United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

September 2014 

Draft Record of Decision 

Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10 (C) 

Designated Routes Project

Central Coast Ranger District-Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, 

Siuslaw National Forest 

Coos, Douglas and Lane Counties, Oregon
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

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

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

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

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

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

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.
3 

Draft Record of Decision

Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project

Central Coast Ranger District-Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area

Siuslaw National Forest

Lane, Douglas and Coos Counties, Oregon

Legal Location: Portions of T.18S., R.12W., Sections 3-5, 8-10, 16-17, 20-21, 28-29, 32-34; T.19S., 

R.12W., Sections 23-26, 35-36; T.23S., R.13W., Sections 23, 26, 34; T.24S., R.13W., Sections 3, 9-10, 

15-16, 21-22, 27-29, 33-34. W. M. surveyed. 

For information contact: 

Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA

P.O. Box 400 

Waldport, OR 97394 

541-563-8464 

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. 
4 

Draft Record of Decision

1. Introduction

This Draft Record of Decision (ROD) documents my proposed decision to select an alternative from the 

Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS). This Draft ROD was developed according to requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council of Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations (40 

CFR 1500-1508), U. S. Department of Agriculture NEPA regulations (7 CFR part 1b), Forest Service 

NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220), and Forest Service policy in Forest Service Manual 1950 and Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.15. 

This Draft Record of Decision contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis completed for this 

project, as well as the rationale for selecting the alternative I propose to implement. It also contains 

certain findings required by various laws and regulations, and information concerning the rights to 

administratively object to this proposed decision before a final decision is reached. The Oregon Dunes 

NRA Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project FEIS is incorporated by reference in this 

decision document and is attached as a separate volume.

2. Background

Analysis Area and Scope 

Congress designated the Oregon Dunes on the Siuslaw National Forest as a National Recreation Area 

(ODNRA) in 1972, and prescribed that it be managed for “...public outdoor recreation use and 

enjoyment,” and for “the conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to 

public enjoyment.” The ODNRA is comprised of approximately 28,900 acres of forested areas, water and 

open sand areas between Florence and North Bend on the Oregon coast. This area of diverse and 

constantly changing landscapes is host to a wide array of outdoor recreational uses. 

One popular use of the area is OHV riding. The ODNRA provides a riding experience almost unique in 

the United States, and many families travel long distances to enjoy the open sand. OHV riding is a multigenerational, social experience that connects participants to each other and the out of doors. Many 

families consider the opportunity to ride on the ODNRA unique and irreplaceable. OHV riders are also 

an important source of economic activity for coastal communities from Florence to Coos Bay. Riders 

travel long distances to reach the ODNRA and often stay for several days in campgrounds or hotels, 

purchasing supplies from local stores.

Management of the ODNRA is guided by the 1994 Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Plan (the 

Dunes Plan). The Dunes Plan was adopted, following extensive public involvement and the completion 

of an environmental impact statement, as an amendment to the Siuslaw National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1990). The 1994 Dunes Plan updated and replaced the earlier 1979 Dunes 

Plan. The 1994 Dune Plan was appealed by 10 separate individuals or groups. Each appeal was reviewed 

by the Regional Office Reviewing Officer Richard Ferraro, Deputy Regional Forester. In each case he 
5 

affirmed the Forest Supervisor’s decision to amend the Siuslaw National Forest Plan with management 

with management direction for the ODNRA. 

The Dunes Plan established separate management areas with differing resource emphases within the 

ODNRA. The Dunes Plan set the conditions for OHV use within each management area under Executive 

Order 11644 and 36 CFR Part 295. The 11 management areas, their primary emphases, and associated 

acres are as follows:

10 (A) – Non-Motorized Undeveloped – 7,830 acres (27%)

10 (B) – Off-Road Vehicle Open – 5,930 acres (21%)

10 (C) – ORV on Designated Routes – 4,455 acres (15%) 

10 (D) – Developed Corridors – 1,050 acres (4%)

10 (E) – Snowy Plover Habitat – 1,010 acres (3%) 

10 (F) – Plant, Fish and Wildlife Habitat – 3,120 acres (11%)

10 (G) – Wetlands Emphasis – 2,540 acres (9%)

10 (H) – Wildlife and Fish Viewing – 315 acres (1%) 

10 (J) – Recommended Wild and Scenic River – 1,090 acres (4%)

10 (K) – Research Natural Area – 1,190 acres (4%) 

10 (L) – Noise Control Buffer – 370 acres (1%) 

The Dunes Plan provides for public OHV use in two management areas: 

• Management Area 10 (B) includes large areas of open sand and is managed primarily for 

recreational OHV use; 

• Management Area 10 (C) is largely vegetated, and restricts OHV use to “designated routes.”

The Dunes Plan provides that MA 10 (C) be managed to “protect vegetated habitats while providing 

controlled opportunities for Off Road Vehicles (ORV) touring and traveling on designated routes.” The 

Dunes Plan further states that the goal for this management area is “to minimize OHV impacts on 

vegetated areas while allowing controlled opportunities for riding and travel through the area on 

designated routes for access to the beach and other areas which are open for OHV use.” 

Several routes in MA 10 (C) were identified and designated in the Dunes Plan itself. These include major 

access points to the open sand, many of which are signed and maintained. The Dunes Plan also called for 

the designation of additional routes within 3 years of Plan approval and the obliteration or naturalization 

of non-designated, largely user-developed, routes. In MA 10 (C), then, the Forest Service was directed 

to: 

• Designate those routes open to OHV use; 

• Obliterate those routes not so designated; and 

• Restrict OHV use to designated routes. 
6 

Staffing and budget constraints delayed this effort, as the Siuslaw National Forest focused on 

implementing other direction from the Dunes Plan, including restrictions on alcohol use, management of 

sand camping, development of additional access at Riley Ranch, and recovery of the threatened snowy 

plover. These efforts have largely been successful: restrictions on alcohol have limited wild parties and 

kept the Dunes open to family recreation; sand camping remains safe, predictable, and available; the 

Riley Ranch campground and access trail are open and popular; and the plover populations are beginning 

to recover. However, the delay in designating routes in Management Area 10 (C) presents the Forest 

Service, counties, OHV riders, and other interested parties with several management challenges.

The Dunes Plan restricts OHV use in Management Area 10 (C) to designated routes, but the only formally 

designated routes are the major access trails. An extensive network of unauthorized, user-developed 

routes continues to be used and additional routes have probably developed. None of these (except the 

Riley Ranch Trail) have been designated for OHV use, but undesignated routes have not been enforced as 

closed and allowed to re-vegetate either.

The ODNRA is an area characterized by the rapid spread of predominantly non-native, invasive plant 

species, especially European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria). Some of the user-developed routes 

evolved because they were popular, regularly-used travel ways and rapid vegetation encroached on either 

side making what was once open sand a vegetated area, with a now “unauthorized” motorized trail 

through it. Other trails, as in the Fingers area, involved the gradual breakdown of upland forests as riders 

sought out challenging riding experiences and hill climbs. 

Without a complete formal route system or adequate signing and closure orders for most of MA 10 (C), 

use of undesignated routes and establishment of additional user-developed routes continues. Responsible 

riders cannot reliably tell where riding is appropriate. As a result, the majority of existing trails within 

MA 10 (C) today are not designated routes. This has, in turn, led to greater and unnecessary impacts to 

important plant communities within and adjacent to the MA 10 (C) areas. 

In 2005, the Forest Service published a final Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B), 

requiring every national forest to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. Forest 

Service regulations (36 CFR 261.13) now prohibit use of motor vehicles that is not consistent with the 

designations. The Siuslaw National Forest completed the Siuslaw Travel Management Project in 2009, 

and has published a motor vehicle use map each year since 2010. On most of the 630,000 acre Siuslaw 

National Forest, travel management was relatively simple and non-controversial. Cross-country motor 

vehicle use in steep, wet, densely forested lands is difficult if not impossible. However, the agency 

recognized in 2009 that route designation in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area was not 

complete, and would be much more complex. Until route designation is completed, OHV use on many 

established routes in MA 10 (C) is technically prohibited but unenforced under 36 CFR 261.13, an 

undesirable and unsustainable situation. The 2009 Siuslaw Travel Management Project decision pointed 

towards the Designated Routes Project to complete designation on the Oregon Dunes National Recreation 

Area.

This project redeems the Forest Service’s responsibility to implement the Dunes Plan, the Travel 

Management Rule, and Executive Order 11644 by designating routes within MA 10 (C), providing OHV 

access and reasonable, enjoyable connections between valued riding areas while minimizing impacts to 

adjacent and intervening native plant communities and habitat.
7 

This decision is limited in scope. While it does include two non-significant amendments to the Dunes 

Plan, it does not attempt to re-draw the overall balance of motorized and non-motorized allocations in the 

ODNRA. The Dunes Plan established that overall zoning following extensive participation by OHV 

riders, county governments, the environmental community, and others. The 1994 Dunes Plan was itself 

founded on the preceding 1979 Dunes Plan, which was developed with the help of the original Advisory 

Committee called for under the legislation establishing the ODNRA. 

OHV riding is a legitimate and appropriate use of the Oregon Dunes, consistent with the establishing 

legislation for the ODNRA. This decision does not close any area zoned in the Dunes Plan for open 

riding. Non-motorized recreation is also an appropriate use of the Oregon Dunes. This decision does not 

open to OHVs any area zoned in the Dunes Plan as non-motorized. Rather, this decision addresses only 

Management Area 10 (C) – that portion of the ODNRA zoned for OHV use on designated routes only. 

Purpose and Need Summary 

The Project is needed to bring on-the-ground practice in Management Area 10 (C) into alignment with the 

Dunes Plan, the Travel Management Rule, and Executive Order 11644 by designating an understandable, 

manageable, and environmentally sustainable system of OHV routes to provide for access and enjoyment 

for recreational visitors. This involves two major components:

1. As directed by the Dunes Plan, the Forest Service must complete designation of appropriate 

routes within Management Area 10 (C) of the ODNRA. Those routes not designated for OHV 

use must be appropriately re-vegetated and closures must be enforced so that the purpose of the 

10 (C) designation can be fulfilled, allowing OHV use on designated routes. A Forest Plan 

amendment would provide for designation of routes beyond the initial 3-year window envisioned 

in the Dunes Plan. 

2. The Project also re-zones portions of Management Area 10 (C) to Management Area 10 (B) 

through a Forest Plan amendment, opening them to cross-country OHV use. A fundamental 

purpose of the 10 (C) designation in the Dunes Plan is to restrict cross-country OHV use to 

protect native vegetation. However, parts of Management Area 10 (C) are in fact dominated by 

invasive species such as European beach grass and Scots broom. In part, this reflects mapping 

errors that date back to the original aerial photo interpretation and vegetation typing done for the 

1994 Dunes Plan. Some areas allocated as MA 10 (C) were subsequently found on the ground to 

better meet the appearance, conditions and management objectives of MA 10 (B). Non-native, 

invasive species do not need protection from impacts by OHVs. Re-zoning these areas also 

promotes user understanding and acceptance of restrictions that are actually needed and may 

further objectives for restoration of open sand.

3. Decision

Based on my review of the alternatives and environmental impacts described in the Oregon Dunes NRA 

Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the 

comments on the DEIS submitted by other agencies and the public, and other information available in the 

project record, I propose to select Modified Alternative 4. The specific modifications to Alternative 4 

are identified in this Draft Record of Decision (ROD).
8 

The following summarizes the analysis completed by the interdisciplinary team of the differences 

between Modified Alternative 4 and Alternative 4 as analyzed in the FEIS.

Modified Alternative 4 would: 

• Designate an additional 2.3 miles of trails. This is the same as Alternative 4 in the FEIS.

• Reallocate 518 acres of Management Area 10 (C) to Management Area 10 (B), opening these 

lands to cross-country OHV use. The areas reallocated to open riding contain 46 miles of userdeveloped routes. This is a modification of Alternative 4 in the FEIS because the reallocations of 

areas A3 and A16 have been changed, and an additional area has been added, A17. In the North 

Riding Area, reallocation A3 has been increased from 6 acres to 28 acres, containing 1.2 miles 

user-developed routes. Also, in the north, A17 adds 64 acres. In the Middle Riding Area, 

reallocation A16 has been reduced from 132 acres to 109 acres, containing 6.3 miles of userdeveloped routes.

This proposed decision would amend the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Siuslaw Forest Plan; 1990) to: 

• Provide for designation of 2.3 miles of trails beyond the 3-year window envisioned in the 1994 Dunes 

Plan; and

• Reallocate 518 acres from Management 10 (C) – ORVs on Designated Routes Only, to Management 

Area 10 (B) – Open Riding 

I have determined that this project-level Forest Plan amendment is not significant under regulations 

implementing the National Forest Management Act because it is very limited in geographic scope and 

does not affect the overall mix of goods and services provided from the Siuslaw National Forest.

4. Decision Rationale

I am proposing to select Modified Alternative 4 because this alternative best balances public recreation 

access with environmental protection in Management Area 10 (C) while bringing on-the-ground 

management and the Dunes Plan into alignment. In particular, my decision is guided by the following 

principles:

• Areas in MA 10 (C) that are dominated by invasive species and unnatural vegetation, or that were 

historically open sand, should generally be open to cross-country riding; 

• In areas in MA 10 (C) that are dominated by fragile native vegetation including upland forests, 

OHVs should remain on designated trails providing through access to riding areas; 

• Designations should be easy for riders to understand and recognize on the ground, and therefore 

easier to enforce; and

• The decision should preserve the overall balance of motorized and non-motorized opportunities 

established in the Dunes Plan.

In proposing this decision, I have considered how well each alternative meets the purpose and need, and 

also how well each alternative responds to public comments and issues. 
9 

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Project is to bring on-the-ground practice in Management Area 10 (C) into alignment 

with the Dunes Plan, the Travel Management Rule, and Executive Order 11644 by designating an 

understandable, manageable, and environmentally sustainable system of OHV routes to provide for access 

and enjoyment for recreational visitors. This requires completion of route designation, enforcement of 

closures, and re-zoning those portions of MA 10 (C) better suited to open riding to MA 10 (B). 

Designating additional routes to help create a more comprehensive, legal, and understandable system, 

along with enhanced route signing, rider education, unauthorized route closure, and strong enforcement 

will help meet the following management objectives: 

• Facilitate OHV rider access through various parts of MA 10 (C) that are currently difficult to 

understand and navigate on the ground; 

• Provide a designated system of routes for OHV access, legally recognized in Forest Service 

planning documents, so that riders have assurance that riding remains legal; 

• Encourage user acceptance of and compliance with designated route requirements in MA 10 (C) 

areas; 

• Protect areas of native, upland forest by discouraging use of unauthorized, user-developed routes 

and allowing them to be rehabilitated or to revert naturally to a more natural condition; and 

• Simplify OHV management within MA 10 (C), allowing agency personnel to focus more on 

visitor education, resource restoration, compliance and enforcement of closures.

The selected alternative best meets the stated purpose and need for action by maintaining riding 

opportunities, limiting impacts to native vegetation, and providing access to all existing designated sand 

camps.

How issues were considered and taken into account 

Modified Alternative 4 was selected because it is the most responsive alternative to comments received 

on the DEIS. The individual comments and responses are found in Appendix A of the FEIS. The 

comments represent a wide variety of viewpoints on the preferred alternative. Some comments stated that 

the preferred alternative was too restrictive of motorized vehicle opportunities while other comments 

stated that the preferred alternative increased motorized vehicle opportunities too much. All of the 

comments were considered in the decision. 

Using the comments from the public and other agencies, as well as internal knowledge of the area and 

situation, the interdisciplinary EIS team identified a list of eight issues associated with this project: 

1. Maintenance of the OHV trail-riding experience

2. Noise impacts on nearby residents and non-motorized recreationists

3. OHV impacts on native vegetation 

4. Rider safety

5. OHV impacts on wildlife and their habitats 

6. OHV impacts on wetlands 

7. Visitation and local economic effects 
10 

8. Maintenance of motorized access to designated sand camps and motorized access from sand camps 

within MA 10 (C) to open riding areas in MA 10 (B) 

Issue 1: Trail Riding Experience 

Changes to OHV route designation and enforcement of existing closures can affect the quantity and 

quality of OHV riding experiences. Many riders’ comments spoke specifically to the importance of trail 

riding opportunities, especially for families. Trails through vegetation are a specific feature of MA 10 (C) 

not found as often in the wide-open dunes of MA 10 (B). Trails offer a different experience than open 

sand. Some forested trails provide the opportunity for challenge and adventure, but many of the trails on 

gentler ground provide a more controlled environment for family riding. Some of the best trails riding 

experiences are not found on the wide connecting routes between riding areas or from the open sand to 

the beach, but rather in the meandering system of user-developed routes through various topography and 

terrain. This maze of small routes developed over many years as vegetation gradually encroached into 

areas that were once open sand and as visitors pioneered new routes through vegetated areas in the 

absence of clearly signed designated routes and effective closure efforts by the Forest Service. As these 

mazes of trails cannot be effectively tracked and maintained as individual trails, an effective way to 

continue providing this recreation opportunity is to reallocate trail maze areas as MA 10 (B) (open riding) 

and rely on continued use to keep the routes open and available for the trail riding experience. 

The selected alternative maintains family trail riding opportunities by re-zoning 518 acres of gentler 

ground including 46 miles of user-created trail for open riding. 

Issue 2: Noise 

The sound of OHV riding can affect the lives of nearby residents and the quality of non-motorized 

recreationists’ experiences. Buffers near homes and popular non-motorized campgrounds and an overall 

limit on vehicle sound emissions are built into the design of the Dunes Plan. We received comments on 

noise from local residents, and the issue of noise was incorporated into the design of each alternative. 

Therefore, there is no measureable difference among any of the alternatives with regard to the possible 

impact of noise on nearby residents and non-motorized recreationists. No designated routes or proposed 

reallocations to open riding are proposed in areas that will increase sound from OHVs into residential 

areas or areas of quiet recreation. In fact, areas of unauthorized user-developed routes along the eastern 

boundary of the ODNRA from which sound funnels down into nearby communities would be enforced as 

closed, therefore reducing the impact of sound in all alternatives.

The selected alternative retains all sound buffers and sound restrictions in the Dunes Plan. 

Issue 3: Native Vegetation

Route designation and re-zoning from 10 (C) to 10 (B) may affect native vegetation. This issue was 

raised by environmental organizations, ecologists, scientists and others, and applies to those portions of 

MA 10 (C) which are dominated by native vegetation rather than by invasive species. The issue is 

complicated by the fact that patterns of vegetation have been heavily altered by humans over time -- both 

directly (plantations of beach grass, Scots broom, and shore pine) and indirectly (vegetation developing 

on areas affected by dune stabilization). Some areas now dominated by native vegetation, such as 
11 

wetlands in the deflation plain and shore pine plantations, were once open sand. Other areas, such as tree 

islands and the Fingers in the Middle Riding Area, have been forested for many decades.

The selected alternative protects native forests by focusing OHV use on those parts of MA 10 (C) that 

were historically open sand. Only 2 acres of native forest known as Banshee Hill are re-zoned for riding 

on long-established trails. 

Issue 4: Rider Safety

This issue was raised primarily by riders concerned that closure of user-developed, unauthorized routes 

may affect rider safety by concentrating riders into smaller areas and fewer routes. 

While rider density can affect safety, there are multiple factors that determine the "safety" of the OHV 

riding setting and experience. Among these are: rider behavior, speed, ability, topography, visibility, 

familiarity with the area/terrain, protective gear, and familiarity with the machine. Past history at the 

Dunes seems to indicate that even in popular, more congested areas of the ODNRA, vehicle on vehicle 

accidents are rare. Most rider injuries occur in lower density areas and are due to people operating 

machines beyond their skill/competency level, rather than from crashing into one another. 

By its nature, OHV riding can be a high risk outdoor recreation activity. Given the numerous rider safety 

variables over which the Forest Service has no control and the inability to accurately predict future rider 

density, the Forest has proposed only alternatives that it believes provide for rider safety. The Forest has 

not proposed any alternatives believed to be potentially dangerous to OHV riders, taking into 

consideration the inherently dangerous aspects of the activity. 

Most riding on the Oregon Dunes takes place in MA 10 (B), the area zoned for open riding. The selected 

alternative re-zones the most popular areas and trails within MA 10 (C) for open riding as well. By 

avoiding any closure of popular, heavily used riding areas, the selected alternative would not result in any 

measurable increase in rider concentration, and would not affect rider safety.

Issue 5: Wildlife and Habitat

The issue of wildlife habitat was incorporated into the design of each alternative. All action alternatives 

seasonally close the Siltcoos Breach beach access to motorized vehicles from September 16 through 

March 14 to protect snowy plover wintering habitat. All alternatives protect natural wetlands and natural 

upland forests, and the wildlife associated with them. Formal consultation on Threatened, Endangered 

and Proposed Species with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated through a biological 

assessment. A draft biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was received August 29, 

2014. A final is expected soon. 

Issue 6: Wetlands

Natural Wetlands: The issue of natural wetlands was incorporated into the design of each action 

alternative. Natural wetlands are protected by project design criteria in all alternatives.

Unnatural Wetlands: Unnatural wetlands have developed behind foredunes due to the introduction and 

establishment of European beach grass. These wetlands continue to increase in size eastward as the local 

foredune increases in height. Current OHV use in and in the vicinity of these wetlands is not inhibiting 

the eastward expansion of deflation plains. In many cases, large areas of historically open sand are now 
12 

inundated and crowded with vegetation, with only a few narrow trails remaining. The interdisciplinary 

team used historic photos to distinguish natural wetlands and natural vegetation from those created due to 

stabilization of dunes by invasive beach grass. The selected alternative protects natural wetlands, and 

allows OHV use to continue in unnatural wetlands that were formerly open sand by re-zoning them as 

MA 10 (B). 

Issue 7: Visitation and Local Economic Effects

Recreation and tourism is the leading economic sector for most of the Oregon coast, and especially for the 

communities around the Oregon Dunes. Many local businesses, including hotels, restaurants, outfittersguides, and commercial campgrounds serve visitors directly. Even businesses not directly involved in 

service delivery are dependent on income and economic activity from visitors to the coast. Visitors come

from across the world and for a variety of activities, renting beach houses, staying in hotels, driving 

Highway 101, hiking, sandboarding, taking pictures, playing on the beaches, and riding OHVs. Both 

motorized and non-motorized areas of the Oregon Dunes are popular with visitors.

As a group, OHV riders are important contributors to the economy. The sport is social and family-based 

and involves equipment that is expensive to purchase and to maintain. The Oregon Dunes is one of the 

country’s premier destination OHV riding areas, and attracts enthusiasts from around the world. 

Counties, communities, riders, and the Forest Service are united in wanting to preserve this opportunity. 

Comments from county and local governments, community members, and riders expressed concern that 

closure of non-designated, user-developed, unauthorized routes could reduce visitation and thereby 

adversely affect local economies.

Many factors affect annual visitation to the Oregon Dunes, including weather, fuel costs, other available 

destinations, and the state of the broader economy. All the variables that affect a person’s decision to 

visit the Oregon Dunes interact with each other, making it very difficult to predict the effects of marginal 

changes in local policy on an individual decision to visit. 

The scope of this decision is very limited, and none of the alternatives considered here changes the overall 

balance of motorized and non-motorized uses established in the Dunes Plan. Areas zoned for open riding 

will remain open. Areas zoned non-motorized will remain non-motorized. This decision affects only that 

part of the Dunes zoned for riding on designated trails (MA 10 (C)). 

Parts of MA 10 (C) are popular with riders, dominated by non-native or introduced vegetation, and 

support a network of well-used, well-established trails. The selected alternative re-zones these areas for 

open riding. Other parts of the MA 10 (C) are dominated by natural upland forest, and support few trails. 

These areas would remain open only on designated routes. While some users’ experiences may be 

affected at the margins as we bring the Dunes Plan and usage on the ground into alignment, we do not 

expect any change in overall visitation to the Dunes as a result of implementation of the selected 

alternative, or any effect on the local economy. 

Past experience supports this conclusion. In the past 15+ years, three important decisions have affected 

OHV use at the ODNRA: the 1994 Oregon Dunes Plan; the 2003 alcohol ban in OHV riding areas; and 

the 2005 designated-site sand camping decision. During scoping and public comment for each of these 

decisions, some predicted a decline in visitation if the decision was enacted. That did not occur. Despite 
13 

enactment of all three decisions, OHV use has remained steady and there were no significant adverse 

economic effects in local communities. 

Issue 8: Access to Sand Camps

Seven designated sand camps are connected to open riding areas only through user-created routes. 

Through a combination of formal route designation, re-zoning of areas to open riding, and relocation of 

sand camps to more favorable sites, the selected alternative ensures continued access to sand camps and 

availability of sand camping experiences. 

Public Input Beyond the Scope of this Proposal 

Many comments addressed issues ranging far beyond the narrow scope of this proposal but worthy of 

brief note here.

Revision of the Dunes Plan

As a component of the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the 

Dunes Plan establishes the overall management direction for the Oregon Dunes NRA, including the 

balance of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. The Dunes Plan was first approved in 

1979, and was revised in 1994. 

Many comments from OHV riders and others suggest re-zoning all of MA 10 (C), including native upland 

forests, for open riding. Others suggest establishing new riding opportunities, connecting the southern 

riding area and the middle riding area with a designated trail or otherwise opening up large non-motorized 

portions of the Dunes to OHV use. Meanwhile, comments from non-motorized visitors and others 

suggest closing all or major parts of the Dunes to OHV use. These comments mirror those the Siuslaw 

has received in each revision of the Dunes Plan. The balance between motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities on the Oregon Dunes has been at issue since before the Oregon Dunes NRA was 

established, and at some level the partisans on all sides remain unsatisfied with the result.

I am sensitive to the passion and dedication that people bring to the fundamental questions around how 

the Oregon Dunes should be managed and for whom, and there’s a time and a place to wrestle with them. 

But this is not that time. Forest Plan revisions are expensive and time consuming, the next Forest Plan 

revision is not scheduled for several years, and the continuing debate over how much of the Dunes should 

be zoned for OHV use has not raised any fundamentally new questions. The route designation decision 

documented in this ROD implements the Dunes Plan and includes two non-significant amendments to 

bring the intent of the Dunes Plan into alignment with use on the ground. Revision of the Dunes Plan is 

beyond the scope of this Draft ROD.

Control of Invasive Species and Restoration of Open Sand 

The greatest threat to both the ecology of the Oregon Dunes and to their continued public enjoyment is 

the spread of invasive species. Beginning late in the 19th century, communities and government agencies, 

including the Forest Service, planted European beachgrass in dunes along the Pacific coast to protect 

harbors, highways, and communities from blowing sand. It did its job too well. European beachgrass 

continues to stabilize sand and to change the processes that created and maintain the Oregon Dunes. 
14 

Foredunes trap sand and prevent its inland movement, allowing winds to scour out the deflation plain. 

Beachgrass-stabilized dunes are quickly dominated by shrubs and trees in this temperate rainforest. 

The Dunes Plan calls for vegetation treatment to restore dune geomorphological processes in localized 

areas, with an emphasis on snowy plover habitat and globally significant plant communities (Dunes Plan, 

III-13 to III-18). Manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments and prescribed fire have been successful 

in controlling invasive species at specific sites – especially around snowy plover habitats. In 2013, the 

Siuslaw National Forest mechanically removed invasive vegetation from 44 acres near Bull Run with the 

help of a D7 bulldozer, the local fire crew, and enthusiastic OHV riders. Additional treatments are carried 

out every year – but the scope of the challenge, the limits of available resources and control techniques, 

and the hardiness of beachgrass mean that this will be an ongoing effort. 

Many comments from OHV riders pointed to invasive beachgrass – not OHVs – as the chief threat to the 

dunes, and argued that we should redouble efforts to control beachgrass rather than close the dunes to 

OHV use. In large part, we agree. We do not propose to close any open riding areas, but instead to open 

518 acres dominated by invasive species by re-zoning them from Management Area 10 (C) to 

Management Area 10 (B). Meanwhile, we are working on two levels to address the invasive species 

problem itself. Specific, on-the-ground projects like Bull Run are implemented each year while we 

simultaneously develop an overall strategy for dunes restoration in cooperation with riders and 

environmental groups. However, these efforts are addressed in separate environmental analysis, beyond 

the scope of this ROD.

Designation of OHV routes (this proposed decision) and control of invasive species (as in the Bull Run 

treatment decision) are distinct projects, each implementing the overall direction of the Dunes Plan. We 

need not choose one or the other. 

Environmental Effects

This proposed decision considers the balance of environmental effects presented in detail in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS. All of the alternatives are consistent with all applicable laws including the Endangered Species 

Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Act designating the Oregon 

Dunes NRA.

5. Public Involvement

Chapter 1 of the FEIS describes in detail the public outreach and involvement associated with this project. 

Comments on the DEIS made by individuals and organizations are individually addressed in Appendix A 

of the FEIS. The perspective and individual points in these comments were considered by the 

interdisciplinary team. For specific information on how comments were addressed, refer to Appendix A.

In 2009, the Siuslaw National Forest hired an independent contractor to assemble and facilitate a working 

group with a wide variety of interests to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with OHV 

use in that portion of the Oregon Dunes NRA zoned for riding on designated routes (Management Area 

10 (C)). The working group held public meetings and field trips throughout the Dunes, and in 2010 

provided a report including a range of different ideas and recommendations regarding trails and riding 

areas, posted on the Forest website. The Forest Service considered the working group’s report in 

developing an initial proposed action for public consideration. 
15 

Scoping

The Forest published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on June 24, 2011. A scoping letter was mailed 

to approximately 150 individuals, groups and agencies. Over 800 scoping comment letters were received, 

as well as petitions containing nearly 6,500 signatures and comments. 

Responses expressed a wide variety of opinions about the proposed action and information to be disclosed 

in the draft EIS. These comments were used to identify issues, alternatives to the proposed action, and the 

extent of environmental analysis necessary for making an informed decision. Information obtained from 

the scoping process is contained in the Project Record. 

Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary EIS team identified eight 

issues associated with this project: 

• Maintenance of the OHV trail-riding experience

• Noise impacts on nearby residents and non-motorized recreationists

• OHV impacts on native vegetation 

• Rider safety

• OHV impacts on wildlife and their habitats 

• OHV impacts on wetlands 

• Visitation and local economic effects 

• Maintenance of motorized access to designated sand camps and motorized access from sand 

camps within MA 10 (C) to open riding areas in MA 10 (B) 

Comments on the DEIS 

The Forest published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register on October 24, 

2012. The Draft EIS was posted to the Forest website. The Forest sent about 700 letters and emails 

announcing the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS with a web link to the project on the Forest Service 

website. The Draft EIS was placed in public libraries and was available at the Forest Service offices in 

Reedsport, Waldport and Corvallis. At the request of the public the initial 45-day comment period was 

extended an additional 45 days to January 22, 2013.The Forest hosted a public meeting in Florence on 

November 17, 2012. Another public meeting was held in Eugene in January, 2013. Other meetings with 

interested members of the public took place in Corvallis in December, 2012 and in Roseburg in January, 

2013. In addition the Forest met with the Coos, Douglas, and Lane County Commissioners. The Forest 

received approximately 1300 comments on the Draft EIS during the extended comment period. 

Comments and agency responses are included in the FEIS, Appendix A. 

Public comments were used to extend and improve the environmental analysis in the EIS to ensure that all 

environmental impacts were considered and disclosed. Comments were also used to modify Alternative 4 

by adjusting areas proposed for re-zoning as open riding. Many comments were mutually exclusive, and 

beyond the scope of the proposal (re-zone all of the Dunes for open riding; re-zone all of the Dunes as 

closed). I believe that Alternative 4 Modified strikes a reasonable balance, consistent with the Forest 

Plan, by re-zoning lands dominated by non-native vegetation for open riding while protecting fragile 

upland forests from trail development. 
16 

Consultation with Tribes 

The Forest Service consulted on a government-to-government basis with the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, and a Tribal representative was included in the original 

working group to ensure that Tribal interests were incorporated into the initial project design. The 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians sent a comment during the 

comment period in support of the project. 

The Siuslaw National Forest also discussed the Designated Routes project during regular consultation 

meetings with the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz and the Confederates Tribes of the Grand Ronde. 

Each of these Tribes deferred to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw for input on this project. 

6. Alternatives Considered

Six alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail in the FEIS. Two additional alternatives were 

considered but dropped from detailed consideration. For a more detailed description of Alternatives see 

pages 63-164 of the FEIS. 

Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. No additional routes would be designated and no management areas 

would be reallocated to accomplish the identified project goals. 

This alternative represents the most radical change in OHV opportunities of all the alternatives. Userdeveloped routes within areas of MA 10 (C) not designated in the 2009 Travel Management Decision 

were, by definition, closed to motorized use when the initial Siuslaw National Forest Motor Vehicle Use 

Map was published on December 31, 2009. However, those routes and areas have not yet been physically 

closed nor stringently enforced on the ground. OHV riders have continued to ride on many miles of userdeveloped routes in MA 10 (C), pending completion of this decision to designate additional routes. Once 

this effort is complete, those routes and areas not designated in the 2009 Travel Management decision or 

in this, the MA 10 (C) Designated Routes decision, will be formally closed and strictly enforced under 

provisions of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212).

Alternative 2 

This alternative designates an additional nine OHV routes, totaling approximately 3.4 miles. All nine 

proposed routes exist on the ground as historic, user-developed routes and thus would involve no 

construction or new ground-disturbing activity except mechanically widening a 0.1 mile existing route. 

Any user-developed routes not designated in this alternative would be enforced as closed to motorized use 

and obliterated or allowed to naturally revert. 

This alternative would also modify Management Area boundaries, reallocating approximately 234 acres 

containing about 30 miles of user-developed routes from MA 10 (C) to MA 10 (B) in order to continue to 

provide OHV trail riding opportunities and to manage 10 (C) areas that physically resemble adjacent 10 

(B) areas in a manner consistent with MA 10 (B) management objectives. The reallocation includes an 
17 

area commonly known as Banshee Hill in the Umpqua Dunes riding area. Approximately 102 miles of 

unauthorized user-developed routes would be closed and obliterated or allowed to revert naturally. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative designates eleven routes totaling approximately 3.6 miles as open to motorized vehicles. 

All proposed routes exist on the ground as historic, user-developed routes and thus would involve no 

construction or new ground-disturbing activity. Any user-developed routes not designated would be 

enforced as closed to motorized use and obliterated or allowed to naturally revert. Approximately 131 

miles of unauthorized user-developed routes would be enforced as closed and eventually naturalized. 

This alternative is based on scoping comments that recommended an alternative limited to route 

designation only with no reallocations from MA 10 (C) to MA 10 (B). 

Alternative 4 

This alternative designates eight routes totaling about 2.3 miles. All proposed routes exist on the ground 

as historic, user-developed routes and thus would involve no construction or new ground-disturbing 

activity except mechanically widening a 0.1 mile existing route. The alternative would also modify 

Management Area (MA) boundaries, reallocating approximately 455 acres containing about 49 miles of 

user-developed routes. The reallocation from MA 10 (C) to MA 10 (B) would provide OHV trail riding 

opportunities. Areas that were zoned MA 10 (C) but more closely resemble MA 10 (B), would be 

managed to meet MA 10 (B) objectives. Approximately 84 miles of user-developed routes would be 

enforced as closed and obliterated or eventually naturalized under this action. 

Modified Alternative 4

This alternative has the same proposed designated routes as Alternative 4. It differs from Alternative 4 in 

three proposed reallocations. The A16 reallocation in the Middle Riding Area would be reduced in acres 

from 132 acres to 109 acres. The western boundary of the A16 reallocation was moved further inland to 

reduce user conflicts on the non-motorized beach and to lessen opportunities for motorized vehicles to 

enter the non-motorized beach. Another change is to A3 in the North Riding Area. This reallocation was 

increased from 6 acres to 28 acres in order include an area popular for trail riding, particularly among 

families with children. A new reallocation, the 64 acre A17, was added in the North Riding Area. 

Alternative 5 

This alternative includes the proposed designation of ten additional routes for a total of 2.9 additional 

miles. All proposed routes exist on the ground as historic, user-developed routes and thus would involve 

no construction or new ground-disturbing activity except mechanically widening a 0.1 mile existing route. 

Alternative 5 also includes 12 areas that would be reallocated from MA 10 (C) to MA 10 (B). In total, 

about 966 acres, the most of all the alternatives, are proposed for reallocation. Within those acres, about 

70 miles of user-developed routes would remain available to OHV riding. Approximately 62 miles of 

user-developed routes would be closed and obliterated or eventually naturalized under this action. 
18 

7. The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Modified Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferable alternative. It is the alternative that best 

achieves the purposes of Section 101 of the NEPA to “create and maintain conditions in which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony.” By focusing OHV use on open sand and lands dominated by 

invasive species, protecting fragile upland forests from trail development, and designating an 

understandable and enforceable system of trails for motor vehicle use, Modified Alternative 4 causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment. 

8. Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Orders

National Forest Management Act 

Implementation of this project requires a forest plan amendment to the Siuslaw National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Siuslaw Forest Plan). The 2012 planning rule provides for transition period 

for forest plan amendments initiated prior to May 9, 2012 (36 CFR 219.17 (3)). During the transition 

period, amendments may be made in conformance with the provisions of the prior planning regulation. 

This decision includes a forest plan amendment to the Siuslaw Forest Plan following the 1982 planning 

rule procedures. The Forest Service Land Management Planning Manual (Forest Service Manual 

1926.51) lists four criteria for evaluating the significance of changes to forest plans: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management.

This amendment will not change any Forest Land and Resource Management goals or objectives.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and 

objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

The management area boundary adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals 

and objectives for long-term land and resource management of the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Alternative 4 Modified reallocates 518 acres from Management Area 10(C) to Management Area 

10(B). These management area boundary changes are extremely limited in scope (518 acres out of 

630,000, or less than one-tenth of 1%) relative to the entire Siuslaw National Forest, retain the overall 

balance of lands allocated to motorized and non-motorized uses, and are consistent with the intent of 

the management area descriptions (lands requiring protection from cross-country riding remain MA 

10(C), while lands dominated by non-native vegetation are re-zoned as MA 10(B). 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

The Dunes Plan recognized that OHV trails in MA 10(C) must be designated, but included a guideline 

anticipating that designation would be completed within 3 years (by 1997). This amendment 

recognizes that work is being completed much later than suggested. This amendment is specific to 

only this project. 
19 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription. 

No additional management practices are included in this forest plan amendment. This amendment does 

not apply to any other designations of OHV routes in the project area or on the Oregon Dunes National 

Recreation Area. This amendment does not eliminate any future opportunities to achieve the 

management prescription. 

Finding: On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the FEIS and all other information 

available as summarized above, it is my determination that these two Forest Plan amendments (reallocation of 518 acres from MA 10 (C) to MA 10 (B); and designation of OHV routes in MA 10 (C) 

beyond the initial 3 year window) are not significant amendments of the Forest Plan under provisions of 

the National Forest Management Act.

In all other respects, the project is fully consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of 

the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. This proposed decision 

complies with the Northwest Forest Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines. It considers suitable habitat for survey and manage species and applies 

appropriate mitigations providing for a reasonable assurance of species’ persistence.

Endangered Species Act

The Siuslaw National Forest concluded in a Biological Assessment for the Designated Routes Project that 

designation of OHV routes and re-allocation of lands for open riding has the potential to adversely affect 

the threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus ssp. nivosus). The Forest conducted formal 

consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion 

concluded that the project may affect individual birds, but is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species, and provided an incidental take statement and reasonable and prudent measures 

to prevent jeopardy. Completion of route designation and restriction of OHV riding to designated routes 

will improve protection of snowy plover habitat. The Forest Service has adopted the reasonable and 

prudent measures in this ROD.

As determined in the Biological Evaluation, implementation of Modified Alternative 4 will have no effect 

on any listed fish species or their designated critical habitats. Consultation with National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) was therefore, not necessary.

The Biological Assessment concluded that the proposed action will have No Effect on any other species 

listed as Threatened or Endangered. 

The Project File includes the Biological Assessment, Biological Opinion, and letters of concurrence. 

Also refer to pages 108-115 of the FEIS for further discussion of impacts to snowy plover and other listed 

species.
20 

Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act provides direction “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters”. To carry out this law, the State of Oregon has established state water 

quality standards for factors such as water temperature, sedimentation, habitat modification and pH, and 

an anti-degradation policy to protect water quality conditions. Under the anti-degradation policy in 

Section 303(d), water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are designated as “water quality 

limited”.

Best Management Practices and Management Requirements listed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS would ensure 

the protection of water quality. There would be no additional effect to the parameters for which certain 

streams were placed on the 303(d) list. Therefore, as indicated in the FEIS page 164, Modified 

Alternative 4 is consistent with the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

Background research for cultural resources was conducted for the project, including a thorough review of 

relevant historic records, reference literature, and cultural resource files on the Siuslaw National Forest. 

The Forest Archaeologist reviewed the list of proposed actions and assessed their potential to effect 

historic properties according to the terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement between the USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer (PA). 

The proposed actions analyzed for the current project are covered under Appendix B of the PA, which 

means that the undertaking(s) may be excluded from case-by-case review with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) based on inspection or monitoring as determined by the Forest 

Archaeologist. Specifically, under Appendix B: 14 of the PA it is noted that: 

“Off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail designations that utilize existing roadways and trailways provided that 

no properties have been recorded within or adjacent to the roadways or trailways.” 

Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities 

Adverse effects on civil rights, women and minorities are not expected from implementing Modified 

Alternative 4, as addressed on page 164 of the FEIS. To the greatest extent possible, all populations have 

been provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on proposals and activities 

affecting human health or the environment. The activities in this decision will not have a direct or indirect 

negative effect on minority or low-income populations. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 directs each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. This order is accompanied by a memorandum, emphasizing the need to consider these types 

of effects during NEPA analysis. Where Forest Service proposals have the potential to disproportionately 

adversely affect minority or low-income populations, these effects must be considered and disclosed (and 
21 

mitigated to the degree possible) through the NEPA analysis and documentation. Effects on the human 

environment from implementation of Alternative 4 are expected to be similar for all human populations, 

regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income (refer to Page 163 of the FEIS). Restrictions on motor 

vehicles necessary to protect the environment and applied equally to all visitors, are not discriminatory. 

Therefore, Alternative 4, Modified is found to be consistent with Executive Order 12898. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

Executive Order 11990 requires that government agencies take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands. Executive Order 11988 requires government agencies to take actions that reduce 

the risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of floods on human health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

European beach grass created an unnaturally high foredune that has blocked the inward migration of sand 

from the beach. This has led to the creation of a larger, more permanent deflation plain and “exposure” of 

the water table over a larger area than would naturally occur. Off-highway vehicle traffic is having only a 

limited effect on the encroaching vegetation in these areas and is having little, if any, effect on exposure 

of the water table. Floodplains in the classic sense would not have existed in unstable, shifting sand 

dunes. Floodplains may be developing in areas where encroaching vegetation has stabilized the sand next 

to flowing water such as where Cleawox Creek flows through the deflation plain. Off-highway vehicle 

traffic is, again, having only a limited effect on the encroaching vegetation in these areas and is having 

little, if any, effect on the development of floodplains. 

Travel Management Rule 

Executive Order 11644 and the Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212.55(b) instructs the responsible 

official to consider the effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, 

provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System 

lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads trails, and area that would arise if the uses 

under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for maintenance and administration. 

Specific criteria for designation of trails and area instruct the responsible official to consider effects on the 

following, with the objective of minimizing:

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

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the FEIS includes subsections that discuss effects to 

Botanical Resources, Hydrology and Soils, Fisheries and Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the FEIS includes subsections that discuss effects to 

Wildlife

Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest lands 

of neighboring Federal lands. 

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the FEIS includes subsections that discuss effects to 

Recreation.

Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicles uses of National Forest lands or neighboring Federal 

lands. 
22 

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the FEIS includes subsections that discuss effects to 

Recreation.

Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking in account sound, 

emissions, and other factors. 

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the FEIS includes subsections that discuss effects to 

Recreation.

The objective of the Designated Route Project is to implement the 1994 Dunes Plan designation of 

Management Area 10 (C). The five factors above were also analyzed extensively in the Dunes Plan which 

is an amendment to the Siuslaw National Forest Plan of which this project is tiered.

9. Objection Process

When the draft EIS was released, the associated documentation indicated that the upcoming decision 

would be subject to an administrative appeal process according to the Code of Federal Regulations (36 

CFR 215); this process allows people who submitted comments during the comment period on the draft 

EIS an opportunity to appeal the final decision after it is signed. However, on March 27, 2013, new 

regulations were released that will apply to the Designated Routes project. 

The new regulations, found at 36 CFR 218, provide an opportunity for individuals, organizations and 

tribal entities to file an objection to a project before the final decision is signed. This allows interested 

individuals, organizations and tribal entities to advise the Deciding Official about concerns regarding the 

final decision before the decision is made. The new 218 regulations allow anyone who submitted timely, 

specific written comments about the proposed project during any designated opportunity for public 

comment, to file an objection to the draft decision (36 CFR 218.5). 

If you commented on the Designated Routes project during the scoping period, the review of the draft 

EIS, or during any of the public meetings, you have standing to object to the draft decision. When the 

final EIS and Draft Record of Decision are released for public review, you will have 45 days in which to 

review the documents and, if you choose, file an objection to the Draft Record of Decision. 

Specific directions on how to file an objection are provided in 36 CFR 218.8. (A printed copy is available 

upon request.) The regulations can be found at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=5669c35aaf52b2cffa6f627cfb19077f&node=36:2.0.1.1.8&rgn=div5. 

Objections will be subject to review by a “reviewing officer;” because the Responsible Official for the 

Designated Routes project is the Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor, the reviewing officer will be the 

Regional Forester.

The objection process may include an opportunity for the objector to meet with the reviewing officer and 

the responsible official, with the objective of resolving the concerns expressed in the objection. 

The responsible official cannot sign the final decision until the reviewing officer has responded in writing 

to all pending objections, and the decision must be consistent with any instructions issued by the 

reviewing officer. After the objection process concludes there will be no additional opportunity for 

administrative review or appeal. The final decision will be the Final administrative decision by the 

agency.
23 

10. Implementation 

Implementation may begin after the Record of Decision is signed.

11. Contact Information 

For additional information on the FEIS and ROD, please contact Angie Morris, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Central Coast Ranger District-Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, PO Box 400, Waldport, 

Oregon 97394; Telephone (541)-563-8464. 

The FEIS, ROD, and supporting documents are available for inspection during regular business hours 

(Monday through Friday, 7:45 A.M. to 4:30 P.M) at the Central Coast Ranger District-Oregon Dunes 

National Recreation Area offices in Reedsport and Waldport along with the Siuslaw National Forest 

Headquarter in Corvallis. The FEIS and Draft ROD are also posted on the Siuslaw National Forest 

website at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=34220

Signature and Date 

I have been delegated the authority and I am the Responsible Official for the decisions outlined in this 

ROD. Note that in many cases this ROD summarized information described more completely in the 

accompanying FEIS. For more detailed information, please refer to the FEIS and its associated project 

administrative record.