United States Department of Agriculture

for the greatest good 

DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION Pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Objection Process

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Motorized Vehicle Use on 

the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

September 2015
Vicinity Map

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.

High Cascades

Siskiyou Mountains

Wild Rivers

Gold Beach

Powers

Wild Rivers OREGON 

CALIFORNIA

Rogue River-Siskiyou

National Forest

OREGON

I

Medford

Grants Pass

§ ̈¦5

Vicinity Map

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Responsible Official: Robert G. MacWorter

Forest Supervisor

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

For Further Information Peggy O’Keefe Project Lead

Forest Supervisor’s Office

2164 Spalding Avenue

Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Phone: (541) 471-6747

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or

administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental 

status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, 

or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication 

for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign 

Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program

Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.

usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested 

in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 

690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov . 
2015 Draft Record of Decision

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE

ON THE ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

2015

DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION

Pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Objection Process

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE

ON THE ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pacific Northwest Region

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Douglas, Klamath, Jackson, Curry, Coos,

and Josephine Counties in Oregon

Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties in California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Responsible Official: Robert G. MacWhorter

Forest Supervisor

For Further Information: Peggy O’Keefe, Project Lead

Forest Supervisor’s Office

2164 Spalding Avenue

Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Phone: (541) 471-6747

Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=33404
2015 Draft Record of Decision

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE

ON THE ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1

Location ................................................................................................................................................. 1

MY DECISION .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Modifications to Alternative 5.............................................................................................................. 2

Description of the Modified Alternative 5........................................................................................... 5

Forest-wide Management Direction of Modified Alternative 5 ..................................................6

District Specific Management Direction of Modified Alternative 5 ...........................................8

Mitigation Measures, Monitoring, and Implementation Strategy...................................................10

Required Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................10

Monitoring.....................................................................................................................................10

Implementation.............................................................................................................................10

DECISION RATIONALE.............................................................................................................................11

Response to Purpose and Need........................................................................................................11

Implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule ............................................................11

Eliminate General Cross-country Travel ...................................................................................11

Improve Public Safety..................................................................................................................12

Amend National Forest Plans .....................................................................................................12

Preserve a Diversity of Motorized Recreation Opportunities..................................................12

Establish Provisions for Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping .....................................13

Response to Significant Issues.........................................................................................................13

Water Quality and Erosion (FSEIS page III-9) ...........................................................................13

Botanical Areas and Special Plant Habitats (FSEIS page III-23).............................................13

Public Safety (FSEIS page III-26)................................................................................................13

Motorized Opportunities (FSEIS page III-30).............................................................................14

Roadless Character within Inventoried Roadless Areas (FSEIS page III-43).........................14

Other Issues ........................................................................................................................................14

Implementation ...................................................................................................................................15

Authority ..............................................................................................................................................15

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...............................................................................................................16

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................17

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................17

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN AND OTHER LAWS...........................................................19

Forest Plan Consistency (NFMA)......................................................................................................19

Other Legal Requirements and Policies...........................................................................................21

IMPLEMENTATION DATE.........................................................................................................................23

PREDECISIONAL ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW (OBJECTION)................................................................23

AUTHORIZATION ......................................................................................................................................25

ATTACHMENT A - FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS.............................................................................. A-1

ATTACHMENT B - REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................... B-1

ATTACHMENT C - MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................ C-1

ATTACHMENT D - MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 5 MAP .......................................................................... D-1
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 1 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

INTRODUCTION

Over the past year, I have been involved in field visits to many of the most contentious routes with 

interdisciplinary team members, members of the Forest leadership team, and members of the public. This 

has given me first-hand knowledge about issues raised in the comments from the public which I have 

considered carefully.

Because of my decision, approximately 4,479 miles of roads will be open to public travel, with 3,141

open to mixed use including both highway-legal and off-highway vehicles, and there will be 183 miles of 

motorized trails. Cross-country travel will be closed on 274,670 acres across the Forest. An OHV area 

on the High Cascades District will provide an off-road vehicle play area. The popular 4x4 route known as 

the McGrew Trail will be administratively closed, but will allow free recreational use through a special 

use permitting process. Seasonal use restrictions of the McGrew Trail due to the Port Orford cedar root 

disease will remain in effect. 

After this decision is finalized, a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be published reflecting the routes 

where public motorized use is allowed. This map will function as the new Travel Map for the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest and will become part of the management direction in the Forest Plans. 

Some routes may not be initially shown on this map if they are in an unsafe state or the road’s condition is 

causing resource damage. Annual updates to the MVUM will reflect changes to authorized routes that are 

managed to Forest Service road and trail standards.

The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Motorized Vehicle Use on the 

Rogue River-Siskiyou has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the National Forest Management Act, and the Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) for the Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests. The 

Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests were administratively combined as the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest, and both Forest Plans (as amended) guide management activities on the lands for which 

they were written. 

This document wholly replaces the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Motorized Vehicle Use 

on the Rogue River-Siskiyou that was completed in 2009. After the 2009 EIS was withdrawn in 2010, a 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was prepared to add clarification and analysis. 

This project falls under the new administrative review objection procedures which provide an opportunity 

for pre-decisional objections under 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. A notification was mailed to all 

interested parties of record in March 2014. These regulations now provide an opportunity for individuals, 

organizations and tribal entities to file an objection to a draft decision and seek higher-level review of 

unresolved concerns before the decision is finalized and signed. See a full description of this process on 

pages 20-22.

Location

Located in southwestern Oregon and extending into northern 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, Grants Pass, Cave Junction, Gold Beach, 

and Powers. The Forest also is home of the J. Herbert Stone Nursery located near Central Point, Oregon.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 2 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

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

Mountains. The Cascade Range is dominated by snowcapped 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.

MY DECISION 

As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to select and authorize a modification of Alternative 5 

(the Preferred Alternative) as shown on the attached maps (Appendix D). This decision is fully 

described in the following sections of this Record of Decision (ROD). These modifications were chosen 

from alternative 4, where they were analyzed. In general, these modifications reduce many potential 

impacts to natural resources, such as botanical, hydrology, fisheries, soils, terrestrial wildlife, and forest 

vegetation. An explanation of the resources benefitted is described in the respective modifications below. 

I have reviewed the analysis, considered the comments received on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), and discussed the project’s anticipated effects with the 

Interdisciplinary Team and Forest Staff. There has been extensive public participation process through 

the development of the original EIS and draft supplemental EIS. In addition, I have visited several routes 

on the ground to determine the best course of action. Public comments generally identified issues with 

these routes including damage to botanical, wildlife, cultural, wilderness, or other Forest resources.

As a consequence, I find that the modifications described herein were adequately analyzed in the FSEIS 

and best address resource concerns identified throughout this project planning process. As a result, my 

decision strikes an appropriate balance of resource protection while maintaining adequate access for 

public motorized opportunities. In total, these modifications to Alternative 5 impact motorized 

opportunities by reducing roads open to the public by 3 miles, trails by 24 miles and road to trail 

conversions by 5 miles. I find that these modifications to motorized opportunities are minor and are fully 

analyzed in Alternative 4. The reduced impacts to natural resources, as described in Chapter III, Sections 

D & E, of the FSEIS, revealed that environmental impacts being alleviated on these routes outweighs the 

impacts to motorized users in these areas. Therefore, I find that this decision best meets the project’s 

stated purpose and need. A full explanation on meeting the purpose and need is contained on pages 10-13 

below.

Modifications to Alternative 5

I made the following modifications in the draft ROD to address resource concerns raised in public 

comments, and reviewed with my interdisciplinary team and Forest leadership team:

Modification 1: Prohibit motorized use on spurs off the McGrew Trail. This reduces the number 

of open, mixed use road miles in alternative 5 by 3.3 miles.

The McGrew Trail will be administratively closed but I will allow recreational motorized use under a 

special use permitting system. In order to reduce the risk of the spread of Port-Orford-cedar (POC) root 

disease, this area will be subject to the seasonal closures to motorized use in accordance POC EIS and the 

application of the associate Port-Orford-cedar risk key. By instituting a permit system, we can monitor 

use and effects, inform users about the environmental risks to reduce incidents which impact resources in 

the area, provide enforcement to prevent impacts, and still allow continued use of a popular 4x4 high

clearance vehicle trail. 

In addition, motorized use will be prohibited on several spurs off the main route. Spur routes off the 

McGrew Trail where public motorized use is to be prohibited include: 4402530 (0.3 mi.), 4402550 (0.5

mi.), 4402172 (1.1 mi.) and 4402497 (1.4 mi.) for a total reduction of 3.3 miles.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 3 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Modification 2: Do not authorize Maintenance Level 1(ML) conversions to motorized trails in the 

Signal Buttes and Fairview Mountain vicinity. This reduces the miles of motorized trails in 

alternative 5 by 4.5. 

The routes in the Signal Buttes area form a loop from the Hunter Creek road into Saunders Creek 

(private) or Kimball Hill area with one segment running on a user created route. This area is a serpentine 

habitat. While these areas are not prone to erosion, they are slow to re-vegetate when disturbed. In 

addition, there are cultural values at risk in this area. Currently the route is heavily disturbed with areas 

of deep rutting and the ongoing proliferation of alternate or expanded routes around damaged areas of the 

roads. In addition, use has continually been documented off the main route. There is also a safety 

consideration, because one of the access routes to this area prohibits mixed use. Because of these many 

concerns including lack of a through route, the ongoing resource damage, as well as the difficulty in 

providing enforcement in this area, these ML1 roads will remain closed to public use. A review of forest 

records indicate that portions of the 3680351 and 3680353 roads were previously obliterated and removed 

from the road system. These routes have been removed from consideration under all alternatives. The 

ML1 routes that will not be converted to motorized trails include the following: 3680220, a segment of 

3680190, 3680195, 3680196, 3680351 and 3680353.

Modification 3: Allow motorized class III use on the Illinois River Trail to the old Fantz Ranch 

location seasonally to coincide with the Oregon State hunting seasons for deer, elk and bear. This 

segment of the Illinois River Trail crosses through the wild section of the Wild and Scenic River 

corridor and adjacent trail segments cross in and out of the Wild and Scenic River corridor. This 

affects 5.0 miles.

This section of the Illinois River Trail runs through the Wild section of the Wild and Scenic Illinois River 

corridor. The Wild and Scenic Management Plan allowed seasonal motorized use on this trail from the 

trailhead at Nancy Creek to a private parcel in Section 4 which the Forest has since acquired in 1992. The 

trail is also a National Recreational Trail which runs through the North Kalmiopsis inventoried-roadless 

area and through a Backcountry management area. 

As described in the FSEIS Section D-19, the Illinois River provides one of the most rugged and remote 

experiences in the US. It’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) are its water quality, fisheries, 

scenery, botanical resources and recreational opportunities. Its inaccessibility and natural setting provides 

a key experience where the recreationist must depend upon one’s self. Prohibiting motorized use 

seasonally on this trail would reduce impacts to scenic, recreational and water quality values. 

My decision further restricts the motorized use of the Illinois Trail to reduce user conflict between hikers 

and motorized users, to enhance the wild and scenic ORVs, and continues to allow the opportunity to 

access popularly used hunting areas.

Modification 4: Prohibit motorized use on the impassable portion of the Silver Peak-Hobson Horn 

(#1166) Trails. This will allow motorized class III use of the portion from the Illinois River Trail to 

Silver Peak seasonally to coincide with the Oregon State hunting seasons for deer, elk and bear. 

The other trailhead and a trail segment are located on BLM. Past maintenance activities on the 

Silver Peak-Hobson Horn Trail have failed for the central segments of the trail. Due to the high 

costs and resource impacts, this trail will no longer be maintained as a through route for motorized 

use. This modification will allow motorized use on 4.1 miles and will prohibit motorized use on 13.1 

miles.

My decision is to close the eastern portion of this trail. Although previously identified as a high quality 

motorized route, further Forest review and field inspection has indicated that it is no longer passable. 

Despite best efforts, past maintenance attempts have been unsuccessful with trail failure within one year. 

Due to the potential high maintenance costs, as well as impacts to the resources due to trail failure, this 

trail is not suitable for motorized use. In addition, the east end of the trail is accessed through BLM and 

further coordination is needed to adequately analyze trailhead facilities and impacts to BLM managed 

portions of the trail system.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 4 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

However, the western segment from its junction with the Illinois River Trail to Silver Peak, will allow 

seasonal motorized during the deer and elk hunting seasons as an extension of the motorized Illinois River 

trail segment noted in modification 3. This trail along with the Illinois River Trail access popular hunting 

areas which have been customarily accessed by motorized use. 

Modification 5: Prohibit motorized use on a portion of the Boundary Trail. This would reduce the 

number of motorized trails in alternative 5 by 5.5 miles and would provide for both motorized and 

non-motorized segments of the Boundary Trail. 

The Boundary Trail will be split into two segments. Motorized use will be allowed on the northern 

section of the trail with access to the trail allowed on routes 900, 903 and 1230. Motorized use will be 

prohibited on the southern section of the Boundary Trail which is accessed by routes 1206, 1214, 903, 

904 and through the Red Buttes Wilderness Area. In addition, motorized use on the Windy Gap Trail will 

be prohibited. 

The Boundary Trail is a National Recreation Trail. It is a popular, advanced-level motorcycle trail, and 

also a popular hiking trail providing access into the Red Buttes Wilderness Area. It provides motorized 

loops, and has segments with outstanding alpine views. As described in the FSEIS Section D-14, it is 

also the primary location on the Forest where user conflicts over noise have been documented. By 

providing motorized and non-motorized segments with only a small overlapping segment, this reduces the 

potential for user conflict, while allowing opportunities for both user groups. 

Modification 6: Prohibit motorized use on riparian dispersed camps along the Elk River. 

Motorized access will be prohibited to dispersed-recreation sites along the Elk River that are in riparian 

habitat. The Elk River is a Wild and Scenic River with fisheries and water quality as its ORVs with 

highly prized commercial and recreational fisheries. Eliminating motorized use will reduce the potential 

for sediment introduction into the river. Motorized access to gravel bars will still be permitted. This 

decision does not address use of the dispersed sites. Non-motorized camping and recreational use will 

still be allowed at these sites as well as motorized recreational use to many dispersed-recreation sites 

along the River that lie above the riparian zone. 

Modification 7: Prohibit motorized use on Game Lake (#1169), Lawson Creek (#1173) Trails until 

they are maintained to standard for motorized trails. This modification will reduce motorized trails 

by 2.7 miles.

Due to the unmaintained character of these trails, I am deferring approval of these routes to a future 

planning effort. I find that a future planning effort can take the requisite site-specific look at these routes 

and work with interested groups to formulate a plan on how best to use and maintain them into the future. 

As such, they will not be published on the MVUM until such a time as funding is obtained or partnerships 

are developed to work through site-specific analysis, approve and maintain them.

Modification 8: Prohibit motorized use on Nancy Creek Trail (#1181) due to lack of legal access 

and resource damage. This modification will reduce motorized trails by 1.2 miles.

My decision prohibits motorized use on the Nancy Creek Trail due to the lack of legal access to either end 

of the trail. This trail has been heavily modified by road-building and fireline activities. It crosses private 

lands at either terminus. The bridge crossing Nancy Creek is no longer useable, and users now ford the 

creek causing resource damage to the creek and sensitive species. A very short segment of this trail also 

lies within the wild section of the Illinois River wild and scenic corridor. 

As described in the FSEIS Section D-19, the Illinois River provides one of the most rugged and remote 

experiences in the US. It’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) are its water quality, fisheries, 

scenery, botanical resources and recreational opportunities. Its inaccessibility and natural setting provides 

a key experience where the recreationist must depend upon one’s self. The Illinois River Wild and Scenic 

River Management Plan generally prohibits motorized use within the wild section.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 5 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Modification 9: Defer authorization and construction of the 1.2 miles of the Penn Sled proposed reroute (#957) east of Applegate Lake. 

My decision to defer this proposed re-route is due to the 2012 revised critical habitat designation that 

became effective January 3, 2013, for the Northern Spotted Owl, which included this area as newly 

designated critical habitat. Because of the potential impacts to this threatened species, I have deferred the 

proposed approval and construction until a district-specific project can further analyze the impacts in a 

separate environmental analysis document. 

Description of the Modified Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 was developed from the results of analysis of the Action Alternatives analyzed in detail in 

the 2009 Draft EIS and the extensive comments received on the 2009 Draft EIS during the Comment 

Period. My decision to select Alternative 5 will provide for a designated and managed system, enact 

changes to reduce existing resource damage from motorized use, and reduce social impacts, user conflicts 

and safety concerns. 

By selecting a Modified Alternative 5 the Forest will:

 Prohibit motorized use on 774 miles of maintenance level 1 roads that are currently 

administratively closed and not intended for wheeled motorized use.

 Designate approximately 4,479 miles of road as open to the public, with 1,355 miles of road that 

will be open to highway legal vehicles only and the remaining 3,141 miles of road where mixed 

use will 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.

 Convert approximately 2 miles of NFS roads to motorized trails. 

 Prohibit public motorized use on approximately 17 miles of roads and 53 miles of trail currently 

open to motorized use in order to minimize or reduce resource damage.

 Implement Forest Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with the Travel Management 

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

Forest (RRSNF).

 Designate approximately 15 acres as the Woodruff play area where motorized cross-country 

travel will be allowed (existing Prospect OHV system). 

 Prohibit all other cross-country motorized travel. 

Table ROD- 1. Modified Alternative 5 Summary and Change from FSEIS Alternative 5 and Current Condition

Roads and Trails Current 

Condition

FSEIS 

Alternative 5

Modified 

Alternative 5 

Change From 

Current 

Condition

Total NFS Roads 5,270 miles

Administratively closed -774 miles

NFS Roads “open” to the public1 4,496 miles 4,482 miles 4,479 miles -17 miles

Roads open to mixed use 3,167 miles 3,144 miles 3,141 miles -26 miles

Roads open to passenger vehicles 

only. 1,329 miles 1,352 miles 1,355 miles +26 miles

Total NFS Trails 1,190 miles 1,200 miles 1,192 miles +2 miles

NFS Trails that allow motorized use 236 miles 207 miles 183 miles -53 miles

Convert ML1 road to trail 9 miles 2 miles +2 miles

Total area open to cross country 

travel 274,670 acres 15 acres (not including gravel bars) 

 

1

 Roads, trails, or areas designated “open” are available for general public use as described or depicted on the motor vehicle 

use map pursuant to 36 CFR § 212.51, which will be published following this decision. This decision will not physically close any 

routes.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 6 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Forest-wide Management Direction of Modified Alternative 5

The Forest Service will implement the following strategies as part of Modified Alternative 5 to improve 

the designated route system for motorized vehicle use:

 Produce a primary Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) following national Forest Service standards that 

indicates which routes and areas are designated open to the public by type of vehicle per route and 

season open for use. This map will also identify areas where off-road travel for dispersed camping 

will be allowed. Authorized use, use restrictions, and operating conditions will be revised in future 

decisions as needed to meet changing conditions or management strategies (adaptive management).

 Provide clear, consistent, and adequate signage that identifies routes designated open by type of 

vehicle per route and season open for use corresponding to the public MVUM and local travel map. 

Signing of dead-end routes leading to/stopping at rivers, streams, meadows, and other sensitive 

resources will be a priority to help protect resources from public wheeled motor vehicle damage.

 Develop an Implementation Task Force that will include groups/people who have participated in the 

public process for the Motorized Vehicle Use Plan. It is anticipated that this group will include 

partners from local/state government, permittees, user groups, interest groups, academia and the 

general public. This task force will be formed to help implement the decision with a focus on the four 

“E’s” for successful implementation: education, engineering, evaluation and enforcement. This 

group may also make future recommendations on closing routes with resource or other concerns, or 

opening/creating new routes where additional access/recreational needs are identified. The Task 

Force will also provide opportunities for the public to assist with implementation of the designated 

system designated system by volunteering for monitoring or other activities.

Access for permitted activities (such as livestock operations, maintenance of water developments, utility 

maintenance, timber management or harvest activities, ski area management, outfitter-and-guide 

operations, forest product gathering, and special events) on National Forest System land is independent of 

general public access. Thus, all existing routes on the Forest are administratively available for permitted 

activities and for official resource management. Individuals or groups with special permits will be 

allowed to conduct their business according to conditions outlined in their permits. If a permit does not 

stipulate exemptions to the Forest’s travel regulations, the general travel regulations will apply.

Title 36 CFR §228, Subpart A, Locatable Minerals, outlines rules and procedures through which the use 

of the surface of NFS lands in connection with operations is authorized by the mining laws (30 U.S.C. 2 

1-54). Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will not affect access that is reasonably incidental 

to mining.

Except in Wilderness and other congressionally designated special areas, the following are exempt from 

prohibitions associated with my decision: 

• Limited administrative use by the Forest Service 

• Use of any fire, military, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes

• Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes 

• Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit (Note: emergency access and 

law enforcement pursuit does not necessarily require permission from the Forest Supervisor).

• Use and occupancy of National Forest System lands and resources pursuant to a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.

• Use of a wheelchair or mobility devise that is solely for use by a mobility-impaired person.

• Over-snow vehicles (e.g. snowmobile) when adequate snow cover exists, as allowed by Forest 

Order.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 7 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road, when it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS 

resources or facilities, is allowed under my decision, unless prohibited by State law, a traffic sign, or an 

order (36 CFR 261.54). NFS roads include all trailheads, parking lots, terminal facilities2, and turnouts 

associated with NFS roads. The “side of the road” is defined as that area within one vehicle length, not to 

exceed 20 feet, from the edge of the road surface. Parking on the side of the road may not damage the 

land, vegetation, or streams and no vegetation (live or dead) may be cut (FSEIS page II-16).

It is well recognized that National Forests have historically provided camping opportunities outside of 

developed campgrounds. This type of dispersed motorized use has historically occurred adjacent to open 

roads, adjacent to bodies of water, and at the termini of roads and trails. Under my decision, motor 

vehicle travel will not be allowed off of any designated motor vehicle route, except up to 300 feet off 

either side of a designated route to access a dispersed camp site where motorized access can be 

accomplished without disturbance to live vegetation or previously undisturbed soils or otherwise upon an 

existing motorized route. Specific areas where motorized off-road travel for the purpose of dispersed 

camping will be allowed will be displayed on the forthcoming MVUM (not included with this ROD). 

The intent is to continue the use of established motorized routes to traditional dispersed campsites where 

no resource damage is occurring. The use of 36 CFR 261, Subpart A—General Prohibitions, continue to 

apply to motor vehicles causing resource damage.

Under my decision, off-road motorized travel for dispersed camping will be prohibited within Botanical 

Areas, Research Natural Areas, or other areas deemed to have high resource values. Current closures will 

remain in effect for specific areas (i.e., Big Butte Springs Watershed, Ashland Watershed). In addition, 

off-road motorized travel for dispersed camping will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile (1,320 feet) of any 

potable water source or developed campgrounds.

Access by established motorized routes to designated gravel bars located along the lower Rogue, Illinois, 

Chetco, and Elk Rivers will be permitted. The Rogue River gravel bars include: Smith Orchard, Foster, 

Miller/Dunkelberger, Quosatana, Lobster Creek, and Hawkins. The one Illinois River gravel bar is 

located in the vicinity Oak Flat Campground. The Chetco River gravel bars include: Miller, Nook, 

Redwood, and South Fork (upper and lower). All of these gravel bars are located on the Gold Beach 

Ranger District. 

The general prohibitions and forest order closure authority at 36 CFR 261 continues to apply in concert 

with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. At no time may any motorized vehicle transportation use take 

place that would cause disturbance to live vegetation or previously undisturbed soils that result in 

unacceptable resource damage. Additional site-specific closures and seasonal restrictions (such as 

emergency fire closures or where unexpected resource damage is occurring) may be implemented on a 

case-by-case basis for management, wildlife, and resource protection through authorized travel orders. 

Off-road motorized travel for game retrieval is prohibited, except within 300 feet from centerline of open 

roads.

New additional text, specific to each respective Forest Plan for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 

will amend current management direction for motorized vehicle use. Amendments to the Rogue River 

and Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plans will provide consistency with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. All roads and trails and areas will be closed to motorized use unless designated as 

open. 

Since motorized use includes OHV use, this decision will remove the 1989 and 1990 Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plans, contained as appendices to the respective Forest Plans, to be replaced with the 

Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

 2 Terminal facilities are defined as a transfer point between the Forest transportation system and forest resources served by the 

system, or between different transportation modes, including parking facilities, boat ramps, trailheads, log landings, and airfields.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 8 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Some existing Forest Orders that have established permanent or temporary public motorized use 

restrictions would become redundant after the implementation of the Travel Management Rule. All of 

these orders prohibit cross-country travel in some specific area. Those Forest Orders that are redundant to 

the Rule and establish overlapping cross-country closures, or closures that inadvertently blocked 

motorized access for dispersed camping will be rescinded or modified to eliminate redundant regulation 

in concert with implementing this decision.

Forest employees will monitor compliance with the MVUM pursuant to 36 CFR § 212.57. User-created 

motorized routes that develop after this decision are considered unauthorized and will be closed. They

may be removed by the Forest Service upon discovery. Revisions to designated motorized access may be 

necessary in areas where the public does not comply with this travel plan decision (36 CFR § 212.54).

District Specific Management Direction of Modified Alternative 5

Powers Ranger District Elements

Motorized use will be prohibited on the 1-mile Big Tree Trail (#1150) south of Powers near the South 

Fork Coquille River. 

Prohibit motorized use on riparian dispersed camps along the Elk River.

Gold Beach Ranger District Elements

An amendment to the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan to make motorized use of portions 

of the Illinois River Trail (#1161), and the Silver Peak Hobson Horn Trail (#1166) consistent with 

Standards and Guidelines for the allocations through which it passes (Backcountry Recreation). See 

ROD Attachment A for actual changes to the wording of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Motorized mixed use will be prohibited on approximately 12.6 miles of road where it is currently 

authorized on portions of Roads 1376010, 1376011, 1376012, 1376013, 1376014, 1376015, 1376019, 

1376902, 1376906, and 1376908.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 16.9 miles of trail on the Game Lake Trail (#1169), 

and the Lawson Creek Trail (#1173), the Nancy Creek Trail (#1181) and a portion (3.2 miles) of the 

Illinois River Trail (#1161).

Seasonally restrict motorized use on the 5.0 miles portion of the Illinois trail (#1161) open to class III use 

to coincide with Oregon State hunting seasons for deer, elk and bear. Seasonally restrict motorized use 

on 4.1 miles of the Silver Peak-Hobson Horn trail (#1166) to class III use to coincide with Oregon State 

hunting seasons for deer, elk and bear.

Authorize conversion of approximately 1.7 miles of road currently designated as Maintenance Level 1 to 

motorized trails (portions of roads 3313117 and 3313110). These roads are located in the Quosatana 

Creek drainage. This trail would be for all three vehicle classes.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 0.8 miles of trail (#1164) in the Woodruff Meadow 

area.

Designate approximately 500 feet (0.1 mile) of paved road for motorized mixed use on a portion of Road 

2308 (Burnt Ridge Road). Approximately 500 feet of paved road will be designated for motorized mixed 

use on a portion of Road 2308 (Burnt Ridge Road).
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 9 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Wild Rivers Ranger District Elements

Motorized use will be prohibited on the southern section of the Boundary Trail (5.5 miles of #1207), 

which is accessed by routes 1206, 1214, 903, 904 or through the Red Buttes Wilderness Area. In 

addition, the Windy Gap trail will prohibit motorized use.

Administratively close the McGrew trail but allow recreational use through a special use permitting 

process. Prohibit motorized use on the McGrew trail spurs.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 10.2 miles of road where it is currently authorized on 

portions of Roads 4400445, 4400459, 4400460, and 4400480.

Motorized mixed use will be prohibited on approximately 11.9 miles of road where it is currently 

authorized on portions of Roads 4201029, 4201881, 4300011, 4300910, and 4300920.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 6.4 miles of road to public use including portions of 

Roads 4300011, 4300910, 4300920, 4300925, 4201016, and 4103011.

Authorize conversion of approximately 0.3 miles of Road 2509640, currently designated as a 

Maintenance Level 1 road, to a motorized trail.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 0.6 miles of Road 2600050.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 1.9 miles of trail that currently allows motorized use 

on the Silver Lake Trail (#1184) and on approximately 11.1 miles of trail that currently allows motorized 

use on portions (or entirely) of the following trails: Taylor Creek (#1142), Big Pine Spur (1142A), Onion 

Way (#1181), Secret Way (#1182), Secret Way Spur (1182A), and Swede Creek (#1135). 

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 4.1 miles of trail that currently allows motorized use 

on portions (or entirely) of the following trails: Mt. Elijah(#1206), Bigelow Lake (#1214), Bolan Lake 

(#1245), and Kings Saddle (#1245A).

Motorized use will be prohibited on 13.1 miles of the eastern portions of the Silver Peak-Hobson Horn 

trail (#1166).

Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District Elements

An amendment to the Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan to make motorized use of the 

northern portion of the Boundary Trail (#1207), O’Brien Creek Trail (#900), Sturgis Fork Trail (#903) 

consistent with Standards and Guidelines for the allocations through which it passes. See ROD 

Attachment A for actual changes to the wording of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Motorized use will be prohibited on approximately 3.8 miles of the Horse Camp Trail (#958) that 

currently allows motorized use.

High Cascades Ranger District Elements

There will be no changes on the High Cascades Ranger District. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 10 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Mitigation Measures, Monitoring, and Implementation Strategy

Required Mitigation Measures

The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify relevant, reasonable mitigation measures 

that could improve the project. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) 

includes: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, 

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, (3) 

Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life 

of the action, (4) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments, and (5) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected 

environment.

Appropriate mitigation measures identified and analyzed in the FSEIS have been brought forward into 

this decision. Refer to the ROD Attachment B for the complete list of mitigation measures required at 

implementation.

Monitoring

In accordance with NEPA implementing regulations, practical means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (CFR 1505.2). Required Mitigation Measures 

identified in ROD Attachment B are specific to my decision to implement actions identified in this 

Record of Decision. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Rogue River and 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, as amended by the Northwest Forest 

Plan are also incorporated by reference as required measures.

Authorized use of designated roads and trails will continue to be monitored. Current monitoring includes 

surveys of road and trail conditions by road engineers and recreation specialists on a regular basis. As 

part of my decision, a Monitoring Plan will be developed and will include an evaluation of consistency 

with the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and 

compliance with these travel management decisions, including any required mitigation measures. This 

Monitoring Plan is contained as ROD Attachment C.

The national BMP monitoring protocols will be used to supplement existing national forest BMP 

monitoring programs. Each national forest will complete a small number of national BMP monitoring 

evaluations each year for each of the national core BMPs implemented on the unit. This information will 

be aggregated over time to provide national- and regional-scale evaluations of BMP performance. 

Identified deficiencies in either BMP implementation or effectiveness will be used to adjust land and 

resource management activities and the BMPs to improve water quality protection. The national 

monitoring protocols for BMPs, in particular, for roads and trails are incorporated herein by reference. 

Monitoring may also help to identify potential effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: 

(1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) harassment of wildlife and 

significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or 

proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4) conflicts 

among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal 

lands (36 CFR 212.55).

Implementation

In accordance with the Travel Management Rule, the Forest would publish a MVUM identifying all 

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

would specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is authorized. 

The MVUM would be updated and published annually and/or when changes to the Forest’s transportation 

system are made. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 11 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Routes may be authorized under this decision, but may not appear on the MVUM until suitable or 

qualified for that use. From time to time, it is anticipated that some routes may become impassable due to 

unforeseen events such as weather, vegetation conditions or other factors3. Users should be aware that 

route conditions may vary and use appropriate caution. If the current condition is found to be causing 

resource damage, these routes may be temporarily closed and removed from the MVUM while the 

appropriate maintenance work is analyzed and completed. 

Designations may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions (36 CFR 212.54). Revisions to 

designations, including revisions to vehicle class and time of year, will be made in accordance with FSM 

7712, 7715, and 7716. When a designated route is temporarily closed for more than 1 year, the MVUM 

would be updated to reflect the closure. When the route is reopened, the MVUM would be updated to 

reflect the reopening. No additional travel or environmental analysis would be required to support these 

temporary changes, which do not affect the underlying designation.

DECISION RATIONALE

I have selected Alternative 5 with modifications because it provides the greatest attainment of the 

project’s purpose and need while still being sensitive to other resource concerns within the project 

area. Route by route there are a wide range of and often numerous reasons for allowing or restricting

motorized use on the route. Often it is a combination of several issues that led me to the decision to close

or leave open a route to motorized use. I also considered the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the project area, and took into account competing interests and

values of the public.

Response to Purpose and Need

As stated above, I selected the Preferred Alternative because, as discussed below, it achieves the stated 

Purpose and Need to a high degree, while minimizing adverse environmental effects. Mitigation 

Measures will provide a strong combination of physical, biological, social, and environmental benefits 

while reducing adverse resource effects to a level I consider acceptable. Below is an explanation how the 

selected Alternative 5 with modifications best meets the project’s Purpose and Need.

Implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule

My decision will lead to the publication of a MVUM which will implement the Travel Management Rule. 

This will be accomplished via Forest-wide Plan Amendments that allow the MVUM to be the basis of 

allowable motorized use for roads, trails and areas, and to authorize the issuance of citations for use not in 

accordance with the MVUM. However, all existing routes will be administratively available for 

permitted activities and for official resource management.

Eliminate General Cross-country Travel

Current Land and Resource Management Plans provide direction for portions of the Forest that are open 

to cross-country motorized vehicle use. Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule 

requires an overall forest-wide amendment to the applicable Forest Plans to provide direction as 

associated with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

 3 In some cases, authorized routes may not currently have appropriate rights-of-way; these routes would not appear on the 

MVUM until necessary rights-of-way are secured.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 12 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Under my decision, all roads, trails, and cross-country motorized use will be closed unless designated 

open to specific uses. Since motorized use includes OHV use, my decision includes the deletion of the 

1989 and 1990 Off-road Vehicle Management Plans, contained as appendices to the respective Forest 

Plans, to be replaced with the Motorized Vehicle Use Map. Details of these amendments are contained in 

ROD Attachment A.

Improve Public Safety

My decision is designed to implement Forest Service Regional policy will improve public safety. It is 

expected that the Forest will continue to maintain a program of inspecting the transportation system on a 

regular basis and identifying safety issues needing correction. It is also expected that the Forest will 

continue to fund and maintain any transportation system in order to correct safety issues in a reasonable 

amount of time. By reducing the routes open to the public, we will be increasing the frequency of 

maintenance on the authorized system. This will help reduce the potential environmental effects, as well 

as increasing travel-way safety.

Under my decision, it is expected that public safety in general would increase due to Oregon’s new OHV 

safety laws that are being phased in at the current time. These new laws require youth supervision and 

safety education for all riders. See FSEIS Chapter II; subsection C, 1 for a more detailed discussion of 

the new requirements. In addition, mitigation planned for those “high risk” roads in conjunction with 

prohibiting mixed use on roads where mitigation will not be effective would also increase safety.

Identification of motorized routes will not change the Forest’s public safety priority. Three factors 

influence the safety of the road and trail system: 1) the condition of the facilities, 2) the mixture of uses 

on a particular facility (mixed use) and 3) user behavior. Safety is enhanced if Forest roads and trails are 

routinely maintained and unexpected damage or unsafe conditions are identified and corrected in a 

reasonable amount of time. 

Amend National Forest Plans

Forest-wide Plan Amendments to the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest Plans under my decision 

will allow the MVUM to be the basis to display the allowable motorized use for roads, trails and areas, 

and to authorize the issuance of citations for use not in accordance with the MVUM.

My decision will also implement specific Plan Amendments as necessary, to provide for clear and 

consistent direction in the Forest Plans. These site-specific amendments are associated with the Lower 

Illinois, and Silver Peak Hobson Horn Trails and with the Boundary Trail and associated connecting 

trails, along the ridge associated with the former boundary of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National 

Forests. 

Preserve a Diversity of Motorized Recreation Opportunities

My decision provides for a managed system of motorized use and preserves a diversity of motorized 

recreation opportunities. My decision provides for a more succinct and easily understood system for 

motorized use than does no action. Generally, Modified Alternative 5 provides a slightly reduced system 

compared with Alternative 3, but provides more motorized opportunities than Alternative 4. While 

reduced, the system of routes authorized preserves unique opportunities for motorized recreation such as 

the McGrew Trail (by permit), portions of the Illinois River Trail and Boundary Trail, as well as 

maintaining the existing High Cascades OHV system. The majority of NFS roads being closed to the 

general public are short spur routes off from the McGrew Trail and spur routes in or adjacent to Eight 

Dollar Botanical Area that were not considered different in motorized recreation opportunity as open 

routes in their respective areas.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 13 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Establish Provisions for Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Consistent with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, my decision provides identification of roads 

that would allow motorized access up to 300 feet from centerline off of the road surface for the purpose of 

dispersed camping. These provisions are detailed in ROD Attachment B. Activities that are generally 

prohibited and activities that are generally allowed are detailed. 

My decision incorporates additional provisions for motorized access to dispersed camping within 

Riparian Reserve areas. This ensures added protection to minimize potential resource damage and 

provides continued attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. This includes an additional 

prohibition to require a 30-foot setback for motorized vehicles engaged in dispersed camping at any 

existing site near a stream course, wetland, or water body. 

Response to Significant Issues

NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the significant issues related to a 

proposed action. The Interdisciplinary Team, with my involvement and approval, identified the following 

as the Significant Issues associated with the Proposed Action and analysis presented in the FSEIS (pages 

I-16). These Significant Issues have served as the basis for developing and comparing alternatives. 

Water Quality and Erosion (FSEIS page III-9)

Under Alternative 5, there will be no new ground-disturbing activities and there will be no creation of 

new impervious areas. On the watershed scale, there would be no changes from the proposed actions. 

However, at the 6th field subwatershed scale, the risk for cumulative effects would be reduced in some 

areas as a result of limiting public access by closure of 18 miles of roads and 43 miles of trails to 

motorized use. In particular, the removal of motorized use in the Eight Dollar Mountain area near the 

Illinois River, including its small tributaries, has the greatest potential to reduce sedimentation effecting 

water quality. The conversion of 2 miles of roads to motorized trails will not have effects due to distances 

to perennial streams. 

The elimination of cross-country travel in Alternative 5, also will improve subwatershed conditions in 

those areas where cross-country travel is currently occurring and thus further reducing the risk for adverse 

cumulative effects. Therefore, overall there is a potential for minor improvements to water quality at the 

site scale due to these project actions.

Botanical Areas and Special Plant Habitats (FSEIS page III-23)

Alternative 5 is expected to maintain or reduce effects from motorized use. In particular, closures in the 

Bigelow Lakes area includes the Bigelow Lakes Trail (#1214) and Mt. Elijah Trail (#1206); the Bolan 

Lake Botanical area includes the Bolan Lake Trail (#1245 and Kings Saddle Trail (#1245a); in the Eight 

Dollar Mountain area includes Forest roads 4103011 and 4201016. Implementation of plan amendments 

where no evidence of off-trail effects to botanical resources has occurred for the Cook and Green Trail 

and the Boundary Trail will make motorized uses consistent with Travel Rule designations. In total, this 

will include a reduction of 11 miles of routes open for public wheeled motor vehicle use in or adjacent to 

botanical and special plant habitats, and the prohibition of cross-country travel will further reduce 

potential effects to botanical resources. 

Public Safety (FSEIS page III-26)

Activities described under Alternative 5 will not increase threats to public safety because the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest will follow Oregon and California State law and engineering analysis of 

mixed use. Though the volume of traffic may increase slightly in the foreseeable future, the change in 

composition of the traffic and the distribution of these vehicles is not expected to be noticeable. The 

majority of roads on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest are designed for low speeds and have low 

levels of traffic use. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 14 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Although safety of National Forest users is always a concern, motorized vehicle use designation will not 

eliminate all hazards, either on roads, trails, or within areas. Route designation by itself will not affect 

public safety. Road and trail hazards are addressed through regular maintenance, not by designation. It is 

not uncommon for hazards to exist outside of the motor vehicle travel-way. Therefore, a safe experience 

for all users (motorized and non-motorized) cannot be guaranteed. 

Motorized Opportunities (FSEIS page III-30)

As the number of users on National Forests and differing types of use continue to increase, there is a 

potential that user conflicts will also increase. However, motorized roads and trails will be 

administratively defined and published on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) under Alternative 5. 

Recreationists will be able to better plan recreational pursuits based on an individual’s unique 

expectations and desires. As a result, the frequency of user conflicts between non-motorized and 

motorized recreation users will likely decrease in the short and long terms. The system will provide 

motorized access and recreation driving opportunities to most areas of the Forest. Off-highway vehicle 

recreationists will be provided a unique diversity of riding options across all districts. In particular, the 

McGrew Trail (by permit), portions of the Illinois River and Boundary Trails, as well as the High 

Cascades OHV system will continue to offer motorized opportunities.

Roadless Character within Inventoried Roadless Areas (FSEIS page III-43)

All Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), identified in Appendix C of the Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMP), are managed according to the direction provided in the LRMP for their assigned land 

allocations. Some allocations permit motorized use within an IRA while others limit or prohibit 

motorized opportunities. Alternative 5 will reduce the amount of motorized use and the overall 

undeveloped nature of IRAs will improve. 

There is no new road or trail construction within IRAs under Alternative 5. Since there will be no 

additional construction or allowance for increased use, there will be no additive impact that might 

contribute to adverse cumulative effects on roadless character.

Current user preferences, conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users and enforcement 

considerations have been thoughtfully integrated into the selected Alternative 5, as modified. This will 

result in a travel plan that is simpler to understand and more consistent with adjoining lands than what 

exists currently. Relative to the current motorized travel plan, Alternative 5 with modifications, makes a 

substantial number of important improvements for enforceability, provides a better balance of motorized 

and non-motorized recreational opportunities and recognized the value of the Forest to recreationalists by 

making seasonal closures and allocating segments of routes for motorized or non-motorized uses. For 

example, the North Kalmiopsis, the South Kalmiopsis, and Kangaroo are specific IRAs where I 

considered user-conflicts, along with semi-primitive values, such as solitude and natural appearing 

landscapes. As a consequence I have incorporated permit system for the McGrew Trail (4402), closed 

spur roads associated with the 4200, 4300 and 4400 road systems, and closed portions of the Illinois River 

Trail (#1161), the Hobson Horn Trail (#1166) and Boundary Trail (#1207). I also provided for limited 

motorized access of other portions of these trails (#1161, #1166, and #1207) to provide for unique 

hunting access and motorized recreation. See pages 8-9 for specific management direction.

Other Issues

Beyond the above listed five Significant Issues, eighteen other issues are also analyzed in the FSEIS. All 

issues are based upon public and agency comments received during the scoping process or are related to 

satisfying Federal, State, and local requirements and standards, and were also taken into account in my 

decision. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 15 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

The FSEIS documents discussion of additional issues and effects that were identified during the scoping 

process but were not found to be significant issues key to designing alternatives. In evaluating 

alternatives, these issues were found to have either variable effects or effects that were similar or common 

to all alternatives, or could be equally mitigated under all alternatives. Because of this, these issues will 

not be further discussed in this decision document (reference FSEIS, Chapter III, section E). 

Implementation

In accordance with the Travel Management Rule, the Forest would publish a MVUM identifying all 

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

would specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is authorized. 

The MVUM would be updated and published annually and/or when changes to the Forest’s transportation 

system are made. 

Routes may be authorized under this decision, but may not appear on the MVUM until suitable or 

qualified for that use. From time to time, it is anticipated that some routes may become impassable due to 

unforeseen events such as weather, vegetation conditions or other factors4. Users should be aware that 

route conditions may vary and use appropriate caution. If the current condition is found to be causing 

resource damage, these routes may be temporarily closed and removed from the MVUM while the 

appropriate maintenance work is analyzed and completed. 

Designations may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions (36 CFR 212.54). Revisions to 

designations, including revisions to vehicle class and time of year, will be made in accordance with FSM 

7712, 7715, and 7716. When a designated route is temporarily closed for more than 1 year, the MVUM 

would be updated to reflect the closure. When the route is reopened, the MVUM would be updated to 

reflect the reopening. No additional travel or environmental analysis would be required to support these 

temporary changes, which do not affect the underlying designation.

Authority

Codes of Federal Regulation 36 CFR 212 and 261 have given the Forest Service the authority to manage 

OHV use and provide specific regulations for the agency based on the minimization criteria found in 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989. In compliance with these authorities and Forest Plan direction, the 

Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest have determined that there is a need to 

improve management and enforcement of the motorized travel plan on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. In addition, the agency maintains other discretionary authorities such as the ability to 

issue emergency closure orders that allow enforcement or modification of the motorized travel plan or 

that regulate use and occupancy of National Forest System lands.

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s goal related to OHV management is to manage the use of 

OHVs in partnership with other federal and state land management agencies, local governments and 

communities, user groups, and interest groups to protect public lands and resources while providing 

opportunities for the safe use and enjoyment of OHVs on designated roads and trails.

All routes not designated will be considered unauthorized routes and motorized use of those routes will be 

illegal. Motorized cross-country travel will be prohibited except as specified for the purposes of 

dispersed camping, emergency fire suppression, search and rescue, law enforcement, military operations, 

Forest Service administrative use, including uses authorized by permit such as firewood gathering, and 

other uses.

 4 In some cases, authorized routes may not currently have appropriate rights-of-way; these routes would not appear on the 

MVUM until necessary rights-of-way are secured.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 16 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This decision does not include travel management for State lands, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands, or adjacent private lands or private inholdings. Moreover, this decision can neither validate nor 

deny RS 2477 assertions made by a county. Only a federal court of competent jurisdiction has such 

authority to make such a finding, in response to a filing made with the court pursuant to the Quiet Title 

Act of 1972. 

There are a number of roads across the National Forest that are currently under the jurisdiction of State 

and County governments. Nothing in our decision can or will change the jurisdiction of these roads, and 

travel on them will continue to be at the discretion of the State and local governments.

The Forest Service does not always have legal access across adjoining private lands. In some cases there 

is no legal public access across privately owned isolated tracts within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest boundary. Because of this, and in an attempt to be a good neighbor to the private landowners, 

some limitations have been imposed on routes designated as open for motorized use in cases where roads 

or trails cross private lands.

The Forest will also continue to work with adjoining private landowners to secure legal access to public 

lands, based on the willingness of the private landowners to cooperate. There are no access agreements 

ready for a decision or connected to this motorized vehicle use decision. As access agreements develop, 

they will be disclosed and analyzed as appropriate. Once access has been secured across private lands, 

the type of use allowed on specific roads and trails may be re-assessed.

Finally, this decision does not preclude future travel management proposals. Route construction, 

reconstruction, or re-designation may be necessary in the future. Those needs may be addressed, as 

appropriate, under a separate decision making process (36 CFR 212.54).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

In addition to my decision (the Preferred Alternative), three other Action Alternatives and a No Action 

Alternative were analyzed in the FSEIS. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 (2) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4332 (2)), the Forest Service analyzed these 

alternatives as options for meeting the purpose and need. 

The No Action Alternative was a proposal to ‘do nothing’ and maintain the ‘status quo’. The ‘status 

quo’ would be the combination of all previous decisions by the Forest (allowing cross country travel, the 

creation of temporary roads associated with permits or other authorizations; and any previous decisions 

associated with the system of roads, trails and areas). This alternative does not meet the purpose and need

because it would not enact the Travel Management Rule, close general cross country travel, improve 

public safety, restrict travel to designated routes, address environmental concerns or address conflicting 

Forest Plan direction. Therefore, I did not select this alternative because it failed to meet all the stated 

objectives of the purpose and need; however, it was useful in analyzing baseline effects of project actions.

Alternative 2, which represents the current situation associated with motorized use, was determined to be 

sufficient in representing the highest degree of motorized-use allowed. The Forest Service did not 

identify a reason to consider alternatives that would further relax control of motorized use in general. I 

did not select this alternative because it failed to consider and address resource concerns, user conflicts, 

and safety issues. As such, while being compliant with the Travel Management Rule, this alternative 

does not meet other stated objectives in the purpose and need statement. In particular, this alternative 

fails to improve public safety or address environmental concerns on existing routes. Therefore, I did not 

select this alternative because it failed to meet two important objectives of the project’s purpose and need.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 17 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

An initial proposal was developed based on results from analysis of the Forest’s transportation system. 

Forest and Ranger District staff identified changes they believed should be made based on information 

available regarding the potential effects of travel, as well as higher-level direction, public reports of 

problems, and knowledge of the Forest road and trail system. This led to the development of Alternative 

3-Proposed Action, which the Forest Service used to initiate the NEPA process, facilitate meaningful 

public comment, and serve as a basis for identification of the issues. I did not select this alternative 

because through further public input and internal analysis, it was determined that certain proposed and 

existing routes, as described in the FSEIS chapter II, were causing unreasonable resource damage. I used 

input from the original DEIS released in 2009 to further refine the project actions into alternative 5, the 

preferred alternative. While alternative 3 was vital for understanding the resource issues, user conflicts, 

safety concerns and issues surrounding plan amendments, it was not selected. This is because alternative 

3 did not strike an appropriate balance between motorized opportunities and environmental concerns. 

Resource impacts and user conflicts due to trail construction, ML 1 conversions, and an additional play 

area were not appropriate tradeoffs considering the resource values at risk.

Alternative 4 is more restrictive on motorized use in exchange for putting more management emphasis 

on other resource values such as roadless character and botanical resources. Based on individual values, a 

case can be made for alternatives that would get more and more restrictive on human use (including nonmotorized uses). This alternative was developed with increasing restrictions on motorized use while still 

remaining within a reasonable range of motorized use to address the stated Purpose and Need. I found 

that alternative 4 restricted certain existing motorized opportunities while not providing added benefits to 

other resource values described above. I found that the FSEIS Chapter III effects analysis of both 

“significant” and “other issues” did not reveal compelling impacts associated with all of these routes to a 

point necessitating their closure. Therefore, I did not select this alternative because it failed to maximize 

attainment of the purpose and need of this project. However, 9 components, as described in the 

Modifications section were important considerations analyzed and brought forward in this ROD. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

It is required by law that one or more environmentally preferable alternatives be disclosed. The 

environmentally preferred alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it 

does not have to meet the underlying Purpose and Need for the project. It does however, have to cause 

the least damage to the physical and biological environment and best protects, preserves and enhances 

historical, cultural, and natural resources (Section 101 NEPA; 40 CFR 1505.2(b)).

Of the Action Alternatives considered, I have determined Alternative 4 has the least impact in terms of 

causing or allowing damage to the physical and biological environments; therefore it is the 

environmentally preferred alternative. I believe that authorizing action for this project is clearly better 

than taking no action (doing nothing). My decision (Modified Alternative 5) provides a responsible 

combination of physical, biological, social, and environmental benefits with acceptable resource effects, 

while attaining the stated Purpose and Need to a high degree.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

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. The letter described the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for the 

Project. In addition, Scoping Letters were sent to other agencies such as Oregon Department of Fish and 

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

US. Fish and Wildlife Service, US 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 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).
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 18 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Government-to-Government consultation letters were mailed on August 18, 2008 to Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, the Klamath Tribes, Cow Creek 

Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Smith River Rancheria, Coquille Tribal Council, and to the Quartz 

Valley Indian Tribe. 

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).

A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest (RRSNF) was dated November, 2009. That FEIS included a Response to Comments 

(Appendix A) addressing substantive comment received on the March 2009 Draft EIS. A Record of 

Decision (ROD) based on that FEIS was signed on December 3, 2009. Shortly thereafter, issues were 

raised through the appeal process that ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the December decision and 

the beginning of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, process, designed to address issues 

raised during the appeal process requiring additional analysis, clarification, or modification. 

For the Draft Supplemental EIS there was no “Scoping”. Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there was no 

formal Scoping period required for this action. Appropriate procedures under NEPA required 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).

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

National Forest formally began on October 7, 2011, the first day following publication of a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 195 (FR page 62406). The 45-day comment period 

began on October 8, 2011 and closed on November 21, 2011.

A total of 453 comments to the DSEIS were received by the Forest at the close of the comment period. 

All comments received within a few days of the close of the comment period were also reviewed and 

were considered as part of the comment analysis process. All comments were read and coded based on 

content and intent, by a Forest Service planning team, with Forest oversight, review and concurrence. 

A Response to Comments document was prepared in response to the 2011 DSEIS. It therefore is the 

second Response to Comments document that has been prepared for the Travel Management Process; the 

previous one having been prepared in 2009 for the Draft EIS. Both response documents are referenced as 

Appendix A to their respective Final EISs.

Given the history of this process, now spanning several years, there has been a substantial volume of 

public input to this process. Input has included Scoping in 2008, formal comments to the DEIS in 2009, 

appeals to the Record of Decision made in 2009, input received outside of any input or NEPA process, 

and now, the formal input received during the comment period to the September 2011 DSEIS.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 19 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN AND OTHER 

LAWS

Based on the information and evidence contained in the 2015 FSEIS and its Appendices, and as further 

documented within this Record of Decision, I find that my decision is consistent with the Rogue River 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Siskiyou National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan; other amendments and 

other laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the management of National Forest System 

lands and resources.

This action has been analyzed and designed under laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the 

management of National Forest System lands and resources, including: 16 USC 1604 (g)(3), 36 CFR 

219.14, 36 CFR 219.27 (b). I find this decision to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 

CFR 1500-1508, July 1, 1986, the Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976. I also find this decision is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

1973 as amended, and the Historic Preservation Act.

Forest Plan Consistency (NFMA)

Significance Determination: Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative 5 includes Forest Plan Amendments to both the 1990 Rogue River and 1989 Siskiyou 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans. The detail of these amendments is described in 

2015 ROD Attachment A, incorporated by reference.

Plan amendments included in this ROD and analyzed in the FSEIS are in compliance with plan 

amendments initiated before May 9, 2012, as described at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3). As the Responsible 

Official, I have decided to complete and approve the plan amendments included in Attachment A in 

conformance with the provisions of a prior planning regulation. Specifically, the provisions of 36 CFR 

part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010, allows for the use of the 1982 

planning rule process. 

As such, an assessment of a proposed amendment’s significance in the context of the larger Rogue River 

and Siskiyou Forest Plans has been accomplished (FSEIS pages III-175 through III-184). Note that the 

definition of significance for amending a Forest Plan at 36 CFR 219.10(f) (47 Fed. Reg. 43073 (1982))

and superseded FSH 1922.5 is not the same as the definition of significance as defined by NEPA. Under 

NEPA, significance is generally determined by whether a proposal is considered to be a major federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, or whether the relative severity of the 

environmental impacts would be significant based on their context and intensity. Superseded Forest 

Service Manual 1926 (implementing the 1982 Plan Rule) provides criteria for evaluation of significance. 

Content from this direction is summarized on FSEIS page III-174.

For the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, there are two types of changes proposed as Forest Plan 

Amendments, overall Forest-wide amendments to the Forest Plans to enact the Travel Management 

Rule, and route -specific amendments in the form of changes to specific management direction and/or to 

Standards and Guidelines. Both types of amendments are needed under Modified Alternative 5 to allow 

my decision to be consistent with land management plan direction. 

The result of this analysis, considering all required factors, supports my determination of nonsignificant change (amendment) to the Rogue River National Forest and Siskiyou National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plans. These amendments, either individually or collectively, 

would not constitute an amendment that would be significant. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 20 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This determination is based on the findings that these amendments will not change multiple use goals and 

objectives for long-term management nor will they directly affect Standards and Guidelines or levels of 

goods and services (FSEIS pages III-174 to IV-184). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.20, the National Forest Management Act requires a specific determination of 

consistency with the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans

and their Standards and Guidelines. My decision (Modified Alternative 5) has been developed to be in 

full compliance with NFMA. Overall, while there will be varying levels of impacts, with appropriate 

mitigation, I find that my decision will be in compliance with all applicable management direction.

Rogue River National Forest and Siskiyou National Forest Plans

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.20, the Final SEIS is tiered to the FEIS for the Rogue River National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994), and the Siskiyou National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989) as amended by the Northwest 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). 

Northwest Forest Plan - Aquatic Conservation Strategy

According to the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS) was developed to improve and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic 

ecosystems contained within them on public lands. Riparian Reserves are established as a component of 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, designed under the Northwest Forest Plan primarily to restore and 

maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependent species. Riparian Reserves also help to 

maintain riparian structures and functions and conserve habitat for organisms dependent on the transition 

zone between riparian and upland areas. 

The analysis of the existing conditions relative to Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines (1994 

NWFP ROD, pages C-31 through C-39) and the nine ACS Objectives is presented for each alternative

considered in detail in FSEIS pages III-60 through III-64. These findings are supported by professional 

judgement and scientific literature used by agency resource specialists analyzing project actions related to 

all nine ACS Objectives. In particular, the Hydrology, Fisheries, Soils, and Wildlife sections of chapter 

III of the FSEIS all analyze project actions as they relate to the nine ACS Objectives and form the basis of 

the findings. Watershed analyses have been completed for all areas of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest and are listed in FSEIS Appendix D. These documents describe existing watershed condition, the 

level of deviation from known historical conditions, as well as the human and natural disturbance 

mechanisms operating within the watershed. Although these documents do not make land management 

decisions, they provide recommendations for management at the watershed scale that are designed to 

meet the goals and objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. Information from the Forest’s watershed 

analyses was used to provide current CWE condition, road density data, stream temperature information, 

and site specific descriptions. Therefore, the watershed analysis form the basis for impacts described 

within the project area.

On the basis of the analysis referenced above, I conclude that my decision is compliant with all applicable 

Standards and Guidelines. Additionally, as an overall determination, the impacts associated with my 

decision (Modified Alternative 5) either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, would not 

prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), and the nine ACS Objectives at any spatial 

scale.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 21 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Other Legal Requirements and Policies

In reviewing the FSEIS and actions involved in my decision (Modified Alternative 5), I have concluded 

that my decision is consistent with the following laws, requirements and current or proposed policies:

The Preservation of American Antiquities Act, June 1906: All surveyed and inventoried cultural 

resource sites associated with Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest will 

be protected from entry and excluded from any resource management activities. New sites discovered 

during operations will be protected by required Mitigation Measures (See ROD Attachment B).

The National Historic Preservation Act: The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has 

been consulted concerning activities associated with Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be consulted about 

measures to protect significant archaeological sites from adverse effects, should any be identified.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: NEPA establishes the format and content 

requirements of environmental analysis and documentation, such as Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest. The entire process of preparing this environmental impact statement was 

undertaken to comply with NEPA.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended: Biological Evaluations and Assessments 

have been prepared to document possible effects of activities on endangered and threatened species 

associated with Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Appropriate 

coordination, conferencing, and consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries 

have been completed.

For the northern spotted owl, a determination of “may effect, not likely to adversely effect (NLAA)”

was made for disturbance and the minor amount of clearing (it is estimated that several conifer trees less 

than 8 inches in diameter would be cut on the proposed Penn Sled trail). A determination of “may effect, 

not likely to adversely effect (NLAA)” was made for the marbled murrelet due to disturbance. A 

determination of “no effect” to critical habitat was made for both species. Correspondence from the 

USFWS (Letter of Concurrence # 13420-2010-I-0004) is part of the Project Record and available on

request (FSEIS pages III-100 and III-108).

Alternative 5 has a “no effect” determination for coho salmon or coho critical habitat and will have no 

effect to Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon and Chinook salmon. Due to these no effect 

determinations, formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries is not required (FSEIS page III-130). 

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977: My decision is compliant with National Ambient Air Quality 

standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards

(FSEIS pages III-64 to III-65.) 

The Clean Water Act, 1982: My decision will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 

1982. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. My decision 

meets anti-degradation standards agreed to by the State of Oregon and the Forest Service, Region 6, in a 

2002 Memorandum of Understanding. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and 

monitoring of Mitigation Measures including General Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1988, and National Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for Water Quality Management (April 2012), now used in concert with the General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region.

Clean Air Act: Motorized vehicle use on the Forest can contribute to air pollution through particulate 

matter (fugitive dust from travel on unpaved surfaces) and emission of carbon monoxide. My decision 

will reduce fugitive dust sources through a reduction in the miles and/or areas open to motorized travel. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 22 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

The amount of carbon monoxide emitted from recreational motorized vehicle use or administrative 

motorized vehicle use in implementing my decision is not expected to increase impacts to air quality over 

the existing condition.

Executive Order 11988: My decision will result in a decrease of impacts within floodplain areas, 

primarily through the elimination of cross-country travel on the Forest, as well as reduction in motorized 

routes in proximity to these areas (FSEIS Page III-173).

Executive Order 11990: My decision will result in a decrease of impacts within wetland and riparian 

areas, primarily through the elimination of cross-country travel on the Forest, as well as reduction in 

motorized routes in proximity to these areas (FSEIS Page III-172).

Executive Order 12898: Outreach and scoping (public involvement) processes did not identify any 

potentially disproportionately high and adverse human-health or environmental effects to minority or lowincome populations (FSEIS Page III-169).

Executive Order 11644: It is the purpose of this order to establish policies and provide for procedures 

that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to 

protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize 

conflicts among the various uses of those lands. My decision makes substantial improvements in 

reducing and minimizing resource impacts and use conflicts as required by this order.

Executive Order 13443: This FSEIS has been reviewed by and commented on by the local Oregon 

Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Hunter’s Association, as well as other non-governmental 

groups and comments by those groups have been incorporated as appropriate. My decision is consistent 

with the Order in that it continues to provide hunter access to Forest lands. The general closure of crosscountry travel would reduce opportunities to retrieve game using OHVs. However, there are 

opportunities to maintain or increase motorized access in some areas, and also reduce direct and indirect 

effects to game species and their habitats, by restricting access in other areas and during critical breeding 

periods (FSEIS Page III-174).

Roadless Area Conservation Rule: On October 21, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed 

Judge Brimmer’s August 2008 decision that had invalidated the Roadless Rule and lifted a nationwide 

injunction. The Tenth Circuit’s decision resolved the legal uncertainty that had resulted from the 

conflicting rulings by Judge Brimmer and the Ninth Circuit, making it clear that the 2001 Roadless Rule 

is legally adopted. 

Travel Management on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF is consistent with this ruling. This ruling 

essentially returns management direction to the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule does not 

prohibit motorized trails in IRAs, nor does it prohibit National Forest Transportation System roads in 

existence prior to January 12, 2001. (36 CFR § 294.14)

My decision complies with the 2001 Roadless Rule because continued use of existing roads and trails 

within IRAs is not road construction or reconstruction as defined by the rule. (36 CFR § 294.12) Further, 

the proposed designation of existing roadways for motorized public use is not new and has occurred on all 

routes for many decades prior to promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule (36 CFR 

Part 294) clearly defines a road as a “motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches, unless designated and 

managed as a trail.” Therefore, the roads being considered for continued authorization as open to 

motorized vehicles by the general public are consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

State Forest Worker Safety Codes: The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Code for Forest 

Activities (OAR 437, Division 6) regulations will be met when my decision is implemented. Appropriate 

provisions will be included in all contracts for addressing State Forest Worker Safety Codes. 
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 23 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Authorization of my decision is based on this Record of Decision, its attachments and the 2015 Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Implementation of this decision will allow the

publication of a Motorized Vehicle Use Map, expected in late 2015.

On-going monitoring conducted in association with management activities authorized by my decision 

provide opportunity for adapting management techniques as needed to better meet the intent of the 

selected alternative as planned and approved. In some cases this may involve minor modifications or 

corrections during implementation. Project monitoring could result in the need to propose changes to 

authorized project actions; these changes will be subject to the requirements of the NEPA and other laws 

concerning such changes. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, the 

Responsible Official will consider the criteria in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in 

particular whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the decision as planned and already 

approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. 

PREDECISIONAL ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW 

(OBJECTION)

On March 27, 2013, pre-decisional objection procedures became effective which apply to project-level 

proposals not authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (36 CFR 218 Subparts A and 

B). The new regulations provide an opportunity for individuals, organizations and tribal entities to file an 

objection to a draft decision and seek higher-level review of unresolved concerns before the decision is 

finalized and signed. Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific 

written comments regarding the proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based 

on new information that arose after a designated opportunity to comment (§218.8(c)). To maintain your 

right to file an objection, you will be required to meet the eligibility requirements described in §218.5. 

Only those who have submitted timely, specific written comments during any designated opportunity for 

public comment may file an objection. Specific written comments should be within the scope of the 

proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons 

for the responsible official to consider (§218.2). 

This draft decision is subject to administrative review (pre-decisional objection) pursuant to 36 CFR 218. 

An objection must meet all of the requirements described in 36 CFR 218.8.

Who may file an objection (36 CFR 218.5): Only individuals or organizations that submitted specific 

written comments during any designated opportunity for public participation (scoping or public comment 

periods) may object.

Filing an objection (36 CFR 218.8): An objection must meet all of the requirements described in 36 

CFR 218.8, which include being in writing and being filed with the reviewing officer.

Objection issues [36 CFR 218.8(c)]: 

(c) Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments 

regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based 

on new information that arose after the opportunities for comment. The burden is on the objector 

to demonstrate compliance with this requirement for objection issues.

Minimum requirements [36 CFR 218.8(d)]:

(d) At a minimum, an objection must include the following:

(1) Objector’s name and address as defined in § 218.2, with a telephone number, if available;

(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic 

mail may be filed with the objection);
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 24 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

(3) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector as defined 

in § 218.2. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must be provided upon request or 

the reviewing officer will designate a lead objector as provided in § 218.5(d);

(4) The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the responsible official, and the 

name(s) of the national forest(s) and/or ranger district(s) on which the proposed project will 

be implemented;

(5) A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including 

specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the 

environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; 

suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing 

officer to consider; and

(6) A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the 

particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection 

concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for comment (see 

paragraph (c) of this section).

Timely filing (36 CFR 218.9): Evidence of and responsibility for timely filing is described in §218.9. 

Objections must be postmarked or received by the Reviewing Officer, Regional Forester, within 45 days 

from the date of publication of notice of the objection in Medford’s Mail Tribune, the newspaper of 

record for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The publication date is the exclusive means for 

calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to file an objection should not rely upon dates or 

timeframe information provided by any other source.

Mail: Objections can be mailed to the Reviewing Officer at the address below. Objections delivered by 

mail must be postmarked by the closing day of the objection filing period and received before close of the

fifth business day following the end of the objection period.

Regional Forester (Reviewing Officer)

Pacific Northwest Regional Office

Attn: 1570 Appeals

P.O. Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208-3623

Email: Objections can be filed electronically at: objections-pnw-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Please put 

OBJECTION and the project name in the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part 

of an actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or 

portable document format (.pdf) only. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should receive an 

automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not 

receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt of the objection, it is the sender’s responsibility to 

ensure timely receipt by other means.

Hand-delivery: Objections can be hand delivered to the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1220 SW 3rd

Avenue, Portland, Oregon, between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. 

Please note that this is a new physical address as of September, 2013.

Fax: Objections can be faxed to the Regional Forester, Attn: 1570 Objections at (503) 808-2339. Please 

verify receipt.
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 25 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

AUTHORIZATION

218 Draft

(Record of Decision has not been signed)

__________________________________________ __________________

Robert G. MacWhorter, Date

Forest Supervisor, Responsible Official

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

For Further Information concerning the specific actions (tentatively) authorized by my decision, 

you may contact:

Peggy O’Keefe, Project Lead

Forest Supervisor’s Office

2164 Spalding Avenue

Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Phone: (541) 471-6747
2015 Record of Decision ROD - 26 Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This page intentionally left blank
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 1 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE ON THE 

ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

RECORD OF DECISION

ATTACHMENT A - Forest Plan Amendments

Forest Plan Amendments are a required component of the 2014 Record of Decision and are 

identified and detailed within this attachment, and will be enacted for activities associated with 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

The FSEIS evaluated the effects of the proposed amendments as related to the objectives, guidelines and 

other contents of the Forest Plans of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests as required by 36 

CFR 219.10 (f). Based on this evaluation (see FSEIS Chapter III, section G), the Forest Supervisor 

determined that the proposed amendments do not significantly change the delivery of goods and services 

as described in the respective Forest Plans (FSM 1926.51). These amendments are considered to be 

non-significant.

For the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, there are two types of Forest Plan Amendments, overall 

Forest-wide amendments to the Forest Plans to enact the Travel Management Rule, and route -specific 

amendments in the form of changes to specific management direction and/or to Standards and 

Guidelines. 

FOREST-WIDE PLAN AMENDMENTS

Current Land and Resource Management Plans provide direction for portions of the respective Forest that 

are open to cross-country motor vehicle use. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule requires an 

amendment to the applicable Forest Plans. Under the Record of Decision, amendments to the Rogue 

River Land and Resource Management Plan and the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan will 

provide consistency with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Under the Rule, all roads, trails, and crosscountry motorized use would be closed unless designated open to specific uses.

The following new additional text, specific to each respective Forest Plan for the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest, will amend travel management direction for motorized vehicle use. 
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 2 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Rogue River National Forest

Forest Management Direction/Forest Management Objectives:

Recreation and Facilities – LRMP Chapter 4

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

(Travel Management Rule) was published in the Federal Register. This affects 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. These rules became effective in December 2005. The Rule revises several 

regulations to require designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National Forests and National 

Grasslands.

In order to provide consistency, the 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is 

hereby amended to adopt and include direction with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and allowable uses 

associated with the Record of Decision for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF. This decision is 

designed to enact the Travel Management Rule in compliance with 36 CFR 212.

Under this amendment, all roads and trails on the Rogue River National Forest will be closed to motorized use unless 

designated open to this use. This plan amendment also prohibits cross-country motorized use unless the area is 

designated for that use. Motorized use is designated per the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) following national 

Forest Service standards that indicates which routes are designated open to the public by type of vehicle per route 

and season open for use. This map will be made available to the public free-of charge. There may be some 

changes as implementation occurs on the ground. Designation, use restrictions, and operating conditions may be 

revised in future decisions as needed to meet changing conditions or management strategies. This plan amendment, 

allows codification or the ability to issue citations for use violations not in accordance with the MVUM.

Because the Travel Analysis process was enacted to provide improved motorized use direction in compliance with 

current Forest Service policy and the 2005 Travel Management Rule, Forest Plan Appendix C, Off-Road Vehicle 

Management Plan, is removed, replaced with direction associated with the Travel Management Rule, this decision 

and the MVUM.

Rogue River National Forest

Forest Management Direction for RECREATION, LRMP 4-24 regarding Backcountry Non-motorized 

Areas (MS-3) and Research Natural Areas (MS-25) is inconsistent with the current condition and the 

Standards and Guidelines for MS 3 (LRMP 4-43), and for MS-25 (LRMP 4-292). The following Plan 

Amendment will remedy this inconsistency. Route-specific amendments are also being implemented to 

allow portions of the Boundary Trail and other trails on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. 

Current Wording Proposed Replacement Wording

Management Areas in which ORV use is prohibited 

include Backcountry Non-motorized Areas (except 

over-snow seasonal use in some areas), 

Wilderness, Wild River, Restricted Watersheds, 

and Research Natural Areas.

4-24

Management Areas in which motorized vehicle use 

is prohibited include Wilderness, Wild River, 

Restricted Watersheds, and Research Natural 

Areas. Motorized vehicle use in Backcountry Nonmotorized Areas and Research Natural Areas is 

generally prohibited (except for roads and trails

designated for motorized use and over-snow 

seasonal use in some areas).
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 3 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Siskiyou National Forest

Forest Management Objectives:

Resource Activities and Facilities – LRMP Chapter IV

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

(Travel Management Rule) was published in the Federal Register. This affects 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. These rules became effective in December 2005. The Rule revises several 

regulations to require designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National Forests and National 

Grasslands.

In order to provide consistency, the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is herby 

amended to adopt and include direction with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and allowable uses associated with 

the Record of Decision for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF. This decision is designed to 

enact the Travel Management Rule in compliance with 36 CFR 212.

Under this amendment, all roads and trails on the Siskiyou National Forest will be closed to motorized use unless 

designated open to this use. This plan amendment also prohibits cross-country motorized use unless the area is 

designated for that use. Motorized use is designated per the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) following national 

Forest Service standards that indicates which routes are designated open to the public by type of vehicle per route 

and season open for use. This map will be made available to the public free-of charge. There may be some 

changes as implementation occurs on the ground. Designation, use restrictions, and operating conditions may be 

revised in future decisions as needed to meet changing conditions or management strategies. This plan amendment, 

allows codification or the ability to issue citations for use violations not in accordance with the MVUM.

Because the Travel Analysis process was enacted to provide improved motorized use direction in compliance with 

current Forest Service policy and the 2005 Travel Management Rule, Forest Plan Appendix E, Off-Road Vehicle 

Management Plan, is removed, replaced with direction associated with the Travel Management Rule, this decision 

and the MVUM.

Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest

Since motorized use includes OHV use, the Record of Decision includes the deletion of the 1989 

Siskiyou National Forest Off-road Vehicle Management Plan, Appendix E, and the 1990 Rogue 

River National Forest Off-road Vehicle Management Plan, Appendix C.

ROUTE-SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS

This section documents the specific management direction in the form of Standards and Guidelines that 

will be changed under the 2014 ROD as applicable.

It is presented in a table format, referencing the section of the respective Forest Plans that would be 

changed. “Current Wording” describes the Forest Plan text as it currently states and includes a page 

reference from the respective Forest Plan. “Proposed Replacement Wording” is for changes implemented 

under the ROD.
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 4 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Rogue River LRMP Specific Plan Amendments for portions of the 

Boundary Trail and associated connector trails:

BACKCOUNTRY NON-MOTORIZED - MS-3

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Current Wording Proposed Replacement Wording

RECREATION

#3. Motorized and mechanized vehicle use is 

generally prohibited in this management area 

except for approved mining operations. Seasonal 

motorized use (i.e., snowmobiling) may be 

permitted in certain portions of this management 

area.

Page 4-43

RECREATION

#3. Motorized and mechanized vehicle use is 

generally prohibited in this management area 

except for approved mining operations. Based on 

historical and ongoing use, portions of the 

Boundary Trail (#1207), O’Brien Trail (#900), and 

Sturgis Fork Trail (#903) (Siskiyou Mountains 

Ranger District) are specifically designated for OHV 

Class III motorized use. Seasonal motorized use 

(i.e., snowmobiling) may be permitted in certain 

portions of this management area.

BOTANICAL AREA - MS-12

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Current Wording Proposed Replacement Wording

RECREATION

#6. Motorized vehicles will be allowed only on 

roads except in emergency situations. The 

exception is that snowmobile use may be allowed 

when snow depth is sufficient.

Page 4-149

RECREATION

#6. Motorized vehicles will be allowed only on 

roads except in emergency situations. Based on 

historical and ongoing use, portions of the 

Boundary Trail (#1207), O’Brien Trail (#900), 

Sturgis Fork Trail (#903), and Cook and Green Trail 

(#959) - Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District) are 

specifically designated for OHV Class III motorized 

use. Snowmobile use may be allowed when snow 

depth is sufficient.
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 5 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Siskiyou LRMP Specific Plan Amendment for portions of the Lower 

Illinois and Silver Peak Hobson Horn Trails.

BACKCOUNTRY RECREATION - MA-6

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Current Wording Proposed Replacement Wording

RECREATION

MA6-1 (paragraph 2)

In areas designated “Non-motorized Backcountry,” 

the use of motorized equipment is prohibited 

except by:

1. Authorized Forest Service personnel, or their 

agents, in the performance of approved 

administrative or management duties, and

2. Mining operators, or their agents, within the 

provision of approved operating plans.

Page IV-98

RECREATION

MA6-1 (paragraph 2)

In areas designated “Non-motorized Backcountry,” 

the use of motorized equipment is prohibited 

except:

1. By authorized Forest Service personnel, or their 

agents, in the performance of approved 

administrative or management duties;

2. By mining operators, or their agents, within the 

provision of approved operating plans; and

3. Based on historical and ongoing use, portions of 

the Lower Illinois #1161 and Silver Peak Hobson 

Horn # 1166 trails are authorized for motorized 

use.5

 5 These trails were specifically authorized within the Wild River Area of the Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, 

October 31, 1985. As stated in the 1989 SNF LRMP IV-77, objectives for Wild River are defined in the individual river 

management plans and are not affected by the Forest Plan. Motorized use of portions of the trails within the Non-motorized 

portions of Backcountry Recreation is authorized to make use of these trails consistent with management direction and 

Standards and Guidelines.
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 6 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Map A-1. Boundary and Associated Trails and Land Allocations

Note: The area that is the subject of this plan amendment is a recommended Research Natural Area (RNA). 

Formal designation as an RNA must be approved by the Chief of the Forest Service following preparation of 

an Establishment Record. Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, page IV-81)
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 7 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Map A-2. Lawson, Game Lake, Lower Illinois, Silver Peak Hobson Horn Trails, and Unnamed Connector 

Trails and Land Allocations
2015 ROD Attachment A Page A - 8 Forest Plan Amendments

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This page intentionally left blank
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 1 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE ON THE 

ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

RECORD OF DECISION

ATTACHMENT B - Required Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures are a required component of the 2014 Record of Decision and are identified 

and detailed within this attachment, and will be enacted for activities associated with Motorized 

Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures 

that could improve the project. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) 

includes:

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

• Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during 

the life of the action.

• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment.

Mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects (or 

implement positive impacts) for the Decision are identified by resource topic area. 

Mitigation measures identified herein are specific to the implementation of actions under this Decision. 

Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Rogue River NF and the Siskiyou NF 

Land and Resource Management Plans, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, are also incorporated 

by reference as required measures.

The effectiveness and feasibility of the mitigation measures are assessed based upon the following rating 

systems identified in Table B-1. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures, except the Standard 

Operating Procedures identified in the next section. Each measure identifies the code for effectiveness 

and feasibility at the end of the statement or paragraph. Ratings were determined by professional 

resource specialists based on current scientific research and/or professional experience or judgment.
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 2 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Table B-1. Effectiveness and Feasibility of Mitigation Measures

EFFECTIVENESS (E)

E1 Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75%; little or no experience in applying this 

measure.

E2 Practice is moderately effective (75 to 90%). Often done in this situation; usually reduces impacts; logic indicates 

practice is highly effective but there is minimal literature or research.

E3 Practice is highly effective (greater than 90%). Almost always reduces impacts, almost always done in this situation; 

literature and research can be applied.

FEASIBILITY (F)

F1 Unknown or experimental; little or no experience in applying this measure; less than 75% certainty for implementation. 

May be technically difficult or very costly. May be legally or socially difficult.

F2 Technically probable; greater than 75% certainty for implementation as planned; costs moderate to high in comparison 

to other options. Legally or socially acceptable with reservations.

F3 Almost certain to be implemented as planned; technically easy; costs low in comparison to other options. Legally or 

socially expected.

1. Public Safety

o Roads and trails must meet minimum road or trail standards as defined by the Forest Service 

Handbook FSH section 7700 for roads, or the Forest Service Standard Specifications for 

Constructions of Trails (EM-7720-102). (E3, F3)

o A sign plan will be implemented to adequately sign trail and road intersections and mixed use roads. 

(E3, F3)

o For all roads where a mixed-use analysis determines that safety risks are high, mitigation measures 

that will reduce these risks to moderate or lower will be implemented before the road is open for 

mixed-use traffic. Some of the mitigation measures for a particular road recommended in the “Mixed 

Use Analysis Reports” may include:

• Closing the road to mixed-use during commercial haul, road maintenance, and other activities that 

will significantly increase traffic volumes or involve heavy construction equipment. (E3, F3)

• On the High Cascades District signing on roads that are part of the Prospect OHV trail system 

would include notification of this activity and would include a recommended 20 mph speed limit 

sign. (E3, F3)

• Installation of “Open Range” signage. (E3, F3)

o Installation of signing to warn highway traffic about the presence of non-highway-legal vehicles, 

using a standard warning sign, (in a diamond shape, with reflective yellow background and black 

graphics and letters) with an all-terrain vehicle graphic (RL-170) and a yellow supplemental placard 

with the wording “SHARE THE ROAD” (W16-1) may be used. An additional placard with the 

wording “NEXT XX MILES” (W16-3a) or “BEYOND THIS POINT” (W16-3) may also be added. 

A rectangular yellow sign with black graphics and lettering showing a passenger car graphic and an 

appropriate non-highway-legal vehicle graphic and the wording “SHARE THE ROAD” (FW8-7) may 

also be used. See EM-7100-15. (E3, F3)
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 3 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

2. Hydrology and Riparian Reserves

o Incorporate all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs, USDA Forest Service, 1988 and 

20126) as identified in FSEIS Appendix D to ensure water quality protection from routine activities 

related to National Forest System Roads and Trails. (E3,F3)

o Design new trails to avoid springs, seeps, and wetlands. (E3, F3)

o Design new trails to avoid stream channel crossings where possible. If stream channel crossings are 

necessary to maintain the connectivity of the trail network, design trails to cross the stream channels 

perpendicular to the drainage to minimize the potential for sediment delivery. (E3, F2)

3. Erosion and Sedimentation

o Stream crossing construction or reconstruction will not occur during the wet season (October 15 to 

June 15) when the potential for soil erosion and water quality degradation exists. This restriction 

could be waived by the Responsible Official under dry conditions and with a specific erosion control 

plan (e.g., rocking, waterbarring, seeding, mulching, barricading). (E3, F3)

o Minimize vegetation clearing to the maximum extent possible to maintain stream bank stability, while 

maintaining the safety of riders. (E3, F3)

4. Fish and Aquatic Species

o For any trail construction/reconstruction all State and Federal requirements for maintaining water 

quality will be met. Work requirements include the following: (E3, F3)

• Mechanized equipment will be inspected and cleaned before moving onto the project site in order to 

remove oil and grease, noxious weeds and excessive soil.

• Hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy mechanized equipment must be in proper working 

condition in order to avoid leakage into streams.

• Waste diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid and other hazardous materials and contaminated soil will be 

removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with DEQ regulations. Areas that have been 

saturated with toxic materials will be excavated to a depth of 12 inches beyond the contaminated 

material or as required by DEQ.

• Equipment refueling will be conducted within a confined area outside Riparian Reserves. 

• Use spill containment booms or other equipment as required by DEQ.

• Equipment containing toxic fluids will not be stored in or near (within 300 ft.) of a stream 

channel.

 6 Reference is now made to new National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality Management (April 2012). The 

purpose of the National BMP Program is to provide a standard set of core BMPs and a consistent means to track and document 

the use and effectiveness for BMPs on NFS lands. These are now used in concert with the General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. 
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 4 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

5. Terrestrial Wildlife

a. Spotted Owl Restrictions

o Work activities that produce loud noises above ambient levels will not occur within specified 

distances of any documented or generated owl site (Table B-2) during the critical early nesting 

period, March 1 and June 30, or until two weeks after the fledging period. This seasonal restriction 

may be waived if protocol surveys have determined the activity center is not occupied, owls are nonnesting, or owls failed in their nesting attempt. (E3, F3)

o The distances listed below may be shortened (with USFWS Level 1 Team concurrence) if substantial 

topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) would muffle sound between the work 

location and nest sites. (E3, F3)

o The District Ranger or Forest Biologist has the option to extend the restricted season until September 

30 during activities, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or 2nd nesting attempt). Design 

measures can be waived if site-specific biological evaluation by the biologist indicates seasonal 

protection is unwarranted. (E3, F3)

o Delay any project activities located within the nest patch until September 30 unless the biologist 

determines young are not present, or until two weeks after the fledging period. (E3, F3)

Table B-2. Spotted Owl Restriction Distances

Activity Zone of Restricted Activity

Heavy Equipment (including non-blasting quarry operations) 105 feet (35 yards)

Chain saws 195 feet (60 yards)

Motorized vehicle use 195 feet (60 yards)

Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 195 feet (60 yards)

Small helicopter or plane 360 feet (120 yards)

Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 miles*

Blasting; 2 pounds of explosive or less 360 feet (120 yards)

Blasting; more than 2 pounds of explosives 1 mile

 * If less than 1,500 feet above ground level.

Above-ambient noises further than these Table B-2 distances from spotted owls are expected to have 

either negligible effects or no effect to spotted owls. The types of reactions spotted owls could have to 

noise that are considered to have a negligible impact includes flapping of wings, turning the head towards 

the noise, hiding, assuming a defensive stance, etc. (USFWS 2003).
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 5 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

b. Marbled Murrelet Restrictions

Table B-3. Murrelet Restriction Distances

Activity Zone of Restricted Activity

Heavy Equipment (including non-blasting quarry operations) 300 feet (100 yards)

Chain saws 300 feet (100 yards)

Motorized vehicle use 300 feet (100 yards)

Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 300 feet (100 yards)

Small helicopter or plane 360 feet (120 yards)

Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 miles*

Blasting; 2 pounds of explosive or less 360 feet (120 yards)

Blasting; more than 2 pounds of explosives 1 mile

 * If less than 1,500 feet above ground level.

Table B-4. Disturbance Criteria for the Protection of Marbled Murrelet

Disturbance

For Survey Areas A and B work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road and other construction 

activities, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) which produce noises above 

ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (see Table II-11) of any occupied stand or 

unsurveyed suitable habitat between April 1 – August 5. For the period between August 6 – September 

15, work activities will be confined to between 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset.

Disturbance

Blasting (open air/unmuffled) – No blasting activities 1 April through 15 September within 1.0 mile of 

occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This distance may be shortened if significant 

topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest 

sites or less than 2 lbs of explosives are used If so, then use described distance.

Disturbance Recommended Delay project implementation until after September 15 where possible.

Disturbance

Recommended Between 1 April and 15 September, concentrate disturbance activities spatially and 

temporally as much as possible (e.g., get in and get out, in as small an area as possible; avoid spreading the 

impacts over time and space).

6. Invasive Non-native Species

a. Invasive Plants

In managing its transportation system, the Forest will adhere to Standards 1 through 23 incorporated into 

our Forest's Land and Resource Management Plans by the October 2005 Regional Forester's Record of 

Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. (E3, F3)

o The Forest will follow the "required" practices outlined in Best Management Practices For Noxious 

Weed Prevention and Management, Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease Prevention and Management, 

Sudden Oak Death Prevention and Management--Interim Direction for the ROR/SIS National 

Forests--February 15, 2002. (E3, F3)

o Include approved FS noxious weed clauses in any contracts and/or special use permits issued by the 

Forest that implement provisions of the Travel Management Plan. (E3, F2)

o Develop site-specific prevention measures if noxious weed occurrences are discovered prior to, or 

during implementation of the Travel Management Plan, and project activities have potential to 
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 6 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

increase the abundance or extent of noxious weed occurrences, or increase the risk of off-site 

transport of propagules. (E3, F3)

o If conversion of Maintenance Level 1 Roads (e.g., Rd 4402494 Cedar Springs to Biscuit Hill) 

requires actual construction or ground disturbance beyond the first 100 meters, conduct a noxious 

weed survey concurrent with the botanical field reconnaissance already specified in a botanical 

mitigation measure. If noxious weeds are present, re-route or re-design trail, and/or treat weeds 

before ground-disturbing activities occur and develop site-specific mitigation to minimize or avoid 

spreading noxious weed seeds beyond their current extent in the soil seedbank. (E3, F2)

o New trail routes proposed (i.e., the 0.5 mile of new motorized connector trail to Woodruff meadow on 

Gold Beach Ranger District, located in T36S, R13W, section 9 and approximately 1.2 miles of the 

Penn Sled Trail on Siskiyou Mountains RD): Conduct a noxious weed survey concurrent with the 

botanical field reconnaissance specified for this location in a botanical mitigation measure (see 

subsection 7, below). If noxious weeds are present, re-route or re-design trail, and/or treat weeds 

before ground-disturbing activities occur and develop site-specific mitigation to minimize or avoid 

spreading noxious weed seeds beyond their current extent in the soil seedbank. (E3, F2)

b. Invasive Pathogens

o Comply with Federal and State regulations regarding P. ramorum, the pathogen that causes Sudden 

Oak Death (SOD). Soil from infested sites shall not be transported outside the currently designated 

quarantine area7 unless subjected to approved and officially verified sterilization treatment. 

Movement of restricted or regulated plant materials to locations outside the quarantine area shall 

comply with current regulations. (E3, F2)

o Public Information: Increase public awareness of Port-Orford-cedar (POC) root disease (caused by 

Phytophthora lateralis) and the need to control it by using informational signs on or at trailheads, 

gates, and other closures, and holding coordination meetings with adjacent industrial and small 

woodland landowners. (E3, F2)

o Road Management Measures: Implement proactive disease-prevention measures: road design features 

include pavement over other surfacing, surfacing over no surfacing, removal of low water crossings, 

drainage structures to divert water to areas unfavorable to the pathogen, and waste disposal. (E3, F2)

o Wash boots, tools, vehicles, and equipment prior to entering in un-infested project areas, when 

leaving infested areas to enter in un-infested areas, and when leaving project areas to minimize the 

transportation of infested soil to un-infested areas. (E3, F2)

o Project areas should be compartmentalized by road system in areas with mixed ownership (Federal 

and private). A road system with infested areas and non-infested areas will be considered infested. 

Washing areas should be placed at optimum locations for minimizing spread, such as at entry/exit 

points of the road system with Federal control. Washing should take place as close as possible to 

infested sites. Wash water will be from un-infested water sources or treated with Clorox® bleach. 

Wash water should not drain into watercourses or into areas with uninfected POC. (E3, F3)

 7 A map of the latest SOD Quarantine Area (as of December 2013) is contained in Chapter III, Section E, 8 of the FSEIS.
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 7 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Note: Roadside sanitation is not included as a mitigation measure because vegetation altering practices 

may require reinitiation of formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the 

programmatic consultation completed on February 17, 2004, to implement the Record of Decision for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest 2004. The 

management practices listed above are within the reasonable range of cost-effective mitigation measures 

available to reduce Phytophthora lateralis spread.

7. Protection of Special Status Plant Species

o If conversion of Maintenance Level 1 Road 4402494 (Cedar Springs to Biscuit Hill) requires 

construction or ground disturbance beyond the first 100 meters, conduct botanical field 

reconnaissance in the spring or early summer for Arabis macdonaldiana, FS Sensitive plants, and 

Survey and Manage (S&M) Category A and C species along the proposed route before project is 

implemented. If Arabis macdonaldiana is found, re-route or re-design to avoid individuals. If FS 

Sensitive plants or S&M species are found, re-route or re-design if needed to maintain viability of 

local population, but no need to avoid every individual. (E3,F3)

o New authorized trail routes (i.e., the 0.5 mile of new motorized connector trail to Woodruff meadow 

on Gold Beach Ranger District, located in T36S, R13W, sec 9 and approximately 1.2 miles of the 

Penn Sled Trail on Siskiyou Mountains RD): Conduct botanical field reconnaissance during 

appropriate season to determine if the FS vascular plant Trillium angustifolium, other FS sensitive 

species, or Survey and Manage Category A and C species are in this immediate vicinity. Complete 

the survey before construction begins, with re-routing or re-design if needed to maintain the viability 

of local population of the Trillium, other FS sensitive species, or S&M species found. (E3,F3)

8. Soils - Site Productivity

o New trail routes will require a field soil review during layout and design to verify soils and to re-route 

or re-design trail to avoid excessive soil impacts if needed. (E3, F3)

o Seasonal closures of motorized trails and roads will be enacted where driving during wet weather 

would cause or is causing excessive damage and erosion of road surfaces. (E3, F3)

9. Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Measures can be taken to reduce exposure to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). In general, the longer 

a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a 

health problem.

In particular, measures to reduce exposure require user education and users practicing these measures. 

However, the Forest Service cannot regulate but only recommend use of these strategies. As part of the 

overall educational effort, the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF will provide an NOA informational web page 

and NOA visitor pamphlet/brochure available at ranger stations. Specifically, National Forest visitors 

wishing to reduce their potential exposure to NOA should consult the NOA map provided on the web 

page or at ranger stations identifying known areas of ultramafic and serpentine rock more likely to contain 

NOA.

The Forest will use this web page to provide general public information concerning NOA, associated 

health risks, additional web links for related information, and strategies to reduce exposure. Any new 

information on risks to human health will be incorporated into the educational materials. 

 
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 8 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Current strategies to reduce risk of exposure include the following, and have been developed based on 

guidance from various federal and state agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(2008) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (2005):

(E3, F3)

• Be aware of windy conditions and avoid dusty conditions to reduce exposure.

• Limit dust generating activities, such as riding off road vehicles, riding bicycles, running or 

hiking, riding horses or moving livestock, etc.

• Avoid handling or disturbing loose asbestos-containing rock types.

• Drive slowly over unpaved roads, with windows and vents closed, to minimize dust generation 

(California Air Resources Board recommends that vehicle speeds not exceed 15 miles per hour on 

unpaved roads where asbestos is present).

• Avoid or minimize the tracking of dust into vehicles.

• Do not use compressed air for cleaning your vehicles after your visit. Use a wet rag to clean the 

interior.

• When there are proposed changes to routes that would increase disturbance on areas overlying 

potential NOA geology and soils, such as creation of new trails or changing administratively 

closed roads to motorized trails, then site-specific analysis would include testing the ground 

surface material will be done to determine if the ground surface poses a health risk due to 

presence of asbestiform fibers. This testing will be completed prior to the change being 

implemented and reflected on the MVUM. Results of testing would be incorporated into NOA 

forest information available to the public. This applies to the ML1 road to motorized trail 

conversion of Road 2509640 on the Wild Rivers Ranger District proposed with this decision, as 

well as any future proposals.

 

10. Parking

Parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road, when it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS 

resources or facilities, is allowed under all of the Action Alternatives, unless prohibited by State law, a 

traffic sign, or an order (36 CFR 261.54). NFS roads include all trailheads, parking lots, terminal 

facilities8, and turnouts associated with NFS roads.

The “side of the road” is defined as that area within one vehicle length, not to exceed 20 feet, from the 

edge of the road surface. Parking on the side of the road may not damage the land, vegetation, or streams 

and no vegetation (live or dead) may be cut.

11. Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

It is well recognized that National Forests have historically provided camping opportunities outside of 

developed campgrounds. This type of dispersed motorized use has historically occurred adjacent to open 

roads, adjacent to bodies of water, and at the termini of roads and trails. Under all Action Alternatives, 

motor vehicle travel would not be allowed off of any designated motor vehicle route, except to access an 

existing9 dispersed campsite not to exceed 300 feet10 from centerline either side of the designated route.

 8 Terminal facilities are defined as a transfer point between the Forest transportation system and forest resources served by the 

system, or between different transportation modes, including parking facilities, boat ramps, trailheads, log landings, and airfields.

9 An “existing dispersed campsite” is an area obviously used by campers that usually contains a primitive fire ring and minimal 

ground vegetation as the result of motor or foot traffic.

10 Region 6 Guidelines to implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212 subpart B (2005)) limited dispersed camping 

sites to not more than 300 feet either side of a designated route. (September 6, 2006; Revised April 20, 2009)
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 9 Required Mitigation Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Use of established motorized routes to existing dispersed campsites would be required. Additional sitespecific closures and seasonal restrictions (such as emergency fire closures or where unexpected resource 

damage is occurring) may be implemented on a case-by-case basis for management, wildlife, and 

resource protection through authorized forest orders.

Each Action Alternative provides identification of roads that would allow motorized access off of the 

road surface for the purpose of dispersed camping. The following aspects are common to all Action 

Alternatives.

a. Activities Generally Prohibited

• Dispersed motorized camping within Botanical Areas, Research Natural Areas, and all Municipal 

Watersheds.

• Areas currently closed by a Forest Order (for example, Big Butte Springs Watershed, Ashland 

Watershed, etc.).

• Dispersed camping or parking within 1⁄4 mile (1,320 feet) of any potable water source or 

developed campgrounds.

• The use of a motorized vehicle that causes disturbance to live or dead vegetation or previously 

undisturbed soils resulting in resource damage while accessing a dispersed campsite.

• Establishment of new motorized routes to access dispersed campsites.

• Crossing of any streams, wetlands, or water bodies unless on a designated route.

• Motorized vehicles accessing dispersed sites within 30 feet of any streams, wetlands, or water 

bodies.

• Off-road motorized travel for game retrieval.

b. Activities Generally Allowed

• Access to designated gravel bars located along the lower Rogue, Illinois, Chetco, and Elk Rivers.

• The Rogue River gravel bars include: Smith Orchard, Foster, Miller/Dunkelberger, Quosatana, 

Lobster Creek, and Hawkins located on the Gold Beach Ranger District.

• The one Illinois River gravel bar is located in the vicinity of Oak Flat Campground located on the 

Gold Beach Ranger District.

• The Chetco River gravel bars include: Miller, Nook, Redwood, and South Fork (upper and 

lower). All of these gravel bars are located on the Gold Beach Ranger District.

• The Elk River gravel bars are unnamed and include five bars located between the river and Road 

5325 on the Powers Ranger District.

 
2014 ROD Attachment B Page B - 10 Required Mitigation 

Measures

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This page intentionally left blank
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 1 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE ON THE 

ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

RECORD OF DECISION

ATTACHMENT C - Monitoring Plan

INTRODUCTION

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest completed motorized vehicle use travel management planning 

in 2014. The Record of Decision (ROD) committed to development of a monitoring plan. Version 1.1 

of this monitoring plan is intended to be used Forest-wide, and to fulfill the commitment made under the 

ROD. 

Monitoring Framework

Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine 

whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoring collects information, on a 

sample basis, from sources specified in the Forest Plan. 

When designing and conducting monitoring, a full spectrum of techniques and methods should be used to 

evaluate the results obtained from monitoring. Evaluation techniques include, but are not limited to: 

o Site-specific observations by on-site resource specialists.

o Field assistance trips by other technical specialists.

o On-going accomplishment reporting processes.

o Formal management reviews on a scheduled basis. 

o Discussions with other agencies and various public users.

o Interdisciplinary team reviews of monitoring results.

o Involvement with existing research activities. 

o Review and analysis of records documenting monitoring results. 

Authorized use of designated roads and trails will continue to be monitored. Current monitoring includes 

surveys of road and trail conditions by road engineers and recreation specialists on a regular basis. 

Ongoing monitoring would identify any roads or trails presenting a potential sediment source. Mitigation 

of impacts due to road alignment, slope instability, or poor drainage would occur through the Forest’s 

standard road maintenance schedule. Monitoring includes an evaluation of consistency with the Rogue 

River and Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, compliance with travel 

management decisions, and Required Mitigation Measures.

Authorized actions will be monitored during and following implementation to ensure authorized actions 

and Required Mitigation Measures are implemented as specified under the decision. This aspect of 

monitoring is referred to as implementation monitoring. The progress and findings of implementation 

monitoring will be documented as it occurs. Monitoring will be required on a sampling of authorized 

actions for certain elements to evaluate the effectiveness in achieving the specifically desired outcomes

and conditions. 
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 2 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Objective

The objective of this monitoring plan is to provide decision-makers with the information necessary to 

determine if there is a need to change motorized travel management in the future, consistent with Forest 

Plans and Forest Service Manual and Handbook guidance (see last page). Changes to the system of

designated motorized routes may include adding or removing authorized designations, or changing 

designated vehicle classes or seasons of use. Revisions to designations are governed by 36 CFR 212.54. 

In most cases, these changes (including connected actions and cumulative effects) can be addressed on a 

site-specific basis and may not trigger reconsideration of decisions governing the entire system of 

designated roads and motorized trails on an administrative unit or a ranger district.

Scope

The 2005 Travel Management Rule states that “the responsible official shall monitor the effects of motor 

vehicle use. . . .consistent with the applicable land management plan” (36 CFR 212.57). Two separate 

Forest Plans guide the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Land management direction is contained in 

the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for the Rogue River National Forest (1990) and the 

Siskiyou National Forest (1989). Forest Plan guidance related to monitoring motorized travel 

management is displayed in Table C-1 and C-2.

Table C-1. Forest Plan Monitoring Guidance from 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan

Resource 

Area/Source

Action or Effect 

Monitored

Unit of 

Measure

Threshold of Concern

Recreation

RRNF LRMP Chapter 5 

Implementation

Table 5-2, page 5-8

Off-Road Vehicle 

Use

Acres Damage outside of 

established standards. 

Conflicts with other 

established uses.

Table C-2. Forest Plan Monitoring Guidance from 1989 Siskiyou Forest Plan

Resource Element/Source Issue Monitoring Question Threshold of Concern

Recreation (Undeveloped)

SNF LRMP Appendix D

Monitoring and Evaluation 

(Plan) Page D-7

Effect of management 

direction on recreation 

opportunities in 

Backcountry Recreation

Is resource degradation 

occurring as the result of 

sanctioned off-road vehicle 

(ORV) use?

Visible degradation to soil, water, 

or vegetation resources on trails 

or in other areas open for ORV 

use.

The guidance in this monitoring plan is tiered to and incorporates the applicable Forest Plan monitoring 

requirements. This guidance is considered the minimum monitoring necessary for compliance with the 

Forest Plans. The monitoring elements and corresponding information contained herein incorporate the 

Forest Plan monitoring elements and provide important additional monitoring, as specified below.

State agencies and adjacent federal lands responsible for managing adjacent Oregon and California OHV 

programs or other lands with motorized use are important partners in monitoring efforts. These agencies 

have similar goals, objectives and messages making it vital to work closely with these colleagues as the 

Forest implements changes in management of motorized vehicle use.
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 3 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Implementation monitoring asks the question, did we implement the project as outlined in the Record of 

Decision, including consistency with land allocations guiding the implementation of authorized motorized 

vehicle use and Required Mitigation Measures?

The monitoring elements in this plan are intended to be consistent with the Forest Plan, the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule, and the applicable elements of the Purpose and Need identified previously for travel 

planning on the Forest (i.e., implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, eliminate general 

cross-country travel, improve public safety, preserve a diversity of unique motorized recreation 

opportunities, and establish provisions to allow motorized access for dispersed camping.

Monitoring may also help to identify potential effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: 

(1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) harassment of wildlife and 

significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or 

proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4) conflicts 

among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal 

lands (36 CFR 212.55).

Methodology

Monitoring of soils, aquatics and hydrology resources will occur on routes authorized under this decision. 

In areas that have the greatest potential for impacts to aquatic species, monitoring of fine-grained 

sediments would be implemented using Stream Condition Inventory protocols. Sites monitored may vary 

from year to year.

Condition Surveys are performed on all Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads every 5 years, with 

approximately 20 percent completed each year. Condition Surveys are performed on Maintenance Level 

1 & 2 roads based on a random sample generated by the Washington Office. It is a relatively small 

sample. In addition to the formal condition surveys, road conditions are continually monitored as they are 

driven for other purposes. As problems are identified, they are addressed as resources allow. There will 

be no additional monitoring resulting from travel management; however, changes to the current baseline 

conditions will be monitored based on the guidelines listed above.

Field Patrol Monitoring

Field patrols should document (text, GPS location, and photos) the following information: 

• Missing or damaged route markers — report and/or replace immediately.

• Routinely used dispersed vehicle camping sites, size and extent of bare soil areas created by 

motorized vehicle access to dispersed camping, development and location of access routes for 

dispersed vehicle camping sites, sites or access routes that arc more than 300 feet from a 

designated route, and resource impacts expected to last longer than one season of use (for 

example, tree damage, rutting, or noxious weed establishment).

• Any observed or reported conflicts between uses, including conflicts between types of motorized 

uses (i.e., licensed and unlicensed vehicles, ATVs and full-size trucks, etc.) and conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized uses.

• Any (cross-country tracks, etc.) motorized use that does not comply with MVUM.

• The location arid nature of any non-routine route maintenance needs, with particular attention on 

those that may contribute to adverse resource impacts. Examples may include route-generated 

erosion that appears to be contributing to stream sediment, conditions that cause drivers to go off 

the route and drive through a population of weeds, or culverts that are plugged and threaten to 

damage routes.
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 4 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Third-Party Monitoring

The Forest hopes to utilize the public or organizations (i.e., third-parties) to assist with monitoring efforts. 

Third-party monitoring should record monitoring results with text, photos, and GPS location whenever 

possible.

Those tasks most suitable for third-party monitoring may include:

• Evaluating dispersed vehicle camping and the extent of any impacts associated with this activity.

• Identification of sites with motorized use that does not comply with the MVUM and monitoring 

recurrence of this use.

• The location and nature of any non-routine route maintenance needs, with particular attention on 

those that may contribute to natural or cultural resource impacts. Examples may include routegenerated erosion that appears to be contributing to stream sediment, conditions that cause drivers 

to go off the route and drive through a population of weeds, or culverts that are plugged and 

threaten to washout routes.

• Documenting season of use effectiveness, as well as potential alternative season of use dates.

• Documentation of invasive weed or invasive pathogen establishment or spread.

Implementation Monitoring Questions

MVUM Availability

The Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) is the tool used to enforce travel management decisions; web 

and hardcopy access to MVUM is required in the 2005 Travel Management Rule and is critical to 

implementation.

Has the MVUM been produced according to agency policy?

Does the public have appropriate access to the MVUM?

Motorized Use Compliance

This is, in large part, the elements identified in the Forest Plans. The elements have been expanded, but 

still address the Forest Plan’s travel management monitoring requirements.

Is motorized vehicle use consistent with MVUM?

What is the level of unauthorized motorized vehicle use?

Is there off-road vehicle use with damage occurring? 

What updates need to be made to the MVUM to correct errors? 

What updates need to be made to the MVUM to reflect changing conditions?

What is the level of compliance, as measured by the number of citations for violations?
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 5 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Effectiveness monitoring will determine if project decisions were effective in achieving the stated goals 

and objectives based on comparison of pre (baseline) and post project conditions. Effectiveness 

monitoring asks, “Were the result of the project as we had planned?”

Effectiveness monitoring is closely tied to baseline monitoring. Baseline data will be collected prior to 

project implementation to characterize the existing conditions (baseline monitoring) specifically for 

comparison to post project conditions and will provide a basis for effectiveness monitoring.

Safety

Identification of motorized routes would not change the Forest’s public safety priority. Three factors 

influence the safety of the road and trail system: 1) the condition of the facilities, 2) the mixture of uses 

on a particular facility (mixed use), and 3) user behavior. Safety is enhanced if Forest roads and trails are 

routinely maintained and unexpected damage or unsafe conditions are identified and corrected. It is 

expected that the Forest will continue to fund and maintain the transportation system in order to correct 

safety issues in a reasonable amount of time.

The travel management decision will implement Forest Service Regional policy which is designed to 

improve public safety. It is expected that the Forest will continue to maintain a program of inspecting the 

transportation system on a regular basis and identifying safety issues needing correction. Mitigation 

planned for those “high risk” roads in conjunction with prohibiting mixed use on roads where mitigation 

would not be effective, also increase public safety.

Is mixed motorized use on routes designated with this use safe and/or appropriate?

Are mixed motorized use routes being maintained to ensure public safety?

Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Consistent with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, the decision provides identification of roads 

that would allow motorized access off of the road surface for the purpose of dispersed camping. These 

provisions are detailed in FSEIS Chapter II, section F, 3; and in the 2014 ROD. Activities that are

generally prohibited and activities that are generally allowed are detailed. 

The decision has incorporated additional provisions for motorized access to dispersed camping within 

Riparian Reserve areas, to ensure attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. This includes 

an additional prohibition to require a 30-foot setback for motorized vehicles engaged in dispersed 

camping at any existing site near a stream course, wetland, or water body (FSEIS Chapter II, section F, 3; 

and in the 2014 ROD). The following evaluation monitoring questions related to motorized access for 

dispersed camping:

Are provisions to allow motorized access for dispersed camping appropriate and effective?

Is resource damage occurring in Riparian Reserves due to motorized access for dispersed camping?
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 6 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Enforcement 

The enforcement strategy (part of the “three E strategy) will implement crime prevention measures that 

are designed to reduce specific criminal activity, deter potential and repeat offenders, maximize 

enforcement actions and visibility, and increase prosecutorial successes. All enforcement actions should 

result in a better understanding of regulations pertaining to the management of NFS lands. Forest Service 

Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel will work to identify and implement some or all of 

the following specific tactics:

• Schedule officers to work during the identified problem periods, including holidays and weekends.

• Utilize high profile “saturation patrols” and stationary surveillance posts in identified problem areas.

• Utilize the most effective and efficient means of patrol, including foot, horseback, all-terrain vehicle, 

watercraft, and aircraft.

• Enlist the aid of volunteers.

• Initiate an awards program.

• Supplement patrols with cooperating law enforcement agencies in areas of concern.

• Use technical investigative equipment (cameras, monitors, sensors) to assist officers with detecting and 

monitoring violations at known or suspected violation sites.

• Conduct planned and approved compliance checkpoints.

• Follow-up on complaints to document violations, damages, and identify suspect vehicles or persons.

• Require cooperating law enforcement agencies to assist with reporting and/or enforcing violations 

within their authority.

• Patrol with other cooperating law enforcement agency officers.

• Conduct unpredictable patrol schedules.

• Conduct special enforcement actions (unmarked vehicle deployment, surveillance, traffic check-points).

• Utilize the Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System 

(LEIMARS) and State motor vehicle data, to identify repeat offenders for enhanced prosecution.

• Pursue court-ordered restitution or civil collections for resource and property damages.

Measuring the success of the Travel Management Rule from a law enforcement perspective would be 

done using the LEIMARS database. An analysis of the data may alert a Forest to a particular problem 

area for violations, such as a group campsite area that may be surrounded by flat meadow areas inviting 

riders to potentially violate the regulation. A successful program would see a positive change regarding 

the following evaluation monitoring questions:

Is there a reduction in the number of off-route travel violations?

Is there a reduction in the number of resource damage violations?

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Measures can be taken to reduce exposure to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). In general, the longer 

a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a 

health problem. In particular, measures to reduce exposure require user education and users practicing 

these measures. However, the Forest Service cannot regulate but only recommend use of these strategies. 

Mitigation measures are designed to increase user awareness, education, and information of NOA on the 

forest and steps users can take to reduce their exposure. These Mitigation Measures are detailed in ROD 

Attachment B (section 9), and in the FSEIS, Chapter II, section K, 9. Effectiveness monitoring would be 

conducted whenever changes to the MVUM are proposed that have the potential to increase the exposure 

of users to naturally occurring asbestos. Following are evaluation monitoring questions for NOA:
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 7 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

Do proposed changes to the MVUM have the potential to increase the exposure of forest users to 

naturally occurring asbestos?

When changes to the MVUM are implemented that have the potential to increase the exposure of users 

to naturally occurring asbestos, have mitigation measures to inform and educate users of this change 

been effectively implemented?

Approach

Whenever a newly designated route or change in motorized vehicle class use is proposed for inclusion on 

a revised MVUM, that would have the potential to increase the exposure of users to naturally occurring 

asbestos (NOA), baseline monitoring data would be collected on the route using appropriate NOA soil 

sampling protocols. Samples would be lab tested to determine an estimate of presence of NOA on the 

route. Sampling and testing would be planned and implemented in cooperation between the Soil 

Scientist, Engineering, Geology, and Recreation staff. Baseline data would be used to inform the 

decision-making process for changes to the MVUM where potential to increase exposure of users to NOA 

exist. (For example, creating a new route, or changing a non-motorized route to a motorized route, 

through potential NOA geology and soils). 

When changes to the MVUM are implemented that have the potential to increase the exposure of users to 

naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), effectiveness monitoring would be done to determine if mitigation 

measures to inform and educate users are adequately being implemented. This would include a review of 

maps, brochures, and other public information, to make sure they are up-to-date with the new 

information, and are readily available to forest users. Effectiveness monitoring would be conducted in 

cooperation between Engineering and Recreation staff, in consultation with Soils and/or Geology staff.

From FSM 7700

7717.1 — Monitoring of Motor Vehicle Use

1. The responsible official shall monitor the effects of motor vehicle use on an administrative unit on 

a regular basis (36 CFR 212.57).

2. Use applicable criteria established in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to monitor.

3. Evaluate consistency with the applicable land management plan and compliance with travel 

management decisions, including any required mitigation measures.

4. When monitoring of motor vehicle use in an area shows that a system of routes has become wellestablished, consider replacing the area designation with a system of designated routes.
2014 ROD Attachment C Page C - 8 Monitoring Plan

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

This page intentionally left blank
2014 ROD Attachment D Page D - 1 Modified Alternative 5 Map

Motorized Vehicle Use on the RRSNF

ATTACHMENT D - Modified Alternative 5 Map

Please see the separate map included with this Record of Decision document

to view the modifications made to Alternative 5 for this decision