Draft Supplemental EIS I - 1 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

CHAPTER I – PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose for supplementing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated 

December 3, 2009, is to clarify issues, expand on analyses, and provide additions, changes and 

corrections that are responsive to issues brought forth from administrative appeals of the FEIS. 

In addition, issues identified internally requiring modifications are included in this document. 

This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Motorized Vehicle Use 

on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) has been prepared as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 

for implementing NEPA provisions (40 CFR 1500), the National Forest Management Act and its 

accompanying regulations, as well as applicable Forest Service Manuals, Handbooks and other 

higher-level direction.

This DSEIS analysis supplements, is tiered to, and incorporates by reference the Administrative 

Record for the 2009 FEIS and its Record of Decision (ROD) for Motorized Vehicle Use on the 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

This Chapter describes the Purpose and Need for this action. This includes: (1) identifying 

changes between the Final Environmental Impact Statement and this DSEIS, (2) background and 

legal framework for this proposal; (3) describing the scope and scale of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives; (4) summarizing the Rogue River-Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan 

direction; and (5) identifying the decisions to be made. This Chapter also includes a section on 

the public involvement process and the identification and development of issues that frame the 

analysis for this process. 

 

A. CHANGES BETWEEN FINAL EIS AND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

ADDED: Edits were completed throughout this document to provide clarification of 

information previously presented. All edits were based on issues identified internally and 

externally through the appeals process. All modifications, clarifications, or additions for each 

section will be framed within a box. Other minor corrections, explanations and edits have 

also been made. 

Changes within the document include the following. 

Summary: 

 Baseline road and trail mileage updates, mapping errors corrected (S-4) 

ADDED: 

Chapter I: 

 Clarified Purpose and Need Statement (I-7) 

 Added paragraph to Decision Framework Statement (I-8) 

 Clarified Management Direction to include Port-Orford-cedar Management (I-10) 

 Added paragraph to Scoping Statement (I-14) 

 Changed: All issues were reformatted from questions to statements (I-16,17,18) 

 Designated and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers added as an “Other Issue” (I-18) 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 2 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

B. BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Recreation is an important value and use of the Forest. Motorized and non-motorized recreation 

visitors share an interest in enjoying outdoor recreation in a natural environment. 

On November 9, 2005, the Final Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for 

Motor Vehicle Use (hereafter referred to as Travel Management Rule) was published in the Federal 

Register; affecting 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. The Rule 

revises several regulations to require designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on 

National Forests and National Grasslands, and became effective in December 2005. 

CHANGES BETWEEN FINAL EIS AND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS (continued) 

Chapter II: 

 Added corrections to baseline road and trail mileages (II-11,12) 

 Changes to roads or portions of roads allowing mixed use within Alternative 5 (II-12,13) 

 Clarified dispersed camping (II-17,18,41) 

 General closure of cross-country travel incorporated into Alternative 2 (II-20,22) 

 Additional mitigation measures for mixed use roads (II-47) 

 Updated mitigation measures for invasive plants (II-50,51) 

 Updated mitigation measures for special plant species (II-52) 

 Added mitigation measures for soils –site productivity (II-52) 

 Added mitigation measures for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (II-53) 

 Designated and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers Alternative Comparison (II-68) 

Chapter III: 

 Clarified Assumptions for Analysis (III-3,4) 

 Clarified Cumulative Effects Assumptions (III-5,6) 

 Clarified Purpose and Need Statement (III-6,7)

 Revised Water Quality section to clarify effects analysis (III-9 thru 25) 

 Revised Botanical Areas, Research Natural Areas and Special Plant Habitats section to 

clarify effects analysis (III-26 thru 29) 

 Added road and trail development standards (III-32) 

 Added Mixed Use Analysis and public safety (III-33) 

 Recreation Facilities Analysis conformance (III-39) 

 Clarified cumulative effects for Motorized Opportunities (III-49) 

 Added Potential Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Areas (III-53,54) 

 Revised Soils section to clarify effects analysis (III-56 thru 68) 

 Clarified relationship between ACS Objectives and POC Management (III-70,71,104,105) 

 Revised Air Quality section to clarify effects analysis regarding Asbestos (III-78 thru 86) 

 Added effects analysis on Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage vascular plants, 

bryophytes, lichens, and fungi to the section about Federally listed and FS Sensitive 

Plants (III-89 thru 97) 

 Clarified Port-Orford cedar (POC) and Phytophthora lateralis (PL) spread 

(III-101,103,104,105,107,109,110,111,112) 

 Clarified effects of motorized use to Owl Cores (III-122) 

 Revised Fisheries section to clarify effects analysis (III-138 thru 160) 

 Clarified laws related to mining entry and use of NFS roads (III-176,177) 

 Added Wild and Scenic Rivers analysis (III-187 thru 201) 

 Revised Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Disclosure (III-202 thru 205) 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 3 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Highlights of the Travel Management Rule: 

 Each National Forest or Ranger District will designate those roads, trails, and areas open to 

motorized vehicles. 

 Designation will include class of vehicle and, if appropriate, season of use for motor vehicles. 

 Once the designation process is complete with publication of a Motorized Vehicle Use Map, 

the rule will generally prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system or use that is 

inconsistent with the designations. 

 Designation decisions are to be made locally, with public input and in coordination with 

state, local, and tribal governments.

The Travel Management Rule Provides: 

 Better opportunities for sustainable motorized recreation and access to the National 

Forest System 

 Better protection of natural and cultural resources 

 Increased public safety 

 Reduced user conflicts 

Key portions of the rule are shown in Figure I-1. The Travel Management Rule requires 

designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use by the public on 

National Forests. Designations would be made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of 

year. The Travel Management Rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles by the public off the 

designated system (i.e., use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that are not designated). 

Persons exempt from the final rule prohibitions would be those with a permit, or excluded by law 

or regulation, specifically authorizing access. 

Figure I-1. Key Excerpts from the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212 Subpart B) 

§ 212.1 Definitions 

Designated road, trail, or area. A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area 

on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to § 212.51 on a motor 

vehicle use map. 

Motor vehicle. Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) A vehicle operated on rails; and (2) 

Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery powered, that is designed solely for use 

by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. 

§ 212.50 Purpose, scope, and definitions 

(a) Purpose. This subpart provides for a system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System 

trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. After these 

roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, including the class of vehicle and time of year, 

not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Motor vehicle use off 

designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. 

(b) Scope. The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding travel 

management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, 

in designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest 

System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart. 

(c) For definitions of terms used in this subpart, refer to § 212.1 in subpart A of this part. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 4 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

§ 212.51 Designation of roads, trails, and areas 

(a) General. Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in 

areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of 

year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest System, 

provided that the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations: 

 (1) Aircraft; 

 (2) Watercraft; 

 (3) Over-snow vehicles (see § 212.81); 

 (4) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; 

 (5) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; 

 (6) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; 

 (7) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and 

 (8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under 

 Federal law or regulations. 

(b) Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. 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. 

36 CFR 212.55 contain general and specific criteria for the Responsible Official to consider in 

designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. These criteria are largely taken from 

Executive Order 11644 (as amended by EO 11989). Since the language of the Executive Order 

addresses trails and areas (rather than roads), the criteria for designating roads differs from that 

of trails. 

The Travel Management Rule makes a key clarification of the Executive Order in this section. 

The Executive Order says “areas and trails shall be located to minimize” damage to soils, 

harassment of wildlife, conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational 

uses, etc. The rule says “the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the 

objective of minimizing.” The preamble explains: 

The Department believes this language is consistent with EO 11644 and better expresses its 

intent. It is the intent of EO 11644 that motor vehicle use of trails and areas on Federal 

lands be managed to address environmental and other impacts, but that motor vehicle use on 

Federal lands continue in appropriate locations. An extreme interpretation of “minimize” 

would preclude any use at all, since impacts always can be reduced further by preventing 

them altogether. Such an interpretation would not reflect the full context of EO 11644 or 

other laws and policies related to multiple use of National Forest System lands. 

Designation Process for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

To meet these regulations, the RRSNF began the first steps of the designation process in the 

spring of 2006, published the Final EIS in December 2009, and is currently working on the 

Supplemental EIS; completion of the Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) will be approximately 

November 2011. Following the environmental analysis process, the RRSNF will produce a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) displaying roads, trails and areas open for motorized use 

across the approximately 1.8 million acres of Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest lands in 

Southern Oregon. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 5 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

The process of inventory, designation, and public participation is guided by a national protocol. 

This national protocol is known as the “OHV Route Inventory and Designation Guide” which 

was developed by a Forest Service Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Implementation Team. 

Major steps in the process include: 

1. Compile existing travel management direction 

2. Assemble resource and social data 

3. Use travel analysis to identify proposals for change 

4. Environmental analysis and decision making 

5. Publish motor vehicle use map 

6. Implement, monitor, and revise 

This document and process are associated with Step 4, to result in Step 5. Steps 1 through 3 

were used to help in developing the proposals put forth in the Proposed Action. Step 6 would 

occur after a decision is made. 

C. LOCATION AND SETTING 

Located in southwestern Oregon and extending into California, the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest ranges from the crest of the Cascades Mountains west into the Siskiyou 

Mountains, nearly to the Pacific Ocean. The Forest covers approximately 1.8 million acres; 

portions of the Applegate and Illinois River drainages extend into northern California. The 

Rogue River drains over 75 percent of the Forest's land area. 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest features a Supervisor's Office located in Medford, 

OR and five Ranger Districts including: High Cascades, Siskiyou Mountains, Wild Rivers, Gold 

Beach, and Powers. Field offices remain in the communities of Prospect, Butte Falls, Ashland, 

Ruch, Grants Pass, Cave Junction, Brookings, Gold Beach, and Powers. The Forest also is home 

of the J. Herbert Stone Nursery located near Central Point. 

The Forest itself is composed of two distinct geological provinces: The Cascade Range and the 

Klamath Mountains. The Cascade Range is dominated by snow capped volcanic peaks such as 

9,495 foot Mt. McLoughlin located within the Sky Lakes Wilderness on the High Cascades 

Ranger District. The Klamath area embodies the most complex soils, geology, landscape, and 

plant communities in the Pacific Northwest. World-class wild rivers, biological diversity, 

remarkable fisheries resources, and complex watersheds define the Klamath. 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou is one of the most floristically diverse National Forests in the country 

with some extraordinary botanical resources, and is home to incredible wild and scenic rivers, 

isolated wilderness, outstanding fisheries and wildlife resources, and breathtaking landscapes of 

mountains, meadows, streams, and lakes. 

Recreational opportunities abound on the Forest, from white water rafting to wilderness 

camping, from lake and stream fishing to winter snowmobiling. Hundreds of miles of trails 

welcome users of all types and abilities: wheelchairs, horses, bicycles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, cross-country and downhill skiers, and hikers. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 6 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

D. SCOPE AND SCALE 

The need to move quickly to complete the designation process was recognized early and broad 

spectrums of interest groups support this goal. In order to expedite designation and avoid 

process gridlock, route and area designation was guided by the following considerations: 

 For the RRSNF, this project and its analysis has focused on the change from the 

current situation. A tightly focused process was developed; this includes a focused sitespecific proposal that does not aim to solve all travel management issues at once. For 

example, this process does not analyze all existing system roads nor make recommendations 

on road decommissioning. This project’s focus is on the designation of motorized use for 

roads, trails and areas. 

 This initial travel management planning and subsequent publishing of a Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) is the first step in long term management of travel pursuant to the travel 

management regulations in 36 CFR 212. Travel management planning is an on-going 

process and MVUMs will be revised periodically to address changes needed. 

 Travel analysis to identify the minimum road system can be a separate process from this 

travel analysis for purposes of designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use 

(FSM 7712). Neither the regulations under 36 CFR 212.5 or agency directives contain a time 

frame for determining the minimum road system. The agency however, views this as 

important work that needs to be addressed within the next decade. 

 A complete inventory of user-created routes was determined to not be necessary. Only the 

information needed to evaluate proposed changes in travel management direction was 

gathered. 

 There is no requirement to reconsider decisions made prior to the Travel Management Rule. 

Reconsideration of previous decisions would unnecessarily waste public resources, disregard 

public participation in the development of planning decisions and expand the scope of the 

Travel Rule beyond its intended purpose. The Travel Management Rule requires designation 

to be consistent with the applicable land management plans developed pursuant to the 

National Forest Management Act. Therefore, if a proposed designation is not consistent with 

the land management plan, the responsible official must either change the proposed 

designation or propose an amendment to the land management plan(s). It is expected that 

some land management plan amendments will be proposed and considered during this 

analysis. 

 An analysis of the transportation system was used to identify narrowly tailored proposals to 

change travel management direction, and conduct environmental analysis only when and 

where necessary. A decision to construct a route, add a route to the Forest transportation 

system, or change authorization of or prohibitions on motor vehicle use on a route or in an 

area is subject to environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The administrative action of displaying a designated route or area as open on a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map is not subject to NEPA. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 7 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

NEPA Strategy for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

For the RRSNF, this project and its environmental analysis is documented in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). The strategy for the context and scale for conducting NEPA includes 

one Proposed Action at the scale of entire Forest. 

The Forest Supervisor is the Line Officer/Responsible Official for the forthcoming decision(s). 

The RRSNF has conducted analysis with one process and one interdisciplinary team planning 

effort for the entire Forest. Much of the analysis was done from the Forest perspective and 

utilized Forest-level staff and specialists on the Interdisciplinary Team. Specific development of 

proposals, and evaluation and analysis has involved District Rangers and their respective 

resource staff and specialists. 

E. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

F. PROPOSED ACTION 

The following is a summary of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action (Alternative 3) is 

discussed in detail in Chapter II. 

Based on the stated purpose and need for action and as a result of the recent analysis of the 

transportation system, the Forest proposes to: 

CLARIFIED: 

The purpose for action is to implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. 

Motorized use is popular and an important form of recreation for many individuals, families, 

and groups. A designated and managed system is required by the Travel Management 

Rule to provide this use. Increased demand for motorized use, lack of designated 

areas/routes, has led to resource damage and social impacts, user conflicts, and safety 

concerns. In order to meet these objectives the following changes are needed: 

 eliminate general cross-country travel by prohibiting all motorized access off existing, 

previously designated routes, and outside existing, previously designated areas where 

such use is not currently prohibited or otherwise restricted by past actions; 

 improve public safety, by implementing Forest Service Regional policy to determine the 

suitability of continuing to allow for motorized “mixed” use (e.g. analyze those roads 

which currently allow for motorized “mixed” use under State Law); 

 amend the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest Plans to restrict motorized access 

to designated routes consistent with the Travel Management Rule and to provide 

consistent direction for conflicting plan allocations that will allow historical use of travel 

routes; 

 make minor, limited changes to the National Forest Transportation System to preserve a 

diversity of unique motorized recreation opportunities (e.g. 4X4 vehicles, motorcycles, 

ATVs, passenger vehicles) because implementation of Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule will reduce motorized recreation opportunities relative to current 

levels; and 

 establish conditions or provisions to allow motorized access for dispersed camping that 

are consistent with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 8 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

 Enact Forest-wide Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with the Travel 

Management Rule. Two separate Forest Plans guide the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest. 

 Enact site-specific level Forest Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with current 

and historical motorized use. 

 Formally designate approximately 4,505 miles of roads where passenger vehicles would be 

allowed to travel. 

 Formally designate approximately 3,197 miles of road where mixed use would be allowed. 

Mixed use is defined as designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. 

 Prohibit motorized use on 774 miles of NFS level 1 roads. 

 Prohibit public motorized use on approximately 7 miles of NFS roads and 31 miles of trail 

currently open in order to minimize or reduce resource damage. 

 Authorize two motorized trails to provide loop route opportunities (approximately 2 miles). 

 Authorize conversion of approximately 12 miles of NFS level 1roads to motorized trails to 

maintain a portion of currently used travel routes for motorized opportunities. 

 Designate two areas where off-road motorized use would be allowed. This includes 

continued use of the existing Woodruff area near Prospect and the development of an 

additional area near Willow Lake. Both areas are located on the High Cascades Ranger 

District and total approximately 25 acres where motorized cross-country travel would be 

allowed. 

 Prohibit all cross-country motorized travel outside of the play areas identified above. 

This proposal focuses on the analysis of specific wheeled motorized vehicle routes and areas. 

The Proposed Action is being carried forward in accordance with the Travel Management Rule 

(36 CFR Part 212 Subpart B). In accordance with the rule and following a decision on this 

proposal, the Forest would publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) identifying all Forest 

roads, trails and areas that are designated open for motor vehicle use by the public. 

The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which 

use is authorized. The MVUM would be updated and published periodically to reflect changes 

to the Forest’s transportation system. Future decisions associated with changes to the MVUM 

may trigger the need for documentation of additional environmental analysis. 

G. DECISION FRAMEWORK 

The Forest Supervisor will make a number of decisions to achieve the Purpose and Need and 

address the identified issues and to improve the overall health of the land. He may select any 

alternative, or a combination of the alternatives. The decisions to be made include whether or 

not to: 

ADDED: 

The Forest Service Responsible Official will use the results of this supplemental analysis 

to determine if and how the issues identified internally and externally through the 

administrative appeals process will affect the 2009 decision. The Forest Service will 

decide whether to issue a new or supplemental decision. The new or supplemental 

decision issued following preparation of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement, will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 215. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 9 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

 allow motorized mixed use on certain paved roads, 

 prohibit public motorized use on certain roads, 

 convert certain maintenance level 1 roads to motorized trails, 

 construct/reconstruct motorized trails, 

 prohibit motorized use on certain trails, 

 restrict motorized mixed use on certain roads, 

 eliminate motorized cross country travel, or 

 enact Forest-wide or project-specific Land and Resource Management Plan amendments to 

provide consistency with the Travel Management Rule and Standards and Guidelines. 

Although State and private lands are included within the analysis area (the entire RRSNF), the 

decision to be made is only for National Forest System lands and Forest System roads and trails. 

No decision will be made for State and County roads, and other roads not under the jurisdiction 

of the Forest Service. 

No decision is necessary to continue motorized use of NFS roads and trails where it is currently 

authorized or otherwise not prohibited. This decision does not affect management direction set 

through laws, regulations, executive orders, national and regional Forest Service policy, or other 

separate amendments to the Rogue River or Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plans. 

H. OTHER RELATED NEPA ANALYSIS 

The Forest transportation system is always changing depending on resource administration needs 

and management concerns. This current proposal is just one of many in the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest’s continuing effort to manage the transportation system in a sustainable 

and cost-effective manner. Other project-level analyses often study the transportation system in 

the project area and propose actions for individual routes such as adding to the transportation 

system, closing, decommissioning, or abandoning roads and trails as necessary to meet 

management objectives. 

Ongoing efforts include: project-specific efforts to reduce the impacts associated with system 

and unauthorized routes, addressing impacts associated with the current road system through the 

Forest’s road operation and maintenance program, and researching and correcting jurisdiction of 

roads and motorized trails in INFRA (roads and trails database). Implementation of this project 

is only one step in the overall management of motor vehicle travel on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. 

I. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Land management direction for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is contained in two 

Land and Resource Management Plans: one for the Siskiyou National Forest (1989) and the 

other for the Rogue River National Forest (1990) as amended by The Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and now commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP). This ROD, jointly signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, amended the 

Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and other 

existing plans within the range of the northern spotted owl. This amendment, which became 

effective on May 20, 1994, provided additional goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 

resource management. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 10 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

A Land Management Plan (or Forest Plan) is a dynamic management plan that provides 

integrated direction reflecting decisions, plans, and assessments made at various scales and 

times. It describes desired future conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines--

collectively referred to as "management direction"--for a specific National Forest. Changes in 

management direction are incorporated in proposed amendments to the plan that add, delete, and 

modify items of programmatic direction. 

Except for Congressionally established or special administrative boundaries, the management 

area boundaries within the Forest Plans are not firm lines and do not always follow prominent 

topographic features, such as major ridges. The boundaries represent a transition from one set of 

opportunities and constraints to another with management direction established for each. The 

boundaries are flexible to assure the values identified are protected, and to incorporate additional 

information gained from further on-the-ground reconnaissance and project-level planning. 

When a Forest Plan is first written, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) and 

Forest Plan document incorporating applicable law, regulation, and policy and direction from the 

Regional Guide is prepared, and a record of decision (ROD) signed. All future actions are to be 

carried out within the constraints of the Forest Plan. Any changes to the Forest Plan are made in 

the form of an amendment. 

Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this DSEIS is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forest’s Land and 

Resource Management Plans as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl. The Proposed Action and alternatives described in this analysis for the entire 

Forest, occurs within the following land allocations. 

1. Northwest Forest Plan (1994) 

The ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan specifically incorporates seven land allocation 

categories, as set forth below (from Northwest Forest Plan ROD pages 6, 7): 

Congressionally Reserved Areas are lands that have been reserved by acts of Congress for 

specific land allocation purposes. The ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan does not alter any of 

these congressionally mandated land allocations. As applicable to the RRSNF, included in this 

category are Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Late-Successional Reserves, in combination with the other allocations and standards and 

guidelines, are designed to maintain a functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth 

forest ecosystem. They are designed to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth 

related species including the northern spotted owl. 

ADDED: This DSEIS is consistent with the Record of Decision and Land Resource 

Management Plan for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou 

National Forest (USDA, USDI 2004) which is a programmatic decision amending 

Standards and Guidelines of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan and the Record of Decision for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive 

Plant Program; Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 11 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Adaptive Management Area (AMA), designed to develop and test new management 

approaches to integrate and achieve ecological, economic, and other social and community 

objectives. The Forest Service and BLM work with other organizations, government entities and 

private landowners in accomplishing those objectives. Each area has a different emphasis to its 

prescription, such as maximizing the amount of late-successional forests, improving riparian 

conditions through silvicultural treatments, and maintaining a predictable flow of harvestable 

timber and other forest products. A portion of the timber harvest comes from this land. 

Managed Late-Successional Areas are lands either (1) mapped managed pair areas; or (2) 

unmapped protection buffers. Managed pair areas are delineated for known northern spotted owl 

activity centers. Protection buffers are designed to protect certain rare and locally endemic 

species. 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas are identified in current Forest and District plans and 

include recreational and visual areas, back country, and other areas not scheduled for timber 

harvest. 

Riparian Reserves are areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or 

potentially unstable areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial 

resources receives primary emphasis. The main purpose of the reserves is to protect the health of 

the aquatic system and its dependent species; the reserves also provide incidental benefits to 

upland species. These reserves help maintain and restore riparian structures and functions, 

benefit fish and riparian-dependent non-fish species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms 

dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and 

dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of latesuccessional forest habitat. 

Matrix is the federal land outside the six categories of designated areas set forth above. It is also 

the area in which most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are conducted. However, 

the matrix does contain non-forested areas as well as forested areas that may be technically 

unsuited for timber production. 

2. Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (1989) 

The National Forest System land within the Siskiyou National Forest was assigned to fourteen 

management areas, each with different management goals, resource potential and limitations 

(Figure I-2). The Forest-wide management direction (LRMP IV 20 through 64) including the 

Standards and Guidelines, apply to all management areas unless specifically excepted in the 

management area prescription. 

The Standards and Guidelines of individual management area prescriptions are only to define 

exceptions to, or additions to the Forest-wide direction. The following Figure contains a listing 

of the fourteen management area prescriptions for the Siskiyou portion of the Forest. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 12 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Figure I-2. Management Area Prescriptions - Siskiyou National Forest 1989 

 1 Wilderness 

 2 Wild River 

 3 Research Natural Area 

 4 Botanical 

 5 Unique Interest 

 6 Backcountry Recreation 

 7 Supplemental Resource 

 8 Designated Wildlife Habitat 

 9 Special Wildlife Site 

 10 Scenic/Recreation River 

 11 Riparian 

 12 Retention Visual 

 13 Partial Retention Visual 

 14 General Forest 

 from SNF LRMP IV-14 

3. Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) 

The National Forest System land within the Rogue River National Forest was assigned to 

twenty-four management areas (Figure I-3), each with different management goals, resource 

potential and limitations, and each with an accompanying Management Strategy (MS). Each 

Area has different resource goals, opportunities, Standards and Guidelines. In essence, it is a 

unit of land to be managed to achieve a desired future condition. This is accomplished by the 

application of its corresponding Management Strategy, or “prescription.” 

Figure I-3. Management Areas - Rogue River National Forest 1990 

Wilderness (13) 

Wild River (10) 

Research Natural Area (25) 

Botanical Area (12) 

Special Interest Area (5) 

Developed Recreation (4) 

Backcountry Non-motorized (3) 

Restricted Watershed (22) 

Spotted Owl Habitat (19) 

Old-Growth (15) 

Restricted Riparian (26) 

Scenic River (11) 

Foreground Retention (6) 

Foreground Partial Retention (7) 

Middle Ground Retention (8) 

Mature (16) 

Middleground Partial Retention (9) 

Big-game Winter Range (14) 

Managed Watershed (23) 

Timber Suitable 2 (21) 

Timber Suitable 1 (20) 

Primary Range (17) 

Secondary Range (18) 

Minimum Management (1) 

 from RRNF LRMP 4-31 

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The goals of the public involvement efforts for the EIS were to contact and involve members of 

the public, user and interest groups, Tribes, local community groups, elected officials, Forest 

Service employees, and other federal/state or local agencies to share information and involve 

people in a timely manner on the development of the Forest’s Motorized Vehicle Use 

designation process. The priority for the Forest Service for this analysis was to provide proactive 

communications and involvement in travel management planning. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 13 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Community Interest and Involvement 

Forest Service personnel held open house public meetings in Oregon beginning on June 4, 2007 

in Medford, at the Rogue Regency Inn & Suites; June 5 in Grants Pass, at the Grants Pass 

Interagency Office-Wild Rivers Ranger District Office; June 7 in Gold Beach, at the Event 

Center on the Beach-Curry County Fairgrounds; and ending on June 20 in Myrtle Point, at the 

OSU Extension Service Coos County. The objective of each meeting was to inform local 

residents of the travel management project, and provide an opportunity for them to visit with 

Forest Service staff to ask questions and learn about the timeline for implementation. These 

open houses were listening sessions for Forest Service personnel to hear interests, concerns, and 

ideas, and an occasion for motorized and non-motorized users alike to get involved early, as the 

Forest Service started to gather information for the project. 

Letters were sent to members of the public who had voiced an interest in the project, and flyers 

were available at the Supervisor’s Office and throughout the five districts of the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest, which invited all interested publics to attend these meetings. In 

addition, a press release was issued, and information was available and posted on the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest website. 

Individual and Group Briefings 

From June 2007 to October 2008, individual briefings by Forest Service personnel were offered 

to groups interested in learning more about the project, including both motorized and nonmotorized points of view. Throughout the project planning efforts, the Project Team Leader, 

Forest Public Affairs Officer and the Forest’s Project Planners and Analysts were responsible for 

responding directly to public inquiries or receiving information by telephone or in person. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest Employee Briefings 

The Travel Management team met with RRSNF personnel and presented the Travel Management 

Rule at District all-employee meetings, as well as to District Rangers, Staff Officers, and at 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Leadership Team meeting updates. 

Interagency and Elected Official Briefings 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest held discussion and dialogue with neighboring 

Forests and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Offices including: the Umpqua, 

Fremont-Winema, Six Rivers, and Klamath National Forest(s); as well as Roseburg, Coos Bay, 

Lakeview and Medford BLM Districts. 

Periodic meetings and telephone call briefings of the project efforts and status were held with 

local elected officials including County Commissioners, and with local Congressional staffs. In 

addition, letters from the Forest Service with information about travel management planning 

were sent to the Oregon Department of Forestry, Douglas Forest Protection Association and 

Coos Forest Protection Association. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 14 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Tribal Relations 

Under the Forest Service’s government-to-government consultation responsibilities, the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest shared information with seven federally recognized Indian tribes 

regarding the upcoming Travel Management Planning efforts. Consultation letters were mailed 

on August 18, 2008 to the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, Confederated 

Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon, Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of 

the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, The Klamath Tribes, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, and Smith 

River Rancheria. Tribal government representatives and tribal members were invited to 

participate in the project, attend the open house meetings and visit the web site for additional 

information. Tribal concerns were incorporated into either the Proposed Action or would be 

addressed through mitigation. In addition, a second set of letters were mailed to the seven Tribes 

prior to the issuance of the Draft EIS in March, 2009. 

Communication Tools 

In May 2007 the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s Internet Website for Travel 

Management “went live”. This site contains information that allows individuals and groups to 

learn more about the project efforts and how to become involved. It helps to improve 

communications and expand public interest about the project. Maps illustrating the Proposed 

Action were made available at the Ranger Districts or Supervisor’s Office, and on the Forest 

Website: www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/travel. 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has established and maintained communication 

materials on the travel management process since the project’s inception. This includes 

producing news releases for local media (see below), briefing papers for Congressional staffs and 

County Commissioners, and information sheets available for public handouts at the front desks 

of the Supervisor’s Office and Districts. These communication materials explain and inform the 

public about the project’s background, timeline, and a variety of opportunities for public 

involvement throughout the project. 

The Forest Public Affairs Officer distributed news releases to the Medford Mail Tribune, 

Ashland Daily Tidings, Grants Pass Daily Courier, Curry Coastal Pilot, Curry County Reporter, 

Coos Bay World and the Myrtle Point Herald newspapers. Local radio and television stations 

were also included to notify the community of any public meetings and to inform individuals and 

groups regarding project updates. Telephone calls from the Public Affairs Officer and project 

Team Leader were also made to individual reporters. 

1. Scoping 

 

ADDED: For this Draft Supplemental EIS there is no “Scoping”. Under 40 CFR 

1502.9(c)(4), there is no formal Scoping period for this action. Appropriate procedures 

under NEPA require a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental EIS; the Notice 

of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal 

Register on August 2, 2010 (FR page 45089-45090). 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 15 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Scoping is the name for the process used to determine the extent of the environmental analysis to 

be conducted. It is used early in the NEPA process to identify (1) the issues to be addressed, (2) 

the depth of analysis required, (3) alternatives to the Proposed Action, and (4) potential 

environmental effects of the Proposed Action. The DEIS has been developed with extensive 

public participation. The public involvement requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7) have been 

employed in order to develop and publish a DEIS for release to an informed public. 

In August 2008, the formal process under NEPA was initiated. A scoping letter and Notice of 

Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was mailed to all interested publics, having 

been involved in the initial sensing process, describing the Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need for the Project to other agencies and to tribes, such as Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Parks and Recreation, Medford Water 

Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, 

NOAA Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, and various city and county government entities 

in southwest Oregon and northwest California. The Scoping process for this project officially 

began with the issuance of a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

published in the Federal Register on August 26 2008 (FR page 50299-50301). A Scoping Letter 

was sent to approximately 700 individuals, businesses, and organizations on August 27, 2008. 

Written and electronic responses to the Scoping Letter were received through March of 2009. 

The Planning Team received 187 letters and over 11,000 form letters that were generated via an 

electronic site established to facilitate an electronic response (that contained a pre-determined 

viewpoint). 

A 45-day DEIS public comment period for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest formally began on March 28, 2009 with publication of a Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 58 (FR page 13432). The 45-day comment period closed on 

May 11, 2009. 

A total of 11,359 comments to the Draft EIS were received by the Forest at the close of the 

Comment Period. Approximately 1,200 additional comments were received after May 11, 2009. 

All comments received by the close of the Comment Period were reviewed and were considered 

as part of the comment analysis process. Comments received following the close of the 

Comment Period (through June 5, 2009) were reviewed for substantive content and were entered 

in the database (and responded to as appropriate). 

The Forest Service tracked the various types of comments by form of response communication. 

Approximately 11,032 (97%) of the comments were received via the electronic email site 

established by the Forest Service to receive comments on the Draft EIS. 

Approximately 10,672 of these comments were generated via an electronic site established to 

facilitate an electronic response (that contained a pre-determined viewpoint). Five or more 

responses received from different individuals but containing identical text, or identical text plus 

brief additional comments similar in content, are considered and defined as organized response 

campaigns. 

The remaining 327 comments (3%) were in the form of emails to Forest Service individuals, 

form cards, written letters or postcards, facsimiles, petitions, and comments written on maps at 

public meetings. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 16 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

All comments were read and coded based on content and intent, by a Forest Service planning 

team, with District Ranger and Forest Supervisor oversight, review and concurrence. Pursuant to 

36 CFR 215.6 (b), (1), A “Response to Comments” appendix documents the Responsible 

Official’s consideration and response of all substantive comments submitted in compliance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. This document was contained in FEIS Appendix A, incorporated 

by reference, which provides more detail on the DEIS comment process. 

2. Significant Issues 

Issues are defined in this environmental analysis as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about 

the environmental effects of a proposal. Significant Issues as used in this environmental analysis 

are those that are used to formulate alternatives or drive alternative themes, evaluate alternatives, 

affect the design of component proposals, prescribe mitigation measures, and/or describe 

important and variable environmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of their 

geographic consequence, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resource 

conflict. 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the Significant Issues 

related to the Proposed Action. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), with Responsible Official 

involvement and approval, has identified the following as Significant Issues associated with the 

motorized use proposals presented in this analysis. This list is presented in a format that intends 

to ask the question “what action may have what effect, on what resource or value?” 

Each Significant Issue statement contains a reference (Chapter and Section of this document, in 

parenthesis) for where in the document a description or discussion of the effects of each 

alternative considered in detail is located, relevant to the stated issue. Indicators are developed 

in Chapter III of this DSEIS, as well as current condition background and consequences of each 

alternative analyzed in detail. A summary of the consequences of each alternative considered in 

detail in relation to these issues is contained at the end of DSEIS, Chapter II, Alternatives (Table 

II-14). 

Water Quality and Erosion 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on water quality. (III, D, 8) 

Botanical Areas and Special Plant Habitats 

Effects of Motorized vehicle use on Botanical Areas, Research Natural Areas and/or special 

botanical habitats. (III, D, 19) 

Public Safety 

Motorized vehicle use conflicts and public safety. (III, D, 22) 

Motorized Opportunities 

Motorized recreation opportunities and the Proposed Action. (III, D, 26) 

Roadless Character within Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on roadless character within Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

(III, D, 42) 

CHANGED: All issues were reformatted from questions to statements. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 17 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

3. Other Issues

Other Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be 

relevant, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, may 

prescribe mitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law 

or policy. Other Issues differ from Significant Issues in that they often describe minor and/or 

non-variable consequences. 

This list is limited to those issues that specifically identify potential effects that may result from 

implementation of elements of the Proposed Action; their corresponding effects are documented 

in the FEIS. Issues that are related to satisfying Federal, State, and local requirements and 

standards (e.g., Threatened and Endangered species or air quality) are also included. 

Each Other Issue statement contains a reference (Chapter and Section of this document, in 

parenthesis) for where in the document a description or discussion of the effects of each 

alternative considered in detail is located, relevant to the stated issue. The consequences of each 

alternative considered in detail, in relation to these issues are also summarized at the end of 

DSEIS, Chapter II, Alternatives (Table II-15). 

Soils - Site Productivity 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on soils and site productivity. (III, E, 47) 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

associated with the Northwest Forest Plan. (III, E, 58) 

Air Quality - Vehicle Emissions 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on affect air quality. (III, E, 63) 

Air Quality - Dust and Asbestos 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on air quality via dust and naturally occurring asbestos. 

(III, E, 68) 

Fire Risk 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on fire risk. (III, E, 73) 

Federally Listed and Forest Service Sensitive Plants 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on rare, sensitive and federally listed botanical species. 

(III, E, 75) 

Invasive Non-native Plants 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on the spread of invasive non-native plants. (III, E, 82)

Invasive Pathogens 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on the spread of invasive pathogens, e.g., Phytophthora 

lateralis and Phytophthora ramorum. (III, E, 84) 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 18 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Terrestrial Wildlife Listed Species 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on wildlife species federally listed as Threatened and 

Forest Service Sensitive species. (III, E, 98) 

Management Indicator Species 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on species identified as LRMP Management Indicator 

Species, especially deer and elk within Big Game Winter Range areas. (III, E, 113) 

Other Special or Rare and Uncommon Terrestrial Wildlife 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on other special or rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife 

species and neotropical birds. (III, E, 119) 

Fisheries and Aquatic Species 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on fish (native and anadromous) and other aquatic species. 

(III, E, 121) 

Visuals 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on scenic quality. (III, E, 131) 

Sound Level 

Effects of motorized use on human hearing and human solitude. (III, E, 133) 

Enforcement 

Effects of proposed actions on the Agency’s’ ability to enforce laws. (III, E, 137) 

Mining Access 

Effects of proposed actions on access for prospecting, locating, and developing mineral 

resources. (III, E, 144) 

Cultural Resources 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on heritage, cultural resources and Native American 

values. (III, E, 150) 

Climate Change 

Effects of motorized vehicle use on climate change (greenhouse gas emissions and carbon 

cycling) and effects of global climate change on motorized use. (III, E, 154) 

 

ADDED: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Effects of the motorized vehicular use on the free-flowing character and 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). (III, E, 157) 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 19 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

4. Out of Scope Issues 

There were several issues identified during scoping as being non-significant and “out of the 

scope” of this environmental analysis. These issues include those that are not or cannot be 

addressed or solved in this project-level analysis, issues already decided by law, regulation, or 

other higher level decisions, issues irrelevant to the decision to be made, and/or issues that are 

conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence. These issues are listed along with a rationale 

for their being determined “out of scope”, as follows: 

Criticism of 2005 Rule and Forest Service Travel Management Policies 

The implication in this statement has no direct application to the NEPA process being conducted 

for travel management under the Travel Management Rule. The Forest Service has 

responsibility to enact actions under public law (in this case, Travel Management) and does not 

take a position on the appropriateness of the laws themselves. While all citizens are entitled to 

their opinion, criticism of the laws is not germane to this analysis. 

Must analyze all roads and trails to determine the most efficient system per 36 CFR 212 

subpart A 

36 CFR §212.5 requires that a responsible official identify the minimum road system for safe and 

efficient travel. Note that this requirement does not include trails. This regulation also requires a 

science-based roads analysis. 

As stated throughout this process, identification or “rightsizing” of the entire road system is 

neither a goal nor part of the analysis conducted for designation of motorized vehicle use on the 

RRSNF. The purpose of the Travel Management Rule is to designate a system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use (other than over-snow vehicle use) and end unmanaged crosscountry motor vehicle use. 

The rule is not intended to require reevaluation of the entire Forest transportation system. This 

process does not analyze all existing system roads nor make recommendations on road 

decommissioning. Other site-specific analyses and projects will undertake this compliance 

requirement. This project’s focus is on the identification of motorized use for roads, trails and 

areas. 

Must rely on roads analysis

A science based roads analysis was conducted and documented in 2004 for the Forest. It was 

used to inform the analysis for this process. A complete inventory of user-created routes was 

determined to not be necessary. Only the information needed to evaluate proposed changes in 

travel management direction was gathered. A formal report on the minimum road system was 

not prepared. 

Consider the cumulative effects of all Forest Service and federal agency motorized use 

closures 

Some commenters feel that motorized recreational opportunity has been and will be drastically 

reduced throughout the region. They suggest the Proposed Action continues the trend of 

eliminating opportunity for vehicle-based recreation. Additional closures are being proposed by 

land managers across the region and nation. They feel that the cumulative loss of motorized 

recreational opportunity should be brought into the analysis and incorporated into the decisionmaking process. Significance criteria could include number of miles closed, number of acres 

closed or other similar quantifiers. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 20 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

This issue is considered out of scope because this issue cannot be solved with a single project 

analysis for one Forest. The context for this analysis is the entire RRSNF. The analysis will 

include a brief description of the current travel management activities on adjacent public lands. 

This analysis cannot account or foresee all ongoing travel management planning projects on all 

public lands in the region or nation. 

Analyze social, economic (cost/benefit) issues associated with motorized recreation 

NEPA does not require Federal agencies to prepare cost-benefit analyses as part of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1502.23). The factors related to social issues (in 

addition to environmental resources) that are relevant to this analysis have been included in the 

analysis in the Final EIS. 

Must analyze the adverse effects on adjacent private land values 

There are many factors related to the economic or personal value of private lands. There is no 

meaningfully quantifiable way to predict the effect of motorized use on private land values. This 

analysis is specific to the actions and alternatives being proposed that are within the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

Must analyze costs of enforcement, monitoring, signage, gating, staff time, maps, mitigation 

(restoration of damaged sites) 

While there will be discussion in the analysis on enforcement, the overall costs of the current 

condition or of the alternatives or the decision is not considered to be in scope of the analysis. 

Enacting the Travel Management Rule is Forest Service policy and direction. A relative 

comparison of effects regarding enforcement will be made but a detailed cost accounting of 

elements like these will not be made. 

Must analyze effects on grazing 

Commenters asked for analysis of the effects on grazing and other special uses. This issue is out 

of scope because there would be no effects resultant of any Action Alternative under this 

process; special uses, permitted actions and other authorized actions would continue as is the 

situation currently. The MVUM would not specify these special authorizations for motorized 

uses. 

How does RS 2477 fit in with this process? 

Revised Statute 2477 is a law from 1866, providing (granting) right of way across public lands. 

These rights often predate the establishment of the National Forest. Comments were received 

that expressed concern that rights (particularly access for mining) were being precluded, based 

on an assumption that roads potentially qualifying as RS 2477, were being closed. 

As noted above, this project is not evaluating the entire Forest Transportation System, nor is it 

making recommendations for road closing or decommissioning. Rights granted under this statue 

are not being affected or changed. For the RRSNF, no specific routes were identified as 

qualifying for RS 2477. The MVUM would designate roads available for public motorized use. 

Other (special) uses are not being precluded. Because there is no change (no effect), this issue is 

considered out of scope. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 21 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Mountain bike enthusiasts create bike trails that can be used by motorcycles 

This statement reflects a real situation that can occur on the National Forest, however there are 

no situations where trails created by mountain bikes are being proposed in this analysis to be 

authorized as motorized trails. If existing mountain bike trails were being used by motorized 

vehicles on routes not designated in the forthcoming MVUM, this would be an unauthorized and 

illegal use. It is not in scope to this process because unauthorized or illegal use is not being 

analyzed. 

Consider requirements of PL 105-359 (outdoor recreation by persons with disabilities) 

Commenters asked what about motorized use for older Americans in poor health or with 

disabilities. While this law is generically applicable to this process, it is not specifically a design 

criteria or issue that is analyzed. Federal laws, regulations, and policies do not require areas that 

prohibit motorized vehicle use to make exceptions because a person has a disability. 

Analyze effects on other semi-primitive unroaded areas 

This issue is in reference to areas without roads, typically 1,000 acres or greater, that may 

possess special natural character. These areas are not part of Inventoried Roadless Areas, as 

discussed in Appendix C of each Land and Resource Management Plan for the Rogue River and 

Siskiyou National Forest. 

This issue is out of scope because 1) there are no motorized uses being proposed in semiprimitive areas that do not already exist, and 2) there is no requirement to identify and analyze 

these types of areas. 

Why is motorized over-snow use not being analyzed? 

Over snow use is part of 36 CFR 212 subpart C. There is no timeline requirement to analyze this 

type use under the Travel Management Rule (Subpart B) § 212.51; Designation of roads, trails, 

and areas (also see § 212.81). The reason it is not being done and considered out of scope to this 

process is because of the differences in the purpose and need and environmental effects 

associated with over-snow use. This use could be specifically analyzed with another separate 

process in the future. 

There are inconsistencies from latest process maps and data to earlier or previously 

existing maps and data 

This statement is considered out of scope because while there may be differences, the process 

begun in 2006 for the Forest has continually strived for increased accuracy and many elements of 

previous mapping and data have been updated, even among versions within this process. The 

public is asked to assume that data and maps presented in the FEIS represent the latest and most 

accurate information available and have employed the principles of the Data Quality Act 

(PL106-554). 

OHV grant money used to conduct the travel management process represents a conflict of 

interest. 

The Forest made a request for state grant money from Oregon State Parks and Recreation 

Department (OHV grant funding) in January 2008. These funds are to be used for motorized use 

planning. There is no commitment, agreement or guarantee associated with these funds to 

provide any quantity or type of motorized or OHV uses. They simply are used to supplement 

federal appropriated funding to support planning. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 22 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Funds were needed because there has been no specially appropriated funds to conduct an 

analysis of the transportation system for this designation process; Forest funding sources include 

Forest roads and trails appropriated funds, which are the same funds that are used for 

administration and maintenance of existing access facilities. 

As part of the designation process, advice was provided by the Forest Service that suggested that 

a mix of appropriated funding could be used to conduct this process. This advice is applicable 

for federally appropriated funds from Congress; there is no prohibition on a Forest requesting 

grant monies to supplement the motorized-use planning process. State grants associated with 

this process allow an approximate 50/50 match with appropriated funds. 

NEPA Process: Separate EISs, one for RRNF and SNF 

Comments received during scoping suggested that the designation process be separated between 

the Rogue River and Siskiyou portion of the National Forest. This could facilitate the separate 

Forest Plans that may need to be amended, and there are some resource issues that are specific to 

each Forest (e.g., Port-Orford-cedar root disease). This was considered but was abandoned due 

to the additional cost of two separate processes. These costs would include separate NEPA 

public involvement processes and resultant decisions. This comment is out of scope because the 

current process has clearly stated its parameters for conducting the process, beginning with the 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. 

Federal funding for recreation and maintenance 

Comments received expressed concern for the lack of recreation facility maintenance and road 

maintenance. Concern was expressed that motorized use is receiving more attention than nonmotorized uses. Concern was expressed that this lack of funding should not be used as a 

criterion for forthcoming decisions for Travel Management. 

All of these funding related comments are considered out of scope to this designation process. 

The MVUM is designed to be a cost efficient way to designate use and funding associated with 

administration of designated uses (or lack thereof) will not be a decision criterion for these use 

designations. 

K. PERMITS 

In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.25 (b), the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is to 

list all Federal permits, licenses, or other entitlements that must be obtained in implementing the 

proposal. Throughout the planning process, no additional Federal, State or County permits, 

licenses, or other entitlements were identified as requirements for implementation of the 

Proposed Action or alternatives. 

The Travel Management Rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles by the public off the 

designated system as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that are not designated. 

Persons exempt from the final rule prohibitions would be those with a permit specifically 

authorizing access and those exempt by Federal law or regulation. Special uses, permitted 

actions and other authorized actions would continue as is currently. The MVUM would not 

specify these special authorizations for motorized uses.