United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Intermountain

Region 

January 2008 

 

 

 

Payette National Forest

Weiser Ranger District

Snow-free Season

Travel Management Plan

Record of Decision
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 
Record of Decision 

for Snow-Free Travel Management on the Payette National Forest, 

Weiser Ranger District 

USDA Forest Service 

Located in Washington, County, Idaho 

January 2008 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

 Responsible Official: Suzanne C. Rainville, Forest Supervisor 

 Payette National Forest 

 800 West Lakeside Avenue 

 McCall, Idaho 83638 

 (208) 634-0700 

Information Contact: Jane Cropp 

 Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

(208) 634-0757 

Or 

 Payette National Forest 

 Public Affairs Officer 

 (208) 634-0784 
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents 

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 3 

Background........................................................................................................................ 3 

Purpose and Need for Action............................................................................................. 4 

Decision ............................................................................................................................. 5 

Rationale for the Decision ................................................................................................. 7 

Forest Plan Consistency..................................................................................................... 9 

Public Involvement and Alternatives Considered................................................................ 10 

Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 10 

Response to Primary Comments Received in the FEIS that pertain to the Weiser Ranger 

District.............................................................................................................................. 11 

Other Alternatives Considered......................................................................................... 15 

Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations................................................. 16 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative............................................................................ 19 

Implementation .................................................................................................................... 20 

Monitoring and Mitigation............................................................................................... 21 

Administrative Appeal..................................................................................................... 21 

Contacts............................................................................................................................ 22 

Appendix A – Errata Information for the PNF Travel Plan EIS Document and Maps....... 23 

Errors Identified in Body of EIS Document and/or additional information:................... 23 

Appendix B – Summary of Public Comments and Agency Response ................................ 25 

General Comments on FEIS ............................................................................................ 26 

Appendix C – Weiser Ranger District Designated Routes Selected Alternative for the ROD

.............................................................................................................................................. 42 

Appendix D – ROS map for Weiser Ranger District – snow-free season........................... 50

Weiser Ranger District ROD Travel Map attached in a map package 

 ROD-2
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 

The Payette National Forest (PNF) completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) to assess and designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motorized and 

non-motorized uses during both snow covered and snow-free periods. The environmental 

analysis was completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the PNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and other relevant 

federal and state laws and regulations and discloses effects of travel management 

designations for both summer and winter travel uses on the portion of the Payette National 

Forest outside of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONRW). 

Due to the complexity of the Forest-wide analysis, I decided to separate my decision by 

Ranger District for snow-free travel management. This decision document pertains to the 

Weiser Ranger District for snow-free travel management. The map included with this 

decision will designate motorized and non-motorized roads and trails on the Weiser Ranger 

District. The Weiser Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be issued 

during the implementation phase, and will designate motorized use on roads and trails by 

vehicle class and time of year (seasonal roads and trails). 

The analysis of alternatives and public comment received on the FEIS for the Payette 

National Forest Travel Management Plan serves as the basis for my decision for snow-free 

travel management on the Weiser Ranger District. My decision incorporates by reference 

the analysis of effects and management direction disclosed in the FEIS, the errata to the 

FEIS located in Appendix A, and the planning record in its entirety. 

Background 

Management of the PNF is guided by the Forest Plan as directed in the 1976 National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA). Regulations implementing the NFMA require the 

Regional Forester to revise forest plans and provide the basis for revision. The initial PNF 

Forest Plan completed in 1988 identified travel management planning as a significant issue 

and led to the release of a Forest Travel Map. This Forest Travel Map was revised in 1995 

and has been updated on a yearly basis by the PNF Backroads map. These maps provided 

visitors with information on roads, trails, and areas open for various forms of travel on the 

Forest. 

In 2003, the Payette National Forest revised the Forest Plan under regulations formulated in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219) in 1982. The purpose of the revision was to 

guide all natural resource management activities, address changed conditions and 

directions, and meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and policies. 

The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plan Final EIS for the 

Forest Plan identified travel management, including winter access management as issues 

not analyzed in detail. The responsible official decided to not address travel management 

in the revision process “due to the broad array of localized issues with travel management 

that occurs at scales below a Forest Planning unit.” The decision was made to address 

travel management under a separate, more localized planning process (Forest Plan 2003: 

V.1: 2-6; USDA Forest Service, 2003a: ROD: 8). 

 ROD-3
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

National direction for travel management, specifically off-road use of motor vehicles on 

federal lands, is provided by Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (February 8, 1972) as amended 

by E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977). Forest Service rules at Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 295 codify the requirements in E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989. Regulations 

regarding travel management on National Forest System lands were recently modified 

(36CFR212, 215, 261 & 295). These regulations provide further direction for travel 

management specifically requiring the designation of roads, trails and areas open to motor 

vehicle use, and prohibiting the use of motor vehicles off the designated system. 

These changes in travel management regulations coupled with increased motorized and 

non-motorized uses on the PNF necessitate the need for designation of a travel system that 

will strive to balance travel management needs between different forest uses while 

sustaining natural resource values. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Payette National Forest Supervisor identified the following as the purpose for a 

revised Travel Management Plan: 

• Meet Forest Plan and national direction. 

• Limit indiscriminate motorized cross-country travel. 

• Designate a system of roads, trails, and over-snow use areas. 

• Balance management considerations (such as maintenance costs and public safety) 

with recreation opportunities. 

• Reduce impacts to Forest resources. 

• Reduce conflicts between recreational uses. 

The need for revision of the Travel Management Plan was identified in the 2003 PNF 

Forest Plan and Record of Decision (ROD) (Forest Plan 2003). The responsible official for 

the Forest Plan made the decision to address travel management under a separate, more 

localized planning process. The Forest Plan provided a framework for travel management 

planning. This framework requires that travel management emphasize maintenance and 

restoration of watershed conditions, species viability, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and 

functioning ecosystems. The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor 

vehicle use will enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural 

resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use; enhance 

opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands; 

address needs for access to National Forest System lands, and preserve areas of opportunity 

on each National Forest for non-motorized travel and experiences. 

During the Forest Plan revision process, Payette National Forest specialists identified a 

variety of resource concerns related to travel management including conflicts between 

recreational uses, and impacts to wildlife, fish, and water quality from cross-country 

motorized travel, and use of unauthorized roads. These concerns were captured in the 

Payette National Forest Travel Plan FEIS as “Management Requirements” (FEIS page 2-5- 

through 2-56). Inconsistent travel management direction across the Forest was also causing 

 ROD-4
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

problems with the enforcement of travel regulations. Much of the eastern portion of the 

PNF was closed to cross-country motorized travel, while large areas on the western portion 

of the PNF were open to cross-country motorized travel. 

The need for revision of the PNF Travel Management Plan is also supported by a 

nationwide awareness within the Forest Service of the harmful effects of indiscriminate 

off-road travel. The proliferation of user-created routes is a major challenge on the Payette 

National Forest and examples of significant environmental damage, safety issues, and use 

conflicts are well established. This led to the Forest Service Final Rule (Final Rule) in the 

Federal Register: 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, 295 “Travel Management; Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” (Federal Register 2005: 70 FR 68264). This 

Final Rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. The 

Final Rule prohibits use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of 

motor vehicles on routes and in areas inconsistent with the designation. 

Designations and prohibitions under the Final Rule do not apply to legally documented 

rights-of-way held by States, counties, or other local public road authorities. Only National 

Forest System (NFS) roads and NFS trails may be designated for motor vehicle use under 

the Final Rule and in this travel plan for the Weiser Ranger District. 

Decision 

After a thorough review of the Payette National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS, 

consideration of Tribal, cooperator, agency and public comments, and resource specialist 

input, I have selected to implement Alternative E as described in the FEIS, for the Weiser 

Ranger District (Which includes the analysis for portions of MAs 2 and 3) with the 

following modifications: 

Snow-free Travel Management Modifications: 

• In MA 2, trail #259 and Trail #287 are open to two-wheel motorized use on a 

seasonal basis, from July 1 – September 15. This is the existing condition of these 

two trails due to a previous decision, but the seasonal closure information was 

missing from the FEIS. Trail #259 ties into seasonal road 50044. A 5.1 mile 

portion of road #50044 is open seasonally from July 1 through September 15, this is 

an existing condition and was missing from the FEIS map and open road mile 

analysis. This 5.1 miles of road #50044 will be designated open to seasonal 

motorized use. Due to conflicting information and differing perceptions held by 

several members of the public and various agencies, I am requesting the Weiser 

District Ranger to review all previous environmental documents related to the 

50044 road. 

• In MA 2, two-wheel motorized trail #250 will remain a two-wheel motorized trail, 

but the trail is barely visible on the ground. Until reconstruction can be funded and 

implemented on this trail, it will not show up as an open designated trail on the 

MVUM. 

• In MA 3, a 0.3 mile portion of unauthorized road 501641500 will be closed, as 

shown in Alternative D, because of cultural resource findings on the road bed. 

 ROD-5
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

When cultural resource mitigation can be accomplished, the route will be 

designated open to OHV. Cost of mitigation will dictate the timing on re-opening 

this section of trail/road. 

• In MA 3, trail #352 continues as a 1.7 mile OHV trail connecting road 51155 to 

ATV trail #352 (leading to Rush Peak). This route has been an exiting 4-wheel 

drive road, and appears on the 1995 Payette National Forest travel map, but was not 

featured on the most recent Backroads map, used as the base for “existing 

condition”. I am adding it to the designated motorized trail system. This section of 

existing open trail was missing from the FEIS maps and OHV trail mile analysis. It 

adds 1.7 miles of OHV trail to the motorized designated open trail system. 

For the remainder of this document, Alternative E – modified will be referred to as the 

Selected Alternative. Implementing the Travel Management Final Rule and designating a 

system of roads and trails will eliminate unregulated motorized cross country travel. 

Motorized travel on unauthorized routes will no longer be allowed. There are no areas 

designed where unregulated cross country motorized travel is allowed. Forest users may 

travel up to 300 feet from the centerline of designated roads and 100 feet from designated 

motorized trails for the purpose of dispersed camping only. Traveling off of designated 

roads or trails for any other purpose, except those that I discuss below, may only be 

accomplished with a written authorization. Game retrieval using motorized vehicles off of 

designated roads and motorized trails is prohibited. Fire wood permits, operating plans, 

plans of operation are some of the written authorizations that will incorporate explicit 

allowances for cross country motorized travel. 

Because I have chosen to issue separate district wide decisions, and the FEIS analyzed the 

Forest by Management Areas, to avoid confusion I have developed and incorporated into 

my decision tables 1 and 2 located in Appendix C describing all road and trail designation 

specific to the Weiser Ranger District as analyzed in Alternative E, adapting the 

modifications to the alternative listed above. My decision designates a system of 

motorized roads and trails that are generally similar to those managed under the 1995 

Travel Plan as amended by the most current Backroads publication. 

My decision is consistent with the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan and the 2005 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for 

Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule (Federal Register 2005: 70 FR 68264). In addition my 

decision is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant 

scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the 

acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. 

Motorized designation will be by vehicle class (roads open to highway legal vehicles only, 

roads open to all vehicles, trails open to vehicles 50” or less in width, trails open to all 

vehicles, trails open to motorcycles only) and time of year. The Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) developed using this decision will display this information using the National 

Mapping standards for MVUMs. 

 ROD-6
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Rationale for the Decision 

During the travel planning efforts I have gained an increased understanding and 

appreciation for the complexities and controversy surrounding travel management on the 

PNF. For this decision regarding snow-free travel management on the Weiser Ranger 

District I have considered the site specific public comments and resource issues identified 

through the planning process and have strived to strike a balance between the various 

motorized and non-motorized uses, and the natural and cultural resource values across the 

PNF. I am sure that no single user or group will completely agree with my decision, but I 

do hope they can appreciate that their comments and concerns have been heard and 

considered in context of all the comments and resource issues associated with travel 

management on the PNF. 

With the Selected Alternative, use on the Forest will in many ways continue on as it has in 

the past. Users will continue to be able to camp in both dispersed and developed recreation 

sites. Under different authorizations and permitting, users will be able to continue to 

collect firewood, harvest Christmas trees, conduct mining, grazing and timber operations, 

and conduct other authorized uses on the forest. Work associated with these activities will 

continue as they do now, through operating plans, plans of operation, special use 

authorizations, and established authorization processes. 

As stated in the Final Rule, motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulations is exempted from designations made 

under 36CFR 212.51 and restrictions and prohibitions established by the Final Rule. 

Section 261.13 states that while the written authorization is an exemption, use of motor 

vehicles contrary to the written authorization is prohibited. 

While this decision does not address every issue or resource concern associated with travel 

management, it makes important steps towards meeting Payette NF Forest Plan 

requirements and implementing national direction for travel management. Specifically, 

this decision will eliminate unmanaged cross country motorized travel and provide a 

network of designated travel routes for motorized and non-motorized uses during snow-free 

seasons on the Weiser Ranger District. 

The Selected Alternative was developed based on input received on the draft EIS and 

reflects the most inclusive integration of site-specific comments received from our diverse 

forest recreational users. The Selected Alternative provides for a diversity of motorized 

and non-motorized opportunities for the snow-free seasons in a manner that reduces the 

potential for conflict between uses, improves public safety and maintains and protects 

important natural and cultural resource values. 

While making my decision I considered effects on the Payette National Forest’s natural and 

cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, 

conflicts among uses on the Forest, the need for maintenance and administration of roads 

and trails designated by my decision, the criteria for designation of roads and trails as listed 

in 212.55(b) of the Final Rule; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and 

administration. As part of my decision to designate the system of roads and trails as 

 ROD-7
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

identified in the Selected Alternative I am counting on the help offered by the many 

volunteers and cooperators in their comment letters to supplement Forest resources for 

maintenance of the designated travel system. I chose an alternative that proposed a 

designated system of roads and trails that I believe the District can maintain with the 

available funding allocations (including grants) and human resources (volunteers) to 

accomplish the work. I may need to consider closing portions of this system in the future if 

funding is reduced. 

Given the quantity of information received and compiled as part of this process, it is likely 

that there may be minor errors or unforeseen consequences associated with some travel 

designations. As a starting point, errors identified through the public and internal review of 

the FEIS have been captured and documented in Appendix A of this decision. 

As we proceed with implementation of this decision, I assure you that through monitoring 

and continued public input we will work collaboratively with the public, Tribes, 

cooperators, and other agencies to address and work through potential issues in an open and 

constructive manner. This kind of collaborative and adaptive approach is imperative to 

build public support and to successfully implement travel management on the PNF now 

and into the future. 

In addition it is important to realize that this decision reflects the best available information 

for this point in time. The Forest does not expect road and trail management objectives to 

remain static over time. The Final Rule recognizes that designations to travel routes are not 

permanent and that unforeseen environmental impacts, changes in public demand or 

monitoring may lead to responsible officials revising designations, and 36CFR 212.54 

provides for revision of designations as needed to meet changing conditions. I recognize 

there may be a need for changes and will be open to addressing these needs as they arise. 

Necessary changes or alterations to travel management will continue across the Forest 

through site specific project analyses and continued public collaboration and feedback on 

travel management across the PNF. 

Snow-free Travel Opportunities 

I believe the Selected Alternative will improve our ability to meet the demands of current 

and future recreational use while providing for increased public safety and protection of 

important natural and cultural resources across the district. 

Specifically, the Selected Alternative maintains 200.8 miles of motorized open and 

seasonally open forest roads on the Weiser Ranger District, representing no reduction from 

existing condition (FEIS pp. S-22, 23; 2-57). The level of forest roads in the Selected 

Alternative will provide for efficient access for forest users, and on-going forest 

management and administration activities across the district. Funding of needed road 

maintenance will remain challenging and the Forest will continue to do strategic 

prioritization of future maintenance needs and expenditures with the help of volunteers and 

partnerships and local interested groups. 

 ROD-8
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

I also received comments from publics that believe a greater reduction in forest roads 

(especially on the west side of the PNF) is needed to reduce watershed and wildlife 

impacts. In making my decision, I considered these impacts and believe that the 

elimination of motorized cross-country travel, and reduction in motorized use on 

unauthorized roads will lead to a reduction in watershed and wildlife impacts ultimately 

benefiting these and other resources over the short and long term. 

The Selected Alternative expands the mileage of ATV and OHV trails by providing for 

21.5 miles of ATV trail (5.7 miles over the existing condition of 15.8 miles ATV trail), and 

provides for 7.6 miles (4.8 miles over the existing condition of 2.8 miles OHV) of OHV 

road (identified as “motorized-full size vehicle” in the MVUM). These miles were 

provided in response to demands for this type of motorized experience (FEIS pp. S-22, 23; 

2-57). In addition, legally permitted ATV’s and their licensed riders will also have over 

200 miles of riding opportunities on the open and seasonally open road system. 

The Selected Alternative designates 66.4 miles of two-wheel motorized single track trail. 

While this a reduction from Alternative A (the Selected Alternative reduces two-wheel 

motorized trail mileage by 8.8 miles from the current condition), the reduction is partially 

offset by the increase in ATV and OHV trails that are also available for two-wheel 

motorized users (FEIS pp. S-21 to 23; 2-57, 3-54). Much of the reduction in two-wheel 

motorized trails is associated with rarely used, poorly designed trails where two-wheel 

motorized use is considered potentially unsafe and likely to result in resource damage 

(FEIS pp. 3-54 to 3-57). The Selected Alternative retains many challenging single-track 

trails for the more experienced riders seeking a highly technical two-wheel motorized 

experience (such as trail #245 – Boundary Creek, and trail #258 – Brownlee Creek). 

There are 68.3 miles of non-motorized trails designated on the Weiser Ranger District in 

the Selected Alternative, an increase of 5.2 miles of non-motorized trail (FEIS pp. S-21 to 

23; 2-57, 3-56). The increase in non-motorized trails is in large part associated with 

changes from two-wheel motorized to non-motorized on trails receiving little or no past 

two-wheel use (FEIS pp. 3-54 to 3-57). 

The Selected Alternative maintains access to areas important to all Native American Tribes 

who use the Weiser Ranger District and helps to preserve local Native American culture by 

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

uses of the forest. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

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

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

3 of the FEIS and in the Rationale Section of this ROD. In addition, my decision 

incorporates management requirements from the Forest Plan that are designed for the 

protection of Forest resources and to ensure consistency with forest plan direction. These 

are discussed and summarized in the FEIS on pages 2-15 to 2-56. No Forest Plan 

amendments are needed to implement this project. 

 ROD-9
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Public Involvement and Alternatives Considered 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement in this project officially began in October of 2004 when the proposed 

action was issued to 616 members of the public. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in 

the Federal Register on October 4, 2004. Public comment was taken through January 7th, 

2005. Many comments were received including: 130 comment forms, 165 emails, 34 faxes, 

254 letters, and 964 postcards. All comments received were reviewed and categorized by 

issue. Major issues were incorporated into the design of two new alternatives. Documents 

detailing the review of public comments and how the agency incorporated the substantive 

comments into new alternative design are available in the Project Record. 

Five public meetings were held in September and October of 2004, in McCall, Riggins, 

Council, New Meadows, and Weiser, Idaho. Informational meetings were held at the 

request of many stakeholders during the scoping phase of the project. 

The project (including the Proposed Action, press releases, and additional information) was 

featured on the PNF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette. The Proposed Action 

maps, narratives, and summaries were available for review at the Weiser Ranger District, 

the Council Ranger District, the New Meadows Ranger District, the Hell’s Canyon 

National Recreation Area in Riggins, and the Payette National Forest Supervisor’s Office 

in McCall. 

Scoping letters were sent to three Tribal Nations: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, ShoshonePaiute Tribes of Duck Valley, and Nez Perce Tribe. Formal government–to-government 

consultation has occurred with the Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, and Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes including briefings to the tribal councils and their technical staff. 

The DEIS was published in early February of 2006. The comment period on the DEIS 

officially began on February 17, 2006 when the Notice of Availability was published in the 

Federal Register. The Forest initially established a 46-day comment period. The comment 

period was extended an additional 46 days at the request of members of the public. 

Five public meetings were held in February and March of 2006, in Boise, Weiser, Council, 

New Meadows, and McCall. The DEIS and accompanying maps were featured on the PNF 

website. Copies of the DEIS and the maps were available at all Forest offices. 

Copies of the DEIS were sent to three Tribal Nations: the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Formal government-togovernment consultation on the project continued with the Nez Perce Tribe, ShoshoneBannock and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe. 

During the 92-day comment period on the DEIS, the Forest received approximately 450 

comments including letters, emails, and faxes. All comments received were reviewed and 

categorized by issue. The Forest then developed a new action alternative, Alternative E, to 

respond to these comments and to address Ranger District specific needs and preferences. 

 ROD-10
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

The FEIS was published in April 2007 and a final 30-day comment period officially started 

on May 25, 2007 with publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The 

comment period was extended from June 25 to July 10, 2007 based on public request for 

additional time to comment. While there is no requirement for a comment period on a 

FEIS, I felt it was important to gain feedback from the public on the newly developed 

Alternative E before making a final decision. 

Since the end of the comment period the Forest has continued to engage with various 

publics including formal information sharing meetings with travel plan cooperators 

including members of the winter recreation forum, Adams, Idaho and Valley County 

commissioners, Idaho Fish and Game and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. 

Aside from these formal meetings travel plan team specialists have been responsive to 

numerous public requests for additional information or clarification on the travel plan. 

This final comment period generated over 2000 letters, e-mails, and faxes from a range of 

individuals, groups and other agencies. These comments were reviewed and evaluated by 

myself and travel plan team members, and my decision reflects responsiveness to many 

comments and concerns received on the FEIS. 

Besides formal public involvement numerous newspaper articles and press releases 

regarding the travel planning effort have been published in the local and regional papers 

since spring of 2004, including the Star News (McCall), Long Valley Advocate (Cascade), 

Adams County Record (Council), Weiser Signal American (Weiser), and Idaho Statesman

(Boise). Legal Notices of comment and availability were published in the Star News,

Idaho Statesman, Adams County Record, Idaho County Free Press, and Weiser Signal 

American. In addition, the Forest has maintained a website providing public access to the 

current information, environmental documents, maps, and other items pertaining to travel 

management. 

Response to Primary Comments Received in the FEIS that pertain 

to the Weiser Ranger District 

The following sections document my consideration and responsiveness to the main issues 

and concerns brought forth during the FEIS comment period both general and specific to 

the Weiser Ranger District. A summary of public comments and agency responses is 

provided in Appendix B of this document. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) 

The Payette National Forest is committed to protecting and managing roadless areas as an 

important component of the National Forest System. The comments on roadless areas 

expressed a wide range of views. Most comments pertained to IRAs on other districts on 

the Forest. Some individuals and groups felt these areas should be made available for 

additional motorized use, while others felt motorized uses should be eliminated to protect 

roadless values. 

 ROD-11
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Comments received during the scoping period drove the development of the “Roadless 

Character and Wilderness Issue 1” in the DEIS and FEIS. Indicators were developed that 

could measure potential effects to IRAs. The two indicators developed were 1) Effects to 

wilderness potential, and 2) Effects to wilderness attributes, which included natural 

appearance, natural integrity, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive 

recreation, and special features. 

There are two IRAs within the Weiser Ranger District; Cuddy Mountain IRA, which is in a 

4.1c management prescription, and the Sheep Gulch IRA, which is in a 3.2 management 

prescription (PNF Forest Plan pages II-44 – 46). The Roadless Area Re-Evaluation 

(Appendix, Volume 3; PNF Forest Plan; pages C-194- C198 and C- 246 – 250) did not 

recommend either IRA for wilderness, and both would be available for low levels of 

development, but, undeveloped character of each IRA needed to evaluated for any change 

during project level NEPA analysis. 

Under the Selected Alternative there is no effect to the two IRA’s character or attributes 

(FEIS p. 2-63) resulting from the road and trail designations, as there is no change to the 

current motorized trail network within the IRAs. Motorized cross-country travel was 

already prohibited in both IRAs so there is no change to existing condition with the 

selected alternative (FEIS p. 3-74). 

Firewood Gathering 

Many individuals commented about the impacts of the travel plan on firewood gathering 

opportunities and expressed concern with the evaluation of firewood gathering as a nonsignificant issue. I understand firewood gathering is significant to many of our local 

publics and recognize the importance of firewood for providing a source of fuel. The 

decision to categorize firewood gathering as a non-significant issue is not because I believe 

it is not significant to the public, but rather because the collection of firewood is already 

regulated through the firewood permitting process. 

The Final Rule provides for off-road motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized 

pursuant to a written authorization issued under Federal law (36CFR261.13). The existing 

firewood map allows for travel 300 feet off designated roads. Based on the comments I 

received regarding firewood gathering I have directed the Weiser District Ranger to look at 

analyzing potential firewood cutting areas that may be designated through the Firewood 

Permit Process for the 2009 field season. The existing Firewood map would be used this 

2008 field season until the analysis is complete. The firewood permit will specify the areas 

for fuel wood collections and allow for off-road motor vehicle use in those areas. 

Unauthorized Roads 

There were many comments received on the closure of unauthorized roads across the forest 

and impacts this would have on the public’s ability to gather firewood, recreate and enjoy 

the forest. An “unauthorized road or trail” (36CFR212.1) is “A road or trail that is not a 

forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest 

transportation atlas”. This includes, for example, user created trails/roads, and some 

temporary roads created for past forest management practices. The difficulty with 

 ROD-12
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

unauthorized roads lies in the fact that the forest does not have complete information on 

their level or type of use, condition, or location. Many felt the forest should implement a 

complete inventory of these roads before making any travel management decisions. While 

this was considered, it was not feasible to complete such a task with our existing budgets 

and personnel, and such an inventory may never be complete, as new routes will continue 

to be created during the inventory process. 

In the past, user-created routes were developed without agency authorization, 

environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the same status as National 

Forest System roads and trails included in the forest transportation system. The Final Rule 

recognizes this and indicates complete inventories are not necessary in order to complete 

the designation process. The Final Rule does allow for designating unauthorized roads as 

part of the transportation system through the public involvement process for travel 

planning. The Forest followed this direction and provided the opportunity for the public to 

bring forward unauthorized roads suitable for travel or recreational opportunities. This 

desire and intention was communicated from the beginning through public meetings, press 

releases, and continued throughout the planning process. 

No additional roads were added to the designated system on the Weiser Ranger District, but 

motorized trails were added as referenced in my above decision. 

In response to the concern over loss of access associated with unauthorized roads I asked 

team specialists to compile what was known about the unauthorized roads. There are an 

estimated 3000+ miles of unauthorized roads across the entire Payette National Forest. 

Past analysis and inventories (1996-2003) have collected information on approximately 

one-third of those forest-wide roads, 1020 miles. At the time these roads were surveyed, 

approximately 31% were passable by a full size vehicle, 34% passable by an ATV or 

motorcycle, and the remaining 35% by foot or horse traffic. Many of these inventories are 

5-10 years old so the condition of many roads may have changed (grown in, washed out, 

opened up etc.) or new user created routes may have been pioneered since the inventories 

were completed. 

Further assessment of the inventoried unauthorized roads reveals that approximately 300 

miles (30% of the inventoried unauthorized roads) have been analyzed and proposed for 

decommissioning through past NEPA projects that included public involvement, and 

approximately 240 miles (24% of inventoried roads) occur in areas that have been 

previously closed to motorized cross-country travel (the old A and B areas). The remaining 

46% of inventoried roads are located in areas that were previously (prior to this decision) 

open to motorized cross-country travel. As stated in my rationale for this decision, closing 

these areas will meet national direction and end unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. 

Continual site-specific project planning efforts on the districts will allow the public future 

opportunities to look at additional unauthorized routes becoming designated routes. It is 

my desire that during these small scale, site specific levels of planning, meaningful public 

input and dialogue on the unauthorized roads can occur. 

 ROD-13
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Access to Private Lands 

Several respondents who own land adjacent to or are surrounded by National Forest land 

expressed concern over changes in travel designations and their ability to access private 

lands. In instances where road or trail designations change on routes leading to private 

lands, landowners will still be allowed access to their properties through the regular special 

use permit issuance process. No decisions on access to private lands will be made with this 

travel plan decision (FEIS p. 1-12). This decision pertains to designations for general 

recreational uses. 

Section 1323(a) of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) 

provides property owners within the boundaries of the NFS certain rights of access across 

NFS lands. While ANILCA provides certain rights to property owners, those rights are 

subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Forest Service may prescribe in a 

written authorization. This decision affects all roads on the Weiser Ranger District, 

including those leading to private lands. Private roads needed only for the purpose of 

accessing private property will not show up on the MVUM. Private land owners will need 

to have a Forest Service issued special use authorization issued under Federal Law (36CFR 

261.13) to access their property, if the road accessing their land is not shown as open to 

motorized use on the map. 

Access for Mining Activities 

No decisions on access to mining claims will be made with this travel plan decision. 

Access for mining activities will continue to be directed by Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 2817.25. For activities determined by the authorized officer to not likely result in 

significant disturbance to surface resources no special authorization for access is necessary. 

To assist in this determination, an operator must submit a notice of intent describing 

proposed exploratory activities to the authorized officer if traveling off the designated open 

motorized system of road and/or trails. If the authorized officer determines the activity is 

not likely to result in significant disturbance of surface resources no special authorization 

for access is necessary including the use of unauthorized roads designated as closed by this 

decision. If the authorized officer determines that such activities are likely to result in 

significant disturbance to surface resources, then use of unauthorized roads designated as 

closed through this decision would be authorized for use through the plan of operations 

approval process. As such, access for mining activities will not be affected by this 

decision.

Economic Analysis 

Some individuals and user groups disagreed with the use of the Gallatin economic study, 

and stated the need for additional economic analysis. I reviewed and considered other 

economic studies and took into account public comments, and feel I had enough 

information to make a reasoned decision on the potential economic impacts of this travel 

management decision. 

The FEIS clearly discloses the rationale for citing the Gallatin economic study. Given the 

scale and diversity of the total economy in the counties, the fact that a variety of 

recreational uses are maintained under all alternatives and that economic effects related to 

 ROD-14
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

travel on National Forest System lands are more driven by national trends than by the 

supply of recreation areas, reliance on this study as an indicator of the economic 

relationship of travel management on the PNF was appropriate. 

Under this decision, changes in use opportunities vary little from existing condition and do 

not represent an elimination or massive reduction of any one particular use. This decision 

maintains a variety of uses and as such is not expected to have a measurable effect on local 

businesses reliant on recreational users and uses on the Weiser Ranger District. 

The addition of several new ATV routes and associated loop opportunities provides an 

opportunity for local counties and businesses to capitalize on this newly expanded form of 

recreational opportunity. In summary, when compared with the force of national trends, 

regional and local demographics and larger economic factors influencing the economies of 

Washington County, the relatively small changes in different recreational travel 

designations on the Weiser Ranger District are unlikely to have measurable economic 

impacts. 

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

My decision to implement the Selected Alternative would not result in any changes to ROS 

classes/summer on the Weiser Ranger District (Table 1). See Appendix D for the ROS 

map. 

 

Table 1. Weiser Ranger District ROS Acreage 

ROS Alternative A – Current 

Condition Alternative E - Modified 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

(SPNM) 19,180 19,180 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

(SPM) 20,560 20,560 

Roaded Natural (RN) 16,700 16,700 

Roaded Motorized (RM) 59,290 59,290 

Total acres 115,730 115,730 

Other Alternatives Considered 

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered 5 other alternatives including 4 that 

were analyzed in detail. 

Alternative A – No Action 

This alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and serves 

as a baseline for analyzing effects. The No-Action Alternative represents “no immediate 

change” from current summer travel management. As the FEIS discloses, this alternative 

would have the greatest environmental impacts and would be inconsistent with national 

direction related to travel management. In addition, the no action alternative would not 

address one of the four main threats identified by the agency (unmanaged recreation), and 

continuing current travel management would make achievement of many important forest 

plan standards related to watershed, fisheries and wildlife difficult to achieve. 

 ROD-15
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

This alternative was proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need for a 

revised Travel Management Plan and address important significant issues related to travel 

management. It responds to direction to limit cross-country motor vehicle use, protect 

Forest resources, minimize maintenance costs, and reduce conflicts between uses. 

Alternative B served as a starting point to address the stated purpose and need and was the 

catalyst for public input that led to the development of additional alternatives. 

Alternative C – Additional Motorized Opportunities 

Alternative C responds to issues raised by summer motorized user groups. This alternative 

would maintain opportunities for motorized uses in summer by retaining most of the 

current motorized trails, and adding ATV and OHV trail. This alternative would meet 

national direction to limit cross-country motor vehicle travel, but does less to minimize 

maintenance costs and protect Forest resources than Alternative B, D, or E. 

Alternative D – Additional Non-motorized Opportunities 

Alternative D responds to issues raised by non-motorized users relating to a need for more 

non-motorized opportunities. It also addresses associated concerns with noise and safety 

related to motorized and non-motorized uses in the same area. This alternative would create 

more opportunities for summer non-motorized uses. It also responds to direction to limit 

cross-country motor vehicle use, protect Forest resources, minimize maintenance costs, and 

reduce conflicts between uses. 

Alternative E – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative E responds to issues raised during the comment period on the Draft EIS. 

Alternative E was developed by the Forest Supervisor, the interdisciplinary team, local 

county commissioners, and representatives from Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation. These parties worked to balance resource protection, input from the public, and 

non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative E represents the most 

inclusive integration of public comments received on travel management on the Payette 

NF. It is essentially a blend of all the alternatives that strives to balance motorized and 

non-motorized uses with resource protection needs. 

Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended 

The purpose of the Clean Air Act is to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air 

resources. This is addressed under Issues Not Analyzed in Detail, FEIS Section 1.10.2 on 

page 1-17. The Travel Management Plan is not expected to have discernible effects on air 

quality and therefore I have determined this decision is consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

Clean Water Act of 1948, as amended 

The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. 

This objective translates into two fundamental goals: (1) eliminate the discharge of 

pollutants into the nation’s waters; and (2) achieve water quality levels that are fishable and 

swimmable. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed 

 ROD-16
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

projects. The non-degradation goals would be accomplished through implementation and 

monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in Appendix C of the FEIS. 

The Clean Water Act is also addressed through Table 2-27 Management Requirements, 

Section 2.3.2 Project Design Features and in the Soil and Water (Section 3.4) effects 

discussions in the FEIS. Based on my review of the FEIS including required project design 

features, BMPs and water related effects analysis, I have determined that this decision is 

compliant with the Clean Water Act. 

Compliance with American Indian Treaty Provisions 

The Forest Service is acting as a representative of the United States with regard to treaty 

rights reserved by the Nez Perce Tribe, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the ShoshonePaiute Tribes. With regard to reserved rights, the agency is not attempting to balance this 

proposal against the rights the Tribes have reserved unto themselves. In the absence of 

action by the United States, the Forest Service is required to preserve the rights reserved by 

the Tribes. The Forest understands and respects the trust responsibility to Tribes to manage 

lands in a manner that protects and preserves Indian trust assets and treaty resources. This 

travel management decision will not conflict with American Indian treaty provisions or 

federal trust responsibilities, and will preserve the rights of the Tribes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

The purpose of this act is to provide for the conservation of endangered fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats. Biological Assessments must be prepared to document possible 

effects of proposed activities on endangered and threatened species within the analysis area 

potentially affected by the project. Appropriate coordination, conferencing, and 

consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be completed as necessary. Documentation shows that no 

ESA listed species are affected by actions on the Weiser Ranger District. Therefore, 

consultation with USFWS and NMFS is not required for this portion of the travel 

management decision. Biological Evaluations for the Weiser Ranger District – snow free 

travel were prepared for both Fisheries and Wildlife. 

The project botanist prepared a Biological Evaluation (BE) to evaluate the impacts of the 

proposed travel management decision on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and 

sensitive plant species. Based on this analysis the botanist concluded that the proposed 

action should not affect any threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate plant species. 

No populations or habitat of any threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate plants are 

currently known to occur on the Weiser Ranger District. With regards to sensitive species 

the botanist concluded that the proposed action may impact individual sensitive plants but 

will not affect long-term viability or result in the federal listing of any sensitive plant on the 

Payette National Forest. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 

This Act provides for the control and management of non-indigenous weeds that injure or 

have the potential to injure the interests of agriculture and commerce, wildlife resources, or 

the public health. The FEIS addresses noxious weeds and provides for management 

 ROD-17
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

requirements and project design features aimed at reducing levels of noxious weeds across 

the forest consistent with this Act (FEIS pp. 1-14, 2-7, 2-51). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as Amended and Executive Order 13186 

The purpose of this Act is to establish an international framework for the protection and 

conservation of migratory birds. Executive Order 13186 directs executive departments and 

agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Federal agencies that undertake actions that may affect migratory birds must develop and 

implement a Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS that would promote the 

conservation of migratory birds. Federal agencies must also “ensure that environmental 

analysis of federal actions required by NEPA ...evaluate the effects of actions and agency 

plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.” Migratory Birds are 

addressed in the EIS and effects determination made that migratory bird habitat would not 

be measurably impacted and no significant effects are anticipated from this action (FEIS 

pp. 3-189 to 190; 3-236 to 237). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and 

documentation. The process of preparing this environmental analysis was undertaken to 

comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations. Information on the process of 

preparing this analysis can be found within this document and the Project Record. This 

ROD and the Payette National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS comply with NEPA 

and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) 

This Act guides development and revision of National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plans. NFMA also has several specific provisions including maintenance of 

biodiversity. Project and activity decisions need to be consistent with a number of 

provisions of NFMA. The Payette Forest Plan was developed to implement NFMA. All 

action alternatives in this project’s EIS were developed to meet the Payette Forest Plan and 

comply with NFMA (FEIS p. 1-20). 

Environmental Justice (E.O.12898) 

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

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. Potential impacts or 

changes to low-income or minority communities within the planning area due to the 

proposed action must be considered. Where possible, measures should be taken to avoid 

negative impacts to these communities or mitigate adverse affects. This decision is not 

anticipated to disproportionately impact minority or low income communities who use the 

Weiser Ranger District.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended (NHPA) 

This Act requires federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and American Indian Tribes when nonrenewable cultural resources, such as 

archaeological sites and historic structures, may be affected by a federal action. Section 

106 of this Act requires federal agencies to review the effects project proposals may have 

 ROD-18
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

on cultural resources in the project area. The Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer has 

been consulted concerning proposed activities in the project area. Two separate 106 

reports were prepared and sent into SHPO on new roads and/or trails that would be added 

to the designated open to motorized use system on the Weiser Ranger District. The report 

for proposal 3-45 (portion of a proposed OHV route) was determined to have potential 

adverse effects on cultural resources and has been dropped from this decision in order to 

protect cultural resources in this area. If future mitigation can be done to the 0.3 mile 

route, it may be designated in the future. More information can be found in the FEIS (FEIS 

pp. 1-19, 1-20 and 1-22). 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Regulations implementing the National Environmentally Policy Act (NEPA) require 

agencies to specify the alternative(s) considered to the environmentally preferable (40 CFR 

1505.2(b)). Forest Service policy further defines this as the Alternative that best meets the 

goals of Section 101 of NEPA. In determining the environmentally preferred alternative, I 

referred to the goals of Section 101 and determined that Alternative D is the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternatives. Alternative D is considered the environmentally 

preferred alternative since it will cause “the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment”. However, the Selected Alternative, over the long-term, will “attain the 

widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences”. The Selected Alternative 

provides a mix of recreation opportunities and settings; while moving forest resource 

conditions to the desired future conditions identified in the plan. The emphasis of Selected 

Alternative is to maintain many of the existing recreation opportunities that exist today, 

while decreasing site-specific travel impacts to forest resources. 

Alternative D would result in the greatest improvement to overall riparian conditions and 

fisheries habitat, but would not provide the desired motorized access for recreational users. 

Improvements to resource conditions are expected to occur under the Selected Alternative, 

but at a slower rate than Alternative D. 

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

of individual choice” and “balance between populations and resource use.’ Given those 

parameters, the Selected Alternative maintains forest resources while providing for a 

variety of recreational choices, both now and into the future. 

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

The Selected Alternative likely will produce adverse effects on some components of the 

environment that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Actions that benefit one component can 

have at least temporary adverse effects on another. The Selected Alternative includes 

management requirements and mitigation measures designed to avoid or reduce adverse 

environmental effects. Monitoring and evaluation was incorporated to measure how 

effective the management requirements and mitigation measures are in reducing adverse 

environmental impacts. 

 ROD-19
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Implementation 

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day appeal period, implementation of this decision 

may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If 

an appeal is filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15 business day 

following the date of the last appeal disposition. 

th

Implementation includes the publishing of the official Weiser Ranger District Motor 

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The final rule places a responsibility on users to get motor 

vehicle use maps from Forest Service offices or websites and to remain on routes and in 

areas designated for motor vehicle use. Travel routes will be “closed” unless designated 

open” to motorized use as shown on the MVUM. These maps will be available at all 

district offices, and also on the Forest web page. They will be free of charge and meet 

Forest Service-wide MVUM standards. Although new travel restrictions were designed to 

be less complex and easier to define on the ground, any change will require a period of 

adjustment for Forest visitors. During the first field season after this decision, forest staff 

will emphasize travel plan education with forest users. It is reasonable to assume there will 

be increased potential for violations during the initial stages of implementation. During the 

first field season, forest staff will strive for travel plan education, however, forest travelers 

will be cited if they are causing resource damage. 

Enforcement of new travel restrictions will require additional emphasis by the PNF, with 

assistance from other public agencies and the public. Implementation of the travel plan 

will take several seasons of concentrated education efforts with the public via on-theground discussions, posting of travel information at high use trailheads and campground, 

articles in the local newspapers, dispersing of travel maps, and continued signing of the 

designated system of roads and trails on the ground. Many of the trails lack adequate 

signing, and one of the keys to successful implementation and enforcement is a well signed 

system of roads and trails. Signing will indicate the allowed types of vehicle travel. The 

map produced for each ranger district will also display the vehicle class and time of year 

designation on the motorized trails and roads. A different map for winter motorized travel 

will be published under a separate decision at a later date. 

Dispersed camping along open roads and motorized trails in the General Forest Area or 

within the Concentrated Use Areas will be closely monitored to identify the impacts of 

motor vehicle use. Those campsites that do not have an acceptable access route will be 

closed and restored as appropriate based on resource concerns. The District will prioritize 

the removal of dispersed campsites and installation of physical barriers to eliminate 

crossing live streams and where motor vehicle use will result in damage to vegetation, wet 

meadows, riparian areas or other sensitive resource concerns. 

I want to emphasize implementation of this plan will require not only education of users 

but also enforcement of restrictions. I has been correctly pointed out that not all of our 

closures have been effective and that our maps and regulatory signing is in need of 

improvement. The Weiser Ranger District personnel are committed for the long-haul to 

implementing this plan. They are committed to prioritizing the available funding they have 

and to developing partnerships with state agencies, local governments, adjacent private 

 ROD-20
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

land owners and volunteers to ensure that signing and designation of routes open to various 

means of travel is in place. They will annually print new motorized vehicle use maps, 

continue the process of signing, maintaining and installing gates to implement seasonal 

closures and begin to organize volunteers to embark on a program of public information. 

They are also committed to work with local motorized trail clubs, environmental groups, 

and other interested organizations to form volunteer patrols to assist with signing and 

public awareness. They will focus on leveraging the appropriate dollars we receive on new 

partnership agreements to implement these types of activities. 

Monitoring and Mitigation 

My decision incorporated monitoring plans as described in the FEIS. Monitoring Plans are 

listed in the FEIS – Appendix E, pages E-1 through E-10. Monitoring is also discussed in 

the FEIS on pages 2-8. 

In addition, my decision incorporates mitigation measures and project design features 

aimed at avoiding or reducing environmental impacts associated with implementation of 

travel management designations. 

These project design features are listed in the FEIS on pages 2-6 and 2-7 and will be 

implemented before new road or trails are designated for motorized use as described in the 

FEIS. 

Administrative Appeal 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. 

Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Any notice of appeal must 

be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14 and include at a minimum: 

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

215. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Identification of the specific changes(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 

Only individuals or organization that submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest 

in the project during the comment periods may appeal. Appeals must be postmarked or 

received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the publication of the legal 

notice of decision in the Idaho Statesman newspaper. This date is the exclusive means for 

calculating the time to file an appeal. Timeframe information from other sources should 

not be relied on. Incorporation of documents by reference in an appeal is not allowed. 

Appeals must be sent to the Appeal Deciding Officer, Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester of 

the Intermountain Region. Appeals can be mailed, faxed, e-mailed or hand delivered to: 

 ROD-21

Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A – Errata Information for the PNF Travel Plan EIS 

Document and Maps 

Errors Identified in Body of EIS Document and/or additional 

information: 

1. Reference FEIS Page 3-57 – First sentence in “Miles of ATV trail” section. Sentence 

should state “Designated ATV trails increase by approximately 33 miles under Alternative 

E.” Sentence incorrectly states 18 miles. 

2. The following is an addendum to the FEIS – Chapter 6 - Public Comments and 

Responses, #97, page 6-71, and is to correct inconsistencies regarding public water systems 

within MA3: 

The City of Weiser drinking water system consists of two surface water intake structures, 

one in the Weiser River, and one in the Snake River, both southeast of town. The Weiser 

River intake system is ranked moderate in susceptibility to contamination, with the land use 

being predominately being represented by irrigated agriculture, commercial and industrial. 

To protect water systems from such potential pathways, the EPA required that the entire 

drainage be delineated upstream from the intake to the hydrologic boundary of the drainage 

basin (MA 3). Recognizing that an intake could have an extensive drainage basin the EPA 

recommends the basin be segmented in to smaller areas. The delineation process for the 

Weiser River extends from the intake upstream 25 miles or the 4-hour streamflow time-oftravel boundary (IDEQ 2000) 

This extends the boundary onto the Payette National Forest north into the Middle Mann 

Creek and Upper Monroe Creek 6th level HUC subwatersheds. The subwatershed areas on 

the Payette NF for these two subwatersheds are only 319 acres and 629 acres, respectively. 

These acres are at the edge of the 25 mile delineation boundary. There are 0.3 miles of 

road within the Middle Mann Creek subwatershed and 4.1 miles of road on the acquired 

State section in the Upper Monroe Creek subwatershed. 

Contaminants of concern are primarily related to volatile and synthetic organic 

contaminants, inorganic contaminants and microbial bacteria which may be related to the 

potential contaminant sources associated to the varied land use within the delineated source 

water area of the City of Weiser include businesses such as fuel stations, dairy, automotive, 

taxidermy, medical, contracting, storage, food processing, a cemetery, quarry/mines, waste 

water treatment, and water treatment discharge (IDEQ 2000). 

In summary, out of the 47,818 acres delineated as the Weiser River intake surface water 

source, 948 acres are located on the Payette NF. None of the contaminants of concern or 

potential contaminate sources identified are located on Payette NF lands. 

3. Reference Chapter 2, page 2-4: Under the heading at the top of the page, “Roads fall 

into one of two categories”, the verbage “Classified roads” will be changed to read 

 ROD-23
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

“Authorized roads”. Roads are either Authorized or unauthorized. The definition in the 

Final Rule did not change as to what an unauthorized road is, but the wording 

“unclassified” was removed, and the definition is now for “Unauthorized road or trail” 

only. (36CFR 212.1 definitions.) 

4. Reference Chapter 3, page 3-24: Some information was contained in that paragraph that 

was not correct. The paragraph should read as follows: “All action alternatives would 

provide a consistent Forest-wide policy for cross-country travel in the non-snow months. 

In all alternatives, cross-country motor vehicle use would not be allowed. Limited 

motorized access for dispersed camping would continue to be allowed within 300 feet of 

designated roads and 100 feet of designed motorized trails, if that use would not result in 

resource impacts. This off-route exception would provide motorized access for dispersed 

camping. Non-motorized cross-country travel would be allowed to continue in all areas 

across the Forest.” 

5. Reference FEIS page 3-11 (3rd paragraph under Issue 5). This paragraph states: 

“Although a ROS for both summer and winter is identified in the Forest Plan, the Travel 

Plan analysis can modify the ROS without an amendment to the Plan (Forest Plan 2003).” 

This statement should be modified to read “Potential changes to ROS, outside of a “setting 

inconsistency” could result in a Forest Plan amendment.”((PNF Forest Plan (pg III-62) 

Objectives REOB02, REOB03, REOB04, and Appendix F for ROS, Figure F-1)). 

6. Add to the existing condition information in the FEIS, under MA 2, Chapter 3: “Trail 

#259 and Trail #287 are open to two-wheel motorized use on a seasonal basis, from July 1 

– September 15. This is the existing condition of these two trails due to a previous 

decision. Trail #259 ties into seasonal road 50044. A 5.1 mile portion of road #50044 is 

open seasonally from July 1 through September 15. This 5.1 mile section of road #50044 

will be designated open to seasonal motorized use.” 

 ROD-24
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B – Summary of Public Comments and Agency Response 

This document summarizes comments and associated responses to general input received 

regarding summer issues on the Travel Plan and Weiser Ranger District specific comments 

received on the Payette NF Travel Plan FEIS. Comments have been summarized. 

Comments listed in this document are ones that were not addressed in the DEIS, suggest a 

new alternative or action, or questioned the analysis. Comments received that “voted” for 

an alternative have not been listed. 

Comments on Specific Proposals 

Proposal ID 3-58 

1. This proposal is shown as an ATV trail in Alternative E, but can only be accessed from 

two-wheel or non-motorized trail segments. How do ATV’s access this trail? 

Agency Response: This proposal is associated with trail #352 that accesses the overlook at 

Rush Peak and can be accessed from road 51155 – the Buck Park road. The OHV road was 

missing from the FEIS map, and that error has been corrected. It added 1.7 miles of OHV 

trail to the motorized designated open trail system. 

Comments on Trails or Roads not Included as Proposals 

2. To close a trail to one user group, because of lack of use, seems like an oxymoron in 

terms of management. Does this mean only moderate use is acceptable? What happens if 

there is too much use, does that warrant a closure as well? 

Agency Response: Not designating some trails for two-wheel motorized use was not 

determined solely by amount of use the trail received. It was based primarily on resource 

issues and trail design features. Lack of use was however used to describe the affects to 

certain user groups if they were to loose their opportunities on a trail; to describe the scope 

of the effect to the specific user group in numbers of users potentially affected. 

3. Low volume use on non-motorized trails should go through an on-the-ground 

investigation to determine if they are suitable to convert to motorized trails. 

Agency Response: Non-motorized trails providing a quiet, low volume of use provide a 

desired experience for many non-motorized users, and the Forest did not want to propose 

across-the board conversion of these types of trails to potential two-wheel motorized use. 

The Forest did propose some trail designations that differed from current condition, and in 

those cases did do an analysis to determine the affect of the change in designation (trail 

conversion from either non-motorized use to motorized use, or motorized use to nonmotorized use). Low volume use on non-motorized trails was not used as an indicator to 

trigger a conversion to motorized use. Future on the ground investigations of individual 

trails are likely to occur as part of future specific trail projects. 

 ROD-25
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

4. I request the Forest Service do a scientific study to convert all two-wheel motorized 

trails to ATV trails. 

Agency Response: This large-scale conversion of two-wheel motorized trails to ATV use 

was not a part of the project purpose and need and is outside the scope of this project. 

Conversion of all two-wheel trails to ATV trails would not maintain two-wheel motorized 

opportunities including a single track trail experience identified as an important opportunity 

to two-wheel motorized user groups. Two-wheel motorized trails offer a unique experience 

to those riders. To convert single track trails designed for two-wheel motorized to larger, 

wider ATV width would take a large-scale on the ground site specific study, and also, large 

amounts of trail reconstruction. Major site-specific analyses of over 500 miles of trails 

would be required for the whole scale conversion to ATV trails. Several individual twowheel motorized trails were analyzed for conversion to ATV trails, and are shown as ATV 

trails in Alternative E. 

General Comments on FEIS 

All terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) 

5. There has been no greater degeneration of public lands in the last 15 years than the out 

of control growth of motorized recreation abuse, especially ATVs. This document does not 

seriously address this problem on a per trail basis, instead it only insures that the 

destruction continues and becomes more widespread. 

Agency Response: With the selection of the Selected Alternative the Forest will 

implement the elimination of motorized cross-country travel Forest-wide, which will 

improve the condition of those areas currently open to motorized cross-country travel. The 

elimination of motorized cross-country travel by ATV’s and other motorized vehicles is a 

major improvement over the current condition (Alternative A). The Forest team did look at 

the existing trail network, and put forward in different alternatives, changes to current 

motorized trail designations where resource problems were severe and irrepairable with 

future maintenance, or where opportunities existed to reduce use conflicts. 

6. In my time in the wilderness I have met very few responsible ATV travelers. This holds 

less true for the bikers. There are no regulations, no fines, no teaching of respect for the 

lands. This is very troublesome. 

Agency Response: The Payette National Forest backcountry offers both motorized and 

non-motorized trails to give the public a choice on their recreation trail experience. The 

true “Wilderness” trails are restricted to non-motorized and non-mechanized travel. The 

national “Tread Lightly” campaign has been successful nation-wide in getting the message 

out to motorized users to pursue proper trail etiquette, with the least impacts to the land. 

The Forest will continue to work with the motorized community and the non-motorized 

 ROD-26
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

community to teach respect for the land through education via signing and on-the –ground 

ranger patrols. 

7. ATV's are loud, noisy, and pollute the environment - - to say nothing of frightening the 

wildlife. They also can negatively impact habitat for fish and wildlife. Please leave the 

roads designated as non-motorized as they are so that those of us who want to enjoy nature 

- naturally (i.e., hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, even mountain bikes) - - can do so. 

Agency Response: The Forest has tried to provide recreational opportunities for multiple 

uses, both motorized and non-motorized. To ensure a non-motorized opportunity, 

Alternative E modified designates 68 miles of non-motorized trails on the Weiser Ranger 

District. 

8. This plan would reduce opportunities and lessen the quality of experiences for hikers, 

mountain bikers, and horseback riders since ATVs and extremely loud and their use would 

affect habitat for fish and wildlife. 

Agency Response: This plan actually increases opportunities for non-motorized users by 

eliminating previous (authorized in the old – C, D and E areas) motorized cross-country 

travel off trail areas, and restricts users of motorized vehicles to remain on the designated 

motorized route system. 

9. Within the FEIS, ATV use is not given necessary consideration especially given the 

increased demand for this type of use. Two-wheel and non-motorized trail miles out 

number ATV trails by a ratio 5-1. 

Agency Response: The Selected Alternative provides 21.5 miles of ATV trail, an increase 

of 5.7 miles from existing condition on the Weiser Ranger District. There are also many 

miles of back country gravel roads open to ATV use if the licensed driver wants to ride on 

the road system where they may encounter passenger car vehicles. The Forest feels this is 

a very pro-active measure to provide for ATV riding opportunities. More opportunities can 

be explored in the future as funding becomes available, taking into account resource 

conditions on the ground and ability to adequately fund trail maintenance. 

10. To deny use of a closed or unauthorized road for an ATV route until the road is 

narrowed and reclaimed, and meets design features, seems to be an unreasonable overkill, 

because funding to accomplish it may be delayed for a long time. 

Agency Response: Many existing system roads and trails were able to be designated “as 

is”, but new roads or trails (which include any unauthorized routes or previously closed 

roads) need to meet design standards prior to designations. These design features were put 

in place to assure the Forest would not be condoning use on trails with unacceptable 

resource impacts. Since the Forest did not design many of these routes to address resource 

issues, safety issues, or hazard to stock because of trail clearance, they will not be formally 

designated as open to motorized use until design features can be met. With the help of the 

many volunteers and partners that offered their trails maintenance services and trail 

 ROD-27
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

construction funding, the district should be able to designate many of the routes in the near 

future. If the partnerships and volunteer support is not there, it will take longer using only 

allocated funds. 

11. The time period the agency forecasts for actually implementing allowed use on the 

newly designated (previously unauthorized) routes needs to be clarified. 

Agency Response: See the response to number 11 above. Some of the unauthorized 

routes converted to roads or trails already meet design feature requirements, and will be 

designated with the first MVUM. Other routes needing more work will not be designated 

(so use will not be allowed once the MVUM is published) until design features are met, 

which in some cases could take many years, as described in the FEIS under Chapter 3, the 

Recreation section titled “Cost Management” for each alternative. In the FEIS, Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, each table in the individual MA descriptions includes an * below the table, 

which denotes trails in the table that will need to have design features met prior to 

designation. See FEIS table 2-5 on page 2-19 for an example. 

12. The current travel plan addresses ATV’s but it is unclear whether utility vehicles are 

included in this designation. 

Agency Response: Utility vehicles are not allowed on the ATV trail system, because the 

trails were not designed to accommodate their wider frames, but UTVs may use the OHV 

trails (7.4 miles included for designation in Alternative E) and as State of Idaho law allows, 

they can use the public road system. The MVUM will display the roads and/or trails the 

UTVs can use. 

Cooperating Agencies/Cooperators 

13. The cooperating agencies working with the Forest Service were not in agreement with 

Alternative E as presented in the FEIS and cooperators were not allowed to attend the final 

meeting comments of the IDT or make substantive comments before the DEIS was released. 

Agency Response: Cooperating agencies have been involved with the Travel Plan 

throughout the planning process and were afforded the opportunity to assist with the 

development of alternatives prior to release of the DEIS. Cooperators were also provided a 

2 week review of the FEIS before it was released to the public. Comments received from 

cooperators were considered and incorporated into the FEIS as appropriate. No alternative 

received complete consensus from each team member, they were developed to display a 

wide range of opportunities and better display a range of opportunities to the decision 

maker and public. The range of alternatives is meant to display responsiveness to various 

concerns from the public, and team members including cooperators. 

Cross-country motorized travel 

14. As the FEIS is currently written, the public is not being informed about the loss of 

access associated with closing all non-system roads. 

 ROD-28
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: The FEIS mentions in several key places within the document that 

unauthorized roads not identified to remain open with one of the alternatives would be 

closed. See pages S-10 (roads definition), page 1-4 Proposed Action, and most definitively 

on page 1-11, Access Opportunities where it states: “Allowance of indiscriminant access 

to unauthorized (also known as user-created, unclassified, or non-system) roads, trails, 

and/or areas would not meet the purpose and need for the project or Forest Plan and 

national direction. In many cases, these routes were developed without agency 

authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement, hence they do not have the 

same status as NFS roads and trails included in the PNF Travel Management Plan. 

Through the public involvement process, the Forest Service was made aware of specific 

unauthorized routes that members of the public proposed be added to the Travel Plan 

system. All of these proposals were reviewed and several of the routes were placed into 

Alternative C, and the selected Alternative E - modified.” 

15. The Off Road Vehicle Rule is just now providing directives for Forest Service 

personnel to use. It is premature to reach a decision on the travel plan at this time for 

ORV usage. 

Agency Response: The agency’s mission to protect resources is sufficient justification to 

implement the Rule now. The Chief of the Forest Service gave everyone, including 

congress and the public, a promise that we would implement the Rule within 4 years and 

the need for improved travel management on National Forests is too great to wait. While 

the directives will provide more detailed guidance on the Rule, the Rule itself is clear about 

travel management requirements for Forests to consider during travel management 

planning. 

Cumulative Effects 

16. You must address the cumulative effects of the damages the counties have suffered 

from the Federal Governments failure under the 25% Act of 1908 and PILT. 

Agency Response: This request is outside the scope of this project analysis. 

17. The effects of previous road and trail closures must be incorporated into the analysis 

and a connection between the facts on the ground and in the travel plan should be clearly 

visible. 

Agency Response: The project incorporated the existing system of roads and trails into 

Alternative A analysis. The existing system of open system roads and trails was used as 

the baseline. The cumulative effects section (page 3-63 through 3-66) for recreation 

discussed certain past and foreseeable future actions that could affect the recreation 

resource. 

18. The Payette must consider cumulative effects associated with the travel management 

plan. 

 ROD-29
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: The FEIS includes consideration and disclosure of cumulative effects 

as required by federal laws and regulations. Cumulative impact is defined by CEQ 

regulation as the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of 

the action, when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions (40 

CFR 1508.7). Additional guidance on analyzing cumulative effects was provided by CEQ 

in a memorandum. “Based on scoping, agencies have the discretion to determine whether, 

and to what extent, information about the specific nature, design, or present effects of a 

past action is useful for the agency’s analysis of the effects of a proposal for agency action 

and its reasonable alternatives. Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of 

individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative 

effects of all past actions combined” (CEQ Memorandum, June 24, 2005). Unmanaged 

recreation, specifically motorized or OHV use, is identified as one of the main threats to 

public lands and is a primary issue analyzed throughout the Payette National Forest Travel 

Management Plan. 

Designation of Roads 

19. The designation of roads as closed unless identified as open should be reversed where 

a road is considered open unless marked as closed on the ground. 

Agency Response: The new national policy for managing OHV use on National Forest 

System lands established the same signing and mapping policy for all Forests across the 

nation, in an effort to provide consistency and reduce confusion. Once all Forests have 

completed their travel planning process, mapping for roads and trails will follow the 

national policy to display only open motorized routes. The Forest does not have the ability 

to change this designation process, it is outside the scope of our decision making ability. 

Differences between the DEIS and FEIS 

20. What is being purported as the FEIS is not even close to the reviewed DEIS. 

Agency Response: The Forest developed Alternative E, the preferred alternative for the 

FEIS using the hundreds of comments received on the DEIS. The other four alternatives 

are very similar to what was presented in the DEIS and any changes between draft and final 

EIS were highlighted on page 2-1, 2-2, and 3-4, of the FEIS. 

Dispersed Camping and Game Retrieval 

21. The same limits to off road travel should apply for game retrieval as for dispersed 

camping. The PNF Travel Plan should be consistent with the National Directive. The 

Forest Service should allow hunters motorized access to retrieve game as outlined in the 

National Travel Planning directive. Special accommodations may need to be made for 

handicapped hunters, and comments were made during scoping to include game retrieval 

areas during hunting season after 2 p.m. in IDFG units 22 and 23. Those requests were 

not placed into an alternative. 

Agency Response: The National Directive states that game retrieval will be decided at the 

local level, not by National Direction. The Selected Alternative prohibits game retrieval 

using motorized vehicles off designated routes. Idaho State Fish and Game Department 

 ROD-30
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

has stated they do not support motorized access for game retrieval. Reasonable restrictions 

on motor vehicle use, applied consistently to everyone, are not discriminatory. 

22. Having narrowed the allowed use in designated motorized corridors along designated 

motorized routes to only allow dispersed camping appears to be an arbitrary and 

capricious and pre-decisional decision. 

Agency Response: Under 36CFR (212.51 (b)) Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or 

big game retrieval. States: “In designating routes, the responsible official may include in 

the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain 

designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes 

of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has 

legally taken that animal”. In my Selected Alternative I allow limited use of motor 

vehicles within 300 feet of designated roads and 100 feet of designated motorized trails. 

This carries over the prior/past Payette National Forest Travel Plan which allowed for 

motorized off-road travel within 300 feet of a designated road or 100 feet of a designated 

trail to access undeveloped campsites. Based on information contained in by FEIS 

regarding potential damage to resources, and to try and be consistent with other Forest’s in 

Region 4, I am prohibiting retrieval of a downed big game animal using a motorized 

vehicle. 

23. Developed campgrounds often discourage horses in campgrounds due to conflicts 

with other campers. Therefore a horse camper will look for a dispersed camp site to 

comply and avoid a conflict. 

Agency Response: Several of the Payette’s campgrounds allow for horses, including 

Kennally, Secesh Horse Camp, Chinook, Hard Creek Dispersed campground, Cabin Flats 

dispersed campground, Hitt Mountain dispersed campground, Ponderosa Horse Camp, and 

Poverty Flats CG (horse hitching rails). Also, there are numerous dispersed camping areas 

within the 300 foot corridor which allow for overnight camping (including camping with 

livestock) throughout the majority of the Forest. 

Economics, Visitor Use, and Enforcement 

24. The Forest Service did not analyze the economic contribution that active nonmotorized has on the economy of the area. 

Agency Response: The Forest has provided for both motorized and non-motorized use 

opportunities throughout the Forest in both summer and winter months. The purpose of 

this travel plan was to designate a system of roads and trails open to use. Economic 

impacts of travel management including non-motorized uses are discussed in the FEIS on 

pages 1-15 to 1-16. 

25. To base a decision on educating the public through public meetings and brochures, 

knowing that industry wide standards prove that this means of marketing is not effective is 

irresponsible. 

 ROD-31
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: The Forest plans to use many methods to inform the public on the new 

travel regulations including maps, internet information, newspaper articles, and signs, 

along with on-the-ground Forest Service Law Enforcement. It will take several years of 

intense work to familiarize the public with the new travel regulations for both winter and 

summer. See the “implementation” direction in the ROD. 

26. No real proactive mechanism for volunteer support has been identified to mitigate 

issues and proposed problems. 

Agency Response: Volunteers were identified in the FEIS as one means of implementing 

some of the work identified in this travel plan. During the travel planning process 

numerous individuals and groups have come forward to volunteer for trail maintenance 

projects. The Forest realizes that use of volunteers will take a great deal of coordination 

and work. As stated in the “Cost to Program Management” sections for each alternative, 

the Forest does not propose volunteers as a solution to the lack of trail maintenance. The 

implementation portion of the ROD states some techniques the Forest will use, including 

volunteer support, to accomplish future trail maintenance goals. 

27. There have been no visitor studies conducted in the preparation of this Travel Plan. 

The Forest Service must conduct visitor studies before implementing the Travel Plan. 

Agency Response: There is no requirement in the Travel Management Final Rule that 

Visitor Use studies be completed or conducted prior to designating a system of motorize 

roads, trails and areas. Even so, information gathered in the 2002 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring surveys was used and cited in the document. This survey documented user 

satisfaction, economic data, and visitor use figures on the Payette National Forest. 

28. Handicap accessible areas need to be identified on maps. 

Agency Response: The map protocol developed nationally for Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

(MVUM) does not indicate areas for the disabled. This is outside the scope of this project. 

Many existing brochures available at all of the districts on the Payette National Forest 

display handicap accessible features at our developed campgrounds. 

Firewood Gathering 

29. The reduction in open roads will impact local lower income resident’s ability to 

gather firewood and place added impacts on remaining open roads 

Agency Response: The Payette agrees that access for firewood cutting is an important 

issue. However, this issue is outside the scope of route designation for travel management 

planning because it is handled by the Forest in a separate permitting process as disclosed in 

the DEIS and FEIS (see Chapter 1 Section 1.10.2 Non-Significant Issues for a discussion of 

access for firewood cutting). Please refer to the ROD section “Response to Primary 

Comments – Firewood Gathering” for a complete description of my decision. 

 ROD-32
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Maps 

30. There has not been consistency in the maps between scoping, the DEIS and the FEIS 

Agency Response: Through each step of the Travel Planning process, scoping, DEIS and 

FEIS the Forest made a concerted effort to improve the map packages using comments 

received from the public at each juncture. Every effort was made to provide quality, 

understandable maps so the public could identify individual site specific proposals. The 

maps provided in the documents, on the internet web page, on CD upon request, and at 

each individual office in hard copy format, were of sufficient quality to distinguish and 

understand each proposal as described in the document. Maps included with the final ROD 

follow closely the national template for the upcoming Motor Vehicle Use Map that will 

follow in the implementation stage. The only exception is that the ROD map also includes 

the non-motorized trail system, where the MVUM will not. 

31. There are still some errors on the Alternative A, existing condition maps, missing 

roads, trails in the wrong location. 

Agency Response: The GIS team worked with the best available information when 

assembling the maps for this project. Since this project has been going on for over four 

years, many conditions change, and it has been difficult to track and map all changes. 

Several errors or omissions have been identified through the public review and an errata 

sheet has been compiled including identified corrections to maps. The MVUM to be 

published after the ROD is signed will show the best information available at that time as 

far as motorized roads and trails that will be open for motorized use. The maps will have 

the ability to be updated on a regular basis, and every attempt will be made to capture 

information during those updates. 

Mixed Use Traffic Study 

32. The USFS must complete a mixed use traffic study. 

Agency Response: The Forest is required to do a mixed use study for our road system only 

when a road is designated for dual use as a trail by other types of motorized vehicles, such 

as UTVs, ATVs, two-wheel motorized cycles. The Forest chose not to dual designate any 

roads as trails within our jurisdiction, and instead is deferring to Idaho State Law which 

allows for licensed drivers, with up to date registrations for their vehicles, to travel on 

graveled Forest System roads. 

Motorized Road and Trail Access 

33. Evaluate the impact of fewer access routes to the higher level of use on the remaining 

routes. 

Agency Response: The impact of fewer access routes to the higher level of use on the 

remaining routes was analyzed in Chapter 3, pages 3-23 through 3-62. Monitoring will 

continue after the signing of the ROD to assess any change in level of use, and associated 

need for alterations to the travel plan. 

 ROD-33
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

34. The FEIS does not offer adequate justification as to why the Forest Service feels it 

needs to offer expert riding trails on the PNF. 

Agency Response: The Payette National Forest is known for the diversity of motorized 

and non-motorized trail opportunities provided to the public. When feasible, the Forest 

tries to offer a diversity of trail experiences from expert beginner terrain, similar to what a 

ski area does by providing skiers a range of skiing experience from expert black diamond 

slopes to easy, green circle slopes. This range of opportunities offers individuals a chance 

to experience the particular recreation opportunity they are searching for on the Forest. 

35. The analysis fails to include or discuss the “best available science” on recreation and 

its impacts. The analysis of vehicle use should be compared and contrasted to baseline 

data. 

Agency Response: The Forest incorporated the best available science related to recreation 

and its impacts in the discussion of the affected environment and potential environmental 

consequences on recreation for all five alternatives on pages 3-1 through 3-66. Summary 

tables on FEIS pages S-22 to S-26 and pages 2-57 to 2-59 provide a comparison of 

different types of vehicle use between the current condition (i.e. the baseline) and the 

various alternatives. 

36. There is no alternative that considers looking at increasing the number of road and 

trail miles open to the public although public use is increasing both in the summer and 

winter. 

Agency Response: There are alternatives that increase various road and trail miles for 

different uses. For example, ATV trail and OHV miles increase on the Forest in 

Alternatives B, C, and E. Additionally, non-motorized trail miles increase in Alternatives 

B, D and E. The decision maker is charged with designating a system of roads and trails 

that can be managed using existing resources and proposing large increases in any use 

would be irresponsible if the trails cannot be maintained or use effectively enforced. 

37. No additional motorized vehicle access or roads should be permitted within the 

Payette National Forest. 

Agency Response: Overall the travel plan strives to balance different uses while 

protecting natural and cultural resource values. In addressing the demand for all uses on 

the Payette, providing opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation is 

necessary and the travel plan does include additional opportunities for both uses in 

Alternative E. 

38. You have not adequately defined OHVs. There is a new class of OHV that is larger 

than an ATV and seats two passengers. 

 ROD-34
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: The MVUM will not display trails by “OHV”, “UTV” or “ATV”, but 

restricts designations to: 

1. Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only 

2. Roads Open to All Vehicles 

3. Trails Open to Vehicles 50” of Less in Width (This is where ATV trails fit in) 

4. Trails Open to All Vehicles (This is where OHV and UTVs fit in) 

5. Trails open to motorcycles only. 

Non-motorized trails will not appear on the MVUM, but are displayed on the ROD map 

included with this decision. Designation on the MVUM will be made by class of vehicle 

and, where appropriate, by time of year (Seasonal roads and trails). 

39. Existing access roads should be left alone to facilitate dispersed recreation. Leave 

more miles open than you close. 

Agency Response: Continued allowance of indiscriminant access to unauthorized roads, 

trails, and/or areas would not meet the purpose and need for the project or Forest Plan and 

national direction (Federal Register 2005: 70FR68264) for travel management. 

Public Impacts/Local versus National 

40. The proposed travel plan has stronger effects on the local public than public from 

outside the area. 

Agency Response: The forest understands that the impacts on the public will be different. 

The agency must consider input from and effects on all the public when making decisions. 

Public Involvement 

41. The travel plan lacks collaboration with users 

Agency Response: The ID team has worked over a four year period engaging the public 

through public meetings, newspaper articles, letters and formal comment periods. The 

Forest also involved cooperating agencies including Idaho Department of Parks & 

Recreation, Idaho State Fish & Game, and county commissioners or their appointed 

representatives from Valley, Washington, and Adams Counties. Idaho County declined to 

take part in the cooperating agency status for the project, but remained engaged through the 

comment periods. The Forest ID team also worked with the Winter Recreation Coalitions, 

which contains members from both the back country ski and snowmobile community. The 

ID team developed the original DEIS alternatives and Alternative E in the FEIS based on 

communication and collaboration with the public, and other state and federal agencies. 

Public involvement and collaboration has been on-going throughout the past several years 

of travel management planning. 

Roadless Rule/Roadless Petition 

42. There is nothing in the roadless petition that stops or requires the Forest Service to do 

anything. The Forest Service has total discretion as far as management. 

 ROD-35
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: See response to #253 in the DEIS. The Forest did not use the roadless 

petition to eliminate or develop any alternative in the Travel Plan document. The Forest 

used it’s recently completed Forest Plan and management prescriptions within the plan to 

guide current and future motorized and non-motorized road and trail management within 

the many IRAs across the forest. 

R.S. 2477 (also see specific proposals for RS 2477 comments) 

43. The FEIS fails to disclose a historic road analysis and ignores information and 

authority of cooperating agencies on road jurisdictions and R.S. 2477 designations. 

Agency Response: If or when any future RS 2477 assertions are validated in court, the 

Forest will update the Weiser Ranger District MVUM to reflect these assertions.

Unauthorized Roads 

44. Unauthorized roads are being closed without specific analysis of the need for closure, 

the Payette National Forest should complete an on the ground inventory of all routes in the 

open areas prior to closing them. 

Agency Response: During the scoping period for travel management the Forest asked the 

public to help the Agency identify unauthorized routes receiving enough use to make their 

addition to the National Forest travel system worth evaluation. Both roads and trails were 

brought forward into analysis. 

The Travel Management Final Rule implements Executive Order 11644 “Use of Off-Road 

Vehicles on the Public Lands” as amended by E.O. 11989. These Executive orders direct 

Federal agencies to 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. 

The growing popularity and capabilities of OHVs demand new regulations. The magnitude 

and intensity of motor vehicle use has increased to the point the unrestricted cross-country 

travel cannot continue, because soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are affected. 

User created routes were developed without agency authorization, environmental analysis, 

or public involvement and do not have the same status as NFS roads and trails included in 

the forest transportation system. Some user routes are well-sited and provide excellent 

opportunities, while others are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental 

impacts. The Department disagrees that a complete inventory of user-created routes is 

required in order to complete the designation process. Such an inventory may never by 

fully complete as new routes will continue to be created during the inventory process. A 

complete inventory would be very time consuming and expensive, delaying completion of 

route designation. The Payette National Forest was committed to working with the public 

to accept and analyze specific user routes brought forward during scoping and the DEIS for 

designation into the system. Several of these routes made it into the Selected Alternative 

for the Weiser Ranger District. 

 

 ROD-36
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

45. Not even the Clinton-era roadless regulations closed all IRAs to motorize use or treated 

them all as potential wilderness, yet “effects to future wilderness potential and wilderness 

attributes in IRAs” were analyzed as indicators. You have moved to treat every IRA as if it 

was designed wilderness. It is highly questionable that the indicators noted above are 

appropriate for recommended wilderness areas, they are absolutely inappropriate for 

inventoried roadless areas. 

Agency Response: No alternatives propose to close IRAs to existing motorized use in 

either the summer or the winter. IRA’s were not treated as if they were designed 

wilderness, not even the recommended wilderness IRAs, which currently contain 

motorized trails, and over-snow motorized use areas. We did however, address potential 

effects to wilderness character and wilderness potential associated with changes in travel 

management, because the Payette National Forest is committed to protecting and managing 

roadless areas as an important component of the National Forest System. Each IRA falls 

under a “management prescription” in the Payette National Forest Plan. These 

management prescriptions outline how these areas are to be managed. Some IRAs 

encompass several management prescriptions. Some prescriptions are more restrictive to 

change than others. While only two IRAs on the Forest are recommended for potential 

future wilderness, all IRAs have components of wilderness character and potential. That is 

why those elements were analyzed in the FEIS. Even the IRAs not recommended for 

potential future wilderness have guidelines in place to protect their dispersed, and in some 

cases more primitive recreation opportunities. 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity – Summer 

46. The Forest Service should consider that there is no documentation or data to support 

closure of any motorized routes in the project area to improve wildlife connectivity. 

Agency Response: Wildlife connectivity is discussed in Chapter 3. Forest management 

requirements for wildlife are listed in Table 2-27. Connectivity is improved when habitat is 

not fragmented by roads and trails. Fragmentation can lead to isolation of populations, 

reduced population size, and an increased risk of extinction (page 3-195). Both Alternative 

D and Alternative E provide winter closures to protect wildlife habitat (Chapter 2, Table 2-

42). These closure acres improve wildlife connectivity by preventing habitat 

fragmentation. ESA direction requires protection for lynx and wolverine and their habitats. 

Forest Plan management direction states “manage recreational activities to maintain lynx 

habitat and connectivity” (TEOB30) (FEIS, Chapter 2, Table 2-27). Forest Plan direction 

(TEOB14) also states “identify and prioritize opportunities for restoration of habitat linkage 

zones to promote genetic integrity and species distribution” (Forest Plan, page III-9) and 

“provide well-distributed habitat and connective corridors important to sustaining wildlife 

species” (WIGO06) (Forest Plan, page III-5). 

Wildlife Monitoring 

47. The Forest Service should consider collecting sufficient data about existing conditions 

in relation to wildlife, then, if a motorized closure is enacted, the Forest Service should 

collect data demonstrating effects of the closure, including significant measurable 

improvements. 

 ROD-37
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: The Forest is committed to implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring for wildlife. Project design features in Chapter 2 are designed to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the route and area designation made with the travel management plan 

decision. Monitoring and evaluation plans for wildlife are located in Appendix E. 

Scientific evidence 

48. The Forest Service should consider that this EIS seriously lacks proper scientific 

foundation and evidence necessary to make critical sound wildlife management decisions, 

and, 

The Forest Service should consider that supportive data for this EIS, on which wildlife 

management decisions were made, is lacking. Research studies conducted in other areas 

of the country are quoted. There is very little PNF collected data quoted, and, 

The Forest Service should consider that wildlife statements have been made regarding 

Alternative E without a scientific basis. 

Agency Response: The literature on the effects of motorized travel on wildlife is 

extensive as documented in the EIS and project files. The Travel Plan analysis has been 

conducted over a period of 4 years. During this time, additional scientific literature has 

become available. The wildlife biologists on the IDT attempted to ensure they used the 

latest and best scientific information. This information was determined to be sufficient to 

support travel management decisions. Travel plans are designed to be dynamic. If new 

information becomes available that would support site-specific changes, this information 

would be considered in future analyses. 

49. The Forest Service should consider that the PNF has failed to adequately recognize 

that wildlife are affected far more by nature than by motorized visitors, and has failed to 

evaluate impacts with a relative sense of magnitude. 

Agency Response: Forest Service management requirements arise from Forest Plan 

direction designed for protection of Forest resources (Forest Plan 2003). The Forest can 

attempt to manage “nature”, but the scope of this analysis was to address the effects of 

human travel, primarily motorized travel. Hence the evaluation of impacts was appropriate 

for the project purpose and need. 

Summer Recreation Effects to Wildlife 

50. The Forest Service should consider leaving roads designated as non-motorized because 

ATVs and motorcycles affect wildlife habitat. 

Agency Response: The effects to wildlife habitat from ATVs and motorcycles are 

discussed in Chapter 3. Closure of additional roads and trails was analyzed as part of 

Alternative D in the DEIS and FEIS. Alternative D provides the greatest protection to 

wildlife from the effects of ATVs and motorcycles. 

 ROD-38
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

51. The Forest Service should consider that disturbance to wildlife and wildlife corridors 

by OHV use has been overstated. Wildlife populations have increased at the same time 

that OHV use is increasing. 

Agency Response: Some wildlife populations may have increased at the same time as 

OHV use has increased, but populations of many other species (such as federally listed and 

sensitive species) have declined. Many studies have documented the effects of OHV use 

on wildlife (FEIS, chapter 3, pages 3-194 through 3-244.) Forest Plan direction requires 

that we design management actions to avoid or minimize adverse effects to wildlife 

including the effects of disturbance to listed species and their habitats (FEIS, Chapter 2, 

Table 2-27; Forest Plan, page III-10) and to other species (Forest Plan, pages III-26 through 

III-28.) 

52. The Forest Service should consider that hikers disturb elk more than motor vehicles 

and that “disturbance of wildlife” should not be used as a reason to justify motorized 

recreation and access closures. 

Agency Response: Although elk may be disturbed by both motorized and non-motorized 

recreationists, the impacts of motorized use extend over a larger area due to the greater 

noise and numbers of people associated with motorized travel (FEIS, Wildlife Analysis, 

chapter 3; project file). Rocky Mountain elk are a species of special concern on the Payette 

National Forest and are managed to achieve particular population goals. Long-term 

productivity of elk is partly based on the quality of summer and transitional ranges. 

Management of summer range includes consideration of disturbances that might discourage 

elk use of an area. As documented in the wildlife analysis, motorized use affects elk and 

other wildlife species by decreasing habitat effectiveness through disturbance, 

displacement, habitat loss, and human-caused mortality. 

Roads and motorized recreation can disturb elk by discouraging use of an area, by lowering 

reproductive success, and by causing loss and fragmentation of habitat (page 3-191), 

Wisdom et. al. (2004) indicates that off-road recreation, including motorized and nonmotorized, increases movement rates and flight responses for elk. Effects are more 

pronounced in response to OHV and mountain bike riding verses horseback and hiking 

activities. 

53. The Forest Service should consider that there are no compelling reasons to justify road 

closures as a sought-after or necessary wildlife management criterion. Reasonable 

alternatives to the same outcomes sought by road closures include permit hunting and 

seasonal travel restrictions. 

Agency Response: These concerns are addressed in the wildlife analysis (FEIS, chapter 

3). An important aspect of elk management is limiting elk vulnerability during hunting 

season. This susceptibility is a function of access to elk and the quality of cover for elk. 

Roads provide access for hunters and poachers, leading to increased elk mortality. On the 

PNF, seasonal and year-round travel restrictions have been implemented in locations where 

elk lack secure habitat due to road densities and/or lack of cover. Requirements for special 

 ROD-39
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

permits to minimize the effects of hunting are outside the control of the Forest Service and 

administered by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Big Game Retrieval 

54. The Forest should consider allowing hunters to retrieve big game with ATVs because 

horses used for hunting may be injured by wolves or while retrieving game. 

Agency Response: Game retrieval is addressed above (comments 22, 23, 24). The relative 

benefits (i.e., safety considerations) of game retrieval via horses, foot, or other means are 

outside the scope of this analysis. 

55. The Forest Service should consider making special recommendations for handicapped 

hunters. 

Agency Response: Access for people with disabilities is addressed in Chapter 1, page 12 

Cooperation with IDFG and Counties 

56. The Forest Service should consider incorporating previous commitments made to the 

Idaho Fish and Game into Travel Plan. 

Agency Response: The Forest Service worked with the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game (IDF&G) to identify and address previous and current wildlife management 

commitments. The FEIS (page 3-191) discusses FS direction for elk management; “While 

the IDFG has the primary role in this management, the PNF strives to compliment these 

objectives through management of open road densities and other activities that may impact 

elk populations.” The section: Changes between Draft and Final EIS (FEIS, page 3-175 to 

3-177), provides a summary of some of the final changes made due to coordination with 

IDF&G. Many of the comments provided by IDF&G were supportive of the FS proposed 

management. For example, IDF&G stated they “applaud the RF’s direction to not allow an 

exception for motorized travel off of designated routes for game retrieval.” 

57. The Forest Service should consider working with IDFG to enact a law mandating a 

hunting/fishing license revocation for access management violations pertaining to hunting 

and fishing. 

Agency Response: Enactment of IDFG laws is outside the scope of this analysis, as well 

as outside the role of the PNF. 

Summer Wildlife Closures by Management Areas 

Management Area 2 – Snake River 

58. The Forest Service should consider that there is no rationale for two-wheeled 

motorized closure with respect to elk disturbance/security on Trail 252 (proposal 2-7) on 

Cuddy Mountain. (Management Area 2) 

 ROD-40
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Agency Response: Only the portion of trail 252 from the junction at trail 251 to the 

northeast road junction (6 miles of the 11.1 mile trail) is closed to motorized use. There are 

a number of reasons to close this portion of Trail 252 (Grouse Creek/Grizzly Creek Trail) 

to two-wheeled motorized use. The Forest does not have an easement on the private 

property section of this trail. Under Alternative A, motorcycles are allowed from July 1 – 

September 15 (this includes all trails in Dukes Creek, Camp Creek, and Grade Creek). As 

disclosed in the analysis (FEIS, chapter 3), closures benefit elk because motorized 

recreation can disturb elk by discouraging use of an area, by lowering reproductive success, 

and by causing loss and fragmentation of habitat. IDF&G has continued to express concern 

about elk security in this area of the PNF. 

 ROD-41
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix C – Weiser Ranger District Designated Routes Alternative 

E - modified (Selected Alternative) 

Table C-1: Designated Trail Status on Weiser RD 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 234 motorized 0.06

Weiser 235 motorized 0.07

Weiser 236 motorized-atv 2.37

Weiser 242 close 0.67

Weiser 242 motorized-atv 4.05

Weiser 245 motorized 9.08

Weiser 246 non-motorized 2.29

Weiser 250 motorized 2.55

Weiser 251 motorized 2.75

Weiser 252 motorized 0.97

Weiser 252 non-motorized 7.57

Weiser 253 motorized 5.24

Weiser 254 motorized 1.87

Weiser 255 motorized 0.80

Weiser 255 non-motorized 0.95

Weiser 256 motorized 2.71

Weiser 256 non-motorized 3.41

Weiser 257 non-motorized 7.93

Weiser 258 motorized 3.47

Weiser 259 motorized 3.42

Weiser 260 motorized 0.83

Weiser 261 non-motorized 1.46

Weiser 262 non-motorized 8.63

Weiser 263 motorized 7.93

Weiser 264 motorized 1.25

Weiser 264 non-motorized 1.48

Weiser 265 non-motorized 2.96

Weiser 266 non-motorized 3.70

Weiser 267 motorized 9.13

Weiser 268 close 0.05

Weiser 268 motorized 5.53

Weiser 268 non-motorized 0.42

Weiser 268a close 0.16

Weiser 269 non-motorized 3.12

Weiser 270 non-motorized 2.65

Weiser 271 non-motorized 2.59

Weiser 272 non-motorized 3.84

Weiser 273 non-motorized 2.89

Weiser 274 non-motorized 0.59

Weiser 275 motorized-atv 5.29

 ROD-42
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 276 motorized-atv 2.85

Weiser 278 motorized-atv 1.28

Weiser 280 non-motorized 5.47

Weiser 281 non-motorized 2.56

Weiser 282 motorized 3.29

Weiser 283 close 2.55

Weiser 283 non-motorized 1.26

Weiser 285 motorized-full 2.75

Weiser 287 motorized 2.59

Weiser 288 close 1.70

Weiser 288 non-motorized 0.84

Weiser 335 motorized 3.08

Weiser 352 motorized-atv 4.25

Weiser 352 motorized- full 1.75

Weiser 352 non-motorized 1.68

Weiser P520 motorized-full 2.55

Weiser P521 motorized-full 0.31

Weiser P523 motorized-full 0.10

Weiser P574 motorized-full 0.17

Weiser P589 motorized-atv 1.37

 ROD-43
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Table C-2: Designated Road Status on Weiser RD 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 50005 OPEN 0.23

Weiser 50007 CLOSED 0.81

Weiser 50007 OPEN 0.14

Weiser 50007 SEASONAL 3.88

Weiser 500070000 SEASONAL 1.13

Weiser 500071000 CLOSED 0.84

Weiser 50008 OPEN 5.88

Weiser 50009 OPEN 13.12

Weiser 500099000 CLOSED 2.76

Weiser 500099030 CLOSED 0.55

Weiser 500099040 CLOSED 2.32

Weiser 50010 OPEN 1.74

Weiser 500100500 CLOSED-OHV 2.55

Weiser 500102000 CLOSED 0.53

Weiser 500102020 CLOSED 0.22

Weiser 500102030 CLOSED 0.19

Weiser 50011 OPEN 11.47

Weiser 50011X001 CLOSED 0.93

Weiser 50011X002 CLOSED 0.34

Weiser 50011X003 CLOSED 0.55

Weiser 50015 CLOSED 1.38

Weiser 50019 CLOSED 1.84

Weiser 50019 OPEN 7.50

Weiser 500190000 CLOSED 2.46

Weiser 500194700 CLOSED 0.16

Weiser 500195500 CLOSED 1.15

Weiser 50023 OPEN 6.64

Weiser 500231010 CLOSED 0.41

Weiser 500233010 CLOSED 0.20

Weiser 500234500 CLOSED 0.15

Weiser 500235010 CLOSED 0.07

Weiser 500235015 CLOSED 0.44

Weiser 500235020 CLOSED 0.30

Weiser 50024 OPEN 9.32

Weiser 50025 OPEN 9.77

Weiser 500252000 CLOSED 1.68

Weiser 50026 CLOSED 3.55

Weiser 500261000 CLOSED 0.21

Weiser 500262000 CLOSED 0.10

Weiser 50027 OPEN 4.62

Weiser 50030 OPEN 1.95

Weiser 500300500 CLOSED 0.55

Weiser 500301015 CLOSED 0.15

Weiser 500302015 CLOSED 0.71

 ROD-44
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 500303000 CLOSED 0.27

Weiser 50031 OPEN 6.21

Weiser 500310000 CLOSED 1.40

Weiser 50032 OPEN 1.72

Weiser 500320000 CLOSED 1.41

Weiser 500322000 CLOSED 0.35

Weiser 500324000 CLOSED 1.10

Weiser 500324050 CLOSED 0.28

Weiser 50032X001 CLOSED 0.34

Weiser 50036 OPEN 5.34

Weiser 50037 CLOSED 2.26

Weiser 50037 OPEN 3.68

Weiser 500378000 CLOSED 0.38

Weiser 500379050 CLOSED 0.20

Weiser 500379055 CLOSED 0.05

Weiser 50044 CLOSED 9.49

Weiser 50044 OPEN 2.34

Weiser 50044 SEASONAL 5.12

Weiser 50046 OPEN 2.11

Weiser 50055 OPEN 3.04

Weiser 500559000 CLOSED 0.59

Weiser 500559000 CLOSED-OHV 0.17

Weiser 50082 OPEN 0.19

Weiser 50082 SEASONAL 2.84

Weiser 50085 OPEN 12.55

Weiser 50087 OPEN 2.44

Weiser 50088 OPEN 0.18

Weiser 50095 OPEN 0.57

Weiser 50151 OPEN 0.41

Weiser 50164 OPEN 0.30

Weiser 501641500 CLOSED-OHV 0.31

Weiser 501641510 CLOSED 0.68

Weiser 501641515 CLOSED-OHV 0.10

Weiser 501641525 CLOSED 2.55

Weiser 50190 OPEN 0.66

Weiser 50220 OPEN 0.30

Weiser 50220 SEASONAL 4.67

Weiser 502202520 CLOSED 0.72

Weiser 502202525 CLOSED 0.14

Weiser 502204700 CLOSED 0.37

Weiser 50264 OPEN 0.49

Weiser 50322 CLOSED 1.43

Weiser 50322 OPEN 2.16

Weiser 50330 CLOSED 1.03

Weiser 50330 OPEN 1.03

 ROD-45
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 50334 OPEN 0.56

Weiser 50367 CLOSED 0.99

Weiser 503671000 CLOSED 0.92

Weiser 503671100 CLOSED 0.19

Weiser 50368 CLOSED 0.52

Weiser 50369 CLOSED 0.92

Weiser 50372 CLOSED 2.62

Weiser 503721000 CLOSED 0.23

Weiser 503721500 CLOSED 0.46

Weiser 50396 CLOSED 0.24

Weiser 50419 CLOSED 1.87

Weiser 504191000 CLOSED 0.64

Weiser 504192000 CLOSED 0.30

Weiser 50422 SEASONAL 0.46

Weiser 50449 CLOSED 1.03

Weiser 50470 CLOSED 0.49

Weiser 50472 CLOSED 0.12

Weiser 50473 SEASONAL 0.28

Weiser 50475 OPEN 0.07

Weiser 50532 CLOSED 0.11

Weiser 50573 OPEN 4.37

Weiser 50583 OPEN 0.51

Weiser 50583 SEASONAL 2.40

Weiser 50584 CLOSED 0.67

Weiser 50632 OPEN 0.14

Weiser 50632 SEASONAL 2.36

Weiser 50641 SEASONAL 2.23

Weiser 50642 CLOSED 0.09

Weiser 50642 SEASONAL 1.00

Weiser 50675 SEASONAL 1.68

Weiser 50679 OPEN 0.76

Weiser 50681 CLOSED 0.73

Weiser 50682 CLOSED 0.77

Weiser 50690 CLOSED 2.44

Weiser 50785 OPEN 0.01

Weiser 50814 CLOSED 1.33

Weiser 50819 CLOSED 1.04

Weiser 50820 CLOSED 1.08

Weiser 50846 OPEN 0.22

Weiser 50846 SEASONAL 4.05

Weiser 50847 SEASONAL 1.45

Weiser 50848 SEASONAL 1.57

Weiser 50998 CLOSED 0.31

Weiser 509981000 CLOSED 0.11

Weiser 50999 CLOSED 0.10

 ROD-46
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 51000 CLOSED 0.52

Weiser 51001 CLOSED 0.83

Weiser 51002 CLOSED 0.15

Weiser 510020500 CLOSED 0.55

Weiser 51003 OPEN 0.34

Weiser 51004 OPEN 0.13

Weiser 51005 OPEN 1.09

Weiser 51013 CLOSED 0.51

Weiser 51078 OPEN 0.71

Weiser 51155 OPEN 0.33

Weiser 51187 CLOSED 1.22

Weiser 51188 CLOSED 1.43

Weiser 51189 CLOSED 0.10

Weiser 51192 SEASONAL 0.36

Weiser 51193 CLOSED 1.40

Weiser 51197 CLOSED 0.90

Weiser 51217 CLOSED 1.65

Weiser 51217 OPEN 0.56

Weiser 51218 OPEN 0.20

Weiser 51218 SEASONAL 3.45

Weiser 512181000 CLOSED 0.79

Weiser 512181015 CLOSED 0.13

Weiser 51219 CLOSED 0.54

Weiser 51220 SEASONAL 1.57

Weiser 51221 SEASONAL 0.89

Weiser 51222 OPEN 0.19

Weiser 51222 SEASONAL 2.49

Weiser 51223 CLOSED 0.68

Weiser 51223 OPEN 1.15

Weiser 51224 CLOSED 0.18

Weiser 51225 SEASONAL 0.94

Weiser 51240 CLOSED 3.09

Weiser 51244 CLOSED 0.22

Weiser 51245 CLOSED 3.89

Weiser 51267 OPEN 0.15

Weiser 51267 SEASONAL 2.39

Weiser 51268 SEASONAL 0.62

Weiser 51269 SEASONAL 0.90

Weiser 51270 OPEN 0.46

Weiser 51271 SEASONAL 1.10

Weiser 51272 CLOSED 0.38

Weiser 512720500 CLOSED 0.34

Weiser 512720520 CLOSED 0.23

Weiser 51276 CLOSED 3.34

Weiser 51277 CLOSED 0.83

 ROD-47
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 51278 SEASONAL 0.38

Weiser 51293 CLOSED 0.36

Weiser 51296 SEASONAL 0.97

Weiser 51325 OPEN 0.15

Weiser 51343 CLOSED 0.72

Weiser 513431000 CLOSED 0.11

Weiser 513431010 CLOSED 0.10

Weiser 51344 CLOSED 0.91

Weiser 51345 CLOSED 0.52

Weiser 51346 CLOSED 0.15

Weiser 51347 OPEN 0.69

Weiser 51496 CLOSED 0.95

Weiser 51501 CLOSED 1.72

Weiser 51516 CLOSED 0.17

Weiser 51537 OPEN 0.21

Weiser 51556 CLOSED 1.60

Weiser 51557 CLOSED 1.30

Weiser 51558 CLOSED 2.99

Weiser 51559 CLOSED 0.26

Weiser 51560 CLOSED 1.35

Weiser 51561 CLOSED 0.64

Weiser 51562 CLOSED 1.86

Weiser 51563 CLOSED 0.10

Weiser 51564 CLOSED 0.30

Weiser 51565 CLOSED 0.61

Weiser 51566 CLOSED 0.78

Weiser 51567 CLOSED 0.18

Weiser 51646 OPEN 4.69

Weiser 51650 CLOSED 0.27

Weiser 51651 OPEN 3.77

Weiser 51652 CLOSED 3.96

Weiser 51653 CLOSED 0.50

Weiser 51654 CLOSED 0.34

Weiser 51655 CLOSED 0.52

Weiser 51656 CLOSED 1.07

Weiser 51657 CLOSED 1.12

Weiser 51684 SEASONAL 1.47

Weiser 51687 CLOSED 1.21

Weiser 516871000 CLOSED 0.28

Weiser 516872000 CLOSED 0.80

Weiser 51713 OPEN 2.61

Weiser 51714 OPEN 0.36

Weiser 51820 OPEN 1.85

Weiser 51872 CLOSED 1.16

Weiser 51873 CLOSED 1.30

 ROD-48
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

District ID ALT_E-modified Miles 

Weiser 51874 SEASONAL 1.04

Weiser 51875 CLOSED 0.15

Weiser 51876 CLOSED 0.97

Weiser 51877 CLOSED 0.90

Weiser 51878 OPEN 0.96

Weiser 51879 OPEN 0.18

Weiser 51880 SEASONAL 1.08

Weiser 51881 CLOSED 1.81

Weiser 51882 CLOSED 0.62

Weiser 51884 OPEN 0.57

Weiser 51885 CLOSED 2.21

Weiser 51889 CLOSED-ATV 1.37

Weiser 51893 OPEN 0.02

 ROD-49
Payette National Forest Record of Decision 

Travel Management Plan 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D – ROS map for Weiser Ranger District – snow-free 

season 

 ROD-50
!

!

!

!

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

£¤71

£¤95

£¤95

£¤71

50031

50085

50046

50025

50055

50024

50008

50087

Rush Peak

Hitt Peak

Benton Peak

Monroe Butte

Pyramid

Cuddy Point

Mountain

Crooked River

Point

Heath

Midvale

Wildhorse

Cambridge

Pine Creek

Snake River

Mann Creek

Weiser River

Hornet Creek

Wildhorse River

Crooked River

Johnson Creek

Pine Creek

Payette National Forest

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Weiser Ranger District

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Wilderness

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Forest/District Boundary

Miles

O