposals on 

mountain bicycling recreation.” Unfortunately in Region One, 

that has not been the case...

2225

2875

2876

The Clearwater NF, as part of this propo

biking as part of route designation. Alt

and allows all trails in recommended wi

bicycles; Alternative C also allows use o

63 443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep the 

Stateline Trail #738 

open to bicycles.

Based on my 20+ years of mountain biking in all parts of the 

country, Trail #738, the Stateline Trail, is one of the best around. 

It is certainly one of the most scenic and cherished areas for riding 

near Missoula. Trail #738 provides mountain bikers access to 

several other trails in the area that are also superb biking.

2865

3019

3020

3025

Alternative B could be selected to best a

directs managers to protect wilderness 

areas (B2) including IRA areas that are w

management direction is best met by m

recommended wilderness during both s

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including 

77 443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should revisit the 

proposal for trails 

#20, 167 and 106 

to keep more open 

to disperse use and 

not confine 

bicycles to an 

unsafe route.

I would like to say that there are only three access routes from 

the N.F. Clearwater River to the above mentioned trails. The 

Weitas Trail #20, the 4th of July bridge Trail #167 and the Junction 

Mountain Trail #106. The proposal is planning to close two of the 

three, leaving one access (Weitas Creek Trail #20) which is one of 

the most dangerous, narrow with free fall areas down to the 

creek of several hundred feet. There was a recent fatality on that 

trail by a bicyclist, which further points out the dangers of this 

trail to novice and younger riders. I know some seasoned riders 

that will not ride Trail #20 from the Bridge to the Guard Station 

because of the dangerous side hills. The fact that all traffic will be 

delegated to the one access route further puts more pressure and 

chances for conflicts and over use of the trail system. As it is now, 

with three main access routes there is no over use in any area. It 

also disperses any traffic to eliminate or cut down on potential 

encounters with other forest users. 

2961

Alternative C Modified was developed t

36 443

The use of 

mountain bicycles 

does not cause 

significantly more 

trail damage or soil 

erosion or wildlife 

All recreation affects the environment, but independent thirdparty scientific studies have determined that mountain bikes 

cause no more wear to trails than other uses. (Marion and 

Wimpey, 2007), (Seney and Wilson, 1994)

2142

2224

2227

2536

2618

2619

Restrictions on bicycle use were limited 

wilderness character. Soil erosion and w

compared to other uses were not factor

Response to Comments - 52
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

impact than other 

uses such as hiking 

or horseback 

travel.

2621

2622

2623

2624

2629

2630

2877

2940

36 443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

needs to recognize 

that bicyclists seek 

non motorized 

roadless areas and 

challenging single 

track.

The Forest Service notes that a minority of the miles currently 

open to bicycling will be closed, but fails to acknowledge the 

unique experience these trails provide and the significant loss of 

backcountry singletrack that will result. Rather than manage 

exclusively for total miles open to bicycling, the agency should 

seek to provide diverse experiences, including those on narrow 

trails in wild and primitive areas.

Non-motorized, roadless areas are the most valuable to mountain 

bicyclists. These settings provide solitude, serenity, challenge, and 

other characteristics sought by our user group.

2199

2615

2617

2631

2866

Alternative B analyzes the most motorize

Roadless Areas including where these are

wilderness designation; Alternatives C, C 

amounts in these areas. Forest Plan dire

open or close to motorized use trails wit

IRA designation. The Forest Plan does d

Forest Plan management area direction t

Area. Alternative B could be selected to 

Plan directs managers to protect wildern

wilderness areas (B2) including IRA areas 

intent of B2 management direction is bes

bicycle use in recommended wilderness 

See Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Area

Areas.

8 443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep many 

trails open to 

bicycles.

The trails in the Kelly Creek Drainage, North Fork, Middle Fork, 

and Kid Lake Creek, and the state line trail from Schley to Hoodoo 

pass is an incredible trip for a bicycle. Fish Lake Trail, Goose Creek 

trail and Goose ridge are all great bicycle rides. The sate line trail 

from Granite pass to pilot knob past Rhodes Peak and on over to 

Goat Lake and Blacklead was several years ago a hike and bike 

with difficult route finding. From Pilot Knob down to Crooked 

Fork is also a difficult trail but worthy of keeping open. From the 

road to Lost Lakes and down Boulder Creek is another hike and 

bike on portions of it.

Please work with us [mountain bikers] on a trail by trail basis 

instead of blanket ban on bicycles.

2106

2112

2198

2226

Alternative B best addresses this concern 

North Fork, Middle Fork, Kid Lake Creek, 

areas as well as other trails in the Great B

bicycles; Alternative C also allows use on 

deciding on boundary adjustments assoc

designations is an action that is beyond t

planning proposal which is focused on de

for motorized use.

1 445

Maintenance

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

could install and 

maintain drainage 

structures on trails 

and roads (water 

bars/dips/and 

The most common maintenance requirement for 4x4 and OHV 

routes is the construction and maintenance of water 

bars/dips/mounds to divert runoff from the route..... 2033

2034

2334

2335

The Clearwater National Forest installs a

roads and trails, annually.

Response to Comments - 53
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

mounds) to reduce 

sediment 

production using 

established 

methodology, trail 

machines, and 

public work 

programs.

64

86 445

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should recognize 

the time and 

resources private 

parties and 

organizations put 

into trail 

maintenance and 

pursue additional 

partnerships. 

IDPR has documented motorized use and the maintenance that 

they have put forth over the years. What is not reflected in their 

letter is the maintenance that the private motorcycle riders have 

put forth over the years (it is ten times the amount of time, 

energy and expense than the IDPR). I suggest that if it were not 

for the private trail rider many of the existing trails would be lost 

to the system from lack of use and maintenance.

It is important to make sure that trails get used properly and the 

best way for that to happen is to educate people. Cyclists are a 

very tight group (even though we typically don't ride in groups) 

and are very good and making sure we help each other be better 

stewards of the trails and nature. I have personally been shamed 

via forums and in person for mistakes that I made out of 

ignorance. Had I known better, I wouldn't have made the choice I 

did. 

Responsible, avid, bikers look out for one another and their rights 

to ride. If this closure has been considered due to neglect or 

abuse, I think that there is a better way to "call to arms" the 

masses. I know that there must be history to this issue, but 

because of history we are able to learn from our mistakes.

2205

2228

2230

2601

2606

2883

2955

3021

3023

The Clearwater National Forest is apprec

that occur annually to assist the Forest w

designated for both motorized and non-

34

57 448

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should identify an 

accurate 

assessment of 

snowmobile use.

There is a deficiency in the analysis of areas available for 

snowmobile use. 

 ...(DEIS page 1-10) These figures do not give an accurate 

assessment with which to contrast the proposed action with the 

current condition and other alternatives. The analysis should 

attempt to quantify how many of these acres snowmobiles can 

actually use. Something like “except for certain restricted routes, 

1,322,943 acres are open to over-snow vehicle use via the forest 

plan, of which X acres are utilized by snowmobiles.” 

2589

2764

The FEIS identities the current existing c

31 448 The Clearwater 

National Forest 

...See Figure 1. Map on page 3 of letter] Clearwater National 

Forest roads previously closed to snowmobiles that are proposed 2545 See FEIS Chapter 1, Purpose and Need fo

Response to Comments - 54
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

should reconsider 

opening currently 

closed road to 

snowmobiles.

to be open to snowmobiles in all of the action alternatives

1 

9 

511

Wilderness 

(designated)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not close 

trails that enter 

wilderness to 

motorized use.

... Prohibit use on trails that enter wilderness: This is creating a 

buffer zone Congress, when they passed the Endangered 

Wilderness Act in 1978, declined to endorse buffer zones around 

wilderness areas. The trails that you are closing for this reason 

should be allowed to continue.

Wilderness criteria and standards should not be applied to 

multiple-use lands.

2024

2123

The Clearwater NF is not proposing to cl

that lead into the Selway Bitterroot Wild

River there is Forest Plan direction in MA 

motor vehicle use on trails that provide a

30)

1 511

The Clearwater 

National Forest has 

too much 

designated 

wilderness, based 

on public 

recreation needs.

The current allotment of recreation resources on all Forest 

Service lands is way out of balance with 44,919,000 acres out of 

192,300,000 acres or 24% in wilderness designation while no 

more than 2.55% of the visitors are wilderness visitors. If Roadless 

acres are included in this total, it becomes even more unbalanced 

with at total of 103,437,000 acres or 54% in wilderness or 

roadless designation while only 2.55% of the visitors are 

wilderness visitors.

2058

2059

2060

2061

2062

2063

3061

Attempting to modify current wildernes

boundaries would be beyond the scope 

FEIS were developed to meet Forest Plan 

resources.

4 

9 

20

25

26

37

60

64

65

71

78

80

82

83

88

91

109

310

316

512

Recommende

d Wilderness 

Areas

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not exclude 

snowmobile use 

from 

Recommended 

Wilderness Areas

It is not an easy area to access therefore it is NOT overwhelmed 

by snowmobile usage. . . . To access this area 20 miles of trail 

must be covered, so therefore non-motorized usage is not an 

issue here. This is truly an area which poses no conflict between 

users and provides high altitude terrain for snowmobile usage. 

Alternatives C & D prohibit snowmobile use in recommended 

Wilderness because it negatively affects wilderness character. 

While we agree that wilderness character needs protection, the 

impacts that snowmobiling has on wilderness character are 

temporary and not permanent. Once an area is legislated as 

Wilderness or the snow is gone, the snowmobile impacts 

disappear.

The Recommended Wilderness Analysis asserts that “motorcycle 

and over snow vehicles are more powerful, easier to handle, and 

more capable of handling difficult terrain than they were when 

the Forest Plan was completed in 1987”. This statement is 

incorrect.

Snowmobile use has little to no effect on wilderness character. If 

snowmobile use did, then why was Mount Jefferson included as 

2081

2115

2116

2125

2240

2244

2345

2359

2363

2364

2365

2435

2438

2443

2446

2447

2448

2638

2771

2776

2799

2801

Alternative B provides for motorized (inc

recommended wilderness areas; Alterna

Alternative B could be selected to best a

directs managers to protect wilderness c

areas. The intent of this management d

motorized and bicycle use in recommen

winter seasons. See Chapter 3, Inventor

Recommended Wilderness Areas.

Response to Comments - 55
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

Wilderness Area in Senator Testor’s Forest Job and Recreation Act 

bill?

The FS claims RWAs must be closed due to overuse, only to close 

a RWA with not use. In the FS’s own documents, they admit that 

Mallard Larkins get little or no motorized snowmobile use, but 

they site growing motorized usage as the reason to close it. 

Snowmobile Alliance of Western States contends that Motorized 

RWAs usage was present before 1987, and usage will be limited 

to current levels, due to poor and limited access to these areas.

Since data on snowmobile sales indicates a continuing 15 year 

decrease in snowmobile sales/usage, and snowmobile 

registrations have been flat and decreasing one can only 

reasonably assume that there is no "growing" snowmobile usage, 

only less riding area available every year. Snowmobile Alliance of 

Western States Position on RWAs.

Forest Service policy, FSM 1923.03 (2) states any area 

recommended for wilderness is not available for any use or 

activity that may reduce the area’s wilderness potential. The 

direction Region 1 has chosen to adopt; elimination of activities 

currently occurring in all recommended wilderness areas is also 

contrary to the FSH directive clearly stating that the FS is not to 

change use in areas that they inventory as "potential wilderness 

areas". (FSH page 9, #71). It is completed with the express 

purpose of identifying all lands that meet the criteria for being 

evaluated for wilderness suitability and possible recommendation 

to Congress for wilderness study or designation. Paragraph 3 of 

71 on page 9 also requires "local knowledge and judgment" which 

does not appear to have happened based on the preferred 

alternative.

The Great Burn Area is the last and only local place with natural 

alpine snowmobiling. People that I have taken into the GBA 

cannot believe how splendid the views are in the winter and how 

close it is to Missoula. They compare it to the snowmobiling at 

Cooke City, but without the 300 mile drive. The area is rugged and 

requires about 20 miles of riding to get to the open backcountry. 

This completely eliminates any user conflicts. The Lolo pass area 

has less snowmobile traffic because advanced riders go to the 

GBA when weather conditions allow riding. This creates better 

dispersion and less potential for accidents. If you close the GBA 

and Beaver Lake areas you will be responsible for creating more 

2802

2804

2805

2806

2807

2808

2809

2810

2884

2888

2889

2897

2911

2914

2965

2972

2980

2982

2984

2985

2987

2988

2995

3005

3031

3033

3045

Response to Comments - 56
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

user conflicts and accidents.

Your own data shows that only 27% of Clearwater national forest 

is fitting for snowmobile access and you want to close 11.2% of 

the best high mountain snowmobile area. I have tried to drive up 

Surveyor Creek road and Hoodoo Pass road in June and there was 

still too much snow on the roads. The GBA has deep snow from 

November to June even when there is a low snow pack year! ...The topography and density of the CNF severely limits where 

any motorized use can occur. This fact clearly establishes that 

motorized use has very little effect on the overall health of the 

forest.

The Forest Service Is Misrepresenting Snowmobile Closures 

Within the CNF, Half of the Suitable Snowmobile Area Will Be 

Closed Under This Travel Plan. Even though Great Burn is only 

150,000 acres, it represents nearly all the “good riding” remaining 

open, within the 1.8 Million acre CNF. For the Forest Service to 

say it’s only closing 11.2% of the CNF, is to belie the fact that this 

11.2% is all the Alpine - off trail snowmobile riding in the CNF. 

The Forest Service pointed out in the DEIS that only 27% of the 

CNF is suitable for snowmobile riding. The Forest Service failed to 

mention what percentage of the CNF would be suitable for 

snowmobiling, if the preferred alternative is acted on. The Forest 

Service failed to mention what percentage of adequate 

snowmobile terrain is already closed within the CNF (including 

wilderness within the CNF). The Forest Service failed to mention 

what quiet opportunities exist in the CNF, and address access to 

those quiet areas, as the real problem. The Forest Service failed 

to mention what quiet opportunities exist adjacent to the CNF. 

Even though wilderness and adjoining forests are not within the 

scope of the Travel Plan, what they offer should be considered in 

the Travel Plan, since they provide extreme quantities of non-

motorized opportunity. The Forest Service failed to provide an 

adequate Recreational Opportunity Spectrum map for 

snowmobiles. Overall, this is a gross failure to adequately analyze 

multiple use in the CNF.

There is no Compelling Need for More Wilderness. 20% of the 

National Forest is closed, as designated wilderness, and another 

10% is closed as de-facto wilderness. Most wilderness area tends 

Response to Comments - 57
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

to be in the high altitude mountains that snowmobiles use, which 

makes that 30% of the National Forest concentrated mostly on 

snowmobile useable acreage. The Forest Service has a hard time 

producing numbers that accurately show what percentage of 

snowmobile acreage is closed nationwide. So, where is the need? 

Furthermore, many bills have attempted to go through Congress, 

NREPA and Y2Y, as easy examples, and all have failed, because 

there is no need. The 2001 Clinton Roadless Rule, does not have 

clear public support, and has been in the courts for 9 years now, 

and will probably go to the Supreme Court. Like it or not, Winter 

Motorized recreationists have a place on Public Land. We are not 

going to stand by and let every acre of OUR National Forest be 

incrementally excused away, and closed.

The Surveyor Creek road # 7734 goes past Schley Mountain and at 

one time was open all the way to Kid Lake. This logging road does 

not meet the qualities of natural and undeveloped as required by 

the wilderness act of 1964. This makes Alternative C unacceptable 

and illegal in the Kelly Creek drainage. Alternative B is acceptable 

with date and use modifications as paragraph 7 explains.

Under the caption of purpose and need the DEIS states, “There is 

a need to restrict motorized over-snow travel on routes within Big 

Game Winter Range in the Lochsa Drainage. There is a need to 

remove over-snow vehicle restrictions that are not serving a 

clearly identifiable purpose.”I favor and urge you folks to adopt 

Alternative D. I am a mountain biker but I would be happy to 

forgo my privileges in the manner provided in this alternative, 

specifically, I believe, in management Area B2. The protection of 

the forest, its watersheds, and its wildlife is far more important 

than my being able to ride my bike in this sensitive area. And no 

alternative should be adopted that allows any encroachment 

upon potential wilderness (roadless) areas or that compromises 

the wilderness character of such areas. 

Limiting snowmobiles to a smaller areas and trails near heavily 

used areas near highways will increase the likelihood of user 

conflicts and the Forest Service mandate is to REDUCE user 

conflicts. The great Burn area is one of the premier riding areas in 

the lower 48 states and you have no valid reason to close that 

area. You cite “resource protection”, “wildlife security” etc, but in 

fact these are just catch phases used to justify closure. What 

resource are you protecting?

Response to Comments - 58
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Have you documented the resource and can you provide that 

documentation? How many trips have USFS personnel made to 

the Great Burn in the winter? When? Who? What animals are you 

protecting? Where is the documentation?

Of the 1.8 Million acres within the CNF, the 150,000 acres known 

as Hoodoo or Great Burn, has some of the best off-trail riding in 

the CNF. The Your assertion that you are only closing 11.2% of 

the forest to snowmobiles, belies the fact that this 11.2% 

represents nearly all of the best off trail riding opportunities in 

this forest. There are 260,000 acres of existing Wilderness in CNF 

which is off limits to motorized travel and is poorly managed. 

Why does the CNF want to shut down all Alpine (above tree line) 

riding in the CNF, and outlaw the last remaining area for any 

significant altitude riding in CNF, accessible from the state of 

Montana. Snowmobiles require public land that is of sufficient 

altitude to provide deep, long lasting snow. Why have you 

embarked on a mission to close all high elevations acreage within 

it's borders.

The Forest Service should not close Great Burn. It is a historical 

snowmobile area, and very important to snowmobilers. It is 

remote, and has no user conflicts.

The Winter Portion of the Travel Plan, should not be completed 

until the Forest Plan is completed. 

9 

12

15

16

20

26

27

29

33

34

35

47

57

65

80

512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not exclude 

motorized use from 

Recommended 

Wilderness Areas 

as it does not 

preclude future 

wilderness 

designation.

... requirement for RWA status. (FSM 1923.03.2) 1923.03 – Policy

1. Any inventoried road-less area recommended for wilderness or 

designated wilderness study is not available for any use or activity 

that may reduce the wilderness potential of an area. Activities 

currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the 

activities do not compromise wilderness values of the area. There 

isn’t any data supporting the closures in the DEIS for these areas.

...Congress often decides it wants to allow motorized recreation in 

areas that the agency has recommended be wilderness. 

The Clearwater travel plan in Alt’s C & D remove much of the 

single track trails in the proposed wilderness areas and roadless 

areas. It is stated in the plan that the characteristics of the 

wilderness areas should be maintained. There is no formal USFS 

2053

2116

2117

2153

2160

2173

2174

2175

2176

2177

2245

2253

2256

2257

2258

Alternative B provides for motorized use 

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do no

address this concern. The Forest Plan d

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

wilderness during both summer and win

Roadless Areas including Recommended 

Alternative B would allow most existing 

and area-based winter snowmachines tr

(Management Area B2) to continue. Th

analyzes the potential effects of changin

Response to Comments - 59
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

94 policy stating that wilderness areas are to be managed as true 

wilderness. There are only guidelines. Currently trails exist in 

those areas and not much geography change is occurring. 

Granted some trails would be better moved and redesigned. This 

can occur on a site specific project if motorized travel is allowed in 

the area.

Concerning the Clw NF travel plan, I support Alt B. this is 

supposed to be a travel plan....not a closure plan. I believe that 

creating a wilderness area should be left to congress. 

Alternative C would eliminate all motorized access in lands 

recommended for wilderness. Under the current Forest Plan, all 

lands in the Clearwater National Forest which are managed under 

the B2 classification should be changed to be managed as semi-

primitive. The current Forest Plan states "If there is Idaho 

wilderness legislation during the plan period, the area(s) that is 

(are) not classified as Wilderness by Congress will remain roadless 

and be managed as management area A3 until the next major 

revision of the Forest Plan, unless specified otherwise by the 

wilderness legislation." Within the last year, there has been Idaho 

wilderness legislation. This legislation did not include or have any 

reference to the Clearwater Forest. Therefore, the change in 

management of the B2 lands in the Clearwater MUST be to A3. 

Any other management will be in direct violation of the Forest 

Plan.

The propose closures in the Great Burn are unnecessary. Fifty 

years of motorized access hasn’t done anything to degrade that 

area so that it would not be considered for wilderness 

designation. This fact has even been supported in court by the 

Fish Lake Trail lawsuit. There are many other areas across the 

country where motorized access was allowed up until the time of 

wilderness designation.

Between the 1978 and 2005 Analysis for Assessing Capability to 

Exhibit and Maintain Wilderness Character, 28 years elapsed with 

over-snow vehicle use in all years, and the Great Burn still 

exhibited a high capability for wilderness character (the same as 

in 1978). Without any supporting documentation to the contrary, 

and in spite of any documentation which might be produced, it is 

reasonable to assume that the area will retain its capabilities 

through the next planning cycle. Furthermore, after 28 years it 

2346

2445

2457

2478

2568

2571

2597

2690

2719

2773

2844

2845

2846

2847

2849

2850

2852

2886

2981

3060

3063

Response to Comments - 60
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

remains non-wilderness. In other words, it has never been 

designated by Congress. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Agency 

to apply wilderness standards to this area (by excluding an entire 

and presently lawful activity for the purpose of preserving its 

Wilderness character). These two reasons aloe should deter any 

Agency desire to exclude any motor access from the Great Burn 

area and other B2 areas.

11

21

23

25

31

32

40

40

42

44

45

72

74

85

512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should exclude 

motorized and 

mechanized uses 

for recommended 

Wilderness to 

protect the 

wilderness 

character and 

potential for future 

designation

Managing non-motorized, motorized and mechanized (bicycle) in 

recommended wilderness areas through travel planning decisions 

may affect the protection of wilderness. 

... disagree that instances of snowmobile trespass into Wilderness 

are random, since they typically occur from commonly known 

access points where snowmobiles are permitted in close 

proximity to Wilderness 

 ... that serves as a roadless migration corridor for many animals 

including endangered species. If we lose our proposed wilderness 

areas, we lose something fundamental for human life and the 

human spirit, forever.

2146

2266

2315

2325

2543

2558

2647

2649

2650

2651

2670

2677

2680

2918

2920

2926

3014

3015

3017

Alternative B provides for motorized use 

Alternatives C, C Modified and D do not. 

be selected to best address this concern

protect wilderness character in recomm

this management direction is best met b

in recommended wilderness during both 

Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Areas in

Areas.

Alternative D restricts motorized and bic

areas including the Hoodoo (Great Burn) 

motorized and bicycle use in this area w

Plan directs managers to protect wildern

wilderness areas. The intent of this man

minimizing motorized and bicycle use in 

3 ,Inventoried Roadless Areas including 

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

9 

16

21

25

26

29

30

39

94

512

The Clearwater 

National Forest did 

not adequately 

evaluate 

mechanized and 

motorized activities 

in Recommended 

Wilderness Areas 

prior to 

... Need: Evaluate the motorized and mechanized activities that 

occur in RWA’S .... This should have been completed before you 

recommended closures in these areas. 

What impacts to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness additions have 

occurred ... Is this change related to motorized use?

...The Forest Service planning rule requires utilizing the best 

available science, the Forest Service needs to consider the 

2118

2119

2171

2172

2202

2203

2204

2212

2219

Alternative B analyzes motorized and bic

areas; Alternatives C, C Modified, and D 

to best address this concern. The Forest 

wilderness character in recommended w

management direction is best met by mi

recommended wilderness during both su

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including R

Response to Comments - 61
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

recommending 

activity restrictions.

numerous studies showing that mountain biking has no more 

impact than hiking and equestrian use.

The FS should allow the winter portion of the travel plan more 

than 2 options. The Forest, in collaboration with Id Fish and Game 

and other stakeholders, should set strict limits on motorized use 

in backcountry management areas ... 

Page 3-76 – This section fails to accurately reflect the state of the 

law regarding temporary, ephemeral effects and the fact that 

such effects do not degrade wilderness character to such an 

extent that the area loses its eligibility for wilderness status. See 

pages 3-83; 3-104. 

Page 3-134 – SVIA and MIC concur that “the scenic integrity of the 

Wild and Scenic River corridor would not be adversely affected by 

Alternative A” and the continuation of existing levels of OHV use. 

Northern Region policy is to indefinitely close recommended 

Wilderness areas to motorized use – manage the areas as 

Wilderness even though a Wilderness Attributes Study would 

indicate a very low Wilderness rating for many of these areas.

Page 1-9: There is no federal requirement to completely restrict 

motorized travel in the RWA’S (summer or winter). 

2299

2302

2405

2441

2498

2506

2534

2613

2641

3059

Alternative B would allow most existing 

and area-based winter over-snow trave

(Management Area B2) to continue. Th

analyzes the potential effects of chang

16 512

The Clearwater 

Forest should 

modify the Forest 

Plan to remove 

from 

Recommended 

Wilderness 

designation (B2) 

those areas 

currently 

designated as B2 

which have 

motorized use.

....The document goes on to say that areas with a significant 

amount of motorized use should not be designated RWA’s and if 

motorized use of an RWA was significant it would be removed 

from that designation or the boundary adjusted.

2166

2178

2179

2180

Reallocating land management designa

need of this project and is outside the s

4 

20

26

71

83

90

350

512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider an 

alternate 

designation for 

Recommended 

Wilderness Areas.

Please reconsider the complete closure that wilderness 

designation would entail. (I) feel that the areas’ designation 

would be better served by other OHV limitations rather than a 

“blanker” closure effected by wilderness designation. 

Please keep the following areas open for snowmobile use, Beaver 

Ridge, Elk Summit, Tom Beal, Blacklead, Goat Lake, Williams Lake, 

Crooked Fork, Kid Lake Hoodoo and State line. If the Forest 

2083

2106

2217

2247

2432

2449

2912

Reallocating land management designa

need of this project, which is to designa

closed to motorized use, and is outside 

Response to Comments - 62
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

355 Service is serious about protecting this area make it a National 

Recreation Area that Tax Payers could enjoy. 

Boundaries need to be adjusted or moved or a different 

alternative to wilderness like a national protection area. A 

national protection area has the same general character as 

wilderness area with the exception that it allows snowmobile use 

and some trail maintenance. I do agree that these areas need 

some protection but not something so restrictive as wilderness. I 

prefer a National Recreation Area designation that allows 

snowmobiles and mountain bikes for sure and possibly dirt bikes 

and ATV along with some really good Jeep/UTV trails in the 

summer.

2913

2915

3008

3039

25 512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not include 

areas with roads as 

recommended 

wilderness. 

...the DEIS reports that there are 158 miles of roads in 

recommended wilderness on the Clearwater NF in Tables 3-42, 3-

46 and 3-50.....makes the area roaded and shouldn’t be allocated 

for recommended Wilderness. 

2354

2355

This mistake has been corrected in the F

accurately, that there are no road miles 

the exception of the roads that were spe

Elk Summit Road)(or copy wording from 

DEIS document).

25 512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should reanalyze 

recommended 

wilderness using 

the Idaho Roadless 

rule.

Staff should reanalyze the recommended wilderness 

management area (B2) and roads using the Idaho Roadless Rule 

Management Theme Layer.

2356

The FEIS has been updated to address th

“Inventoried Roadless Areas Including R

18

19

30

36

63

87

512/443

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

bicycles in 

Recommended 

Wilderness 

because they do 

not adversely 

affect the primitive 

character.

It may be that the B2 (i.e., RWA) boundaries are fixed based on 

previous policy decisions, and would not be changed as part of 

the Travel Planning process. However, the travel plan can 

influence the Forest Plan, and vice versa. What is being 

addressed in the Travel Plan are the types of travel that will be 

allowed within the B2 area. Mechanized travel is not detrimental 

to wilderness character, and should not be restricted. Mountain 

bikers are generally attracted to these areas for the same reason 

as other quiet users; seeking solitude away from civilization.

The Region One forest planning philosophy, banning bicycles from 

recommended wilderness, has pigeonholed bicyclists as 

opponents to wilderness. This is an unfortunate and untrue sideeffect of the policy. I feel compelled to point out that in every 

other Forest Service region bicycles are allowed in recommended 

wilderness areas. Most bicyclists actually support and enjoy 

2201

2214

2215

2229

2233

2533

2612

2614

2616

2632

2633

2634

2878

3029

Alternative B could be selected to best a

directs managers to protect wilderness c

areas (B2) including IRA areas that are w

management direction is best met by m

recommended wilderness during both s

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including 

Response to Comments - 63
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

wilderness, and ride in the wild zones near wilderness because 

the feelings and experience is similar. 

There is nothing intrinsic about the mountain bike that reduces 

the opportunities for primitive recreation or solitude of others. 

Mountain bikers do not inordinately reduce the possibility of 

other users having a primitive experience. As discussed, mountain 

bikers do not alter the land for the next user any more than do 

hikers. And, if by using the word primitive, Congress meant to 

exclude modern technology, then an encounter with any number 

of modern conveniences, such as cell phones, GPSs, LED lighting 

systems, or specialized clothing would impact the primitive 

experiences of others. However, these items are not prohibited, 

presumably because they, like mountain bikes, do not impact the 

primitive characteristics of the land itself.

I do support additional Wilderness designation, I strongly believe 

that new Wilderness area should be created in conjunction with 

companion designations, which allow continued access to 

backcountry mountain bikers.

IMBA requests the Clearwater continue to allow bicycling in 

recommended wilderness. The proposed policy-a blanket ban- is 

out of place in a travel plan, unnecessary, unjustified, at odds with 

national forest management across the county, and contrary to FS 

directives.

The proposed action indicates it will be using recommended 

wilderness boundaries form the draft forest plan. Though the 

forest plan has yet to be finalized and though the planning rule 

under which it was developed has been successfully litigated, the 

draft forest plan does not require a prohibition on bicycling in 

recommended wilderness. The draft forest plan merely states 

that given activities are generally suitable or unsuitable for a 

particular management are. IMBA requests the FS work with local 

cyclists to identify the most important routes for bicycling and 

consider leaving them open to this use.

I will not stand in the way of wilderness, were that the only way 

to protect our forests I would be willing to close all trails to 

human travel (the only way to zero impact). I have hiked in the 

Rattlesnake wilderness and was stunned to find roads maintained 

with chain saws and other mechanized equipment leading to 

Response to Comments - 64
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

manmade dams. Surely if there are exceptions such as these for 

emergency water reserves then some concessions can also be 

made for a non-motorized user group that has a lower 

environmental impact than the equestrian user group that is 

allowed in wilderness.

8 

19

40

512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should make 

adjustments to the 

boundaries of 

Recommended 

Wilderness Areas 

and or create 

buffer zones or 

cherry stems 

where mechanized 

uses would be 

permitted.

The current and future need for bicycle recreation destinations is

primarily along the state line adjacent to the Lolo N.F., adjacent to 

the population center of Missoula. Boundary adjustments to the 

Recommended Wilderness Areas along the state line could easily 

be made to accommodate non-motorized, mechanized use. Short 

of boundary adjustments, an easement allowing bicycles along 

trail 738 may be more easily applied to the travel plan (similar to 

the allowance for motorcycles on trail 419).

South of Lolo Pass is Beaver Ridge. The northern face of this ridge 

is proposed as a Selway Wilderness Addition. Part of this addition 

could be developed as an alpine bicycle destination for Missoula 

riders. With a reconstructed trail to them, Beaver and Spruce 

lakes would be good attractions for bicyclists for fishing. The 

proposed boundary of this addition is on section lines, which is 

not a good practice when planning wilderness because it is harder 

to locate on the ground. It would be logical to retain the 

wilderness boundary along Beaver Ridge, and reduce the B2 area 

to the area west of the lookout, south of road 369. Bicyclists 

need quiet lake destinations as well, and someday could benefit 

from improved access to these lakes. A future loop trail, starting 

at Lolo Pass... 

The creation of some mechanized buffer zones, and creative 

corridors to alpine destinations is a minimal request. 

The map enclosed with our comments entitled, “Observed 

Snowmobile Use,” shows the locations where we observed 

snowmobile use on specific days during 2008 and 2009. This map 

also displays groomed snowmobile trails and roads or trails open 

to snowmobiles but not groomed. From the map, it’s quite clear 

that the use we have observed in the Great Burn occurs solely 

within the proposed closure boundary (which is also the 

recommended wilderness boundary in the 1987 forest plan.) The 

problem that we foresee is with the groomed snowmobile trail on 

the southern edge of the closure area, the fact that the road to 

Hoodoo Pass is open to snowmobiles, the road up Lake Creek 

(toward Fish Lake) is open to snowmobiles, Roads 737 and 735 

2108

2109

2111

2213

2215

2216

2220

2221

2222

2223

2229

2231

2535

2636

2665

2871

2872

2873

2874

3024

3025

3028

3044

Alternative B best addresses this concern 

wilderness areas. Proposing or deciding 

with alternative land use designations is 

and need of this travel planning proposa

existing routes and areas for motorized u

Response to Comments - 65
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

are open to snowmobiles, and the Toboggan Ridge Road is also 

open to snowmobiles. We suggest that these routes be closed to 

snowmobile use in order to protect the wilderness characteristics 

of the adjacent closed areas. If, however, the routes remain open, 

the Forest Service should implement a comprehensive public 

education and enforcement effort to prevent incursions by 

snowmobiles into the closure area. Executive Order 11644 (1972) 

and its amendment, Executive Order 11989 (1975), specifically 

include snowmobiles and direct the Forest Service “to establish 

policies and procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road 

vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed to protect 

the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of 

those lands

79

513

Wilderness 

Study Areas

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not exclude 

snowmobile use 

from Wilderness 

Study Areas.

The WSA's are only that -- Study Areas.... They are proposed, and 

by definition, should remain open to winter use by snowmobile 

riders. There is no resource damage, and no threat to game by 

our machines. Where we ride, there is way to much snow to 

support game in the winter. This is why you see so much big 

game in the low country during the Winter. If game is present in 

these great riding areas, then there is not enough snow for us to 

ride anyway as we will tear up our machines on the uncovered 

hazards. It is a great relationship...Elk, Moose, Dear, Sheep, 

Goats, etc... use the land while there is little or no snow, then 

when they move out, we can go in and play.

2976

There are no Wilderness Study Areas wit

11

21

514

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Areas (IRA)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized use in 

primitive, semiprimitive and 

roadless areas with 

Alternative D

Why allow 51 miles of trail to be open to motorized use in 

primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized settings in roadless 

areas under the alternative that most restricts motorized use? 

This reflects a biased range of alternatives skewed toward 

motorized use and in conflict with the executive orders and the 

forest plan.

2144

2300

Development of Alternative D was based 

Recommended Wilderness. Motorized u

in IRA’s were consistent with the goals an

Management Areas contained within the 

See also the response to Action Code 427

162

174 514

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should prohibit 

motorized uses in 

all Inventoried 

Roadless Areas.

I urge the Forest Service to adopt a modified version of 

Alternative D to include a year-round motorized prohibition in all 

Inventoried Roadless Areas.

. . . considering that the area is renowned by outdoors people for 

its hunting and fishing opportunities, not to mention its place as a 

refuge for wild creatures of all types, a prohibition of motorized 

travel through the IRAs would protect the wild qualities that the 

vast majority of users come to enjoy.

2085

2088

2190

2191

2192

2196

2197

2311

2312

Alternative B analyzes the most motorize

including where these areas are allocated 

designation; Alternatives C, C Modified, 

areas. Forest Plan direction does not gui

motorized use trails within Inventoried R

The Forest Plan does direct managers to 

management area direction that applies 

Alternative B could be selected to best ad

directs managers to protect wilderness c

Response to Comments - 66
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Weitas Creek (Bighorn-Weitas) Proposed Wilderness

Weitas Creek is the most important roadless area on the 

Clearwater National Forest yet no alternative proposes closing 

trails to motorized use or the areas crucial winter range. Indeed, 

the DEIS makes the case for the areas important wildlife values in 

map form (see appendix A).

Trail 20. Under no alternative is this route closed, except a small 

segment This main trail sees considerable resource damage when 

vehicles use it (see enclosed documents and photos 1 to 5). The 

20 trail is not suited to vehicle use. See photo 6. Safety is a 

concern. Indeed, a mountain biker road off the edge to his death 

this year. Campsites along the route near Johnny Creek are 

damaged. See photos 7 and 8.

Trail 17. This trail is hard to find in much of the roadless area. 

Opening it to ORVs under every alternative would cause serious 

damage from the status quo. It is also unmanageable to have 

part of the trail open to ATVs but the two ends not open to ATVs.

2313

2317

2318

2319

2320

2321

2990

areas (B2) including IRA areas that are w

management direction is best met by m

recommended wilderness during both su

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including 

9 

61 514

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

motorized and 

mechanized uses in 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

There isn’t any data presented that requires the closure of IRA’s 

Just because they are recommended for wilderness designation.

I don’t’ believe it is fair to assume that the inventoried roadless 

areas are going to be managed as wilderness according to the 

environmentalists. There are other user groups who use these 

roadless areas, and keep in mind that they are not trail-less, and 

these trails are used by mountain bikers’ motorcycle riders. There 

are many of us who seek a semi-primitive motorized or 

mechanized experience. We must keep in mind that nearly 4 

million acres of roadless areas are already designated wilderness. 

I can assure that many trails have been lost because the USFS 

cannot keep up with trail maintenance, and this will continue if 

we designate more wilderness. Most of the wilderness is seldom 

visited because access is so restrictive and most people don’t 

have the time to commit multiple days while covering little 

ground when backpacking.

Reasonable access in wilderness is obtained by using airplane 

(motorized), jetboat (motorized) or horses. I believe the roadless 

rule was intended to keep those portions of the national forest 

2038

2130

2596

2816

2817

Alternative B analyzes the most motorize

Roadless Areas including where these ar

wilderness designation; Alternatives C, C 

amounts in these areas. Forest Plan dire

open or close to motorized use trails wit

IRA designation. The Forest Plan does d

Forest Plan management area direction 

Area. Alternative B could be selected to 

Plan directs managers to protect wildern

wilderness areas (B2) including IRA areas 

intent of B2 management direction is be

bicycle use in recommended wilderness 

See Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Are

Areas .

Response to Comments - 67
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

roadless, yet allow multiple use access (motorized/mechanized) 

to continue. Our roadless areas hold valuable timber and other 

resources which should be made available if ever the time arises. 

There are environmentally sounder methods for extracting these 

resources such as helicopter logging. We also need the ability to 

manage these roadless areas in the event of a catastrophic fire 

and diseased trees. Idaho’s economy is in bad shape, and 

managing our roadless areas as wilderness (or locking up our 

public lands) will only further hurt Idaho’s economy due to public 

lands that can only be used by hikers and horsemen which is 

limited. Too much of anything isn’t good and that includes 

wilderness. Enough is enough. The trail systems were built for a 

reason back in the 1930’s and that was to allow public access to 

explore and enjoy our amazing wild lands; not to lock us out.

5 

21

32

53

514

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized and 

mechanized uses in 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas.

Motorized/mechanized vehicles should not be allowed in any 

roadless areas on the Clearwater National Forest, including 

Weitas Creek, Pot Mountain, Kelly Creek, Mallard-Larkins, the 

Upper North Fork and the areas adjacent to the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness. The unmaintained 555 route in the Weitas 

Creek drainage should be closed at the Weitas Guard station (the 

bridge). It bisects crucial elk calving and wolverine habitat. Water 

quality should take top priority over motorized use, especially 

where salmon, steelhead and bull trout live.

However, in the DEIS, the Forest Service has failed to analyze an 

alternative that keeps all roadless areas non-motorized. The value 

of roadless areas has been demonstrated scientifically, socially 

and politically. The 2001 Roadless Rule FEIS prepared by the 

Forest Service contains a plethora of information about the value 

of undisturbed roadless areas for wildlife habitat and other 

values. The agency is well aware of concerns regarding motorized 

use in roadless areas--the DEIS notes this fact--and the failure to 

evaluate an alternative that keeps all roadless areas nonmotorized fails to meet the requisite “hard look” at “all 

reasonable alternatives.”

The Spokane Mountaineers Conservation Committee 

recommends adoption of Alt. D as a minimum to support 

wilderness characteristics in the CWF. In addition, motorized 

vehicle travel should not be allowed in the following inventoried 

roadless areas: Weitas Creek, Pot Mountain, Kelly Creek, MallardLarkins, the Upper North Fork and areas immediately adjacent to 

2088

2269

2557

2562

2702

2703

2746

2747

2748

2900

2901

2921

2922

2923

2925

2931

2932

Alternative D analyzes the least motorize

Roadless Areas including where these ar

wilderness designation; Alternative C an

areas, with Alternative B analyzing the m

guide managers to either open or close t

Roadless Areas based on IRA designation

to comply with the Forest Plan managem

Inventoried Roadless Area. Alternative D 

concern. The Forest Plan directs manag

recommended wilderness areas (B2) inc

allocation. The intent of B2 managemen

motorized and bicycle use in recommen

winter seasons. See Chapter 3, Inventor

Recommended Wilderness Areas.

Response to Comments - 68
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

the SBW.

The CWF has done an excellent job in recognizing the wilderness 

values of the Mallard Larkins, the Great Burn and proposed 

additions to the SBW, but there is still need to reduce the impact 

of motorized use in all roadless area.

While I commend the FS for acknowledging the exceptional values 

of the Mallard Larkins and Great Burn roadless areas by 

recommending year round prohibitions to motorized traffic in 

these areas, I believe that all the roadless areas deserve this same 

recognition. For instance, the Bighorn Weitas roadless area has 

crucial low elevation big game habitat. This habitat is critical since 

Dworshak Dam reservoir swallowed the best big game wintering 

grounds. It also contains trout streams that harbor westslope 

cutthroat and bull trout.

21 514/512

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should treat 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas as 

Recommended 

Wilderness per HR 

980

Why didn’t the DEIS mention HR 980 (the Northern Rockies 

Ecosystem Protection Act), which had a hearing in Congress, and 

would designate all of the roadless areas as wilderness? Given 

the long time frames for motorized use decisions, why were 

decisions to allow motorized use in roadless areas not considered 

a major commitment of resources on the verge of being, 

irreversible and irretrievable? Doesn’t the recommended 

wilderness analysis reach this conclusion?

2301

2311

2312

2313

2316

2317

2318

2319

2320

2321

HR 980 is proposed legislation not enacte

direction that aids in implementing the N

analyzes the least motorized and bicycle 

including where these areas are allocated 

designation; Alternative C and B analyze 

Alternative B analyzing the most. Forest 

to either open or close to motorized use 

based on IRA designation. The Forest Pl

the Forest Plan management area direct

Roadless Area. Alternative D could be se

Forest Plan directs managers to protect w

wilderness areas (B2) including IRA areas 

intent of B2 management direction is bes

bicycle use in recommended wilderness 

See Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Area

Areas .

21 514/202

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should include an 

area by area 

evaluation of all 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas that 

discloses the 

effects of each 

alternative on the 

The DEIS should have a detailed discussion about each 

roadless/wilderness area that fully evaluates and discloses how 

motorized use will affect the characteristics for which that land 

has been specially designated. 2298

2357

2459

2460

2461

The FEIS has been updated to address th

Roadless Areas Including Recommended 

Response to Comments - 69
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

roadless 

characteristics

18 514/443

The Clearwater 

National Foest 

should allow 

mechanized uses in 

Roadless areas.

Most mountain bikers would like to see remaining roadless areas 

protected from future development, and wilderness character of 

these areas maintained. The Forest Service should be working to 

identify solutions to achive thise, which do not prohibit the use of 

bicycles.

2207

Alternative B analyzes the most mechan

including where these areas are allocate

designation; Alternatives C, C Modified, 

areas. Forest Plan direction does not gu

mechanized use trails within Inventoried 

designation. The Forest Plan does direc

Plan management area direction that ap

Alternative B could be selected to best a

directs managers to protect wilderness c

areas (B2) including IRA areas that are w

management direction is best met by mi

recommended wilderness during both su

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including R

21

517 Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

(designated)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should analyze the 

effects of OHV use 

on future 

designation of 

eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers.

The DEIS fails to analyze the impacts of having ORV use along 

either designated or potential wild and scenic rivers. ORV use 

within a potential wild river corridor could affect future 

designation of a wild river just as it could affect future designation 

of a roadless area as wilderness. 2304

Forest Plan direction for motorized uses 

“ORV use is not encouraged but may be p

(Forest Plan II-37). Only trails that are cu

proposed for motorized use, no new mo

or designated wild and scenic river. 

See FEIS, Chapter 3, Wild and Scenic Rive

topic.

21

518 Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

(eligible)

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

made errors or 

omissions in the 

eligible WSR 

section

The DEIS suggests potential classification for certain river 

segments. However, the potential classifications are wrong for a 

few segments. The Forest Service found in the LEISs that it 

prepared most of Cayuse Creek and White Sand Creek (AKA Colt 

Killed Creek) met the qualifications for a wild river. The DEIS 

ignores the fact an EIS was prepared for White Sand Creek. 

Furthermore, Fish Creek from the trailhead to Hungery Creek is in 

wild, roadless country and qualifies for wild river status.

2303

Thank you for bringing this omission to o

and Scenic Rivers has been updated.

40 518

The Clearwater 

National Forests 

special corridor 

restrictions seem in 

conflict with Forest 

Plan Direction for 

eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers by 

allowing crosscountry travel on 

undesignated 

The eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors are included in the 

“special corridors” category of the dispersed camping direction in 

Table 2-3. The DEIS states that the direction in Table 2-3 meets 

the requirements of the Forest Plan to protect the outstandingly 

remarkable values of these river corridors. However, if the Forest 

Service does not designate specific campsites and associated 

access routes, then it appears the agency will not be complying 

with the Forest Plan’s requirement to restrict cross-country use of 

off-road vehicles in eligible recreation and scenic river segments 

(Forest Plan, Page II-36). ...

2662

See FEIS, Chapter 2, Actions Common to 

to reflect a forest-wide approach for lim

dispersed camping and day use activities

prohibited Forest-wide, including within 

River corridors. Motorized use of existin

routes would be permitted for the purpo

analysis in Chapter 3 for Wild and Scenic 

Response to Comments - 70
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

routes. If the Forest Service chooses not to designate campsites in this 

NEPA process, we ask that the agency provide a plan for a 

comprehensive evaluation of dispersed campsites, as well as a 

schedule for completion.

51

61

25

27

702 Weitas 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep this 

trail open for 

motorized travel.

The Upper Weitas Creek Trail #20 is one of the few ATV 

opportunities in the area and is highly prized by the ATV 

community for the scenery it provides. In addition, the Fish Lake 

Trail #419 is a very popular ATV Trail to a scenic fishing 

destination.

Trail #20, Upper Weitas Creek Trail.

This is a destination area for us, where we enjoy camping, flyfishing for cutthroat trout, and having the opportunity to explore 

the area using our trail machines on many of the great trails in the 

area. Rarely, do we ever run across other people using these 

trails, we clear the trail if downfall is present. Destroying this 

opportunity would take away a freedom that we truly enjoy. 

Access to fishing by motorized travel is becoming rarer and 

additional efforts must be undertaken to allow them to remain 

open for all users, but more specifically, younger users, older 

users, and users with disabilities. Due to the length and character 

of these trails it would not be realistically possible o cover the 

ground we do by motorcycles compared to foot or mountain bike. 

I am very aware that outfitting trips are occurring in this area, 

specifically near Windy Creek. It’s very likely that the outfitters 

don’t want motorized access in their outfitting areas. Our public 

lands should not be managed for their exclusive use. .... From a 

two-wheeled motorized standpoint, closing this trail would 

eliminate access to Trail #667 and loop opportunities using Trail 

#627 for accessing Trail #167 (Windy Ridge Trail – Cook Mountain 

Section) to Trail #580 (Bugle Point Trail), and back to Trail #20 to 

the Weitas Guard Station. It would also eliminate loop 

opportunities using Trail #627 to access Trail #634 (Windy Creek 

Trail) back to Trail #20. Another loop opportunity that would be 

destroyed would be using Trail #173 (Weitas Ridge Trail). 

The Upper Weitas Creek Trail #20 is proposed for non-motorized 

use from 12-Mile Saddle to Ball Creek under Alternative D. This 

trail is one of the few ATV opportunities in the area. This trail also 

provides an essential looping opportunity for motorcyclists using 

Junction and Cook Mountains. This trail should be designated for 

ATV use.

2375

2454

2726

2826

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 71
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Alternative C only allows one route from Weitas to the Lolo 

Motorway. Weitas Ridge and Liz Butte Trails are important late 

season connectors, as well as Cook Mtn 627 and Windy Creek 

trail. Windy Creek 634 and Liz Butte 649 are both part of the 

motorized section of the Idaho Centennial trail. These two trails 

must be kept open.

48

74 702

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should close this 

trail to motorized 

use.

The proposal to open the trail up Weitas Creek would destroy the 

only remaining unroaded major low elevation creek remaining in 

the Clearwater Forest; that would be criminal.

Weitas Creek Including Cook Mtn. The combined route of Trails 20 

and 174 have been turned into a combination dustbowl and 

expressway. It is an ugly sight, and I think that a sound plan for 

damage repair in the current planning process would just have 

closed the whole of Weitas to motorized use. I guess, however, 

that the politics of machines has made a repair job impossible, 

and it looks like poor Weitas is just being written off as a lost 

cause. But at least maybe further damage can be prevented by 

doing one thing: keep the whole area east of Cook Mountain (i.e., 

Lookout Pk. Switchback hill, Junction Mtn., etc) free of machines. 

From a wildlife standpoint, a genuinely remote and wild part of 

the CNF would be maintained with good habitat and great 

primitive method hunting opportunities. The trails in this area are 

very marginal and cannot really sustain much motorized use. 

Another reason to leave this area alone is the uncertainty of the 

western boundary of what will sometime be the Great Burn 

Wilderness. I, for one, always envisioned it reaching ell west of 

Cayuse Creek. It would be a real shame if a travel planning 

decision at the current time somehow precluded a wise and 

sound look at the western boundary of the Great Burn. Keeping 

this area free of machines will also at least slightly mitigate the 

awful harm that has pretty much wrecked Weitas. 

2697

2928

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

51

61

76

707 Weitas 

Butte

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should open this 

trail to motorized 

use.

The Weitas Butte Trail #103 provides an essential connection to 

the Weitas Creek Trail System. The ford at the bottom of the trail 

at Weitas Creek keeps motorcycles off this trail until late summer. 

This trail is cleared annually by the local motorcyclists.

Trail #103, Weitas Butte Trail: This is an outstanding trail and I do 

not support closure of this trail to motorcycles. This is an 

important connector trail to the Weitas Creek Trail System. This 

trail is self managed due to the deep creek crossing at the bottom 

of the trail, and is only accessible during late summer and early 

2377

2728

2828

2949

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 72
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

fall when the flows have subsided. This trail is cleared annually by 

the enthusiastic efforts of motorcycle clubs. If maintenance were 

to cease, as a result of closing to motorcyclists, the trail will likely 

disappear. Our trails were built to provide access to our public 

lands and should continue to be maintained for the public. 

Motorcyclists, along with IDPR, are the only groups who can 

efficiently carry the tools necessary to conduct light trail 

maintenance in a reasonable amount of time.

The Weitas Butte Trail #103 provides an essential connection to 

the Weitas Creek Trail System. The ford at the bottom of the trail 

at Weitas Creek keeps motorcycles off this trail until late summer. 

Alternative C and D designate this trail for non-motorized use. 

Local motorcycle riders have cleared this trail for several years. If 

this trail is designated non-motorized, it will eventually disappear 

due to a lack of use and maintenance. The Weitas Butte Trail #103 

should be designated for motorcycle use.

The Weitas Butte Trail #103 provides an essential connection to 

the Weitas Creek Trail System. The ford at the bottom of the trail 

as Weitas Creek keeps motorcycles off this trail until late summer. 

This trail is cleared annually by the local motorcyclists and will 

disappear if it is closed to motorized use and the USFS does not 

have the funding to continue maintenance.

25

51

61

76

709 Junction 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use 

because it provides 

great opportunities 

for motorized 

travel.

The Junction Creek Trail #106 is a great single-track trail looping 

opportunity for motorcyclists.

Trail #106, Junction Creek Trail: Elimination of this trail would 

reduce a rare motorized access to backcountry fishing 

opportunities to Junction Lake. .... I request Trail #691 remain 

open for two-wheeled motorized access to Junction Mountain 

Lookout. 

The Junction Creek Trail #106 is a great looping single-track trail 

looping opportunity for motorcyclists using Trail #191. The 

Junction Creek Trail #106 should be designated for motorcycle 

use in order to provide a great looping opportunity out of the 

Kelly Forks area.

The Junction Creek Trail #106 is a great looping single-track trail 

looping opportunity for motorcyclists. 

2370

2722

2841

2945

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

51

61

712 Trail 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

The Trail Creek Trail #124 provides a single-track trail connection 

to the Pot Mountain Area for motorcyclists.

2380

2731

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Response to Comments - 73
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

25 should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #124, Trail Creek Trail

This trail should remain open to two-wheeled motorized travel 

because it provides an important connection to the Pot Mountain 

Area. Past maintenance has revealed that this trail requires brush 

work which should be conducted on an annual basis or this trail 

will disappear.

The Trail Creek Trail #124 is proposed for non-motorized use in 

Alternative C and D. This trail does not lead to any scenic 

destinations or high mountain lakes. It provides a single-track trail 

connection to the Pot Mountain Area for motorcyclists. The trail is 

quite brushy and requires annual maintenance. In order to keep 

this trail on the system, the Trail Creek Trail #124 should be 

designated for motorcycle use.

2837 Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

28

713 Pot 

Mountain 

Ridge

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should add more 

motorized closures 

to this trail.

Pot Mountain Needs Additional Motorized Closures : With 16,000 

acres of key big game winter range, the Pot Mountain area is 

extremely important to sportsmen. According to the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Idaho roadless rule, the 

Pot Mountain roadless area has very minor disturbance to the 

natural integrity and appearance of the area. Pot Mountain has 

many open south facing slopes that make the area great for 

hunting. There are also a few high mountain lakes that make for 

good westslope cutthroat trout fishing. The area also contains a 

population of mountain goats, which are extremely sensitive to 

motorized use. HHA [Hellgate Hunters and Anglers] recommends 

that Pot Mountain be managed for motorized travel in 

accordance to Alternative D. This management structure would 

maintain traditional hunting and fishing use in the area for 

generations to come.

The Cold Springs Peak Trail #169 provides a single-track trail 

experience to the cabin and has been cleared by trail rangers for 

many years.

Opening trail 169 along John Henry ridge would divide the eastern 

portion of the proposed Mallard Larkin wilderness from the main 

western part. Please don't let wheeled traffic destroy that trail 

and divide the wilderness.

2466

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

51

61

713

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

The Pot Mountain Ridge Trail #144 is a premier single-track 

motorcycle trail. The trail is also limited to later season of use due 

the elevation and snowpack.

2381

2385

2732

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Response to Comments - 74
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

74 this trail for 

motorized use. Trail # 144, Pot Mountain Ridge Trail: The proposal mentions to 

close this trail year round ...This trail also provides loop 

opportunities to Trail #617, $154, and connections to Trail #144, 

and #160. 

This trail is limited to advanced motorcyclists due to the skill level 

required to navigate the trail. ...it will eventually disappear due to 

a lack of use and maintenance. The Pot Mountain Ridge Trail #144 

should be designated for motorcycle use.

Trail #169, Cold Springs Creek to Fly Hill

I believe this trail was closed a while back and if so, it should 

reopened. 

The Cold Springs Peak Trail #169 provides a single-track trail 

experience to the cabin. ...The Cold Springs Peak Trail #169 should 

be designated for motorcycle use.

2735

2835

2839

2927

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

51

61

714 Jackknife 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Jackknife Ridge Trail #154 provides an important connector to the 

Pot Mountain Trail. Discontinuing the maintenance the motorized 

trail ranger program performs will result in increased erosion and 

eventually render the trail unusable.

Trail #154, Jackknife Ridge Trail

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Trail Crew have 

been maintaining this trail for several years on a yearly basis and 

are necessary to keep brush from covering the trail. Maintenance 

of this trail, such as brush removal and water bar placement, to 

curb erosion, has made it more sustainable, and is enjoyed by trail 

riding motorcycle enthusiasts. This trail is another option to 

providing an important connector trail tot eh Pot Mountain Trail.

Alternatives C and D designate the Jackknife Ridge Trail #154 for 

non-motorized use. This trail has received continual maintenance 

from our Trail Ranger Program dating back to 1996. The trail 

provides essential access to Pot Mountain from the Weitas Creek 

area. If the trail is designated non-motorized, it will eventually 

disappear due to a lack of use and maintenance. The Jackknife 

Ridge Trail #154 should remain designated for motorcycle use.

2382

2733

2838

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

51

61

716 Cave 

Creek/Chatea

u Rock

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Chateau Rock Trail #165 provides a looping connection to the 

Pot Mountain Trail #144. This trail is primarily used and cleared by 

motorcyclists. The Cave Point Trail #617 provides another looping 

connection to the Pot Mountain Trail #144

2383

2734

2836

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

Response to Comments - 75
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Trail #165, Chateau Rock Trail: This trail, along with the Cave Point 

Trail #617, should remain open to provide continued enjoyment 

by trail machine riders who seek a looping connection to Pot 

Mountain Trail #144. In addition to riding the trail, two-wheeled 

motorized enthusiasts have maintained this trail by cutting out 

downfall and other light trail maintenance for several years.

The Chateau Rock Trail #165 provides a looping connection to the 

Pot Mountain Trail #144. This trail is primarily used by 

motorcyclists. Without motorcycle use, the trail could disappear. 

The Chateau Rock Trail #165 should be designated for motorcycle 

use.

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

27

51

61

717 Windy 

Ridge

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use 

because it provides 

great opportunities 

for motorized 

travel.

The Windy Ridge Trail #167 (Cook Mountain Section) should 

remain open. Closing this trail eliminates a popular and 

sustainable looping opportunity for the Weitas drainage and 

Junction mountain area.

Trail #167, Windy Ridge Trail (Cook Mountain Section)

This is an excellent ridge trail and should continue to be left open 

to historical trail machines travel. .... The TOS should continue to 

provide for a semi-primitive two-wheeled motorized experience. 

This trail provides tremendous link and loop opportunity to Trails 

#580, #627, #531, #634, as well as #20 (Weitas Creek Trail).

The Windy Ridge Trail #167 (Cook Mountain Section) .... This trail 

is the key looping connection out of Junction Mountain and 

Weitas Creek. Without this trail, most quality looping 

opportunities in the Weitas drainage are destroyed. The high 

elevation of the trail doesn’t make it available until after July 1st. 

...The Windy Ridge Trail #167 should be designated for motorcycle 

use in order to provide great looping opportunities out of the 

Kelly Forks and Weitas Creek areas. 

Alternative C would close the Fourth of July pack bridge to Crater 

Meadows part of Trail 167. That closure, as well as the seasonal 

closure of the other trails in the Junction area, will be a violation 

of the current Forest Plan. The current Forest Plan allows for 

semi-primitive, motorized access oriented to big game hunting 

activities. Hunting activities include clearing trail and pre-season 

scouting. Many hunters scout as soon as the snow leaves in the 

summer. 

2371

2455

2723

2832

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25 718 Weitas The Clearwater The Weitas Ridge Trail #173 provides a looping opportunity for 2376 Alternative C Modified was developed to 

Response to Comments - 76
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

51

61

Ridge National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

expert level motorcycle enthusiasts, limiting the number of 

motorized users who can use the trail. The trail runs along the 

ridge so there is limited sedimentation into streams.

Trail #173, Weitas Ridge Trail

This is a great ridge trail for two-wheeled motorized travel. This 

remote and technical trail (expert level) provides a more 

challenging riding experience as well as the opportunity to seek 

more solitude even if it is motorized. .... This trail provides a link 

for several loop opportunities with Trail #650, Trail #20 (Weitas 

Creek Trail) and a Trail #103 that ties into the Weitas Ridge Trail 

from the junction of Trail 320, and Trail 3650 at Weitas Creek. 

The Weitas Ridge Trail #173 is part of a great looping opportunity 

for experienced motorcyclists. The ford at the bottom of the trail 

at Weitas Creek keeps motorcycles off this trail early in the 

season. Sedimentation is not an issue because the runs are 

located along the top of the ridge. 

2727

2827

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

37

51

61

76

719 Junction 

Mountain

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use 

because it provides 

great opportunities 

for motorized 

travel.

The Junction Mountain Trail #191 provides a great looping singletrack trail opportunity for motorcycles using Trail #106. This trail 

provides a great looping opportunities for motorcycle use in the 

Kelly forks area.

Several favorite single track trails are in question: Junction 

Mountain Trail # 191 and # 106 are great looping destinations ....

Trail #191, Junction Mountain Trail

Elimination of this trail would reduce a rare motorized access to 

backcountry fishing opportunities to Junction Lake. ...In addition 

to our riding experience we enjoy visiting lookout towers, and this 

is especially an educational experience for our son. ... and it 

provides an important loop with Trail #106, as well as other trails 

in the Kelly Forks Area. ...This area should continue to be 

managed as semi-primitive motorized (two-wheeled) access yearround. 

The Junction Mountain Trail #191 provides a great looping singletrack trail looping opportunity for motorcycles using Trail #106. .... 

The trail goes above 6000 feet in elevation and generally doesn’t 

open until around July 1st. 

The Junction Mountain Trail #191 provides a great looping single2369

2639

2721

2834

2840

2944

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 77
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

track trail looping opportunity for motorcycles using Trail #106. 

.... Restricting the trail to fall use as Alt C suggests caters to only a 

few. This trail provides a great looping opportunities for 

motorcycle use in the Kelly forks area.

Trail #200 (Bear Butte to Junction Lake)

This is a key connector trail from Weitas Creek to Junction 

Mountain. Keeping this trail open would eliminate having to ride 

the Pierce-Superior Road #250 to get back to Weitas Creek for a 

loop, which is a safety concern. 

3 

721 North 

Fork Down 

River

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized use on 

Trail 297 because it 

violates FP 

direction.

Aquarius Research Natural Area - North Fork Ranger District - Trail 

# 297 and Salmon Creek Roads (4800) We believe that the 

motorized use of Trail 297 violates the Forest Plan direction. 

Motorcycle use of this trail would adversely affect values and 

features of the Aquarius RNA. We are also concerned about 

dropping of winter snowmobile restrictions on the existing 

Salmon Creek road network and wonder how this road system got 

open to both motorcycles and ATVs. Our recollection of the 

original NEPA proposal that developed this previously roadless 

area was that all roads would be closed to motorized use on a 

yearlong basis.

2080

The Forest Plan direction for the Aquariu

roads or trails for motorized or non-mot

RNA are managed within Forest Plan dire

management of Road 4800 and Trail 297 

direction for the RNA.

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

25

51

61

76

722 North 

Fork of the 

Clearwater 

River

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Alternatives C and D close the Upper North Fork Trail #373 to 

motorized use. This trail is also a part of the Idaho Centennial Trail 

(west). It is the last remaining single-track motorized trail in the 

Vanderbilt area. In order to keep at least one trail in this area on 

the system, the trail should be designated for motorcycle use.

All alternatives will close trails #373-A and #94. These two trails 

are a part of the Idaho Centennial Trail and provide visitors the 

opportunity to travel the Idaho Centennial Trail outside of 

recommended wilderness. It is improper for the Forest not to 

include these trails on any of their Alternatives.

Trail #373-A and #94, North Fork Clearwater Trail: As part of 

Alternative B or C these trails should be kept open on the national 

forest travel system and corresponding maps. Most importantly 

these trails are a part of the Centennial Trail....Closing this trail 

would be a major loss to the two-wheeled motorized community 

because it is a long trail, and is dynamic in terms of the terrain it 

2391

2392

2739

2740

2853

2952

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 78
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

follows. It is one of the few trails that provide two-wheeled 

motorized access in the Vanderbilt area. The Cedars Campground 

is a destination area for us because it is a beautiful camping spot, 

and provides for a multitude of recreational opportunities, 

especially fly-fishing for cutthroat trout and backcountry 

motorcycling opportunities for my wife and nine year old son... 

This trail provides loop opportunities using Road #715 and #720. 

...The USFS should look into re-establishing these trails, especially 

since they are not located within an RWA.

Alternatives C and D close the Upper North Fork Trail #373 to 

motorized use. This trail is also a part of the Idaho Centennial Trail 

(west). 

All alternatives drop Trails #373-A and #94 from the system. 

These two trails are a part of the Idaho Centennial Trail (West). 

All alternatives drop Trails #373-A and #94 from the system. 

These two trails are a part of the Idaho Centennial Trail (West). 

48

61

76

723 Fish Lake

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

Trail 419 for 

motorized use.

Trail #419, Fish Lake Trail: This trail provides access for fishing at 

Fish Lake, especially for folks who want to access by means of 

ATV. Allowing motorized travel for remote backcountry fishing is 

becoming harder to find and additional efforts must be 

undertaken to allow them to remain open for all users, but more 

specifically, younger users, older users, and users with disabilities. 

Our current amount of wilderness locks up thousands of high 

mountain lakes that were once accessible by motor vehicle. 

Enough is enough.

The Fish Lake trail #419 this is a very popular ATV trail to a fishing 

lake.

Fish Lake Trail. I don’t know of any trail on the whole forest that 

has been more subject to controversy than this one, in part 

because of a long history of mechanized use there, but also 

because it is a serious intrusion into the Great Burn and the whole 

stateline country. The final EIS, whatever it’s decision about this 

route, would do us a good service if it explained just how well 

existing restrictions here are doing. As I understand the last effort 

to make a decision about this lake and access to it, the plan was 

to allow trail bikes and ATVs to reach just to the lake, and only a 

couple of hundred feet further. No motorized access at all was 

allowed east of the lake, up the cliffs, onto the stateline trail, over 

into Montana, etc. A decision about future use would be better 

2393

2695

2851

2953

2979

Alternatives B, C, and C Modified best a

open to existing motorized use to allow 

Response to Comments - 79
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

appreciated if there was good knowledge being shared about just 

how this last planning effort turned out

74

178 723

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep 

motorized uses 

away from Fish 

Lake Trail 419.

Keeping motorized activity away from Fish Lake Trail #419 will 

provide a much larger protected area, and provide true 

backcountry experiences for both people and animals.

Please close trail 419 to Fish Lake to motorized vehicles, and also 

Fish Creek trail 224. How can you have motorized vehicles trail 

destruction runoff flowing into the Fish Creek fishery station?

I have been distressed by the destruction brought motorcycles 

(and illegal ATV) abuse to Fish Lake trail (and to the trails to 

Grandmother Mt and Lookout Mt areas in the St Joe forest). 

Trails are deeply rutted; erosion, noise pollution for animals, 

horses and humans, etc are costs which should imposed by 

vehicle users. Vehicles must be kept out as they are not 

compatible with forest preservation values.

Letter178

2929

2930

Alternative D restricts motorized/mecha

areas including the Hoodoo (Great Burn) 

motorized and bicycle use in this area w

Plan directs managers to protect wildern

wilderness areas. The intent of this man

minimizing motorized and bicycle use in 

3, Inventoried Roadless Areas including R

51

25

724 Osier 

Ridge

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Osier Ridge Trail #429, along with Pollack ridge, provide an 

excellent ride and loop opportunity on a trail that is easily 

sustainable for motorbike recreation opportunities.

The Osier Ridge Trail #429 provides a looping opportunity with 

the Fish Lake Trail #419 and the Pollock Ridge Trail #478. This trail 

is proposed for non-motorized use under Alternatives C and D. 

This trail is located outside of the current recommended 

wilderness area. The steep terrain along the ridge doesn’t allow 

off-trail use. Since the trail only provides indirect access to Fish 

Lake, it is unlikely that many non-motorized visitors would use the 

trail. In order to keep the trail on the system, the trail should be 

designated for motorcycle use.

2389

2738

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

27

51

61

725 Elizabeth 

Mountain

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #445, Elizabeth Mountain Trail (entire length): This trail 

provides access for fishing at the nearby lakes. Allowing 

motorized travel for remote backcountry fishing is becoming 

harder to find and additional efforts must be undertaken to allow 

them to remain open for all users, but more specifically, younger 

users, older users, and users with disabilities. Our current amount 

of wilderness locks up thousands of high mountain lakes that 

were once accessible by motor vehicle. Enough is enough. This 

trail is also an important link to the Black Canyon Road. There are 

no measurable effects with respect to sediment loading, and the 

trail is in great condition duet o the efforts of motorcycle 

enthusiasts who are known to keeping the trail maintained.

2386

2387

2453

2736

2848

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 80
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

The entire length of the Elizabeth Mountain Trail #445 is 

proposed for motorcycle use in Alternative B. The motorcycle 

designation dead-ends just past Elizabeth Lake in Alternative C. In 

order to provide the connection to the Pierce-Superior Road, the 

remaining trail will have to be reconstructed. The Clearwater 

National Forest should apply for an IDPR grant to reconstruct the 

Elizabeth Mountain Trail #445 and then designate it for 

motorcycle use.

Trail 445 from Elizabeth Mountain down to Black Canyon is shown 

as closed. Under the current Forest Plan, Trail 445 can only be 

closed in the winter. That connection is vital to any loop. The trail 

from Junction Pack Bridge, past Twin Peaks to Crater Meadows, 

then past Cook Mountain, and down to the Fourth of July pack 

bridge is a vital loop.

The Flat Mountain Trail #176 is identified as an ATV trail 

throughout the range of alternatives. This trail was originally a 

pack stock trail which was widened out for ATV use. The Flat 

Mountain Trail #176 should be designated for ATV use, but it 

should be built to proper ATV standards. We are willing to assist 

the CNF in reconstructing this trail with our Trail Cat Program.

25

51

726 Pollock 

Ridge

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Pollack Ridge Trail #478 is in great condition and was rebuilt 

by a prison work crew in the mid 90's over the years the trail 

rangers have had to work hard to keep this trail open and free of 

brush. It makes a great loop opportunity to fish lake.

The Pollack Ridge Trail #478 is proposed for non-motorized use 

Alternative C and D. This trail is part of the Idaho Centennial Trail 

(west). The west trail was developed to provide more motorized 

opportunities than the east portion. Historically, our Trail Ranger 

crews maintained this trail. Without occasional motorcycle use 

and maintenance, this trail may disappear from the system. In 

order to keep this motorized opportunity available on the Idaho 

Centennial Trail (west), this trail should be designated for 

motorcycle use.

2388

2737

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

32 729 Scurvy 

Mountain

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized on this 

trail.

The trail to Scurvy Mountain should be closed.

2560

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

Response to Comments - 81
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25 730 Windy 

Hill

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Switchback Hill Trail #531 provides access to the Scurvy 

Mountain Lookout from Windy Ridge and Junction Mountain. The 

trail allows riders to make connections with the Scurvy Mountain 

Lookout. Trail #531 should be designated for motorcycle use. 2372

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

61

731 Cayuse 

Creek/ 

Monroe Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #532, Cayuse Creek and Monroe Creek Trail: The proposal 

mentions to close this trail year round according to a change in 

the Travel Opportunity Spectrum. This area should continue to be 

managed as semi-primitive motorized (two-wheeled) access yearround. This type of designation should continue rather than 

decrease, because not only do we enjoy trail riding, and accessing 

remote areas using trails, but it will accommodate future growth. 

Keeping this trail open will allow it to be maintained through 

volunteer efforts and the continuation of the Idaho Department 

of Parks and Recreation Trails Program. In my experience closing 

this trail would eventually cause the trail to disappear, due to lack 

of use and maintenance. Low use trails provide a more remote 

backcountry experience for the users, in terms of people contact. 

I don’t want to see another person, when in the woods, 

regardless of their mode of travel. In additional to riding, this trail 

also provides for quality fishing of cutthroat trout in Monroe 

Creek, and creates an important loop with Trail #593 and Trail 

#594. It looks as though you plant o abandon the portion of Trail 

#532 from Road #581 and heading northeast, intersecting with 

Trail #567, which is proposed for closure and should remain open. 

Rather than abandon, the CNF should seek available RTP, OHV 

Registration, and ORMV funds to repair the trail for future twowheeled motorized travel. Even though this pertains to the Powell 

Ranger District, it looks as though you plan to abandon the 

southern portion of Trail #532 starting at Trail #593 (Raspberry 

Creek), heading south towards Little Cabin Meadows, and ending 

at Trail #594 near Windy Ridge.

Trail #532, Cayuse Creek and Monroe Creek Trail

It looks as though you plan to abandon the southern portion of 

Trail 3532 starting at Trail #593 (Raspberry Creek), heading south 

towards Little Cabin Meadows, and ending at Trail #504 near 

Windy Ridge. Rather than abandon, the CNF should seek available 

2842

2855

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 82
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

RTP, OHV Registration, and ORMV funds to repair the trail for 

future two-wheeled motorized travel. Motorcycle clubs and 

individuals are also willing to volunteer their time to help 

maintain trails for all users.

61 732 Lunde 

Creek

This Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #534, Lunde Creek – Rock Garden Trail: The proposal 

mentions to close this trail year round according to a change in 

the Travel Opportunity Spectrum. This area should continue to 

offer semi-primitive motorized (two-wheeled) access year-round. 

Keeping this trail open will not only provide a great recreational 

riding experience, but allow it to be maintained through volunteer 

efforts and the continuation of the Idaho Department of Parks 

and Recreation Trails Program. In my experience, trails that are 

closed to OHV access generally cause the trail to disappear, due 

to lack of use and maintenance. Low use trails provide a more 

remote backcountry (wild) experience for the users in terms of 

people contact, and provide opportunity for future growth. This is 

a premier 9.2 miles of two-wheeled trail, along a beautiful ridge 

and peak, and should remain open. Closing this trail would also 

eliminate several loop opportunities with Trail #539, Trail #2556, 

Road #587, Trail #117, Trail #594, and Trail #532. Another loop 

opportunity would be using these same trails and roads (except 

Trail #532) and use Trail #167, Trail #531 (to Scurvy Mtn. 

Lookout), and Road #534. Another loop opportunity would be to 

use Road #581 along Toboggan Ridge to connect both ends of the 

same trail. Other loop opportunities would include Trail #513 

(Deer Creek Trail) which is proposed for closure and should 

remain open, Trail #565 (Rapid Creek Trail) which is proposed for 

closure and should remain open, Trail #567 (Kelly Creek Trail) 

which is proposed for closure and should remain open. Loop 

opportunities are imperative to creating a sustainable long-term 

trail system. Loop trails reduce traffic, which creates less resource 

damage and results in a safer trail system. In addition; a loop trail 

allows the users to choose a direction that is easier to travel and 

thus may also reduce resource damage.

2843

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

61 733 Potato 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #539, Potato Creek Trail: I do not support closure of this trail 

on your proposed Travel Opportunity Spectrum, which is to close 

it year round to historical two-wheeled motorized access. Over 

the years motorcycle riders have helped maintain this trail by 

cutting out down fall. This area should continue to be managed as 

semi-primitive motorized (two-wheeled) access year-round. This 

type of designation should continue rather than decrease, 

because we enjoy trail riding, and accessing remote areas using 

2857

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 83
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

trails. This trail is an important link to Trail #249 to Trail #534, as 

well as connecting to Trail #256 to and from Gravey Creek.

25

76

735 Kelly 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should open this 

trail for nonmotorized use.

The Hansen Ridge Trail #428 is shown as an undetermined trail 

through the range of alternatives. This trail is a part of the main 

Idaho Centennial Trailvii. As a part of the MOU between our two 

agenciesviii, the Clearwater National Forest should not be 

abandoning this trail. The Hansen Ridge Trail #428 should be 

placed back on the USFS trail system as a non-motorized trail.

The Hansen Ridge Trail #428 is shown as an undetermined trail 

through the range of alternatives. This trail is a part of the main 

Idaho Centennial Trail. As a part of the MOU between our two 

agencies, the Clearwater National Forest should not be 

abandoning this trail. The Hansen Ridge Trail #428 should be 

placed back on the USFS trail system as a non-motorized trail.

2390

2951

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

51

76 735

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Switchback Hill Trail #567 provides access to the Scurvy 

Mountain Lookout from Windy Ridge and Junction Mountain. This 

trail is enjoyable and allows riders to make connections with the 

Scurvy Mountain Lookout.

The Switchback Hill Trail #567 provides access to the Scurvy 

Mountain Lookout from Windy Ridge and Junction Mountain. This 

trail is enjoyable and allows riders to make connections with the 

Scurvy Mountain Lookout. Trail #567 should be designated for 

motorcycle use.

2724

2946

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

21 735

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should add the 

Pollock Creek-Little 

Moose area into 

the Hoodoo 

Recommended 

Wilderness area 

(B2) and restrict 

snowmachine use 

in these areas due 

to lynx and 

wolverine habitat.

... based on roadless areas which would be designated as 

wilderness in HR 980...under no alternative are Little Moose 

Pollock and Swamp creeks and surrounding areas closed to 

snowmobiles in winter. This is lynx and wolverine habitat.

2316

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern. 

HR 980 is proposed legislation not enact

direction that aids in implementing the N

analyzes the least motorized and bicycle 

including where these areas are allocate

designation; Alternative C and B analyze 

Alternative B analyzing the most. Forest 

to either open or close to motorized use 

based on IRA designation. The Forest P

Response to Comments - 84
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

the Forest Plan management area direct

Roadless Area. Alternative D could be se

Forest Plan directs managers to protect 

wilderness areas (B2) including IRA areas 

intent of B2 management direction is be

bicycle use in recommended wilderness 

See Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Are

Areas.

25

51

61

76

736 Bugle 

Point

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Bugle Point Trail #580 is a great single-track trail that allows 

motorcyclists to bypass the Pierce-Superior Road #250 and 

connects up with the Weitas Creek Trail.

Trail #580, Bugle Point Trail: The proposal mentions to close this 

trail year round according to a change in the Travel Opportunity 

Spectrum. This area should continue to be managed as semiprimitive motorized (two-wheeled) access year-round. Keeping 

this trail open will allow it to be maintained through volunteer 

efforts and the continuation of the Idaho Department of Parks 

and Recreation Trails Program. Closing this trail would eventually 

cause the trail to disappear, due to lack of use and maintenance. 

This portion of trail is seldom used, if any, by non-motorized 

travel due to distance from Weitas Creek. Low use trails provide a 

remote backcountry experience for the users and also provide 

areas to accommodate future growth. Keeping this trail open 

would keep motorcycle riders from traveling on the PierceSuperior Road #250, which is a safety concern. This trail is an 

important loop trail for Trail #20 (Weitas Creek Trail), in addition 

to Trail #167, and other trails for loop and link opportunities.

The Bugle Point Trail #580 is a great single-track trail that allows 

motorcyclists to bypass the Pierce-Superior Road #250 and 

connect up with the Weitas Creek Trail. Alternatives C and D 

designate this trail as non-motorized. Our trail rangers have 

maintained this trail for over a decade. The trail is located too far 

up Weitas Creek to be a hiking destination. If this trail is 

designated non-motorized, it will eventually disappear due to a 

lack of use and maintenance. The Bugle Point Trail #580 should be 

designated for motorcycle use.

The Bugle Point Trail #580 is a great single-track trail that allows 

motorcyclists to bypass the Pierce-Superior Road#250 and 

connect up with the Weitas Creek Trail. The trail rangers have 

2379

2730

2833

2950

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 85
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

maintained this trail for several years. It is far enough up Weitas 

creek that it is not a very desirable non-motorized trail.

25 740 Cave 

Point

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Cave Point Trail #617 provides another looping connection to 

the Pot Mountain Trail #144. The trail has been maintained by our 

Trail Rangers and other motorcyclists for many years. Without 

annual maintenance by our program, the trail could eventually 

disappear. The Cave Point Trail #617 should be designated for 

motorcycle use.

2384

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

25

51

61

76

742 Cook 

Mountain

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Cook Mountain Trail #627 and the Windy Creek Trail #634 

also offers great looping opportunities. These trails are being used 

almost solely by motorcyclist enthusiasts and must to be brushed 

by the Trail Rangers annually.

Trail #627, Cook Mountain Trail, section NE of Road #555 I do not 

support closure of this trail due to reducing wildlife disturbance 

and a change in the Travel Opportunity spectrum. The spectrum 

should continue to provide for a semi-primitive two-wheeled 

motorized experience. Due to its remote location, this trail 

receives little use, so wildlife disturbance is not an issue, and no 

user conflicts because it is too far for hikers. There is no evidence 

that wildlife populations are affected by the existence of trail 

riders passing through on this trail. It seems the management 

approach is based more on a “that it could happen” (potential) 

instead of “that it is happening” I ask to show where in the 

guidelines this is written. This kind of “assumption before the act” 

kind of thinking is being used to throw roadblocks in front of 

anything the CNF oppose, and is being carried to extremes. This 

trail is well designed for two-wheeled motorized travel and 

provides loop opportunities. The Idaho Department of Parks 

Recreation has maintained this trail for several years along with 

volunteer trail riding clubs, and individuals. This trail will continue 

to exist for all users and provide opportunities due to the 

volunteer efforts of the trail machine riding community, and the 

continuation of the outstanding Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation Trails Program.

The Cook Mountain Trail #627 is proposed for a yearlong closure 

to motorcyclists under Alternatives C and D. This trail provides an 

essential connection between the Windy Ridge Trail #167 and the 

Weitas Creek Trail #20. Our Trail Rangers have maintained this 

trail in the past, and have found no serious maintenance issues. If 

this trail is closed to motorcycles, it will eventually disappear due 

2373

2725

2831

2947

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 86
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

to a lack of use and maintenance. The Cook Mountain Trail #627 

should be designated for motorcycle use.

The Cook Mountain Trail #627 if this trail is closed to motorized 

use it will disappear due to a lack of use. utilizing the Trail Ranger 

program will ensure continued recreation enjoyment for all. The 

trail also offers great looping opportunities.

25

61

76

744 Windy 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #634, Windy Creek Trail: I do not support closure of this trail 

due to reducing wildlife disturbance and a change in the Travel 

Opportunity Spectrum. The spectrum should continue to provide 

for a semi-primitive two-wheeled motorized experience. Due to 

its remote location, this trail receives little use, so wildlife 

disturbance is not an issue, and no user conflicts. There is no 

evidence that wildlife populations are affected by the existence of 

trail riders passing through on this trail. Wildlife is used to living 

near travel corridors whether it be highways, dirt roads or trails. It 

seems the management approach is based on more on a “that it 

could happen” (potential) instead of “that it is happening.” I ask 

to show where in the guidelines this is written. This kind of 

“assumption before the act” kind of thinking is being used to 

throw roadblocks in front of anything the CNF oppose, and is 

being carried to extremes. This trail is well designed for twowheeled motorized travel, and the Idaho Department of Parks 

Recreation has maintained this trail for several years along with 

volunteer trail riding clubs, and individuals. As a result, this trail 

will continue to exist; otherwise it will disappear due to the quick 

growing brush and downfall across the trail. This would be a 

major set-back because this trail is part of the Idaho centennial 

Trail system, and we would lose several miles of quality trail. This 

trail provides loop opportunities with Trail #667 and loop 

opportunities using Trail #627 for accessing Trail 3167 (Windy 

Ridge Trail – Cook Mountain Section) to Trail #580 (Bugle Point 

Trail), and back to Trail #20 to the Weitas Guard Station. It would 

also eliminate loop opportunities using Trail #627 back to Trail 

#20. Another loop opportunity is tied to Trail #173 (Weitas Ridge 

Trail) as well.

The Windy Creek Trail #634 provides a great looping opportunity 

for motorcyclists by using the Windy Ridge Trail #167 and the 

Weitas Creek Trail #20. The Windy Creek Trail is also a part of the 

Idaho Centennial Trail. Alternatives C and D designate this trail 

yearlong as non-motorized. Our Trail Rangers have maintained 

2374

2830

2948

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 87
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

this trail in the past and kept maintenance issues at bay. Overall 

use is fairly low and access from Junction Mountain doesn’t occur 

until after July 1st. If this trail is designated non-motorized, it will 

eventually disappear due to a lack of use and maintenance. The 

disappearance will interrupt the route of Idaho Centennial Trail. 

The Windy Creek Trail #634 should be designated for motorcycle 

use.

The Windy Creek Trail #634 this trail is used almost solely by 

motorcyclist enthusiasts and has to be brushed by the Trail 

Rangers annually. Eliminating motorized use is as good as 

abandoning this trail.

25

51

61

745 Liz Butte

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Liz Butte Trail #649 provides great looping opportunities with 

Weitas Creek Trail 20 and Trail 650. It is also cleared by local 

motorcycle enthusiasts.

Trail #649, Liz Butte Trail: The proposal mentions to close this trail 

year round according to a change in the Travel Opportunity 

Spectrum. This area should continue to be managed as semiprimitive motorized (two-wheeled) access year-round. This type 

of designation needs to be maintained rather than decreased. 

Keeping this trail open will allow it to be maintained through 

volunteer efforts as it has been for many years by local trail riders. 

Closing this trail would eventually cause the trail to disappear, 

due to lack of use and maintenance. Low use trails provide a 

remote backcountry experience for the users and also provide 

areas to accommodate future growth. This is a sustainable and 

maintained trail and should not be closed. It is an excellent 

connector trail to Trail #650, and Trail #20 (Upper Weitas Creek 

Trail).

The Liz Butte Trail #649 is proposed for non-motorized use under 

Alternative C and D. This trail is part of the Idaho Centennial Trail 

and is part of a looping opportunity with the Weitas Creek Trail 

#20 and Trail #650. If this trail is designated non-motorized, it 

could disappear due to a lack of use and maintenance. In order to 

provide looping opportunities and a continuous Idaho Centennial 

Trail route, the Liz Butte Trail #649 should be designated for 

motorcycle use.

2378

2729

2829

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

52 760 Lochsa 

District

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should close Trail 

I support stopping the erosion and rutting caused by four 

wheelers on Fish Butte Saddle Trail # 229 to protect fish and 

wildlife.

2744

Trail 229 was analyzed as part of the No

decision. This travel planning decision is 

Chapter 2 for discussion regarding areas 

Response to Comments - 88
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

229 to motorized 

use.

planning decision.

25

51

61

761 Eldorado 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

The Eldorado Creek Trail #31 on the Lochsa Ranger District should 

remain open for single-track motorcycle use. Resource damage is 

a non-issue on this trail.

Trail #31 and 32A, Eldorado Creek Trail: I have personally ridden 

and cleared this trail. The Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation are active in keeping this trail maintained. This trail is 

very sustainable for motorcycle travel and has been open and 

used for decades by motorcycle riders. There are no measurable 

effects as far as motorcycle travel and impacts to fisheries, 

whether it is the activity itself or location of the trail with respect 

to Eldorado Creek. From my analysis, while maintaining the trail, 

there was a major buffer between the trail and the creek, and 

stream crossings were minimal meaning one or two crossings at 

the most. In the upper portion of the creek there was a short 

boggy section that could easily be rerouted. As long as the trail 

runs through that boggy section, all trail users will have impacts 

regardless of mode of access. For example horses tromping 

through the boggy section have similar impacts as someone riding 

through on a trail machine. I recommend this trail remain open to 

two-wheeled motorized travel to maintain opportunities, as well 

as loop opportunities. Closing this trail would eventually cause the 

trail to disappear, due to lack of use and maintenance.

Alternatives C and D designate the trail system in Eldorado Creek 

for non-motorized use. The Eldorado Creek Trail #31 provides a 

small looping opportunity for motorcyclists in a roaded natural 

setting. Our trail rangers have maintained this trail in the past. 

Despite being next to Eldorado Creek, the trail has few 

sedimentation issues. If this trail is designated for non-motorized 

use, we are concerned that the trail could disappear because of a 

lack of maintenance. Both Trail #32 and Trail #31 should be 

designated for motorcycle use. 

2394

2741

2858

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

61 772 Gravey 

Creek

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should designate 

this trail for 

motorized use.

Trail #256, Gravey Creek Trail: I do not support closure of this trail 

based on your proposed Travel Opportunity Spectrum, which is to 

close it year round to historical two-wheeled motorized access. 

Over the years motorcycle riders have helped maintain this trail 

by cutting out down fall. This area should continue to be managed 

as semi-primitive motorized (two-wheeled) access year-round. 

This type of designation should continue rather than decrease, 

2856

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

Response to Comments - 89
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

because we enjoy trail riding, and accessing remote areas using 

trails, especially when it involves fishing. We have spent time on 

Cayuse Creek fishing for cutthroat trout on dry flies. We also use 

this trail to access Cayuse Creek for fishing, and trail riding. This 

trail also connects to Trail #539 and Trail 3249, or Trail #534 for 

loop riding opportunities. Providing a multitude of opportunities 

spreads people out and reduces pressure on other outdoor 

activities like fishing Gravey and Cayuse Creek in this case. For 

example, if we have riding opportunities available, that’s one less 

fisherman. This can be a destination area for us, and by closing 

this and other trails tied to this trail, would seriously destroy 

some great overall recreational opportunities.

28 791/514

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should adopt the 

motorized scenario 

from Alternative D 

for the Weitas 

Creek area.

...this area provides important winter range for deer and elk. 

Motorized trails in this area have reduced habitat security and 

reduce the quality of the hunting experience. HHA [Hellgate 

Hunters and Anglers] recommends that the miles of trail open to 

motorized vehicles should be significantly reduced from what is 

proposed in the Weitas Creek roadless area under Alternative C. 

Preferably, we ask that the CNF adopt the motorized use proposal 

outlined in Alternative D, and in addition, close the section of the 

trail that runs parallel to Weitas Creek starting at the junction 

with forest road 555 all the way to forest road 500 to provide at 

least some backcountry fishing along Weitas Creek. This is an 

area where sportsmen could truly enjoy a high quality outdoor 

experience if the motorized use was further restricted.

2465

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resourc

Environmental Consequences sections 

concern. 

26

350

355

793 Great 

Burn

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should consider an 

alternate 

designation for The 

Great Burn.

Please reconsider the complete closure that wilderness 

designation would entail. (I) feel that the areas’ designation 

would be better served by other OHV limitations rather than a 

“blanker” closure effected by wilderness designation. As an 

example of positive “semi-mechanized” use one needs to look no 

further than the European Alps, or the Colorado Rockies, with 

their hut systems and semi-mechanized use. The stewardship of 

these “mixed use” areas can serve as models to future 

recreational use and its low impact on the region’s ecosystem.

There are other designations out there that would help benefit 

this special place while still allowing access for snowmobiles and 

mountain bikes. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest came out 

with a new designation that is “1d.” The Great Burn would be a 

great place for this designation.

The Forest Service Should Leave Great Burn Open To Multiple 

Letter350

Letter355

2434

2436

Reallocating land management designa

need of this project, which is to designa

closed to motorized use, and is outside 

Response to Comments - 90
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

Use. Great Burn should be left the way it is today. It is truly a 

unique area for motorized opportunities. Great Burn is the last of 

a critically endangered type of motorized terrain, high altitude 

alpine. It exists nowhere else in South Western Montana, and is 

nearly extinct in Idaho. This type of terrain is immensely valuable 

to snowmobilers; and is always the target of Public Land closures. 

It is the last of its kind. The Forest Service should designate the 

Great Burn as an endangered motorized alpine area, and allow it

to remain open to off trail snowmobile usage. There is a segment 

of the snowmobile community that seeks areas that are vast, 

scenic, difficult to access, and devoid of other winter users. The 

unique thing about Great Burn; is its isolation. It is so isolated, 

that the nearest parking is over 20 miles from its boundary. 

Making it idea for those snowmobilers that chose to remain 

separated from other winter users, to avoid conflict. No other 

winter recreationists can reach the Great Burn without a 

snowmobile, and this makes it special, it is just too far from the 

road. Its inaccessibility also means that Great Burn is the only 

area in the CNF without any “user conflict”.

20

25

26

60

71

82

83

91

793

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

snowmobile use in 

the Great Burn 

area. 

The Forest Service Claims Great Burn Must Be Closed To Growing 

Motorized Use, But Fails to Provide Trend Data, or Proof that 

Motorized Use is Hurting Wilderness Potential. The Forest Service 

cites, "growing" motorized usage, and the Forest Service's desire

to "avoid compromising the potential for wilderness designation". 

Here the Forest Service asserts "growing" motorized usage since 

1987, without any supportive data. They also, imply that growing 

usage will somehow endanger wilderness values, without 

providing any evidence as to how exactly snowmobiles are 

compromising potential wilderness, or how much usage is 

acceptable, or any other measures or alternatives to bring usage 

within acceptable levels. 

A truly unique asset for the snowmobiling community. T41n 

R12e Secns. 4,5,8,9,10,15,21,22,28,27,30,32,33,34 T40n R12e 

Secns. 3,10,11,12,13,24 T40n R13e Secns. 1819

The eastern boundary is found on the Montana - Idaho Border. 

The Great Burn is accessed by snowmobilers via Trout Creek Road 

out of Superior, Montana. The Great Burn is so difficult to access, 

it is unlikely snowmobile usage will increase. Parking is limited, 

and 20 miles of trail must be covered, just to make it to the off 

trail riding. Snowmobile usage in the Great Burn does not appear 

2081

2248

2249

2365

2436 

2437

2444

2800

2910

2993

2994

2997

2998

2999

3000

3006

3007

3043

Alternative B addresses this concern as 

Great Burn.

Response to Comments - 91
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Re

to be experiencing growth. Surveyor- Most of this area includes 

that commonly referred to as Surveyor- T39n R13e Secns. 

1,2,3,11,12,14,15,20,21,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,36 Surveyor is 

accessed through the Schely Mountain Road corridor, from 

Montana. Blacklead-Most of this area includes that commonly 

referred to as Blacklead T38n R13e Secns. 

1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,14,17,23,24,25 T38n R14e Secns. 30,31,32 

Crooked Fork areas-Most of this area includes that commonly 

referred to as Crooked Fork- T39n R14e Secns. 

9,16,19,20,21,28,30,33,34 T38n R14e Secns. 

16,19,20,21,28,29,30,33,34 Tje Crooked Fork area you users 

utilize Shotgun Crk Road on the Idaho side of Lolo Pass for access. 

The Williams Lake area user also use Shotgun Crk Road on the 

Idaho side of Lolo Pass for access.

When I ride (snowmobiles) the trails at Lolo the skiers are very 

unhappy to see me and share the trails. Getting glared at and 

flipped off takes the fun out of a family ride. When we go to 

Hoodoo, Surveyor or Crooked Fork those things aren’t even an issue.

If these [Great Burn and Surveyor] areas are indeed closed that 

will put many more people at Lolo at any given time. Same 

number of users all now concentrated on one small area instead 

of spread out over several areas. User conflicts will increase and 

I'm sure the skiers don't want more sledders at the pass 

continuously. You would be going from a huge area with minimal 

problems, to a small area with huge problems.

Goose lake-creek steep lakes area is for skilled riders and is very 

important to the Hoodoo ride. Surveyor can be ridden by families 

and unskilled riders to Schley mountain and back into the head of 

Kelly Creek and up onto Leo Lake. The area west over to Kid Lake 

and Kelly Lake has one shoot going down to Kid Lake that takes a 

bit more skill but that hasn’t stopped the majority of skilled and 

unskilled riders from fully enjoying this backcountry ride. 

Blacklead is for skilled riders, route finding is more difficult and it 

is one of the most important rides to a small group of riders. It 

offers solitude and the chance to backcountry ski and/or 

snowshoe without the crowds. It does not matter how advance 

snowmobiles get, this area will remain ridden only by a few riders 

that are willing to work to get to this destination.

Response to Comments - 92
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

28 793

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should retain the 

proposed closures 

in the Hoodoo 

Roadless Area in its 

final decision.

Kelly Creek offers some of the finest trout fishing in the country. 

With opportunities to fish for westslope cutthroat trout in a place 

of amazing scenery, the Hoodoo roadless area (Great Burn and 

Moose CR on the proposed travel plan map) is a sportsman’s 

paradise. Additionally, the Hoodoo area is connected with an 

additional 100,000 acres of backcountry in Montana that provides 

key habitat for deer and elk and excellent hunting opportunities 

for sportsmen. This area is vitally important for our membership 

and HHA [Hellgate Hunters and Anglers] is supportive of the CNF 

efforts to maintain the nonmotorized character of this roadless 

area.

2468

Alternatives C, C Modifed and D best add

motorized and bicycle use and close to o

wilderness area that is part of the Hoodo

wilderness area is commonly referred to 

21 796 Mallard 

Larkins

The Clearwater

National Forest 

should reconsider 

management of 

the following trails 

in the Mallard 

Larkins 

recommended 

wilderness area

Trail 445. What justification is there for opening up an extension 

of trail 445 all the way to Black Canyon under alternative B? 

Trails 101, 169, 176 and 445. Under every single alternative, 

these trails are open to ORV use. This is a serious problem given 

the important wildlife habitat and nonmotorized recreation in the 

area. Also, the Elizabeth Lakes area is open to snowmobiles in 

winter in every alternative even though it contains important lynx 

and wolverine habitat. 

2314

2559

2567

2689

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

28 796

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should manage the 

Mallard Larkins 

recommended 

wilderness area as 

non-motorized.

HHA [Hellgate Hunters and Anglers] appreciates the 

recommendations in Alternative C to maintain the Mallard Larkins 

roadless areas as nonmotorized. The Mallard Larkins provides the 

headwaters of the N. Fork Clearwater River and the area has been 

a fishing and hunting destination for generations of sportsmen. 

HHA appreciates the closure of trail 285 under alternative C.

2467

Alternatives C, C Modifed and D best add

motorized and bicycle use and close to o

wilderness areas including the Mallard L

20 796

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

snowmobile use in 

the Mallard Larkin

area. 

Goat Lake, Cache Creek, and Beaver Ridge Lookout are also to be 

considered as prime back country riding areas. The area of the 

Mallard-Larkins is said to have NO SNOWMOBILE USE due to it's 

terrain, yet the Forest Service asserts Mallard-Larkins must be 

also closed, due to growing over use. This is clearly a misleading 

statement. For those that venture into the Mallard-Larkins, they 

too must leave no sign of their presence. Snowmobilers seem to 

be the only user group with that ability. Many snowmobilers 

prefer Not to ride trails.

2250

Alternative B addresses this concern as i

Mallard_Larkins. 

3 800 North 

Lochsa Slope

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should eliminate 

motorized use on 

trails (225, 229, 

2230, and 2240) in 

Fish Creek Trails 225, 229, 2230 and 2240 – Lochsa Ranger 

District.

Motorized use should be eliminated on these interconnecting 

trails in all Alternatives. The Fish Creek drainage is an important 

fisheries stream for ESA-listed steelhead trout, and summer 

2078

The Clearwater National Forest understa

habitat as well as a popular recreation d

contains C6 management areas, with pri

as well as C3/C4 management areas man

range. These management area directio

motorized travel. The routes mentioned 

Response to Comments - 93
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

the Fish Creek 

watershed because 

of increased risk of 

fishery impacts and 

user conflicts.

motorcycle use poses increased and unnecessary risk to the 

fishery. The area is also a popular backcountry designation for 

non-motorized recreation and motorized use is bound to create 

user conflicts. All alternatives currently permit summer use by 

motorcycles and/or ATVs (Trail 229).

North Lochsa Face travel analysis and de

the current Travel Plan

433 806 Pot 

Mountain

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should address trail 

conditions in 

Research Natural 

Areas

. . . we hiked to Chateau Falls, a Research Natural Area. The trail 

was so rutted by trail machines it was difficult to move on the 

steep terrain. Also, vegetated ridgelines became denuded dirt 

with fragile places becoming ever widening ditches – not a nice 

site in a Research Natural Areas.

Letter433

The Clearwater NF strives to maintain al

Research National Areas.

39

88

807 SelwayBitterroot 

Additions

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

snowmobiling in 

the SBW addition 

areas that are 

recommended 

wilderness.

Regarding motorized over snow travel, we (Idaho County 

Commissioners) support optimum winter vehicle trails especially 

in the Elk Summit area of Idaho Co.

[An] area that is really important to me is the Tom Beal Park area. 

We currently snowmobile outside the wilderness boundary to 

gain ski access. I would like to continue snowmobiling up the ridge 

towards Grave Peak to the Wilderness Boundary.

2644

3032

Alternative B best addresses this concer

vehicle use in most recommended wilde

Selway Bitterroot Wilderness addition th

vehicle use. Alternatives A and C Modif

while Alternatives B, C and D do not.

100 810 Other 

Site Specific

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not restrict 

snowmobiles from 

the Schley 

Mountain 

Corridor/Trout 

Creek Road over 

Hoodoo Pass.

These areas represent some of the most unique high altitude 

alpine areas that we currently have access to. I question the 

necessity of closing high alpine meadows to motorized use during 

periods of deep snow as few if any animals occupy these areas 

during this time. Letter100

The Schley Mountain/Trout Creek Road 

managed by the Lolo National Forest. H

Hoodoo (Great Burn) Recommended Wi

Alternative B provides for motorized (in

recommended wilderness areas; Alterna

Alternative B could be selected to best a

directs managers to protect wilderness c

areas. The intent of this management d

motorized and bicycle use in recommen

Inventoried Roadless Areas including Re

107 810

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not restrict 

snowmobiles from 

the Hoodoo, Goat 

Lake, Williams Lake 

and Surveyor areas.

I have been riding up Hoodoo, Goat Lake, Williams Lake and 

Surveyor for the last 24 years. These areas have been a source of 

great snowmobiling and dirt biking for my family and myself for as 

long as I can remember. . . . We need to keep these areas open to 

motorized use. . . . They are wonderful places to go ride in 

because they are remote, they support substantial snow pack and 

terrain. Get out physically in these areas so you and others can 

see the facts and can make intelligent decisions.

Letter107

Hoodoo, Goat Lake, Williams Lake and S

recommended wilderness area. Alterna

snowmachine) use in recommended wil

Modified, and D do not. Alternative B co

concern. The Forest Plan directs manag

recommended wilderness areas. The in

met by minimizing motorized and bicycl

Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Areas in

Areas.

137 810

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized uses in 

. . . continue the closures for the Snow Peak area. Make sure that 

these closures are enforced! We have seen four wheelers making 

illegal trails to cut into the great burn area trails. We have also 

seen motorcycles way back in the Snow Peak area.

Letter137

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

Response to Comments - 94
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

the Snow Peak 

area.

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

256 810

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorized access 

to Fourth of July 

Creek and Elizabeth 

Lakes; Road 555 

should be 

decommissioned.

Fourth of July Creek, Elizabeth Lakes: Please reconsider allowing 

motorized access to these vulnerable and unique areas of the 

Clearwater Basin. Route 555 should be removed from the Weitas 

drainage and that crucial habitat allowed to recover.

2696

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

260 810

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not allow 

motorbike use on 

Junction Trail 191, 

Lunde Peak/Rock 

Garden Trail 534, 

Fish Lake Trail 419, 

Trail 297, or Pot 

Mountain Trails 

144, 165, and 617.

All of these trails bisect or border extremely remote areas that 

serve as important wildlife habitat.

Letter 260

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenter’s ra

the project area toward Forest Plan goal

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

267 810

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should close Road 

555 and the trail to 

Scurvy Mountain; 

motorized uses 

should be 

restricted in the 

Elizabeth Lakes 

area, the Fish Lake 

area, and Fish 

Creek.

The unmaintained 555 route in the Weitas Creek drainage should 

be closed at the Weitas Guard Station (the bridge). It bisects 

crucial elk calving and wolverine habitat. The trail to Scurvy 

Mountain should be closed. The Elizabeth Lakes area in the 

Mallard-Larkins proposed wilderness must be closed to motors. 

The Fish Lake area in the Kelly Creek (Great Burn) proposed 

wilderness must be closed to motors. The trails in Fish Creek—

the most important steelhead stream in Idaho—must be closed to 

motors.

Letter 267

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

The FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Resource

Specific information has been added to t

Methods, Environmental Consequences, 

Common to All Action Alternatives, and 

address public comments, issues, and co

been added to Direct, Indirect, and Cum

species when needed to further clarify o

concern.

Response to Comments - 95
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

279 811 Other 

Routes

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

bicycles on the 

Stateline Trail.

I enjoy riding mountain bikes and encourage that you keep the 

state line trail (#748 to Heart Lake1

Letter279

) accessible to bicycles. 

Alternative B provides for bicycleuse in r

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do not

address this concern. The Forest Plan di

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

wilderness. See Chapter 3, Inventoried R

Wilderness Areas.

329 811

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should disclose 

whether it has use 

ORV money for 

trail maintenance 

of the Fourth of 

July Creek Trail

I would also be interested to know if any ORV money has been 

spent either in the reconstruction or maintenance of the Fourth 

of July Creek trail. If that has happened I would be outraged to

find us now locked out of the area we have funded and cared for. Letter329

No IDPR ORMV grant funds were used o

motorized recreation.

335 811

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should reconsider 

its proposal for 

Trail 167.

Of particular importance (to my wife and I) is Trail 167, the Fourth 

of July Trail to Cook Mountain. It is the only way I can take my 

wife from the North Fork to Twelve Mile Saddle. . . All of the 

routes in the preferred alternative—trail 20 and trail 17—have 

scary places. . . . this makes our forest experience less enjoyable.

Letter335

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

284 812 Multiple 

Routes

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should keep Trails 

738, 478 and 760 

open to bicycles.

. . . please consider keeping these trails open to bicycle travel. 

Trail 738 (Stateline Trail); in the Great Burn Trail 478 and Trail 

760.

Letter284

Alternative B provides for bicycle use in 

Alternatives C, C Modified, and D do not

address this concern. The Forest Plan di

character in recommended wilderness a

direction is best met by minimizing moto

wilderness. See Chapter 3, Inventoried R

Wilderness Areas.

286 812

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should allow 

bicycle use on Trail 

748 and its spurs as 

well as trails in the 

vicinity of Tom Beal 

Park.

The Clearwater National Forest provides many excellent trails for 

quiet human powered recreation via mountain bike. . . . We 

especially enjoy the Stateline Trail #748, many spurs of that trail 

and trails in the vicinity of Tom Beal Park.

Letter286

Trail #748 is within the Hoodoo (Great B

Tom Beal Park is within the Selway Bitte

Recommended Wilderness area. Alterna

Great Burn, but not the portion of the Se

where the Tom Beal Park trails access th

as that is an existing closure not propose

Modified, and D do not. Alternative B co

concern. The Forest Plan directs manag

recommended wilderness areas. The int

met by minimizing motorized and bicycle 

Chapter 3, Inventoried Roadless Areas in

1 Several commenters made a similar comment and referred to the Stateline Trail as #738.

Response to Comments - 96
Letter

Number

Action

Code

Concern 

Statement Quote

Comment

Number Resp

Areas.

328 812

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should reconsider 

its proposal for 

trails in the Fourth 

of July drainage, 

Cook Mountain, 

Junction Mountain 

and Paradise 

Meadows.

The elimination of two wheel access to trails in the 4th of July 

drainage, the Cook Mountain area, the Junction Mountain area, 

the Paradise Meadows area, etc., does not make sense to me. . . 

These are traditional trails. . . . If the conflict between the one or 

two outfitters that use the areas is an issue, then I propose the 

Forest Service consider only closing the trails in the above 

mentioned area during hunting seasons in the spring and fall.

Letter328

Alternative C Modified was developed to 

trail-specific recommendations that wer

Alternative C Modified. However, the m

Alternative C Modified best addresses co

opportunities that many commenters ra

project area toward Forest Plan goals an

349 812

The Clearwater 

National Forest 

should not close 

Fish Lake Trail to 

oversnow vehicles.

I am still very opposed to the closing of the Fish Lake Trail to over 

snow vehicles. . . . It makes no sense at all to close Fish Lake Trail 

to over snow vehicles but not 4 wheel ATVs. . . . Letter349

Alternatives B, C and C Modified best ad

propose to leave the Fish Lake Trail open 

Oversnow vehicle use is in recommende

the Hoodoo (Great Burn) RWA, is propos

Alternatives C, C Modified and D.

Response to Comments - 97