United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2013

Draft Record of Decision

For the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests Land

Management Plan

Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, Shoshone, Latah 

and Clearwater Counties, Idaho; Pend Oreille County, 

Washington; and Lincoln and Sanders Counties, Montana

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Faye Krueger, Regional Forester

Northern Region

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 59807

For Information, Contact: Mary Farnsworth, Forest Supervisor

Idaho Panhandle National Forests

3815 Schreiber Way

Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815

208-765-7307
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

i

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................... 1

Forest Setting ............................................................................................................................................1

Land and Resource Management Planning...............................................................................................2

Tribal, Agency, and Public Involvement and Collaboration.....................................................................3

The Preliminary Decision ............................................................................................. 4

Components of the Decision .....................................................................................................................5

Rationale for Decision ............................................................................................................................10

Alternatives.............................................................................................................................................21

Role of Science .......................................................................................................................................25

Relationship to Other Entities.................................................................................................................25

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations.............................................................................................27

Implementation ........................................................................................................... 37

Project and Activity Consistency and Transition to the Revised Plan....................................................37

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and Adapting to New Information.......... 38

Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................................38

Amending the Forest Plan.......................................................................................................................38

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (Objection Process)..................... 38

Timing of Decision and Implementation ................................................................................................40

Contact Person ........................................................................................................................................40

Approval ...................................................................................................................... 40

List of Tables

Table 1. IPNF Management Areas and Acreages.....................................................................................6

Table 2. Additional Designated Special Areas.........................................................................................8

Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

1

Introduction

This draft Record of Decision (ROD) documents my preliminary decision and rationale for 

selecting Alternative B Modified as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Plan Revision. In making my preliminary 

decision on the revised Plan, I am following the pre-decisional administrative review process 

(objection process) as described in Subpart B of 36 CFR 219. A final ROD will be issued 

following the objection process.

The previous forest plan was approved in September 1987. Revision of the 1987 Forest Plan was 

initiated in 2000 with an initial draft revised plan released for public comment in 2006. Following 

a pause in revision due to planning rule litigation, Land Management Plan (hereafter referred to 

as the “Plan”) revision resumed in 2010 and a second draft Plan and draft environmental impact 

statement (Draft EIS) were released for public review January 3, 2012. The revised Plan will

guide all resource management activities on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests for the next 10 

to 15 years.

Forest Setting

The Idaho Panhandle National Forests consists of major portions of three individual proclaimed 

national forests: the Kaniksu, the Coeur d’Alene, and the St. Joe. In 1973, major portions of these 

three forests were combined to be administratively managed as one national forest, collectively 

referred to as the IPNF. The IPNF are divided into five ranger districts, which are also the 

geographic areas (GA) defined within the revised Plan: Bonners Ferry (Lower Kootenai GA), 

Coeur d’Alene River (Coeur d’Alene GA), Priest Lake (Priest GA), Sandpoint (Pend Oreille GA),

and St. Joe (St. Joe GA). Together, they consist of more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 

the panhandle of north Idaho, with small areas extending into eastern Washington and western 

Montana. Of the total 2.5 million acres, about 2,351,100 acres are in Idaho, 31,200 acres are in 

Montana, and 118,400 acres are in Washington. 

The IPNF as a whole are characterized by several mountain ranges interspersed with large lakes 

and extensive river valleys. The Selkirk Mountains, Cabinet Mountains, Purcell Mountains, 

Coeur d’Alene Range, and Bitterroot Range are all part of the rugged terrain of the IPNF. Lakes 

Coeur d'Alene, Pend Oreille, and the upper and lower Priest are dominant water features in the 

area. Major river valleys consist of the St. Joe, Coeur d'Alene, Priest, Pend Oreille, Clark Fork, 

and Kootenai.

The Forests contain some of the most diverse and productive forests in the Northern Region of 

the Forest Service. They are the home of several threatened and endangered plant and animal 

species, and provide diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Grizzly bear, woodland caribou, 

Canada lynx, bull trout, and Spalding’s catchfly are examples of some of these rare and listed 

species.

These productive lands have generated forest products over the last century, contributing to the 

local and regional supply of forest products in response to national demands. These products 

include lumber, house logs, pulpwood, posts and poles, and firewood. In addition to the dollar

value of the timber resource, timber harvest is used to move vegetation towards desired 

conditions, improve watershed condition, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce wildfire risk 

through reduced fuel loads. Timber harvest also provides jobs and income in logging and 

manufacturing of wood products.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

2

The IPNF also contain lands rich with minerals. Developing mineral resources, especially gold, 

silver, lead, zinc, and copper, is part of the history of northern Idaho and is tied to the settlement 

of the area in the early 1900s. Development of these resources has provided local jobs and 

income and provided a supply of these minerals in response to public demand.

The principal population centers within the IPNF are Coeur d’Alene and Sandpoint, Idaho. Some 

of the smaller communities that have social, economic, and historic ties to the IPNF include St. 

Maries, Wallace, Kellogg, Priest River, Bonners Ferry, and Priest Lake. The nearest larger urban 

area, Spokane, Washington, has a social and economic influence on the local communities. The 

majority of land administered by the IPNF is located in Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, 

and Shoshone counties in Idaho, and Pend Oreille County in Washington. Smaller portions of 

land are also found in Lincoln and Sanders counties in Montana, and Latah and Clearwater 

counties in Idaho. Logging, mining, and ranching have played important roles in many of these 

communities throughout the history of the area and continue to do so in varying degrees today.

Recreation opportunities abound in the IPNF. Visitors come from across the nation, as well as 

Spokane and local communities, to fish and boat the numerous rivers and lakes. Other popular 

recreation activities include hiking, biking, sightseeing, horseback riding, hunting, off-highway 

vehicle use, recreational prospecting, snowmobiling, skiing, gathering forest products, driving for 

pleasure, and wildlife viewing. This visitation and recreation is important to the local economy 

and is a major reason people choose to live in this area.

The landownership pattern in and near the IPNF enhances collaborative planning and partnership 

opportunities. The Forests are within and/or encompass portions of the wildland urban interface, 

private, state, county, or other federal land, as well as rural communities and populations centers. 

People of different backgrounds and values, but with shared interests in forest management, work 

together with the Forest Service to manage the resources in ways that consider all values and uses 

of the Forests.

Other distinctive features of the IPNF are described in chapter 1 of the revised Plan.

Land and Resource Management Planning

The 1987 Forest Plan and Forest Plan Revision

The 1987 Forest Plan has provided a framework for management of all forest resources, including 

timber, recreation, wildlife habitat, streams, and lakes, for the last 26 years. As forest practices, 

recreation uses, and species-based knowledge have evolved, the 1987 Plan has been amended.

The 1987 Forest Plan, as amended, continues to provide measures to protect species and habitat 

while providing recreational uses, generation of forest products, and development of mineral 

resources. The monitoring and evaluation reports indicate that implementation of the plan has 

protected soils, treated weeds, provided habitat for threatened and endangered species, and 

generated forest products. The Forests continue to have a diversity of plant and wildlife species, 

while providing for multiple uses.

Plan revision was initiated based on legal requirements and significant changes that had occurred 

in conditions and demands since the 1987 Plan went into effect. The Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS) (2003) documents the need to establish or change forest plan management 

direction. Revision is also warranted because the 1987 Plan is beyond the 10 to 15 year duration 

provided by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1606(e) (5) (A)).
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

3

The need for revision also comes from new public issues, new desires, and new expectations of 

public land and resource management. Topics of specific interest to the IPNF public include

forest access, vegetation, wildlife habitat, recreation, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), fire, 

watershed, soils, aquatic species, and timber management.

The Revised Forest Plan

The final environmental impact statement (Final EIS) and revised Plan were developed according 

to the NFMA, its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219; the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500–1508; and the Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 

220. According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the 

responsible official may elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 

Planning Rule, dated September 30, 1982, as amended) to prepare plan amendments and 

revisions. For this revision of the IPNF Plan, I have elected to follow the provisions of the 

planning regulations in effect prior to May 9, 2012, referred to collectively in this document as 

the 1982 Planning Rule. References in this draft ROD refer to the 1982 Planning Rule version of 

36 CFR unless indicated differently in the citation.

The Final EIS discloses the environmental consequences of the varying alternative management 

strategies and describes how each alternative responds to issues and concerns.

Nature of Forest Plan Decisions

The nature of forest plan decisions is outlined in the 1976 NFMA. A forest plan establishes a 

framework for future decision-making by outlining a broad, interdisciplinary program for 

achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future conditions of the forest. A forest plan 

represents decisions that are strategic in nature, does not make a commitment to the selection of 

any specific project, and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on 

the Forest Service’s internal operations. The forest plan is implemented through the design, 

execution, and monitoring of site-specific activities by applying programmatic management 

direction. Decisions for these activities will be consistent with the strategic decisions made in the 

revised Plan.

Tribal, Agency, and Public Involvement and Collaboration

As explained in chapter 1 of the Final EIS, the revised Plan is based in part on public involvement 

and collaboration over the course of many years.

In late 2000, the IPNF began working on revision of the 1987 Plan under the 2000 Planning Rule. 

In April 2002, the Forest published a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register, announcing 

the revision of the Land Management Plan with a 12-month public comment period.

From April 2002 to May 2004, the IPNF hosted public meetings, open houses, field trips, and 

workgroup meetings. Approximately 19 informational and comment meetings took place in and 

around the local communities during the scoping process, which started in April 2002 with the 

NOI in the Federal Register and ended in May 2004. In addition to the public meetings, briefings 

and meetings were held with the Tribes, Congressional representatives, other elected officials, 

other agencies, and interest groups.

In addition, the IPNF hosted approximately 90 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to 

September 2005. These meetings were held in the communities within the IPNF and the 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

4

workgroups focused on the geographic areas (GAs) surrounding each of these communities. The 

purpose of these workgroup meetings was to: 1) share information about the revision topics; 2) 

collaboratively discuss and develop desired conditions for each of the revision topics within the 

workgroup’s GAs; 3) gain an understanding of the issues and appreciation of others’ viewpoints; 

and 4) discuss Starting Option maps and potential changes to suggest to the Forest Supervisor.

On May 12, 2006, the Forests released the Proposed Land Management Plan under the 2005 

Planning Rule. Open houses and public meetings were held to share the Proposed Land 

Management Plan, Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and other documents for the 120-day 

public comment period. Public comments on the proposed Plan were analyzed and summarized in 

a report (the Analysis of Public Comment Report, March 2007). Based on public and agency 

comments, the revision team began development of the final revised Plan. A court injunction 

(March 30, 2007) resulted in suspension of forest plan revision activities under the 2005 Planning 

Rule. The 2008 Planning Rule was released in April of 2008 and forest plan revision resumed 

under that Rule. A final revised Plan release was anticipated for winter of 2009 when a court 

ruling invalidated the 2008 Planning Rule in June 2009. The 2000 Planning Rule was reinstated 

in December of 2009, with transition provision allowing the Forest Service to follow the 

procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule. The Forest issued a second NOI in March 2010 to revise 

the forest plan using the 1982 procedures under the 2000 Planning Rule. All the public comment 

received on the various forest plan revision products over the life of the Plan revision were used 

in developing the draft Plan and Draft EIS released in January of 2012.

The initial 90-day comment period for the Draft EIS was extended an additional 30 days through 

May 7 of 2012. Comments received during this 120-day comment period have been either 

incorporated or answered in the Final EIS accompanying this Record of Decision.

As stated in the 2010 NOI to revise the forest plan, the IPNF have elected to follow the objection 

process outlined in 36 CFR 219. The objection process is a pre-decisional administrative review 

process. Objections to the revised Plan and Final EIS will be accepted from those who have 

submitted written substantive formal comments specific to the revised Plan and draft EIS either 

during scoping or the public comment period on the draft. Additional information regarding the 

objection process and opportunities to object is located on page 39 of this draft ROD.

The Preliminary Decision

After considering the effects to the ecological, social, and economic environment as described in 

the Final EIS, I have selected Alternative B Modified for the IPNF Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Plan). This alternative emphasizes moving towards desired conditions and 

contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. The revised Plan includes goals, 

desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, management area direction, monitoring

and evaluation direction, and recommendations for wilderness allocations for Congressional 

consideration. The decision components are fully supported by the environmental analysis 

documented in the Final EIS, as required by law and regulation.

This draft Record of Decision considers how the revised Plan responded to public comments, 

internal management concerns, and national direction and policy. My decision incorporates by 

reference the management direction in the revised Plan, the analysis of effects disclosed in the 

Final EIS, and the planning record in its entirety. This decision applies only to National Forest 

System land on the IPNF. It does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

5

the effects of these lands and the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the IPNF are also 

considered.

While the revised Plan decisions are generally programmatic, this Record of Decision also 

incorporates the following decisions:

Restrict motorized (85,800 acres) and mechanized (176,827 acres) use in management 

areas allocated to recommended wilderness and research natural areas. This decision

authorizes an accompanying closure order as per 36 CFR 261 Subpart B and aligns the 

allowed uses within the management area direction established in the revised Plan.*

Restrict the use of hand-held motorized equipment in management areas allocated to 

recommended wilderness or primitive areas, except for administrative use. This decision 

authorizes an accompanying order as per 36 CFR 261 Subpart B and aligns the allowed 

uses within the management area direction established in the revised Plan.

(*Note: The IPNF completed non-winter motor vehicle use designations as required by Subpart B 

of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) in 2009 for the Coeur d’Alene Ranger District and 

the Kaniksu Zone. Site-specific analysis for the St. Joe travel management plan is ongoing under 

a separate planning effort and a designation decision is expected in 2013. This revised Plan record 

of decision does not result in any changes in designations as currently displayed on the completed

forest MVUMs, nor does it make any site-specific travel management decisions for the St. Joe 

Ranger District.) 

Components of the Decision

There are six fundamental components of the decision made in the plan revision. The following 

sections discuss these components of the decision in detail.

1. Establishment of Forestwide Multiple-Use Goals, Objectives, Desired Conditions, and 

Quantities of Goods and Services (36 CFR 219.11(b)) 

Goals, objectives, and desired conditions are defined in chapter 1 of the revised Plan. The 

“quantities of goods and services” are defined in the objectives. Chapter 2 of the revised Plan lists 

the forestwide goals, objectives, and desired conditions. Chapters 3 and 4 of the revised Plan lists 

desired conditions by management area and by geographic area, respectively. 

Part of my rationale for selecting Alternative B Modified is because of how it will achieve the 

goals, objectives, and desired conditions. Although the goals, objectives, and desired conditions

apply to all the alternatives, each alternative achieves them in different ways and to different 

degrees, depending on the emphasis. I find that Alternative B Modified best achieves the goals,

objectives, and desired conditions by providing for the variety of uses people told me were 

important, and by best recognizing the past management history and capabilities of the IPNF.

Alternative B Modified provides for active management and timber harvest while moving 

vegetation towards desired conditions for improved resiliency. Alternative B Modified also 

provides areas with passive management and limited access. This balance between active and 

passive management is described in the effects analysis of the Final EIS.

2. Establishment of Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27)

Forestwide management requirements (standards and guidelines) do not vary by alternative, 

because they were considered the ‘baseline’ design criteria that ensure resources are managed in a 

sustainable manner. They were developed based on scientific and public input. The standards and 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

6

guidelines were carefully crafted to strike a balance between providing assurances that 

management direction is followed, while allowing managers flexibility in the case of site-specific 

circumstances. I find that the forestwide standards and guidelines were developed in an 

interdisciplinary manner, and provide for achievement of the revised Plan’s goals, objectives, and 

desired conditions.

3. Establishment of management Area (MA) direction (multiple-use prescriptions) with 

associated standards and guidelines (36 CFR 219.11(C)); 

The revised Plan designates seven management area (MA) themes across the IPNF: Wilderness 

(Designated, Recommended, Wilderness Study Area, and Primitive Lands); Designated and 

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers; Special Areas (botanical, geological, pioneer, recreational, or 

scenic); Research Natural Areas (RNAs) and Experimental Forests; Backcountry; General Forest; 

and Primary Recreation Areas. The MAs span a continuum of management emphasis from a 

passive and natural restoration approach with little human-caused change, to more active 

management with substantially more human-caused change designed to sustain the social, 

economic, and ecological attributes of the Forests. The management area prescriptions include 

specific standards and guidelines as described in chapter 2 of the revised Plan. The management 

area allocations were the primary difference between the three action alternatives. Based on 

public input, there were several important changes in the management area allocations between 

Alternative B (the draft Plan) and Alternative B Modified (the revised Plan).

I selected Alternative B Modified for the revised Plan because it:

Provides management area allocations where active management is allowed to move 

vegetation and watersheds towards the revised Plan desired conditions

Provides a sustainable level of timber harvest that moves vegetation towards desired 

conditions, improving resistance, and resiliency to disturbance

Provides a mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities

Recommends areas to Congress as wilderness that are consistent with current uses and 

have broad public support

Provides a mix of habitat management opportunities to sustain diverse populations of 

wildlife

Provides allocations of special management areas including 17 special areas (4 additional

and expansion of 3 existing designations); 23 RNAs (3 additional plus expansion of one 

established RNA); 2 experimental forests; and 193.3 miles of eligible wild and scenic 

rivers (21 additional miles)

The revised Plan allocates 6.1 percent of the Forests as recommended wilderness (MA1b), 0.8% 

as primitive lands (MA1e), 27.3 percent as backcountry (MA5), and 60.3 percent as general forest 

(MA6). The designation of areas recommended as wilderness is discussed under Decision 6 

below. See the attached map for all MA allocation acreages and locations. 

Table 1 lists the management areas and acreages for the preferred alternative, Alternative B 

Modified.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

7

Table 1. IPNF Management Areas and Acreages

MA Management Area Name Acres* Percent

1a Wilderness 9,900 0.4

1b Recommended Wilderness 152,100 6.1

1c Wilderness Study Areas 6,900 0.3

1e Primitive Lands 19,800 0.8

2a Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers 21,300 0.9

2b Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 49,900 2.0

3 Botanical, Geological, Historical, Recreational, Scenic 

or Zoological Areas 

13,500 0.5

4a Research Natural Areas 14,800 0.6

4b Experimental Forest 8,200 0.3

5 Backcountry 681,200 27.3

6 General Forest 1,507,000 60.3

7 Primary Recreation Areas 13,100 0.5

Total Acres 2,497,700

*Acres are based on a single management area designation; where management areas overlap, the following hierarchy 

is used: MA1a, MA 2a, MA4a, MA1b, MA1c, MA1e, MA2b, MA3, MA4b, and MA7.

As part of the decision, I am designating additional special management areas, including RNAs, 

Special Areas, and eligible wild and scenic rivers. The designation of areas recommended as 

wilderness is discussed under Decision 6 below.

RNAs

I am designating three additional RNAs: Fortynine Meadows (178 acres), Red Horse Mountain 

(1,657 acres), and Upper Priest River (1,394 acres). This decision would expand the existing 

Therriault Lake RNA by 195 acres. The Fortynine Meadows RNA includes an undisturbed, high 

quality, high-elevation peatland (fen) ecosystem. The Red Horse Mountain RNA includes the 

upper slopes of southerly and westerly facing ridges with extensive areas of dry plant 

communities in unusually pristine conditions. The Upper Priest River RNA is distinguished by 

ancient western redcedar forests, extremely wet habitat types of western redcedar/maidenhair 

fern, and a diversity of rare plant species (including rare lichens). The Therriault RNA expansion 

includes the water source for Therriault Lake as well as unique geologic and ecologic features 

such as large quartzite rocks, a talus slope, and a dwarf quaking aspen forest. Establishment 

records will be completed after approval of the revised Plan.

Special Areas

I am designating four additional Special Areas and increasing the size of three Special Areas (see

Table 2). These additional special areas and acreages will be protected and managed for public 

use and enjoyment. They possess unique botanical, geological, recreational, pioneer, or scenic

values. I am adding 11,202 acres to existing special areas to incorporate the adjacent unique 

scenic or botanical values and improve manageability of the areas.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

8

Table 2. Additional Designated Special Areas

Special Area Name Acres Values

Bath Creek Gorge 407 Geological

Emerald Creek 2,350 Recreational

Hobo Cedar Grove Botanical Area 4531Botanical

Huff Lake 70 Botanical

Northwest Peaks Scenic Area 2,6391Scenic

Roosevelt Cedar Groves/Granite Falls 

Scenic Area

1931Scenic

Upper Priest River Botanical Area 5,090 Botanical

Total Acres 11,202

1 Additional acres to those designated through previous decisions

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

In addition to the existing 172.1 miles of eligible rivers on NFS lands identified in the 1987 ROD, 

as amended (see the Wild and Scenic River section in the Final EIS), I have identified

approximately 21.2 additional miles of river as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. The additions include 14.6 miles of Hughes Fork and 6.6 miles of the 

Kootenai River. 

All 193.3 miles of eligible stream (and the associated corridors containing approximately 57,724 

acres) would be allocated to MA2b. This land allocation, with desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines as described in the revised Plan, would protect their free-flowing character, water 

quality, and outstandingly remarkable values.

4. Establishment of Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements that Provide a Basis for 

Periodic Determination and Evaluation of the Effects of Management Practices (36 CFR 

219.11(d) and 219.12(k))

The monitoring plan is described in chapter 5 of the revised Plan. The monitoring plan does not 

vary by alternative. Implementation of the monitoring requirements in the 1987 Plan revealed

shortcomings in the approach. The 1987 monitoring plan was overly detailed, prescriptive, and 

lacked flexibility. It focused on quantifying outputs rather than assessing how well the 1987 Plan 

was working. Under the revised Plan, the monitoring program sets monitoring questions and 

indicators to help managers evaluate and assess the degree to which on-the-ground management 

is maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and objectives in the revised

Plan. Monitoring provides the feedback for the forest planning cycle by testing assumptions, 

tracking relevant conditions over time, measuring management effectiveness, and evaluating 

effects of management practices. Monitoring information should enable the Forests to determine 

if a change in plan components or other plan management guidance may be needed, forming a 

basis for continual improvement and adaptive management.

Every monitoring question links to one or more goal, desired condition, or objective. However, 

the monitoring program does not include a monitoring question for every desired condition, 

objective, or guideline. One or more performance measures are associated with each monitoring 

question.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

9

I have placed emphasis on monitoring and I am confident that the monitoring requirements will

provide the information to evaluate implementation of the revised Plan. An interdisciplinary team 

will develop a biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report which will summarize the results of 

completed monitoring, evaluate the data, consider relevant information from broad-scale or other 

monitoring efforts, and make recommendations to the responsible official.

5. Recommendations to Congress for Additions to the Wilderness Preservation System (36 

CFR 219.17(a)

One of the reasons I selected Alternative B Modified as the revised Plan is that it recommends the 

same four areas as the 1987 Plan as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The 1987 Plan recommended 146,700 as wilderness, while Alternative B Modified recommends 

161,400 acres. The 1987 Plan recommended Mallard Larkins (78,527 acres), Scotchman Peaks

(23,912 acres), Selkirk Crest (26,658 acres) and some areas adjacent to the existing Salmo Priest

Wilderness (17,585 acres). Alternative B Modified recommends Mallard Larkins (80,200 acres), 

Scotchman Peaks (25,900 acres), Selkirk (36,700 acres), and some areas adjacent to the SalmoPriest Wilderness (18,600 acres).

In general, the areas recommended in the revised Plan are the same as those that have been 

managed as recommended wilderness since the 1987 Plan was approved. Acreage changes are 

primarily due to boundary adjustments in all the areas to improve manageability. However, in 

response to public comment, approximately 8,100 acres was added to the Selkirk area under 

Alternative B Modified. 

The changes to the Selkirk area add the Long Canyon and Parker Creek area to the north and east 

and drop the southern portion of the Upper Pack River. The Parker Creek/Long Canyon area has 

been closed to motorized use and managed as unsuitable for timber production since the 1987 

Forest Plan. This area is part of the Selkirk IRA and was considered high in all categories 

analyzed for recommended wilderness area. Thus, this portion was added to the Selkirk 

recommended wilderness area. Although recommended for wilderness under the 1987 Forest 

Plan, the Upper Pack River area has been available to motorized over-snow vehicle use. Under 

Alternative B Modified, the Upper Pack River portion is allocated to MA1e, Primitive Lands, to 

provide for existing motorized and mechanized uses while protecting other wilderness 

characteristics. MA1e is not recommended wilderness, and thus does not fully protect the 

capability and availability as wilderness. 

Public opinion regarding recommended wilderness is greatly divided on the IPNF. Some of the 

public would like to see no areas recommended as wilderness, while others would like all 

inventoried roadless areas recommended as wilderness. The Benewah, Shoshone, Boundary, and 

Kootenai county commissioners have expressed they would like to see no new areas 

recommended as wilderness. I feel the areas recommended as wilderness in the 1987 Plan were

acceptable and provided an appropriate amount of acres to be managed for wilderness values. 

Although some of the boundaries and locations have changed under Alternative B Modified, the 

land areas selected for recommended wilderness in the revised Plan are fitting, as described 

above. Pages 18 and 19 of this draft ROD provide additional discussion around this important 

revision topic.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further 

review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and 

the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final 

decisions on wilderness designation.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

10

6. Determine Suitability And Potential Capability Of Lands For Resource Production 

(Timber And Grazing) (CFR 219.14 And 219.20)

The alternatives vary somewhat in acres suitable for timber production and acres suitable for 

grazing, based on MA allocation. Suitability for timber production and suitability for grazing are 

defined in part by management area standards and guidelines.

Suitability for timber production does not vary significantly between alternatives. Alternative B 

Modified has 950,900 acres (38 percent of the Forests) suitable for timber production. This is less 

than Alternative D, but more than Alternative C. This is a large change from the 1987 Plan as 

originally written, which was 1,584,100 acres. However, with forest plan amendments over the 

previous 26 years, including INFISH and the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment, lands suitable for 

timber production in the 1987 Plan were reduced to 928,900 acres (Alternative A). When

compared to Alternative A, Alternative B Modified is slightly higher in acres suitable for timber 

production. I believe these acres represent areas where timber production is feasible, based on 

other resource requirements and compatibility with management area desired conditions.

Suitability for grazing does not vary by alternative except by a few acres. Grazing suitability is 

driven mostly by areas capable of producing forage. Approximately 365,700 acres of the IPNF 

are capable of producing forage. Within existing allotments, there is 39,150 acres capable of 

producing forage. Of this, approximately 18,316 acres are suitable for grazing, based on 

allotments and management area allocations. 

Decisions Carried Forward

Three decisions that amended the 1987 Forest Plan are retained. The revised Plan includes an 

explanation of the direction retained from each of these decisions and their associated biological 

opinions. Projects and activities implemented under the revised Plan must be consistent with the 

direction within these decisions. They include:

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH)- Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (USDA Forest Service, July 1995)

Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and 

Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones - Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 

November 2011)

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction - Record of Decision (USDA Forest 

Service, March 2007)

This retained direction (desired conditions, standards, and guidelines) can be found in appendix B 

of the revised Plan. Copies of the Records of Decision and associated biological opinions are 

available on the web at www.fs.usda.gov/main/ipnf/landmanagement/planning.

Rationale for Decision

Net Public Benefit

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (1982 regulations 

36 CFR 219.1) state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of 

goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term net public 

benefits in an environmentally sound manner.”
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

11

I chose Alternative B Modified because, in my judgment, it maximizes the net benefit to the 

public by: 

Addressing all of the primary revision topics and needs for change identified in the 2003 

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)

Maintaining or enhancing diversity and productivity of the Forests

Contributing to economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities 

Providing sustainable and predictable levels of products and services 

Providing an emphasis on restoration of vegetation and watersheds to improve resistance 

and resiliency to disturbance

Emphasizes maintaining diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities as well as 

a road and trail system that provides access to the IPNF

Providing the best mix of benefits to address the needs for change identified in the AMS

Providing consistent direction at the forest level to assist managers in making project 

decisions at a local level

Emphasizing adaptive management 

My choice also considered how the revised Plan responded to public comments, internal 

management concerns, and national direction and policy. 

Role of Budgets

Some commenters were concerned with the consideration of budget constraints when setting 

objectives in the revised Plan (e.g., determining the predicted timber harvest level objective). 

However, I believe it is misleading to portray unrealistic objectives considering recent and 

predicted agency budgets. The revised Plan objectives are a realistic projection of what the IPNF

expect to accomplish annually over the life of the plan. Furthermore, if budget allocations 

increase or other funding opportunities arise, the revised Plan allows for an increase in outputs 

(e.g. developed recreation maintenance or timber volumes up to the ASQ). 

Purpose and Need for Change – Revision Topics

Early in the plan revision process, a set of topics was developed to identify the need for changing 

the 1987 Plan. The list of topics was reviewed and validated at each step in the plan revision 

process. Revision topics represent a systematic framework for discussing the revised Plan. In 

addition, the revised Plan carries forward other management direction not identified as needing 

change or that needed only minor changes to achieve the multiple-use balance sought in this 

decision. Revision topics were used to develop alternatives.

Revision Topic 1 – Vegetation

The focus on vegetation management during the revision process was largely due to concerns that 

the forest composition, structure, and pattern had shifted away from historical conditions to the 

extent that ecosystems, and the goods and services that it provided, may not be sustainable, 

especially in light of potential impacts from climate change. Commenters generally agree that 

vegetation objectives and standards should emphasize healthy forests. On the other hand, 

opinions differ widely on the definition of forest health and the means for improving health. 

Some people would like to see increased management to restore and improve vegetation. Others 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

12

felt no restoration was needed, but we needed increased management. Still others felt the way to 

improve forest health is by doing less management and protecting areas from activities.

Vegetation under the 1987 Plan focused primarily on timber production. The 1987 Plan contains 

very little direction on the desired conditions for vegetation and management approaches to 

achieve them. It did not recognize or address important natural disturbance processes as part of 

the ecosystem. The incorporation of broader ecological principles, including the role of fire as a 

disturbance process, was identified as a need for change in plan revision. 

The revised Plan provides direction to improve vegetation conditions which will increase 

resistance and resiliency to disturbance, including climate change. The revised Plan contains 

desired conditions for forest composition, structure, density, and pattern and objectives for 

management activities that will move vegetation towards these conditions. Standards and 

guidelines protect components of vegetation, providing for diversity and habitat for terrestrial 

species. 

Some commenters were concerned about providing increased protection for old growth. Some 

wanted a specific management area for old growth while others wanted to prohibit any timber 

harvest in old growth. The Forest has been managing old growth for decades. The 1987 Plan 

contained forestwide direction related to old growth, including the definition of old growth, how 

much and what type of old growth is to be retained, and what the distribution should be. The

revised Plan provides for protection and enhancement of old growth stands including desired 

conditions to increase the amount of old growth over the long term. Standards prohibit vegetation 

management activities that could decrease old growth. Guidelines allow timber harvest in old 

growth only if it improves the resistance and/or resiliency of the stand while meeting the 

definitions for old growth. The revised Plan builds upon the decades of knowledge gained on the 

IPNF from protecting old growth, retaining the mapped old growth, and managing this resource

into the future. 

The Final EIS analyzes changes that may occur to forest composition, structure, landscape 

patterns of forest conditions; the resistance and resiliency of the forest to disturbances and 

stressors; and the ability of the forest vegetation to sequester carbon. This analysis provided a 

foundation for how terrestrial vegetation may influence other resources such as wildlife habitat, 

aquatic resources, timber production, and fire risk.

Although there is little variation in percent of the Forest with vegetation management across the 

action alternatives, I believe Alternative B Modified provides the greatest potential to move forest 

composition, structure, and pattern toward desired conditions overall, while considering all other 

National Forest management resource values (see the vegetation section of the Final EIS). 

Analysis presented in the Final EIS indicates that Alternative B Modified makes the broadest 

improvements to vegetation composition and structure, although results are mixed by individual 

species and size classes. The greater overall improvement is because Alternative B Modified has 

more acres allowing active management to improve vegetation conditions than Alternative C. 

Although Alternative D includes more acres allowing active management than Alternative B 

Modified, the emphasis is on maximizing timber harvest, with improving vegetation composition 

and structure as a secondary goal. Thus, I find Alternative B Modified provides the best 

opportunity for improvement to vegetation condition. The amount of old growth is projected to 

increase under all alternatives, with the largest increase in Alternatives B Modified and C.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

13

Revision Topic 2 – Fire Risk

In order to restore and maintain the fire-adapted ecosystems on the Forest, wildland fire (both 

planned and unplanned ignitions) needs to be considered as a management tool. A substantial 

amount of acreage on the IPNF are fairly remote in terms of road access. In many of these areas, 

it can be difficult or undesirable to use mechanical treatments to manage the vegetation to help 

achieve the desired forest conditions. Therefore, in these areas, it is especially important to 

consider when and where the use of fire is appropriate.

Since the 1987 Plan was written, much has been learned about the role fire plays as a disturbance 

process in western forest ecosystems. Fire suppression has changed the vegetation patterns, 

structure, and composition of forests. Therefore, the role fire plays in these ecosystems has also 

been altered. The altered forest composition, when coupled with additional structures and 

communities in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), results in conditions that need to be 

addressed by the revised Plan.

Under the 1987 Plan, prescribed fire (planned ignitions) may be used in all MAs but two. 

However, the use of natural, unplanned ignitions is fairly restrictive in the 1987 Plan. Nine MAs 

(10 and 13 through 20) have standards that do not allow the use of natural, unplanned ignitions 

and the acres that these MAs occupy is substantial, approximately 13 percent of the total acres on 

the IPNF.

The revised Plan allows the use of prescribed fire and natural, unplanned ignitions in most MAs. 

The revised Plan emphasizes the use of natural (unplanned) fire ignitions for multiple objectives 

as well as the use of prescribed fire, particularly in the backcountry (MA5–681,200 acres). The 

direction also emphasizes hazardous fuels reduction in the WUI. Some commenters wished to see 

increased use of fire (both prescribed and natural, unplanned ignitions) to achieve revised Plan 

desired conditions, and although I agree additional fire use would be beneficial, the amount of 

fuel treatment established in FW-OBJ-FIRE-01 (6,000 to 16,000 acres annually) is based on 

likely funding and staffing levels.

Some commenters were concerned with the emissions produced during prescribed burning. They 

requested additional forest debris utilization to avoid producing smoke. Two forestwide plan 

components (FW-DC-AQ-01 and FW-GDL-AQ-01) provide direction for cooperating with 

federal, state, tribal, and local air quality agencies as appropriate to meet air quality standards.

The IPNF have been able to meet air quality standards through the appropriate timing and

location of prescribed burns. In addition, the IPNF have an aggressive utilization policy to reduce 

slash and support biomass markets. However, there are many ecological reasons to utilize 

prescribed fire as a resource management tool in reducing forest debris rather than using it as 

biomass for another purpose. The ecological benefits of fire are described in the vegetation 

section of the Final EIS.

The three action alternatives have similar approaches to the use of fire. Alternative B Modified 

has a mixture of fuels treatments (planned and unplanned ignitions as well as mechanical 

treatment). Alternative D provides more opportunity for mechanical treatment, while also 

allowing planned and unplanned ignitions. Alternative C has the least mechanical treatments, 

while providing for planned and unplanned ignitions. Alternative C is the most responsive to the 

desire to restore fire to the landscape. However, because of its mixture of fuel treatments and 

overall movement towards vegetation desired conditions, I find Alternative B Modified provides

the best opportunity for mitigating hazards in the WUI and restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems. 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

14

Revision Topic 3 – Watersheds and Aquatic Species

There were two primary reasons the 1987 Plan needed to be revised for watershed and aquatic 

dependent resources. The first was to establish management direction that recognizes and 

emphasizes watershed restoration activities. The second was to address changes in the physical 

and biological components of the aquatic ecosystem, such as water quality impairments; 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; soil productivity; and habitat conditions. The 1987 

Plan had very little direction regarding watersheds, and no direction for restoration or 

improvement. Since the 1987 Plan was written there has been an increased focus by the State on 

identifying water quality impaired streams under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In 

addition, since the 1987 Plan was written, the Kootenai River white sturgeon was listed as an 

endangered species and the bull trout was listed as a threatened species. Both have designated 

critical habitat within the Forests’ boundary.

The 1987 Plan was amended in 1995 by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (USDA 1995) (INFISH). 

This amendment provides direction for the protection of riparian and aquatic habitat and species. 

The INFISH resulted in improved management direction for the 1987 Plan for these ecosystems.

As described on page 10 of this draft ROD, the INFISH amendment is being carried forward 

under the revised Plan. In addition, the revised Plan includes further direction and emphasis for 

watershed protection and restoration. The INFISH concept of “priority watersheds” has been 

refined in the revised Plan as “conservation” and “restoration” subwatersheds. Conservation 

subwatersheds were identified to protect stronghold populations of native salmonids and 

compliment restoration efforts. Restoration subwatersheds were identified based on degraded 

habitat conditions, water quality limitations, depressed populations of native fish species, and a 

relatively higher potential for improvement. Restoration subwatersheds include both active and 

passive restoration efforts. 

Active restoration opportunities will be pursued whenever possible, and considered in the context 

of existing budget levels and other land management priorities. Cooperation with land owners and 

interested parties such as water councils, state agencies, tribes, and conservation districts could 

result in improved accomplishments because resources could be pooled to accomplish 

conservation and restoration actions. Passive restoration will rely on the implementation of 

guidelines and best management practices to maintain watershed processes and aquatic habitat 

conditions to allow for natural rates of recovery. It will be more prevalent in MAs such as 1a

through 1e that have wilderness characteristics.

Some commenters were concerned the revised Plan does not address requirements under the 

Clean Water Act and other laws. The IPNF are required to follow laws, policies, and regulations 

that relate to managing NFS lands and the Final EIS lists those that are applicable to each 

resource, including those related to watersheds and aquatic habitats. The revised Plan provides 

broad, strategic guidance that is designed to supplement, not replace, overarching direction from 

these sources. For example, Forest Service Handbook direction includes the requirement to 

protect water quality and abate or mitigate adverse water quality impacts while meeting other 

resource goals and objectives (FSH 2509.22). The IPNF address this mandate by implementing 

best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 

2509.22) at the project level of analysis and implementation.

The revised Plan changes the aquatic management indicator species from those found in the 1987 

Plan. The aquatic MIS under the 1987 Plan included three trout species (cutthroat, rainbow, and

bull trout), which were chosen because they were “commonly hunted, fished, or trapped”. Under 

the revised plan, I am selecting a macroinvertebrate assemblage to serve as bioindicators of water 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

15

quality and aquatic habitat conditions across the planning unit. Macroinvertebrates as the aquatic 

MIS will provide an appropriate measure of the ecological health of a waterbody or river and can 

be used to reveal pollution problems. (Selection of MIS in the revised Plan is required under 36 

CFR 219.19.)

Although forestwide direction common to all alternatives are designed to protect and improve 

soil, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, Alternative B Modified is expected to most 

effectively improve the overall trend in watershed conditions across the forest. Protection and 

restoration measures included in the revised Plan will improve habitat conditions for threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. In addition, the macroinvertebrate assemblage, used to indicate 

the condition of water quality and aquatic habitat conditions across the entire planning unit, is 

expected to improve.

I believe the selected alternative presents the best balance between acres with active restoration 

opportunities and acres with passive restoration. It includes a greater number of active restoration 

acres than found under Alternative C and allows for improved conditions on a faster trajectory 

than passive restoration. Alternative D provides the highest amount of active restoration acres. 

However, it does not improve vegetation conditions to the degree found under Alternative B 

Modified. As described under the vegetation revision topic, Alternative B Modified provides the 

most movement towards vegetation desired conditions, which increases resistance and resiliency 

to disturbance. This increased resistance and resiliency of vegetation to disturbance provides 

protection to watersheds, with fewer large-scale disturbances that could increase sedimentation 

and damage stream conditions.

Revision Topic 4 – Terrestrial Wildlife

Over the life of the 1987 Plan, changes have occurred that have resulted in modifications to 

wildlife management. Species listed as threatened and endangered have changed. The peregrine 

falcon, gray wolf, and bald eagle have been removed and the Canada lynx added. Knowledge 

related to habitat conservation for grizzly bear, lynx, woodland caribou, and other species has 

continued to evolve and the sensitive species list was amended. The revised Plan incorporates 

new information relative to habitat fragmentation, patch size, biodiversity, and ecosystem 

management strategies. Recent plan amendment direction relative to listed species (grizzly bear 

and lynx) is carried forward as forestwide direction to help move threatened species toward 

recovery (see Decisions Carried Forward, page 10 of this draft ROD).

In order to preserve species populations, genetic structure, biotic communities, and landscapes, 

there has been an increased emphasis on the maintenance of ecological functions, processes, and 

disturbance regimes. The desired conditions for vegetation and fire are the foundation of the 

IPNF approach to providing species viability through a coarse filter approach. The revised plan 

includes a fine filter approach by providing direction to address specific habitat components or 

potential management effects to specific species and/or groups of species. It provides sufficient 

direction for implementation activities to maintain species viability and help move threatened and 

endangered species towards recovery.

The revised Plan allocates 188,700 acres to MA 1 and 681,200 acres to MA 5. These MAs 

emphasize natural processes with minimal human intervention/disturbance, and provide wildlife 

security habitat. There are also opportunities for active restoration of vegetative conditions 

(wildlife habitat) in areas which may currently be outside of desired conditions (MA6–60 percent 

or 1,507,000 acres).
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

16

The revised Plan contains specific direction to provide wildlife connectivity across the IPNF in 

cooperation with other agencies, and is compatible with connectivity efforts in British Columbia. 

The direction is designed to be flexible in light of the dynamic nature of the habitat and 

disturbance processes on the IPNF to accommodate multiple species’ habitats and will allow them

to move, connect, and persist.

The revised Plan changes the terrestrial wildlife management indicator species (MIS) from those 

found in the 1987 Plan. The MIS under the 1987 Plan included threatened and endangered species 

(grizzly bear, bald eagle, and woodland caribou), elk, whitetail deer, moose, goshawk, and 

pileated woodpecker. Under the revised plan, the IPNF chose species whose habitat will likely be 

influenced by forest management to provide a meaningful measure of progress towards vegetative 

desired conditions. Although commenters suggested a wide variety of species, the IPNF chose 

landbird assemblage and elk after considering the location and type of management activities that 

are likely to occur. The species in the landbird assemblage were selected to represent a variety of 

habitat conditions that could be tied to desired conditions for vegetation. Rocky Mountain elk 

were selected because they are a commonly hunted species and their habitat needs (security 

habitat) may be influenced by planned management programs. The Final EIS and the Kootenai 

and Idaho Panhandle Zone (KIPZ) MIS Selection documentation provide additional information 

regarding MIS selection. (Selection of MIS in the revised Plan is required under 36 CFR 219.19.)

Some commenters specifically requested an “old growth” MIS. However, the IPNF do not have 

an obligate old growth habitat species or a species that relies solely on old growth habitat. 

Regardless, the revised Plan recognizes the important habitat value old growth provides for a 

variety of species and includes direction that will maintain and develop additional old growth 

over time (see FW-DC-VEG-03, FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-02). 

Other important wildlife habitat components, such as snags and downed wood (coarse woody 

debris), will also be maintained under forestwide vegetation and wildlife guidelines (see FW-DCVEG-07 and 08, FW-GDL-VEG-03 through 06, FW-DC-WL-13 and 14, and FW-GDL-WL-16).

The Final EIS and revised Plan address public concerns for wildlife habitat security and 

demonstrate the importance of habitat security considerations for all aspects of IPNF

management. The grizzly bear access amendment ROD established standards for core (secure) 

habitat and motorized route densities within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones and 

those are carried forward in the revised Plan as FW-STD-WL-02. This provides high levels of 

habitat security for all species. In addition, wilderness areas, recommended wilderness areas, 

inventoried roadless areas, and other nonmotorized areas contribute to secure habitat and 

connectivity for some species. The IPNF coordinated with State wildlife management agencies 

for setting management emphasis, including elk habitat security, and the revised Plan includes 

direction (FW-DC-WL-17) to coordinate with state agencies for ungulate habitat management.

I believe the revised plan’s broad vegetative management approach to provide ecological 

components and processes at multiple scales on the landscape provides the full spectrum of 

habitats and conditions needed for the biological organisms associated with the various 

ecosystems of the IPNF. As forest conditions trend toward desired conditions for vegetation and 

fire intensity and frequency, wildlife will experience habitat amounts, pattern, and connectivity 

similar to those found under the natural disturbance process they evolved with on the forest. The 

benefits of management under Alternative B Modified for forest composition, structure, and 

pattern (as described in the vegetation section of the Final EIS) provide the best opportunities for 

improving terrestrial wildlife habitat. Even though Alternative D provides more acres with 

management activities, there is less emphasis on restoration and movement of vegetation towards 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

17

desired conditions as found under Alternative B Modified, and less secure habitat. Although 

Alternative C provides the most acres of security habitat, I believe Alternative B Modified 

provides sufficient security and limits on road densities to benefit woodland caribou, grizzly bear,

lynx, big game/ungulates, and other species. In addition, Alternative B Modified provides the 

greatest improvement in habitat through restoration of vegetation and movement towards 

vegetation desired conditions.

Revision Topic 5 – Access and Recreation

National Forests provide diverse outdoor recreation opportunities, connecting people to nature in 

a variety of settings and activities. Recreation on the IPNF include (but is not limited to) hunting, 

scenic viewing/driving, rock climbing, skiing, fishing, hiking, camping, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, OHV riding, and snowmobiling. Commenters stressed the important economic 

contribution of forest recreation use to local economies and the high-value they place on 

traditional access opportunities.

Most of these activities occur across the Forests without conflict and National Visitor Use 

Monitoring has demonstrated overall satisfaction with IPNF recreation management (see the 

access and recreation section of the Final EIS). However, motor vehicle access for both summer 

and winter recreation is an ongoing issue for the public on both a local and national level. 

Although the IPNF provide adequate space and terrain for diverse recreation experiences, 

watershed protection and wildlife security needs often limit non-winter motor vehicle use 

opportunities. Some commenters feel additional motor vehicle restrictions are needed to 

maximize ecological protections, while other commenters feel there are too many restrictions for 

motor vehicle use and opportunities are unnecessarily limited.

The Forests have been managing motor vehicle access and roads for decades. In 1987, the IPNF 

had approximately 9,500 miles of road. As shown in the Final EIS, the IPNF now has 8,684 total 

miles of road. Of that, 4,133 miles (47 percent) are designated for either yearlong or seasonal 

motor vehicle use. There are 3,666 miles (42 percent) of road that are in storage or intermittent 

use and closed to vehicular traffic. This is close to the projection in the 1987 Plan of 50 percent 

yearlong or seasonally restricted. The 2010 and 2011 Forest Plan Monitoring Reports indicate 

2,910 miles of road were maintained, 1.2 miles constructed, and 27 miles reconstructed during the 

2-year monitoring period. In addition, 64 miles of road were decommissioned.

The Forests have also been managing over-snow vehicle access for several decades. The Forests 

currently have 449,246 acres closed to all motor vehicles for most or all of the winter months. 

These areas were closed because of Wilderness designation, recommended wilderness allocation

(in some areas), semi-primitive non-motorized recreation values, or protection of specific 

threatened or endangered species habitat. A separate, ongoing planning process is assessing oversnow vehicle use designations on a portion of the North Zone of the IPNF in the Selkirks and in 

the area adjacent to the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area. Generally, forest monitoring has not 

indicated a need for change regarding over-snow vehicle use on the IPNF. 

My decision does not change non-winter motor vehicle use on the Forests. The IPNF have

completed non-winter motor vehicle use designations as required by Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212) for the Coeur d’Alene Ranger District and the Kaniksu Zone 

resulting in published MVUMs. Site-specific analysis for the St. Joe travel management plan is 

ongoing under a separate planning effort and a decision is expected in 2013. The areas and routes 

designated as motorized on the MVUMs will not change with the revised Plan, except following 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

18

project-level NEPA analysis if proposed. My decision, therefore, primarily affects over-snow 

vehicle and mechanized (bicycle) use.

While my decision does not affect non-winter motor vehicle use, it does affect future options to 

consider in designating additional miles or areas for motorized use following site-specific 

analysis. In selecting Alternative B Modified, I considered changes to existing uses and 

ecological needs. Alternative C emphasized nonmotorized recreation, while Alternative D 

emphasized motorized recreation. I felt Alternative C resulted in too many acres with motorized 

restrictions, which analysis shows is not needed to protect wildlife (see wildlife section in the 

Final EIS chapter 3). Although similar to Alternative D in motorized access, Alternative B 

Modified provides slightly more wildlife security. Alternative B Modified is similar to current 

conditions, with some changes for areas that have public conflict.

Alternative, B Modified, provides a balance to accommodate reasonable assurances of motorized 

and nonmotorized recreation choices, while protecting forest resources. Alternative B Modified 

does the following:

Incorporates previous landscape level plan decisions to protect ecological resources such 

as water quality, aquatic habitats, and wildlife security (see Decisions Carried Forward, 

page 10 of this draft ROD);

Provides the opportunity to consider non-winter motor vehicle use designations on 91

percent of the Forests. This is a change from 96 percent of the Forests under the 1987 

Plan;

Allows over-snow vehicle use on 70 percent of the Forests. This is a change from 79

percent under the 1987 Plan;

Allows mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) on 93 percent of the Forests. This is a 

change from 100 percent under the 1987 Plan;

Continues to provide dispersed recreation opportunities across the IPNF with some 

improvements to concentrated use areas. This is an increased emphasis on improvements 

over what was in the 1987 Plan.

The revised Plan makes broad, strategic decisions identifying suitable uses for the land while 

providing the settings for balanced recreation opportunities consistent with goals for watershed 

health, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity. I believe the selected alternative best balances 

the Forests’ multiple-use objectives, while maintaining diverse, high quality outdoor recreation 

opportunities, a road and trail system that provides access, and protection for terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats.

Revision Topic 6 – Recommended Wilderness

Public opinion regarding wilderness recommendation varies widely. Many people favor 

recommending additional areas for wilderness while many others object to any recommendations. 

The 1982 Planning Rule regulations state that “roadless areas within the NFS shall be evaluated 

and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the forest planning 

process” (36 CFR 219.17). The need to update guidance provided in the 1987 Plan to reflect 

current direction for recommended wilderness and the continuing controversy associated with the 

management of IRAs were two reasons recommended wilderness was included as a revision 

topic.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

19

The 1987 Plan recommended as wilderness three areas (Mallard Larkins, Scotchman Peaks, and 

Selkirk Crest) and one area as an addition to the existing Salmo-Priest Wilderness area. The total 

acreage recommended as wilderness was 146,682. The use of motorized and mechanized 

equipment in recommended wilderness has been allowed to varying degrees within these areas.

The revised Plan allocates 161,400 acres as recommended wilderness (MA1b). This includes the 

same four areas as the 1987 Plan, but with some variations in boundaries. Motorized and 

mechanized use is prohibited in recommended wilderness in the revised Plan. In addition, the 

revised Plan allocates 19,700 acres to primitive lands (MA1e). These lands allow over-snow 

motorized vehicle and mechanized (bicycle) use while protecting other wilderness characteristics. 

However, primitive lands are not recommended as wilderness. 

Some commenters felt the wilderness evaluation process was incorrect. Some felt wilderness 

characteristics were under-valued while others felt they were over-valued. Some commenters 

wanted to see changes to the boundaries of the recommended wilderness areas, to have them 

follow the IRA or some other boundary. I believe the wilderness evaluation conducted by the 

Forest followed manual and handbook direction, resulting in appropriate suitability 

determinations. Potential wilderness is based on the inherent wilderness quality determined in the 

capability, availability, and needs assessment. In addition to the inherent wilderness quality an 

area might possess, the area should provide opportunities and experiences one would expect to 

find in a wilderness environment. Potential wilderness management considers establishing 

boundaries that are easy to define and locate on the ground. The Final EIS describes the analysis 

used in evaluating individual roadless areas on the IPNF and includes a summary of each area’s 

evaluation of suitability for recommended wilderness (see appendix C of the Final EIS). 

The roadless area wilderness evaluation indicated 331,005 acres had potential and were suitable 

as recommended wilderness. Of these, 161,400 acres are recommended as wilderness under the 

revised Plan (Alternative B Modified). Alternative C recommended the most acreage for 

wilderness, at 331,100 acres and Alternative D recommended the least, at 138,100 acres.

Some commenters wanted additional areas recommended as wilderness, some wanted less.

However, I believe the acreages recommended provide the right amount of area to be managed 

for wilderness values while balancing other Forest uses and resource values. Many of the other

areas commenters suggested as additional recommended wilderness that are not included in the 

revised Plan will be managed as backcountry (MA 5), with limited development opportunities, 

providing similar recreation experiences. 

Some commenters also expressed concern over the uses in recommended wilderness. The revised 

Plan closes recommended wilderness to motorized and mechanized use. Thus, over-snow vehicle 

use and mountain biking will not be allowed within recommended wilderness. These uses are not 

allowed in recommended wilderness because they impact wilderness character and could lead to 

these areas no longer being suitable for wilderness designation. However, the other backcountry 

areas provide a range of quiet non-motorized and motorized opportunities, and allow these uses.

Those acres allocated to primitive lands (MA1e) will allow winter motorized recreation (oversnow vehicle use) and mountain biking.

Wilderness is highly valued by many, and represents a multitude of deeply held values and 

beliefs. Yet, recommendation and potential Congressional designation of lands for wilderness will 

necessarily result in losses of other opportunities for others such as snowmobilers and mountain 

bikers. The revised Plan provides a balance of opportunities in response to the broad range of 

public values.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

20

After considering the public value of wilderness and reviewing the suitability evaluations in the 

Final EIS, I am recommending to Congress the addition of 161,400 acres to the Wilderness 

Preservation System. This includes recommending three Wilderness areas (Mallard Larkins 

(80,200 acres), Scotchman Peaks (25,900 acres), Selkirk (36,700 acres), and some areas adjacent 

to the Salmo-Priest Wilderness (18,600 acres). The discussion on page 9 further describes my 

rationale for selecting Alternative B Modified to address recommended wilderness. 

Revision Topic 7 – Timber Production

Timber harvest on the IPNF has been an important management issue since the Forests were 

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

with the majority of MAs allowing or promoting timber management. This is reflected in the 

established allowable sale quantity (ASQ) in the 1987 Plan of 280 MMBF/year for the first 

decade. In the 1990s, the IPNF began to focus on ecosystem management and ecological 

sustainability, with a decreased emphasis on commercial timber production and an increased 

emphasis on timber harvest as a tool to restore vegetation, improve wildlife habitat, or to address 

other resource requirements (e.g., riparian habitat conservation direction under the Inland Native 

Fish Strategy and grizzly bear management). In addition, there has been new or updated 

threatened and endangered species recovery direction, policy changes regarding IRAs, and 

declining budgets and reduced staffing over the past several years. Subsequently, timber 

production levels have been well below the ASQ established in the 1987 Plan, with an average 

volume sold of 52.5 MMBF/year in 2008 and 2009. Although the ASQ is intended to represent 

the maximum sustainable harvest level subject to management constraints with no budget 

limitation, there is a public expectation that the full ASQ can be achieved and support the 

commensurate level of local jobs and income displayed in the 1987 Plan’s analysis.

The Final EIS reanalyzed the ASQ based on changes in policy and ecosystem needs, and also

considered an evaluation of timber suitability as required at 36 CFR 219.14. The revised Plan 

outlines the ASQ as 120.6 MMBF/year over the first decade. The revised Plan also provides a 

predicted annual volume sold of 44.6 MMBF/year, based on current budget levels. If budgets 

increase, the Forest has the ability to increase timber harvest above the predicted timber volume 

sold up to the ASQ. This represents the maximum level of sustainable timber harvest given 

management requirements for other resources such as water quality, old growth, and wildlife 

habitat.

Some public commenters are concerned about what they perceive as modest projections for 

timber harvest in the revised Plan. They would like the IPNF to achieve sustainable and reliable 

harvest levels but prefer the revised Plan include a higher ASQ. They would also like the 

objective for timber harvest in the revised Plan to match the ASQ rather than the predicted 

volume sold, which is constrained by budget. 

The Final EIS includes a detailed analysis to determine sustainable levels of timber harvest 

relative to desired conditions and forest management requirements. I believe the ASQ level is the 

maximum that could be achieved given additional funding (nearly triple the current budget) and 

habitat and water quality protection constraints for other resources. Providing an objective that is 

realistic given current budgets levels is appropriate. The predicted volume sold is a reasonable 

estimate of the sustainable timber volume that could be sold given current funding levels. The 

social and economic section of the Final EIS highlights the importance of forest outputs on local 

economies and communities, as well as how forest management affects jobs and income. The 

IPNF staff work to ensure the economic feasibility of all commercial timber sales and I find the 

amount of timber harvest predicted in the revised Plan is achievable, given current budget levels. 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

21

Thus, timber harvest will continue to contribute to the viability of the forest products 

infrastructure.

The revised plan also considers utilization of non-sawlog material in keeping with National and 

Regional FS direction to increase availability and utilization of biomass. Not only does this 

support non-saw/biomass material markets, it is important for reducing fuels and restoring forests 

while protecting air quality and reducing required collections for brush disposal.

I find Alternative D is most responsive to this revision topic. It has the highest level of ASQ and 

predicted timber volume, while providing for resource protection through standards and 

guidelines. Alternative D provides the most wood fiber in response to public demands. 

Alternatives B Modified and C provide lower levels of forest products. For these reasons, I 

believe Alternative D provides the best opportunity for sustainable timber production and 

contribute to an economically viable forest products industry, while considering all other National 

Forest management resource values.

Alternatives

All alternatives in the Final EIS adhere to multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services 

(36 CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and standards for managing forest 

resources and complying with applicable laws and policies. They also contain the same direction 

to contribute to the diversity of desired native and non-native plant and animal communities and 

contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Forestwide direction 

identified in the revised Plan applies to all action alternatives. 

The revision topics drove alternative development. The primary difference between alternatives is 

in the allocation of acres by MA to meet the purpose and need for change, and address one or 

more of the revision topics.

Each alternative was developed to be in compliance with applicable law and regulation, as well as 

national policy and direction including, but not limited to, the Healthy Forests Initiative, National 

Fire Plan, and National Energy Policy.

The following did not change between the action alternatives in the Final EIS:

Forest Plan Goals, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines —

Management area and forestwide direction for goals, desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines remained constant for all action alternatives.

Experimental Forests — Allocation of Experimental Forests (MA4b) remains constant 

for all action alternatives.

Developed Recreation Sites — Existing developed recreation sites were retained in all 

alternatives. There were no-site specific proposals to remove or create developed 

recreation sites. Allocation of primary recreation areas (MA7) remained constant for all 

action alternatives.

Utility Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites — Direction for and location of 

designated utility rights-of-way and communication sites remained constant for all 

alternatives.

Wild and Scenic Rivers — Direction for, and allocation of, designated and eligible wild 

and scenic rivers (MA2a and 2b) remains constant for all action alternatives.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

22

Wilderness Study Area — The Grandmother Mountain Wilderness Study Area and its 

management would continue as outlined by the Land Exchange Acts (the Act of 1992, 

[P.L. 102-584] and the Act of 2006, [P.L. 109-372]) regardless of which alternative is 

selected for implementation. 

Designated Wilderness — The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Designation remains constant 

for all alternatives.

Alternatives Considered in Detail, Including the No-Action Alternative

The no action and three action alternatives are summarized as follows. See the Final EIS for a full 

description and analysis of effects. Table 5 on page 37 of the Final EIS contains a comparison of 

the MA allocations for each alternative.

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. This alternative is the 1987 Plan, as amended to date, 

and accounts for current laws and regulations. New information, inventories, and technologies 

were used to evaluate this alternative. Output levels were recalculated for this alternative based 

on these new sources of information and amended direction. The no-action alternative retains the 

1987 Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, and MA prescriptions, as 

amended. This alternative serves as the baseline for comparison with the action alternatives.

Alternative B Modified is based on Alternative B from the DEIS, with modifications in response 

to comments. This alternative is the preferred alternative. It is the result of collaborative efforts 

since 2003 and responds to the identified purpose and need. This alternative emphasizes moving 

towards desired future conditions and contributing to ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability. Alternative B Modified would manage approximately 6 percent of the Forest as 

recommended wilderness (MA1b), 27 percent as backcountry (MA5), and 60 percent as general 

forest (MA6). Thirty-eight percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of backcountry while moving 

towards desired conditions. There is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes 

(such as unplanned wildfire ignitions for multiple objectives) and prescribed burning. Mechanical 

treatments (e.g., timber harvest, stream improvements) also occur in order to move towards 

watershed and vegetation desired conditions. Alternative C would have more opportunities for 

backcountry and nonmotorized recreation (MA1 — 335,300 acres; MA5 — 630,000 acres). This 

alternative also has more acres recommended as wilderness (331,100 acres) than any other 

alternative. About 56 percent would be allocated to general forest (MA6). Thirty-six percent of 

the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative D emphasizes achieving desired condition through mechanical means. Timber 

production is emphasized while moving towards vegetation desired conditions. This alternative 

has the most acres available for timber production and motorized access, with 63 percent 

allocated to MA6 (general forest). There would be fewer acres allocated to recommended 

wilderness (MA1b—approximately 5 percent) and backcountry (MA5–less than 25 percent of the 

Forest). Thirty-nine percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber production. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

23

Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this revision effort or duplicative 

of the alternatives considered in detail. Over 19 alternatives (or alternative variations) were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized in chapter 2 of the 

Final EIS.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the alternative 

or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

Forest Service policy (FSH 1909.15) defines environmentally preferable as: “An alternative that 

best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA. ... Ordinarily this is the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources.”

I find, based upon the laws and regulations guiding National Forest System management, that

Alternative B Modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. Although Alternative C 

would allow the fewest mechanical ground-disturbing activities and lowest acres allowing 

motorized use, it does not address the six goals of NEPA as well as B Modified does. I base my 

finding on the following comparison showing how the alternatives address the goals of Section 

101 of NEPA:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment for 

succeeding generations

Alternative B Modified emphasizes moving forest conditions toward desired future 

conditions while contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Alternative B 

Modified provides the most movement towards vegetation desired conditions while providing 

sustainable levels of timber harvest similar to current levels. The higher timber harvest levels 

under Alternative B Modified than Alternative C provides the IPNF sustainable share of 

products and uses demanded by the public, while having a higher probability of improving 

and restoring vegetation for future generations than does Alternative D. 

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

pleasing surroundings

Alternative B Modified achieves maintenance of a safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing Forest better than the other alternatives because it 

provides the best mix of resource utilization, active and passive management, and motorized 

and non-motorized recreation uses along with the safeguards provided by standards and 

guidelines for maintaining water quality, scenery, and wildlife habitat. Alternative B Modified 

provides recommended wilderness at levels similar to current, recommending the best of our 

backcountry areas for this designation. Alternative B Modified also provides timber harvest 

levels similar to current levels and maintains access to important recreational areas better than 

Alternative C. Although Alternative D provides higher levels of timber harvest and access 

opportunities, it does not provide the levels of recommended wilderness as is currently 

enjoyed on the Forest.

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

to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences

The beneficial uses that are most varied between alternatives and that I considered in this 

finding are wood fiber production and a reasonable balance between motorized and 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

24

nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Alternative B Modified achieves a higher level of 

reasonable, sustainable beneficial uses than Alternative C. While Alternative D provides 

higher levels of wood fiber production and motorized recreation, it does so at the expense of 

nonmotorized recreation. Alternative B Modified also provides the most movement of 

vegetation towards desired conditions, which will provide for more resistant and resilient 

forests. This improves the health of our forests and watersheds, which enhances wildlife 

habitat and reduces undesirable and unintended consequences.

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

maintain, wherever possible, an environment, which supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice

Part of preserving our historic and cultural national heritage is recognizing that humans are a

natural aspect of our national heritage – humans have utilized the physical and cultural 

resources offered by the IPNF for thousands of years. Recognizing that, I find that the best

way to preserve that heritage, and the environment that supports diversity and variety of 

choice, is to manage for a National Forest that provides a balance between the physical 

resource use and the appropriate protection of cultural and historic resources. Based upon the 

collaborative public efforts, tribal consultation, and the effects of each alternative displayed in 

the Final EIS, I find that Alternative B Modified meets this goal better than the other 

alternatives. It provides the best balance of uses between Alternative C’s emphasis on 

wilderness values and protection of backcountry and Alternative D’s emphasis on achieving 

desired conditions through mechanical means. 

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

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

The public demands a variety of products and uses that can be provided by their National

Forests. National forest lands and resources are evaluated as important local resources that 

contribute to the quality of lifestyles in the region. The Final EIS alternative analysis 

compares the various values the public uses to determine their quality of life varying from 

economic resource extraction values (timber harvest and minerals) to less tangibly-defined

resources such as wilderness values and backcountry protection. The challenge is in defining 

the balance sought in this goal, and I find that Alternative B Modified achieves that balance. 

Alternative B Modified provides more resource use than Alternative C, but more 

opportunities for backcountry protection than Alternative D.

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

recycling of depletable resources

I find Alternative B Modified enhances the quality of renewable resources and provides 

sustainable use of renewable resources. The standards and guidelines and the management 

area allocation under Alternative B Modified provides for levels of resource use that are 

similar to current, while providing protection measures and preserving areas as backcountry 

or recommended wilderness. While Alternative D provides higher levels of resource use, it 

does not provide for as much vegetation restoration as does B Modified. Alternative C 

emphasizes more passive management and greater amount of backcountry and recommended 

wilderness, but it does so at the expense of resource utilization and does not achieve as much 

vegetation restoration as Alternative B Modified.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

25

Range of Alternatives

After considering the analysis in Alternatives A through D, and the alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study, I believe a reasonable range of alternatives was carefully 

evaluated in compliance with the NEPA. 

Although consideration of budget constraints reduced the variation in the effects of the actions 

across the alternatives, the analysis in the Final EIS covered a full spectrum of management 

intensity ranging from a preservation emphasis in Alternative C to a highly-managed, commodity 

output and motorized recreation emphasis in Alternative D. All action alternatives are realistic, 

implementable, and responsive to the revision topics. In order to provide a range of alternatives, 

Alternative C includes recommended wilderness areas that are not consistent with the Idaho 

Roadless Rule. If Alternative C was selected, an adjustment to the Rule would be required prior 

to implementation.

Role of Science

The development of the Final EIS and the revised Plan has been based on consideration of the 

best available science throughout the planning process. This has occurred by comprehensively 

reviewing available scientific research and other information relevant to the resource areas 

addressed. Scientific conclusions are drawn from well-supported data sources and data 

availability is disclosed. Scientific sources relied on were cited, responsible opposing views were 

discussed, incomplete and unavailable information was acknowledged, and scientific uncertainty 

and risk was addressed in relevant portions of the Final EIS or project record. In addition, the 

specific modeling and analysis methods used were documented as appropriate.

The revised Plan provides for the sustainability of the resources of the IPNF, while directing the 

coordination and management of multiple uses of national forest land such as recreation, timber, 

mining, wildlife, fish, watershed, and wilderness. Recognizing that conditions on the IPNF do not 

remain static, that new information is constantly surfacing, and that scientific uncertainty is 

associated with some conclusions regarding resource effects, the revised Plan embraces an 

adaptive management approach. See page 38of this draft ROD and chapter 5 of the revised Plan

for more information regarding the IPNF adaptive management plans.

Relationship to Other Entities

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other federal, state, and local 

government and tribal plans and policies. As part of the outreach and collaboration effort, a 

number of discussions with federal, state, local, and tribal representatives were conducted 

throughout the 10-year plan revision effort.

County Governments 

Beginning with initiation of the planning process, local government officials from the counties 

within the IPNF lands were invited to participate in the revised Plan development. All county 

plans were considered as the planning process developed. 

State 

Several Idaho State agencies are affected by, or affect Forest Service management. These include 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; the Idaho State Parks and Recreation; the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality; the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission; and
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

26

the Idaho Department of Transportation. The Forest coordinated information with State agencies

during all phases of the plan revision process. Those offices provided formal comments during 

the scoping and other public involvement stages. Statewide assessments were considered in the 

development of the revised Plan.

In addition, the Forest worked with the Idaho Roadless Commission to ensure the revised Plan 

was compatible with the Idaho Roadless Rule. Adjustments were made to the management area 

boundaries for Alternative B Modified to provide consistency with the Rule.

Tribes

During development of the revised Plan, the IPNF consulted with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, 

the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 

the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. The Kootenai National Forest took the 

lead to consult with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on forest plan revision. As a 

result, specific tribal comments were incorporated in the Final EIS and revised Plan.

Federal

Management of federal lands adjacent to the IPNF was considered in the development of the 

revised Plan and the analysis of cumulative effects in the Final EIS.

Consideration of national scenic and historic trails, utility corridors, recommended wilderness, 

and other management concerns across boundaries were discussed with the Colville, Nez PerceClearwater, and Kootenai National Forests. The forests met to ensure management problems were 

not created with the IPNF revised Plan.

In addition, the Forest worked with the Border Patrol on developing direction within the revised 

Plan to coordinate on issues relating to national security along the northern international 

boundary.

Climate Change

Scientific understanding and public awareness of global climate change has increased 

dramatically in recent years. There is broad scientific consensus that increases in average global 

temperature is very likely if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to 

accumulate at current rates. How these potential global changes might translate to climatic 

changes on the IPNF is much more uncertain.

The continuous forest planning process allows us to adjust our management plans as new, locally 

specific information with sufficient scientific confidence becomes available. The goals and 

objectives of the forest plan are consistent with maintaining the resilience and diversity of the 

vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife of the IPNF in the face of the potential effects of climate 

change. Over the next 10 to 15 years, projected changes in global and continental average 

temperatures are much less than for later this century. Projected changes in precipitation patterns 

over the next 10 to 15 years are even smaller, although of greater uncertainty. Moreover, a 10 to 

15-year time period is relatively short in terms of global and regional climate trends and 

conditions may not differ from the range of variability experienced in recent decades.

The Forest Service is undertaking substantial efforts to better understand the potential effects of 

climate change on resource management and the associated uncertainties at the scale of individual 

national forests. Ongoing national, regional, and forest-specific monitoring and scientific research 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

27

will continue to add to our understanding, and will help to inform evaluations of whether 

adjustments in management actions are needed to maintain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the National Forests and Grasslands, including the IPNF.

The revised Plan goals and objectives are designed to maintain or improve the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the IPNF. However, if planning, management, and monitoring information on 

resource conditions and trends, including those that may be affected by long-term climatic trends, 

indicate a need for change, the IPNF will adjust forest plan direction as necessary.

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations

The Forest Service manages the IPNF in conformance with many laws and regulations. I have 

reviewed the statutes specific to individual resources as described in chapter 3 of the Final EIS, 

and I find this decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing and reconciling 

the current statutory duties of the Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the revised 

Plan addresses compliance with some of the more prominent applicable laws and regulations.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Federal agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may 

come into conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices in 

their decision-making practices. There are seven federally-recognized American Indian nations 

with cultural affiliation on the IPNF: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, 

the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. 

Within the boundaries of the IPNF, there are two tribes with Treaty reserved, off-reservation 

rights: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. In addition, 

the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of Idaho has reserved rights through executive order on a limited section 

of the Coeur d′Alene River Ranger District. The Nez Perce Tribe has a wide ranging aboriginal 

territory that coincides with the general location of the Coeur d′Alene Tribal lands within the 

IPNF, but off reservation, rights associated with ceded lands under the Stevens Treaty of 1855 are 

located to the south of the Forest boundary. Both the Spokane and the Colville Tribal territories 

lay within Washington, to the west of the Forest boundary, but both visited the environs of the 

IPNF during the historic and prehistoric periods.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. No effects on American Indian social, economic, or 

subsistence rights are anticipated as a result of this revised Plan. The Forest will continue to 

consult with tribes during site-specific management activities that may impact treaty rights and/or 

cultural sites and cultural use. The revised Plan desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines

include provisions in consideration of American Indian rights and interests and cultural resources. 

Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The purpose of this act is to provide protection for archaeological resources found on public lands 

and Indian lands of the United States. The legislation provides civil and criminal penalties for 

those who remove or damage archaeological resources in violation of the prohibitions contained 

in the act. The act prohibits the removal of archaeological resources on public lands or Indian 

lands without first obtaining a permit from the affected Federal land manager or Indian Tribe and 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

28

requires Federal agencies to develop plans to survey lands under their management to determine 

the nature and extent of archaeological and cultural resources.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800 regulations require assessments to establish the presence of 

historic properties within the area of potential effect for any site-specific activities and also meet 

the intent of this act. In addition, the Forest will continue to consult with tribes during sitespecific management activities that may impact cultural sites and cultural use. The revised Plan 

desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines include provisions in consideration American 

Indian rights and interests and cultural resources. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant 

with this act.

Clean Air Act

According to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the USDA 

Forest Service has the responsibility to protect the air, land, and water resources from the impacts 

of air pollutants produced within the national forest boundaries and to work with states to protect 

those same resources from degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted 

outside of the national forest.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

any activities with the potential to alter air quality, although it does provide for the consideration 

of certain types of activities such as prescribed burning. Forestwide desired conditions and 

guidelines include direction for meeting air quality standards established by Federal and State 

agencies during planning for prescribed burns. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with 

this act.

Clean Water Act

The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 

the nation’s waters. The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance 

and direction to future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, 

authorize, or execute any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the 

consideration of certain types of activities. The revised Plan contains direction to ensure all sitespecific projects meet or exceed State Best Management Practices prepared under guidance of the 

Clean Water Act. Implementation of the revised Plan is expected to contribute to protecting or 

restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States in 

accordance with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

Endangered Species Act and Sensitive Species (Forest Manual 2670)

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide 

for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act

requires federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, 

ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any agency action does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). ESA also requires the USFWS and Forest Service, 

respectively, to base the biological opinion and subsequent agency action on the use of best 

scientific and commercially available data [16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)].
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

29

In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Act, USFWS identified the listed and proposed threatened 

or endangered species that may be present on the Forest. Biological assessments (BAs) were

prepared for the identified terrestrial, aquatic, and plant species.

The terrestrial BA found implementation of the revised Plan may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and woodland caribou. The BA also determined that 

implementation of the revised Plan will adversely affect designated critical habitat for Canada 

lynx and woodland caribou. The BA outlines the specific reasons why implementation of the 

revised Plan may have short-term adverse effects to these species and critical habitats, and how it 

will result in overall net benefits. 

The aquatic BA found implementation of the revised Plan may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect bull trout. The BA also determined the revised Plan will adversely affect designated critical 

habitat for bull trout. As documented in the BA, implementation of the revised Plan will provide 

for an overall net benefit to bull trout and bull trout designated critical habitat. The BA outlines 

the specific reasons why implementation of the revised Plan may have short-term adverse effects 

to this species and critical habitat, and how it will result in overall net benefits.

The aquatic BA found implementation of the revised Plan will have no effect on Kootenai River 

white sturgeon or its habitat. As documented in the BA, forest management activities have not 

been identified as a factor in the decline of the Kootenai River white sturgeon. Therefore, land 

management activities allowed under the revised Forest Plan will not affect Kootenai River white 

sturgeon or its habitat.

The plant BA determined the revised Plan would have no effect on the water howellia and 

Spalding’s catchfly. These species have no known occurrences on the IPNF; however, suitable 

habitat potentially exists for these plants and they are listed as “suspected.” The protection 

measures offered for these species in the revised Plan result in the determination of no effect.

The USFWS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) covering Canada lynx, grizzly bear, woodland 

caribou, bull trout and critical habitat for Canada lynx, woodland caribou and bull trout. The BOs 

determined that the actions as proposed are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Canada lynx, grizzly bear, woodland caribou, or bull trout, and are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify Canada lynx, woodland caribou, or bull trout critical habitat. Therefore, the 

revised Plan is fully compliant with the requirements of the ESA.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that federal agencies make achieving 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their program, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Order further 

stipulates that the agencies conduct their programs and activities in a manner that does not have 

the effect of excluding persons from participating in, denying persons the benefits of, or 

subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their 

race, color, or national origin.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the revised Plan has been assessed to determine 

whether it would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The social 

assessments for the IPNF (Russell and Adams-Russell 2003, Russell and Downs 1995) and the 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

30

assessment of social conditions and trends (Russell et al. 2006) did not identify any 

disproportionate impacts from forest management. In addition, collaboration and public 

involvement on the revised Plan did not identify any concerns regarding disproportionate impacts 

to low-income or minority populations. The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, 

providing guidance and direction to future site-specific projects and activities. Future site-specific 

activities will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities 

during project planning. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with Executive Order 

12898.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

This Act allows the granting of easements across National Forest System Lands. The revised Plan 

is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future site-specific 

projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute any specific 

activity, although it does provide for the consideration of granting easements and rights-of-way. 

Forestwide desired conditions include strategic easements to provide reasonable public and 

administrative access. Therefore, the revised Plan is consistent with the Act.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

The procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12(f)(6)) require that at least one

alternative be developed that responds to and incorporates the Resources Planning Act (RPA)

Program’s tentative resource objectives for each National Forest as displayed in Regional Guides. 

The last RPA Program was developed in 1995 and the Regional Guide for the Northern Region 

was withdrawn on November 26, 2001, as required by the 2000 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.35 

(e)). The Forest Service Strategic Plan 2007–2012 in lieu of an RPA Program, was completed in 

accordance with the Government Performance Results Act and the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act. The Strategic Plan does not recommend outputs to incorporate in specific 

forest plans, but all alternatives analyzed in detail in the Final EIS support the broad strategic 

objectives.

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112)

Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner; to monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; 

to provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been 

invaded; to conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent 

introduction; and to provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and promote 

public education on invasive species and the means to address them. All of these actions are 

subject to the availability of appropriations. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management, sets forth 

National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, 

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

vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and pathogens). Regional supplemental manual direction (FSM 

2080) includes additional direction for prevention and control of noxious weeds.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of 

activities that may have the potential to affect the dispersal of invasive species. The revised Plan

includes forestwide desired condition statements (FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-AQS-02), objectives 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

31

(FW-OBJ-VEG-02), guidelines (FW-GDL-AQS-02), and specific MA direction that stress the 

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

spread from management activities. In addition, other direction (e.g., FW-DC-WTR-02, FW-DCSOIL-01,02,03, FW-DC-RIP-04, 06, FW-DC-AQH-01, FW-OBJ-SOIL-01, FW-STD-RIP-03, 04, 

FW-GDL-RIP-03, 05, FW-GDL-AQS-02) serves to protect watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic 

conditions in ways that will reduce management caused disturbances which otherwise may 

increase weed spread or introduction. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with 

Executive Order 13112 and FSM 2900.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186

Executive Order 13186 (January 10, 2001): “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect

Migratory Birds” was issued by President Bill Clinton in furtherance of the purposes of the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. This 

order requires including effects of federal actions on migratory birds as part of the environmental 

analysis process. On December 8, 2008, the Forest Service signed a Memorandum of 

understanding with the USFWS to complement the Executive Order (USDA Forest Service 2008) 

and the Forest Service agreed to: (a) incorporate migratory bird habitat and population objectives 

and recommendations into the agency planning process, in cooperation with other governments, 

state, federal agencies, and non-federal partners and (b) strive to protect, restore, enhance, and 

manage habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining 

habitats on NFS lands.

The IPNF observe conservation strategies within the Partners in Flight Conservation Plan (PIF 

2000). The use of this plan supports the goal of maintaining long-term sustainability of migratory 

bird species and their habitats as specified by this Act and the E.O. The revised Plan includes 

forestwide and MA direction related to key stressors for migratory birds and their habitats, 

including direction to maintain or improve forest resilience, composition, and structure. Future 

site-specific activities or projects with the potential to impact migratory bird habitat will be 

analyzed with site-specific NEPA processes and comply with revised Plan direction. Therefore, 

the revised Plan is fully compliant with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and E.O. 13186.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (MUSYA), 

the Forest Service manages the NFS to sustain the multiple use of its renewable resources in

perpetuity while maintaining the long-term health and productivity of the land. Resources are 

managed through a combination of approaches and concepts for the benefit of human 

communities and natural resources. As demonstrated in the Final EIS and as required by MUSYA, 

this revised Plan guides sustainable, integrated resource management of the resources on the 

IPNF in the context of the broader landscape, giving due consideration to the relative values of 

the various resources in particular areas. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this 

Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The 

environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with the major elements of the 

requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

1500-1508). These include 1) considering a broad range of reasonable alternatives, 2) disclosing 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

32

cumulative effects, 3) using best scientific information, 4) consideration of long-term and shortterm effects, and 5) disclosure of unavoidable adverse effects.

The IPNF considered a broad range of alternatives in the Final EIS and has compiled a 

comprehensive record of the effects relevant to the alternatives (long-term, short-term, and 

cumulative effects) considering best scientific information. The revised Plan adopts all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. These means include provisions for 

providing the ecological conditions needed to support biological diversity and standards and 

guidelines to mitigate adverse environmental effects that may result from implementing various 

management practices. The revised Plan includes monitoring requirements and an adaptive 

management approach to assure needed adjustments are made over time.

The revised Plan does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The 

revised Plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any ground 

disturbing activities or projects. Future ground disturbing activities and projects will be consistent 

with this revised Plan and subject to additional site-specific public involvement, environmental 

analysis, and pre-decisional review processes. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with 

the Act and CEQ implementation regulations.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development, maintenance,

amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans for each unit of the National 

Forest System. These plans help create a dynamic management system so that an interdisciplinary 

approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences 

will be applied to all future actions on the unit (16 U.S.C. 1604(b), (f), (g), and (0). The Forest

Service is to ensure coordination of the multiple uses and sustained yield of products and services 

of the National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)).

NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations for developing and 

maintaining forest plans. On April 9, 2012, the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning 

rule for National Forest System land management planning (2012 Rule) 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]. 

According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the 

responsible official may elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 

Planning Rule, dated September 30, 1982, and as amended) to prepare plan amendments and 

revisions. The IPNF elected to use the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule for the plan revision. 

References in this draft ROD to sections of 1982 Planning Rule version of 36 CFR are indicated 

in the citations.

My review of the planning process, the Final EIS, and the information provided in the ROD 

indicates the revised Plan and its preparation meet requirements for revising plans under the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, as allowed in the transition provisions of the 2012 Planning 

Rule at 36 CFR 219.17. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with the Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires each Federal agency to take into 

account the effects of its actions on historic properties, prior to approving expenditure of Federal 

funds on an undertaking or prior to issuing any license. Furthermore, an agency must afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (an independent Federal agency created by NHPA) an 

opportunity to comment on any of the agency's undertaking that could affect historic properties. 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

33

National forests must work closely with the appropriate scientific community and American

Indian Tribes concerning cultural resources. Heritage inventories are to be completed prior to any 

ground disturbing activities associated with project level decisions. In addition, the laws and 

policies that govern cultural resource protection on Federal lands are coordinated with the State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) of Idaho, Montana, and Washington, who serve in an 

advisory capacity.

The revised Plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any 

ground disturbing activities or projects. Site-specific projects undertaken in response to direction 

in this revised Plan will fully comply with laws and regulations that ensure protection of heritage 

resources. The revised Plan includes Forestwide desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines for 

cultural resources to fully integrate heritage resource management with other management 

activities. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this Act.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294)

The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) applies to inventoried roadless areas managed 

by the IPNF, that are within the State of Idaho. This rule was promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 201). 

The Rule designates management theme or classifications for roadless areas in Idaho. This rule 

went through a separate public review and analysis process. The rule states “the prohibitions and 

permissions set forth in the rule are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in 

subsequent project decisions or land and resource management plans or revisions undertaken 

pursuant to 36 CFR 219” (36 CFR 294.28(e)). Therefore, the rule provides higher level 

management direction for roadless areas in Idaho and limits the scope of the revised Plan. The 

rule only provides management direction for road construction, reconstruction, timber cutting, 

and discretionary mineral activities. Based on this higher level direction, the revised Plan was 

developed to conform to the management themes and direction in the Idaho Roadless Rule for 

those portions of inventoried roadless areas in Idaho.

Management direction for inventoried roadless areas that are not within the state of Idaho is 

compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B, published at 

66 Fed Reg. 3244-3273). The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule includes a prohibition on 

road construction and road reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas and prohibitions on timber 

cutting, sale, or removal except in certain circumstances. The revised Plan is a programmatic 

level planning effort and does not directly authorize any road construction, reconstruction, or 

timber removal. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with these Rules.

Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644 as 

amended by Executive Order 11989)

This Executive Order addresses the use of off-road vehicles on public lands. It requires the Forest 

Service and other federal land management agencies to “establish polices and provide for 

procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and 

directed so as 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” (section 1). The 

Executive Order directs agencies to designate the “specific areas and trails on public lands on 

which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road 

vehicles may not be permitted” (section 3). 

Early efforts to manage motorized travel on the IPNFs began in 1969 with special designation 

areas prohibiting motorized use to protect specific characteristics and/or aesthetics. The IPNF 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

34

initiated forest wide travel planning in response to this E.O. and initially met designation 

requirements with the publication of the first travel plan map in 1976. Based on ongoing 

monitoring, the maps were revised in 1978, 1979, and 1980. Another assessment was completed 

in 1981 to resolve user conflict and protect natural resources such as aquatic and terrestrial 

wildlife habitats. Revisions and updates to the travel plan maps continued through 2007 as 

needed. In 2010, the Coeur D’Alene unit published the IPNF’s first motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM) as required by 36 CFR 212 subpart B, identifying the roads, trails and areas, by vehicle 

type and season of use, designated for (non-winter) motor vehicle use. The Kaniksu unit followed 

with the publication of a MVUM in 2011 and the St. Joe unit anticipates publication of its 

MVUM in 2014. Over-snow vehicle use continues to be governed by administrative orders 

pursuant to 36 CFR 261.53, 261.54, and 261.55, which include area closures established through 

site-specific planning to protect wildlife habitat and non-motorized recreation. In the Selkirk 

Mountain area of northern Idaho, the federal district court has imposed an injunction on 

snowmobile use for the protection of caribou.

In addition to the specific motorized recreation management reflected in the travel maps, the 1987 

Plan considered off-road vehicle use per the Executive Order and the NFMA implementing 

regulations at 36 CFR 219.21(g) (1982 Rule) when it allocated motorized and non-motorized use 

in specific management areas (see additional discussion regarding management area allocations 

below).

Section 8 of the Executive Order includes requirements for monitoring the effects of off-road 

vehicle use and adjusting designations as needed. It states: the “agency shall monitor the effects 

of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under their jurisdictions. On the basis of the information 

gathered, they shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions 

taken pursuant to this order as necessary to further the policy of this order.”

The IPNF monitor the effects of off-road vehicle use, and when necessary to further the policy of 

this order or to otherwise further the purposes for which the Forest was established, amends or 

rescinds motor vehicle use designations. The access and recreation section of the Final EIS 

documents the 44-year history of managing motorized recreation on the Forest.

In addition to the requirement for designating where off-road vehicles may or may not be 

permitted, section 3 of the Executive Order requires “that designation of such areas and trails will 

be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all 

users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” More 

specifically, the regulations further require that the designation of areas and trails shall:

1. Be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of 

the public lands.

2. Be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife 

habitats.

3. Be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or 

proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring lands, and to ensure the 

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account noise and other factors.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

35

4. Not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas.1

The management area allocations in the revised Plan and the closure orders that will accompany 

the final decision do identify areas and trails “on which the use of off-road vehicles may be 

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

important to note that this decision is programmatic in nature. The revised Plan sets desired 

conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines to frame and guide future forest 

management decisions. The management area allocations are my primary programmatic tool at 

the forest scale to “minimize conflicts” by identifying broad areas where motorized or nonmotorized use may or may not generally be allowed. 

The management areas with standards that do not allow motor vehicle use are considered 

“closed” allocations and motorized use is prohibited (MAs 1a, 1b, and 4a). Future decisions 

cannot authorize motorized use within the area without first amending the revised Plan to make it 

permissible. 

Areas with guidelines that state motor vehicle use “may occur” or “is allowed” are considered 

“open” allocations (portions of MAs 1c, 1e, 2a, 2b, 4b, 5, 6, and 7). However, while the use is 

permissible, the revised Plan does not mandate off-road vehicle use or indicate the area is subject 

to unmanaged off-road vehicle use. In fact, despite the “open” allocation, off-road motor vehicle 

use in these areas is constrained by site-specific motor vehicle use designations and site-specific 

over-snow motor vehicle prohibitions, as well as applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

with the intent and affect, of minimizing adverse effects of that use and minimizing conflict 

among the various uses of those lands.

My decision makes limited adjustments to the 1987 Plan’s (as amended) “closed” and “open with 

constraints” allocations. These adjustments coincide with allocation changes for recommended 

wilderness and research natural areas (see pages 7, 9, and 19), conforming allowed use to the 

management emphasis for those lands. The Final EIS discloses the effects relevant to my decision 

on the revised Plan (see the effects analysis discussions under vegetation, watershed, wildlife, and 

access and recreation in chapter 3 of the Final EIS). My decision to immediately conform actual 

uses to the allocations through certain closure orders further minimizes otherwise potential 

conflicts. 

I believe the effects of off-road vehicle use on the IPNF have been “minimized.” As discussed 

here, page 17 of this draft ROD, and in the Final EIS, we have been actively managing this use 

for over 40 years. Previous and ongoing management actions, both programmatic and site 

specific, have reasonably reduced and minimized the adverse effects of off-road vehicle use and 

conflict among the uses of the Forest. I find the Final EIS for the revised Plan demonstrates 

continuing consideration of the minimization criteria required to protect the resources of the 

IPNF, to promote the safety of users, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those 

lands. Therefore, the revised Plan is in compliance with this Executive Order.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Floodplains (Executive Order 

11998)

These Executive Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short- and longterm effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of flood plains, and the modification 

or destruction of wetlands.

 

1 The remainder of subsection 4 concerns National Parks and other lands not found on the IPNF.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

36

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of 

activities. It contains direction to ensure all site-specific projects meet or exceed State Best 

Management Practices. Implementation of the revised Plan is expected to contribute to protecting 

soil and water, wetlands, and riparian areas to minimize effects to flood plains and wetlands. 

Therefore, the revised Plan is in full compliance with these orders.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with three classes of river systems: 

wild, scenic, and recreation. The purpose of the act was to protect the river “...for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations” and to preserve select river’s free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) be 

administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river’s outstanding natural and cultural values. 

It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future uses to be considered, so long as existing 

or proposed use does not conflict with protecting river values. The Congressionally designated St. 

Joe Wild and Scenic River segments and 21,300 acres of associated corridor are allocated to 

MA2a with direction to protect these values. 

Evaluation of the eligibility of rivers and streams for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System was conducted for the preparation of the revised Plan as required by the Act and 

Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 1924.03). In addition, management area direction in the 

revised Plan provides protection for the outstandingly remarkable values identified for those 

rivers identified as eligible. Therefore, the revised Plan is compliant with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act.

Wilderness Act and Section 1782 of the Federal Lands Policy and 

Management Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be 

administered in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. It provides the statutory definition of wilderness and management requirements for 

congressionally designated areas. Section 1782 provides for the study of certain lands within the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to determine their suitability for designation as wilderness 

in accordance with the Wilderness Act, and for other purposes. These areas are referred to as 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The Grandmother Mountain WSA was acquired from the BLM 

with this designation. 

Evaluation of existing wilderness and areas for wilderness potential was included in the 

environmental analysis for the revised Plan, which includes specific management area direction 

for the management and protection of wilderness values on the IPNF as provided by the 

Wilderness Act. Management direction for those areas with existing legislative Wilderness and 

WSA designations is consistent with all law, regulation, and policy. Therefore, the revised Plan is

compliant with these Acts.
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

37

Implementation 

The revised Plan becomes effective 30 calendar days after publication of the notice of its approval 

in the Federal Register (36 CFR 219.17(a) 2012 Rule). This approval will not occur until the predecisional review process is complete and a final ROD issued.

The revised IPNF Land Management Plan provides a framework and text to guide resource 

management options. It is a strategic, programmatic document and does not make project-level 

decisions or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. Those kinds of commitments 

would be made after more detailed, site-specific analysis, and further public comment as part of 

the site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

The IPNF will also follow all laws, regulations, and policies that relate to managing NFS land. 

The revised Plan is designed to supplement, not replace, direction from these sources. The Final 

EIS lists and considers this direction for each of the revision topics and specific resources, but the 

revised Plan does not repeat laws, regulations, or program management policy, practices or 

procedures.

Project and Activity Consistency and Transition to the Revised 

Plan

The revised Forest Plan direction will apply to all projects that have decisions made on or after 

the effective date of the final Record of Decision. There may be some previously approved and 

ongoing projects that are not consistent with the revised Forest Plan. These projects need to 

remain consistent with the direction in the 1987 Forest Plan, and are not required to meet the 

direction of the revised Plan. The effects of these ongoing actions were considered as a part of the 

baseline in developing the Final EIS. 

As required by NFMA and the planning rule, subject to valid existing rights, all projects and 

activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of this revised Plan must be consistent 

with the applicable plan components (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) as described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 

2012 Planning Rule. (Although the transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.17 of the 2012 Planning 

Rule allow revision of this Plan under the 1982 regulations, subsequent projects or activities 

approved on units with plans revised under a prior planning rule must comply with the 

consistency requirement at 219.15 of the current rule.)

A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent 

with the Plan by the criteria listed at 36 CFR 219.15(d) (2012 Planning Rule). Where a proposed 

project or activity would not be consistent with Plan direction, the responsible official has the 

following options (36 CFR 219.15(c) 2012 Rule):

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable Plan

components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the Plan as 

amended;

4. Amend the Plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that 

the project or activity will be consistent with the Plan as amended. This amendment may 
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision

38

be limited to apply only to the project or activity, and may be adopted at the same time as 

the approval of the project or activity (36 CFR 219.15(c)(4) 2012 Rule).

Any resource plans (for example travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that 

apply to the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the revised

Plan components. Resource plans developed prior to plan decision must be evaluated for 

consistency with the plan and amended if necessary (36 CFR 219.15(e) 2012 Rule).

Authorizations for occupancy and use made before the final ROD may proceed unchanged until 

time of reauthorization. At time of reauthorization, all permits, contracts, and other authorizing 

instruments must be made consistent with the revised Plan, subject to existing valid rights, as 

provided at §219.15(d) (2012 Rule).

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and 

Adapting to New Information

Adaptive Management

A land management plan is an integral part of an adaptive management cycle that guides future 

management decisions and actions. Adaptive management includes:

Defining measurable management objectives;

Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances; and

Revising management strategies accordingly.

This adaptive management cycle enables the Forest to identify and respond to changing 

conditions, changing public desires, and new information, such as that obtained through research 

and scientific findings. The Forest’s monitoring program is an integral part of this adaptive 

management cycle, consisting of monitoring questions and performance measures (see chapter 5 

of the revised Plan for additional information about the monitoring plan).

Amending the Forest Plan

A forest plan may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a 

new assessment, forest plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information, changed 

conditions, or changed circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is 

described at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2) of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process 

(Objection Process)

The revised Plan and this draft ROD are subject to review and objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219 

regulations. A written objection must be submitted within 60 days following the publication of the 

legal notice of the objection period in the Federal Register and the newspaper of record. It is the 

responsibility of the objector to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner. The 

publication date of the legal notice of the objection period in the newspaper of record is the 
Draft Record of Decision Idaho Panhandle National Forests

39

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Objectors should not rely on date or 

timeframe information provided by any other source.

The following address should be used for objections sent by regular mail, private carrier, or hand 

delivery:

USDA Forest Service

Objection Reviewing Officer

EMC, RPC-6th Floor

Attn: Judicial and Administrative Reviews

1601 N. Kent St

Arlington, VA 22209 

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays, excluding holidays

Phone to be used for carrier deliveries is 202-205-1449.

Electronic objections must be submitted to: objections-chief@fs.fed.us

Faxed objections must be submitted to: (703) 235-0138.

In electronic objections, the subject line should contain the name of the revised Plan being 

objected to. An automated response will confirm that your electronic objection has been received. 

Electronic objections must be submitted in MS Word or Rich Text Format (RTF). It is the 

objector’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence and rationale for why an independent 

Forest Service review and resolution of issues should be conducted. 

The objection must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 219.54, and include the following 

information:

The objector’s name and address, along with telephone number or email address, if 

available;

A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for 

electronic mail may be filed with the objection);

When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector and 

verification of the lead objector upon request;

The name of the plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible 

official;

A statement of the issues and/or the parts of the plan revision to which the objection 

applies;

A concise statement explaining the objection and suggestion of how the proposed plan 

decision may be improved. If applicable, the objector should identify how the objector 

believes that the plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy; and

A statement that demonstrates the link between prior substantive formal comments 

submitted by the objector and the content of the objections, unless the objection concerns 

an issue that arose after the opportunity for formal comment.
Draft Idaho Panhandle National Forests Record of Decision 

Incomplete responses to these requirements make review of an objection difficult and are 

conditions under which the reviewing officer may set aside an objection pursuant to 36 CPR 

219.55(a)(5). 

If an objection is received, the responsible official will publish a notice of all objections received 

in the newspaper of record and post the notice online. Unless the time is extended (36 CPR 

219.56(g)) the reviewing officer will issue a written response to the objection within 90 days. 

Prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer's written response, either the reviewing officer or 

objector may request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection and seek potential 

resolution. The reviewing officer must allow other interested persons to participate in such 

meetings. An interested person must file a request to participate in an objection within 10 days 

after publication of the notice of objection. Resolution meetings are also open to the public. If you 

are interested in attending any resolution meetings, please contact the Responsible Official or 

monitor the following website for postings about current objections in the Forest Service: 

-'-=~'-'-'--'-'-'-~='-"==~'-'-=-'-'-"-'-'-'-=='-'====~'-"'.!.=and look for the Anpcal Resolution 

Timing of Decision and Implementation 

If objections are filed, the responsible official may not issue a decision document concerning a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all 

objections. A decision by the responsible official approving the plan must be consistent with the 

reviewing officer's response to objections. If no objections are filed within the 60-day time 

period, the responsible official may approve the plan on, but not before, the fifth business day 

following the end of the objection-filing period. 

Contact Person 

Further infonnation about the Final EIS, revised Plan, and draft ROD can be obtained from 

Shanda Dekome during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00a.m. to 4:30p.m.) at the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests Supervisor's Office (Address: Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 

3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur D'Alene, ID 83815; Phone/voicemail: (208) 765-7223. 

Approval 

Regional Forester 

Northern Region 

40 

August 28, 2013 

Date