Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 1

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

SUMMARY 

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE 

ON THE ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST 

Douglas, Klamath, Jackson, Curry, Coos, and Josephine Counties in Oregon 

Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties in California 

September 2011 

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

(RRSNF) was dated December, 2009. The Record of Decision (ROD) for 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 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) that will address 

issues raised during the appeal process that require additional analysis or clarification. All major modifications and 

additions for each section will be framed within a box. Other minor corrections, explanations and edits have also been 

made; these minor edits are not identified by inclusion in a box. The major changes are focused on the following areas 

related to motorized vehicle use: 

 clarified Purpose and Need statement; 

 clarified dispersed camping; 

 incorporated general cross-country travel closure into alternative 2; 

 updated mitigation measures; 

 revised analysis for issues related to 

o Water Quality 

o Soils 

o Potential Wilderness and other undeveloped areas 

o Natural Occurring Asbestos 

o Aquatics 

o Botany 

o Wildlife 

o Air Quality 

o Environmental Justice and Civil Rights disclosure 

o invasive pathogen (Phytophthora lateralis); 

 added Wild and Scenic Rivers analysis; and 

 map corrections. 

The purpose of the DSEIS is to clarify issues, expand on analyses, provide additions, changes and corrections that are 

responsive to issues brought forth from an appeal of the FEIS; in addition, issues were identified internally as requiring 

modification. This Summary is intended as a brief overview of the site-specific analysis documented in the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to 

analyze and disclose the environmental effects associated with a Proposed Action and alternatives that would implement 

the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212 Subpart B), to provide a designated and managed system of travel routes 

for wheeled motorized use, enact changes to reduce existing resource damage from wheeled motorized use, and reduce 

social impacts, user conflicts and safety concerns. This Summary does not present the depth of analysis contained within 

the complete text of the DSEIS; please consult the complete text for further detailed information1.

 

 

1 The format for this Summary is adapted from “Eight NEPA Questions” (8 questions any EA or EIS should readily answer), developed by 

Owen L. Schmidt, Attorney formerly with USDA, OGC Portland OR. 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 2

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

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

interest in enjoying outdoor recreation in a natural environment. On November 9, 2005, the Final Rule for Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (hereafter referred to as Travel Management 

Rule) was published in the Federal Register, affecting 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 212, 251, 261, 

and 295. The Rule revises several regulations to require designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use 

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

Highlights of the Travel Management Rule include the following: each National Forest or Ranger District will 

designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motorized vehicles; designation will include class of vehicle and, if 

appropriate, season of use for motor vehicle; once the designation process is complete, the rule will prohibit motor 

vehicle use off the designated system or use that is inconsistent with the designations; and decisions are to be made 

locally, with public input and in coordination with state, local, and tribal governments. The Travel Management Rule 

does not require reconsideration of all previous travel management decisions. Reconsideration of previous decisions 

would unnecessarily waste public resources, disregard public participation in the development of planning decisions 

and expand the scope of the Travel Rule beyond its intended purpose. The Travel Management Rule requires 

designation to be consistent with the applicable land management plans developed pursuant to the National Forest 

Management Act. Therefore, if a proposed designation is not consistent with the land management plan, the 

responsible official must either change the proposed designation or propose an amendment to the land management 

plan(s). Some land management plan amendments are proposed and considered in this analysis. The Travel 

Management Rule provides better opportunities for sustainable motorized recreation and access to the National 

Forest System (NFS); better protection of natural and cultural resources; increases public safety, and reduces use 

conflicts. 

The Proposed Action is being carried forward in accordance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212 

Subpart B). In accordance with the rule and following a decision on this proposal, the Forest would publish a 

Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) identifying all Forest roads, trails and areas that are designated open for motor 

vehicle use by the public across the approximately 1.8 million acres of National Forest System lands in southern 

Oregon. 

The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is authorized. It 

would also identify areas where parking for dispersed camping and day use would be allowed. The MVUM would be 

updated and published annually and/or when changes to the Forest’s transportation system are made. Future 

decisions associated with changes to the MVUM may trigger the need for documentation of additional environmental 

analysis. 

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

groups support this goal. In order to expedite and avoid process gridlock, route and area identification was guided by 

the following considerations: For the RRSNF, this project’s analysis has focused on the change from the current 

situation. A tightly focused process was developed, which includes a site-specific proposal that does not aim to solve 

all travel management issues at once. For example, this process does not analyze all existing system roads to make 

recommendations on road decommissioning. Travel analysis to identify the minimum road system is a separate 

process from this travel analysis for purposes of designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use (FSM 

7712). Neither the regulations under 36 CFR 212.5 or agency directives contain a time frame for determining the 

minimum road system. The agency however, views this as important work that needs to be addressed within the 

next decade. 

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

(EIS). The context and scale for conducting this NEPA analysis includes one Proposed Action at the scale of the 

entire Forest, including Forest-wide and site-specific Forest Plan Amendments. The Forest Supervisor is the Line 

Officer/Responsible Official for the forthcoming decision(s). 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 3

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

WHY IS THE ACTION BEING PROPOSED? 

Former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth prioritized actions to keep America’s forests and grasslands healthy by 

restoring and rehabilitating damaged areas. One of four main ways is to manage impacts of motorized recreation 

vehicles by restricting use to designated roads, trails, or areas. 

The purpose for action is to implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. Motorized use is popular and an 

important form of recreation for many individuals, families, and groups. A designated and managed system is 

required by the Travel Management Rule to provide this use. Increased demand for motorized use, lack of 

designated areas/routes, has led to resource damage and social impacts, user conflicts, and safety concerns. In 

order to meet these objectives the following changes are needed: 

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

routes, and outside existing, previously designated areas where such use is not currently prohibited or otherwise 

restricted by past actions; 

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

to allow for motorized “mixed” use (i.e. analyze those roads which currently allow for motorized “mixed” use 

under State Law)2; 

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

consistent with the Travel Management Rule and to provide consistent direction for conflicting plan allocations 

that will allow historical use of travel routes where appropriate; 

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

motorized recreation opportunities (4X4 vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, passenger vehicles, etc.) because 

implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule will reduce motorized recreation opportunities 

relative to current levels; and 

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

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. 

WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO NOT MEET THE NEED? 

To not meet the need is defined by the No Action Alternative. As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative is 

included and analyzed in this DSEIS as a baseline against which the Action Alternatives can be compared. Under 

this alternative the agency would take no affirmative action (no change from current management or direction). This 

means continued cross-country travel, continued use of unauthorized routes, and no change to the current NFS 

roads, trails and areas. 

The No Action Alternative is not a proposal to add all of the unauthorized routes to the NFS. It is 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 NFS roads, trails and areas). 

It is important to approach the No Action Alternative in this manner because it establishes an important benchmark 

for the assessment of impacts resulting from the existing condition, and largely forms the justification for the need for 

action since unacceptable environmental impacts are likely to continue or get worse. The No Action Alternative 

provides a benchmark for contrasting resource impacts and use conflicts with the Action Alternatives. 

 

 

2 Mixed use allows for both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles.
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 4

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing condition, as updated through December 2010, would continue. These 

existing routes on the Forest would primarily be used for public wheeled motor vehicle use. Cross-country travel and 

route proliferation would still occur in isolated areas on the Forest since it is not currently prohibited. Areas for 

dispersed activities would continue to be used by public wheeled motor vehicles primarily for the purpose of 

dispersed camping and parking. No changes would be made to the current National Forest transportation system 

and no cross-country travel prohibition would be put into place. The following table provides a Forest-wide summary 

of current conditions for roads, trails and areas: 

Table S-1. Alternative 1 (No Action - Current Condition) Summary 

Roads and Trails Current Condition 

Total NFS Roads 5,286 miles 

NFS Roads “open” to the public 4,512 miles 

Open roads that allow mixed use 3,183 miles 

Open roads that prohibit mixed use 1,329 miles 

Total NFS Trails 1,199 miles 

NFS Trails that allow motorized use 246 miles 

Total area open to cross country travel 274,670 acres3

Under this alternative, the Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no MVUM would be produced. 

The No Action Alternative is not designed to meet the Purpose and Need for action. It would not enact site- specific 

Plan Amendments for the Boundary Trail and therefore does not provide consistent direction via the Forest Plans. 

Wheeled motor vehicle travel by the public would not be limited to designated routes. Unauthorized routes would 

continue to have no status or authorization as NFS roads or trails. Existing closures and orders would continue. 

The complete DSEIS document includes a map packet containing four large maps. These maps display current 

conditions and proposed changes by alternative for roads and trails that allow motorized vehicle use on the five 

Ranger Districts on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (Powers, Gold Beach, Wild Rivers, Siskiyou 

Mountains, and High Cascades). 

 

 

3

 Areas open for cross-country travel were identified through GIS mapping of the Siskiyou and Rogue River Land 

and Resource Management Plan allocations, congressionally designated areas, and Forest closure orders.

ADDED: 

An errata sheet will accompany these maps that will identify mapping corrections and updates between publishing 

the FEIS and this DSEIS.

ADDED: 

Due to database errors, GIS coverage errors, and the Applegate McKee Legacy Roads Decision Notice 

implementation, road and trail mileages in the table below have been updated throughout this document 

to reflect the following: 

 Total miles of NFS roads; change from 5,311 miles to 5,286 miles. 

 Total miles of roads open to the public; change from 4,537 miles to 4,512 miles. 

 Open roads that allow mixed use; change from 3,208 miles to 3,183 miles. 

 NFS Trails that allow motorized use; change from 255 miles to 246 miles. 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 5

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

WHAT ACTION IS PROPOSED? 

The Forest Service has a Proposed Action when the agency agrees to move forward with the proposal to authorize, 

recommend, or implement an action (CFR 1508.23). The following is a summary of the Proposed Action. The 

Proposed Action (Alternative 3) is discussed in detail in DSEIS Chapter II. The Proposed Action would function to 

implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212 Subpart B), and provide a designated and managed 

system. 

It would also provide changes to reduce existing resource damage from motorized use, and reduce social impacts, 

user conflicts and safety concerns. Other functions of the Proposed Action are to establish a framework that the 

Forest used to initiate the NEPA process, facilitate meaningful public comment, and serve as a basis for identification 

of the issues. 

The Proposed Action (Alternative 3) is based on the Forest’s Travel Analysis process and focuses on the change 

from the current condition. It aims to strike a balance for various forms of motorized use by identification of 

sustainable motorized use opportunities that reduces resource impacts, and implement the Travel Management Rule. 

Based on the stated Purpose and Need for action and as a result of the recent Travel Analysis process, under the 

Proposed Action (Alternative 3), the Forest proposes to: 

 Enact Forest Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with the Travel Management Rule. Two 

separate Forest Plans guide the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

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

motorized use on the portions of the Boundary Trail and portions of the Game Lake, Lawson Creek, Lower 

Illinois, and Silver Peak Hobson Horn Trails.

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

travel. 

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

defined as designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. 

 Authorize designation of two motorized trail segments to provide loop route opportunities (approximately 2 

miles). 

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

of the currently used travel routes for motorized opportunities. 

 Designate two areas where off-road motorized use is allowed. This includes continued use of the Woodruff 

area near Prospect and the development of an additional area near Willow Lake. Both areas are located on 

the High Cascades Ranger District and total approximately 25 acres where motorized cross-country travel 

would be allowed. 

 Prohibit public motorized use on approximately 7 miles of NFS level 2 roads and 31 miles of trail currently 

open in order to minimize or reduce resource damage. 

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

 Prohibit all other cross country motorized travel outside of the play areas described above (i.e. closure of 

274,670 acres). 

Under the Proposed Action, many of roads, trails and areas that are currently part of the Forest Transportation 

System and are open to wheeled motorized vehicle travel would remain designated for such use. The Proposed 

Action was designed to take into account past patterns of OHV use on the Forest as well as other public motor 

vehicle use. 

Where possible, routes creating connections between popular use areas were included so that OHV and highwaylicensed motor vehicles could ride from one area to another. These routes provide all-purpose access for destination 

travel, driving for pleasure, hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities, such as, travel to dispersed camping 

locations, specific features or destinations, or unique motorized recreation experiences, while directing OHV use onto 

routes where there is available mileage and connections to other routes open to OHVs. 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 6

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 4,505 miles of road and 229 miles of trail would be open to motorized use. 

Table S-2 below summarizes and compares the Proposed Action to the current condition. 

In the DSEIS, maps displaying specific aspects of Alternative 3 are presented. 

Table S-2. Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Summary 

Roads and Trails Current Condition Proposed Action Change 

Total NFS Roads 5,286 miles 

NFS Roads “open” to the public 4,512 miles 4,505 miles -7 miles 

Open roads that allow mixed use 3,183 miles 3,197 miles +14 miles 

Open roads that prohibit mixed use 1,329 miles 1,309 miles -14 miles 

Total NFS Trails 1,199 miles 1,213 miles +14 miles 

NFS Trails that allow motorized use 246 miles 229 miles -17 miles 

New trails authorized 2 miles 

Authorized conversion of 

ML1 road to trail 12 miles 

Total area open to cross country travel 274,670 acres 2 OHV “Play” Areas totaling 25 acres 

ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD MEET THE NEED? 

Alternative 2 would designate the current condition with Plan Amendments that would close all roads, trails and 

cross-country travel unless designated open to be consistent with the Travel Management Rule, and enact sitespecific route Plan Amendments to make current use consistent with the Forest Plans. This alternative would 

implement actions consistent with the Travel Management Rule with no change to the current system of NFS roads, 

trails and designated areas. This alternative is similar to the No Action Alternative since it represents no change with 

respect to the existing NFS facilities or “baseline” transportation system. It is designed to assess the consequences 

of implementing the Travel Management Rule with no changes to the current system of roads, trails, and designated 

areas. 

To implement the Travel Management Rule, general cross-country travel would be prohibited. The continued use of 

unauthorized routes would not be allowed, and there would be no changes to the current system of NFS roads, trails 

and designated play areas. Alternative 2 would maintain the ‘status quo’ and would be the combination of all 

previous decisions by the Forest, except allowing cross-country travel. (i.e. previous decisions associated with the 

NFS of roads, trails and designated play areas). Areas for dispersed activities would continue to be used by public 

wheeled motor vehicles primarily for the purpose of dispersed camping and parking. 

Under Alternative 2, the existing condition, as reflected in the Forest route inventory and updated through December 

2010, would continue. These existing routes on the Forest would primarily be used for public wheeled motor vehicle 

use. This alternative is also designed to be responsive to Scoping comments received in the fall of 2008 in which 

many people expressed concern about the possible loss of motorized opportunities. 

 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 7

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Alternative 4 was developed to address Scoping resource issue concerns through some reduction in motorized use 

over current conditions and proposes a reduction in motorized use when compared to Alternative 3. It would also 

implement the Travel Management Rule with Plan Amendments to allow consistency with the Travel Management 

Rule and current inconsistent Forest Plan direction. 

This alternative is designed to be responsive to Scoping comments received in fall of 2008. Many people were 

concerned about possible effects to Botanical Areas, serpentine soils (and associated meadows, fens, and bogs), 

water quality, and spread of invasive non-native species. Based on the stated Purpose and Need for action and as 

a result of the recent Travel Analysis process, Alternative 4 proposes to: 

 Enact Forest Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with the Travel Management Rule. Two 

separate Forest Plans guide the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

 Formally designate approximately 4,469 miles of roads where passenger vehicles would be allowed to 

travel. 

 Formally designate approximately 3,155 miles of road where mixed use would be allowed. Mixed use is 

defined as designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. 

 Designate one area where off-road motorized use would be allowed. This would include continued use 

of the Woodruff area near Prospect on the High Cascades Ranger District.

 Prohibit motorized public access on approximately 43 miles of ML 2 roads currently open in order to 

minimize or reduce resource damage. 

 Prohibit motorized use on approximately 114 miles of trails currently open in order to minimize or reduce 

resource damage and user conflicts. 

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

 Prohibit all other cross country motorized travel outside of the 15 acre Woodruff OHV play area (i.e. closure 

of 274,670 acres). 

Under Alternative 4, approximately 4,469 miles of road and 132 miles of trail would be open to motorized use. Table 

S-3 below summarizes Alternative 4 and compares it to the current condition. 

In the DSEIS, maps displaying specific aspects of Alternative 4 are presented. 

Table S-3. Alternative 4 Summary 

Roads and Trails Current Condition Alternative 4 Change 

Total NFS Roads 5,286 miles

NFS Roads “open” to the public 4,512 miles 4,469 miles -43 miles 

Open roads that allow mixed use 3,183 miles 3,155 miles -28 miles 

Open roads that prohibit mixed use 1,329 miles 1,357 miles +28 miles 

Total NFS Trails 1,199 miles 1,199 miles 0 miles 

NFS Trails that allow motorized use 246 miles 132 miles -114 miles 

New trails authorized 0 miles

Authorize conversion of ML1 

road to trail 0 miles 

Total area open to cross country travel 274,670 acres Woodruff “Play” Area totaling 15 acres 

 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 8

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Alternative 5 is an additional alternative developed as a result of analysis documented in the Draft EIS and public 

comments to the Draft EIS. Alternative 5 combines elements of the Proposed Action (Alternative 3) and Alternative 

4. This alternative addresses the Public Scoping resource issues through some reduction in motorized use over 

current conditions and proposes a slight reduction in motorized use over Alternative 3. It would also implement the 

Travel Management Rule with Plan Amendments to allow consistency with the Travel Management Rule and 

currently inconsistent Forest Plan direction. 

Based on the stated Purpose and Need for action and as a result of the recent Travel Analysis process, Alternative 5 

proposes to: 

 Enact Forest-wide Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with the Travel Management Rule. Two 

separate Forest Plans guide the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

 Enact project-level Forest Plan Amendments to make the plans consistent with current and historical 

motorized use. 

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

travel. 

 Formally designate approximately 2,999 miles of road where mixed use would be allowed. Mixed use is 

defined as designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. 

 Authorize designation of one new motorized trail (Penn Sled) to provide loop route opportunities 

(approximately 1.5 miles). 

 Authorize conversion of approximately 10 miles of NFS ML 1roads to motorized trails. 

 Designate one area where off-road motorized use would be allowed. This would include continued use of 

the Woodruff area near Prospect. This area is located on the High Cascades Ranger District. 

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

 Prohibit public motorized use on approximately 7 miles of ML 2 roads and 37 miles of trail currently open in 

order to minimize or reduce resource damage. 

 Prohibit all other cross country motorized travel outside of the 15 acre Woodruff OHV play area identified 

above (i.e. closure of 274,670 acres).

Under Alternative 5, approximately 4,505 miles of road and 221 miles of trail would be open to motorized use. Table 

S-4 below summarizes Alternative 5 and compares it to the current condition. 

In the DSEIS, maps displaying specific aspects of Alternative 5 are presented.

Table S-4. Alternative 5 Summary 

Roads and Trails Current Condition Alternative 5 Change 

Total NFS Roads 5,286 miles

NFS Roads “open” to the public 4,512miles 4,505 miles -7 miles 

Open roads that allow mixed use 3,183 miles 2,999 miles -12 miles 

Open roads that prohibit mixed use 1,329 miles 1,506 miles +12 miles 

Total NFS Trails 1,199 miles 1,211 miles +12 miles 

NFS Trails that allow motorized use 246 miles 221 miles -25 miles 

New trails authorized 1.5 miles

Authorize conversion of ML1 

road to trail 10 miles 

Total area open to cross country travel 274,670 acres Woodruff “Play” Area totaling 15 acres 

 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 9

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES? 

This section summarizes environmental effects and consequences linked with implementing the Action Alternatives, or the 

No Action Alternative, considered and analyzed in detail. The following tables portray outcomes for each alternative in 

terms of the physical, biological, economic, and social direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the human environment, in 

regard to the Significant Issues, and Other Issues (see DSEIS Chapter I). 

Significant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that are used to evaluate alternatives, affect the design 

of component proposals, prescribe mitigation measures, and/or describe important and variable environmental effects. 

They are significant because of the extent of their geographic consequence, the duration of the effects, or the intensity of 

interest or resource conflict. Other Issues, as used in this analysis, differ from Significant Issues in that they often describe 

minor and/or non-variable consequences. The following tables briefly describe the consequences for each of the 

alternatives, in terms of Significant and Other Issues.
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY Table S-5. Comparison of Alternatives - Significant Issues 

Significant Issues Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Alternative 4 

Water Quality 

and Erosion 

Miles of open roads closed to public use No change No change 7 miles 43 miles 

Miles of motorized trails closed to motorized use No change No change 31 miles 114 miles 

Botanical Areas 

and Special Plant 

Habitats 

Acres of cross-country travel allowed 274,670 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 

Miles of motorized trails closed to motorized use within Botanical Areas 

No change No change 4 miles 11 miles 

Public Safety 

Change in traffic density on open roads and trails No change No change Slight increase Slight increase 

Miles of road where mixed use is allowed 3,183miles 3,183 miles 3,197 miles 3,155 miles 

Motorized 

Opportunities 

Change in miles of roads and trails open to the public 

No change No change -24 miles -157 miles 

Miles of open roads 4,512 miles 4,512 miles 4,505 miles 4,469 miles Miles of motorized trails 246 miles 246 miles 229 miles 132 miles 

Roadless 

Character within 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

Miles of motorized trails within IRAs 94 miles 94 miles 72 miles 0 miles 

Acres of cross-country travel allowed within IRAs 30,170 acres 30,170 acres 0 acres 0 acres 
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY Table S-6. Comparison of Alternatives - Other Issues 

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Alternative 4 

Soils – Site 

Productivity 

Areas where cross-country travel would be allowed. 

No change to 

the current 

condition. 

Cross-country 

travel would be 

allowed on 

274,670 acres 

Would prohibit cross-country travel 

Aquatic 

Conservation 

Strategy 

Consistency with ACS Objectives 

N/A All of the Action Alternatives would be consistent with the 9 A

Strategy objectives at the site scale and all watersh

Air Quality – 

Vehicle 

Emissions 

Change in the current level of vehicle emissions 

No change Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 would result in an insignificant change 

Air Quality – 

Dust and 

Asbestos 

Change in the current level of dust and asbestos 

No change Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 decrease disturbance due to closure o

and removal of selected travel routes per altern

Fire Risk 

Change in the risk of humancaused fires No change Slightly reduces risk by eliminating cross-country 

Listed Plants Effect to listed plant species No change 

Effects would 

be reduced by 

closure of 

cross-country 

travel 

Though actions may impact individuals, but n

affect species or critical habitat, elimination o

reduces effect over Alternat

Invasive Nonnative Plants 

Potential change in spread of invasive nonnative plants No change 

Closure of 

cross-country 

travel would 

have a 

potential to 

reduce spread 

Would reduce 

the potential for 

spread by 

limiting 

motorized use 

on some trails 

and roads 

Would reduce 

the potential 

more than 

Alternative 3 for 

spread by 

limiting 

motorized use 

on more trails 

and roads 

Would re

spread by 

on some 

t
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Alternative 4 

Invasive 

Pathogens 

Compliance with current direction 

Alternative 1: Current high risk sites would remain due to cross-country travel; Alte

There would be reduction in high risk due to elimination of cross-country travel. All acomply with State and Federal laws regarding Phytophera ramorum.

Terrestrial 

Wildlife 

Listed 

Species 

Determination for listed species N/A 

Effects to the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet due to d

under all action alternatives and would result in a “may effect, n

affect (NLAA)” determination 

Management 

Indicator 

Species 

Harassment to big game (deer and elk) within winter range areas 

No change 

Potential 

decrease due 

to elimination of 

cross-country 

travel 

Harassment potential would be decreased 

potential for noise and human activities throu

cross-country travel and the reduction in the a

the public 

Effects to other MIS No change None of the action alternatives would result in substantial direc

effects to other Manangement Indicator Spec

Other Rare or 

Uncommon 

Species 

Effects to other rare or uncommon species 

No change 

Reduced 

potential due to 

closure of 

cross-country 

travel 

Due to the potential disturbance from nois

passenger vehicle and OHV traffic, alternativ

adversely impact these spe

Fisheries and 

Aquatic 

Species 

Determination for listed species N/A None of the action alternatives would result in measurable direc

fisheries resources at the watershed or subwatersh

Visuals 

Attainment of visual quality objectives 

No change 

No change is 

expected from 

cross-country 

travel closure 

The reduction of roads and trails would not su

attainment of visual quality obj

Sound Level 

Change in use conflicts related to sound 

No change 

Potential 

decrease due 

to closure of 

cross-country 

travel 

Slight decrease 

in potential use 

conflicts related 

to sound 

Moderate 

decrease in 

potential use 

conflicts related 

to sound 

Slight de

conflic

Mining 

Access 

Affect to access for prospecting, locating, or developing mineral resources. 

Selection of any alternative would not affect access that is reasonably incident to malternatives that are more restrictive on vehicle travel would result in a higher degre

determine if access is reasonably incident and necessary for the stage of mineral a
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Alternative 4 

Enforcement 

Change in ability to enforce compliance with Federal law 

No change Amendment of the Forest Plan and publication of the Motor Ve

increase the ability to cite those who cause resourc

Cultural 

Resources 

Increase in risk to heritage sites No change The reduction of cross-country travel would further limit acces

undiscovered sites 

Climate 

Change 

All alternatives considered with this proposal were identified to have minor cause-effect relationship

emissions or the carbon cycle, and were determined to be of such a minor scale at the global or even 

direct effects would be meaningless to a reasoned choice among alternatives 

Designated 

and Eligible 

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

(Added between 

FEIS and DSEIS) 

Protect or 

enhance 

outstandingly 

remarkable 

values (ORVs) 

No Change 

Potential for 

enhancement 

of ORVs due to 

closure of 

cross-country 

travel 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would have a slight 

ORVs by eliminating cross-coun

Slightest 

potential for 

enhancement to ORVs from 

reduction in 

motorized 

roads and trails 

Most potential 

for 

enhancement to ORVs from 

reduction in 

motorized 

roads and trails 

Potentia

ORV

motori
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF S - 14 

Draft Supplemental EIS SUMMARY 

CAN ADVERSE EFFECTS BE MITIGATED? 

Specific mitigation measures have been developed for the Action Alternatives analyzed in detail. These include 

appropriate measures as defined by NEPA Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1508.20. Additional measures 

incorporated into the Action Alternatives emphasize applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines. These mitigation measures would reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or compensate 

the potential resource impacts as required by 40 CFR 1508.20. Mitigation measures common to all of the Action 

Alternatives are described in DSEIS Chapter II. 

WHAT FACTORS WILL BE USED IN MAKING THE DECISION 

BETWEEEN ALTERNATIVES? 

In addition to and concurrent with attainment of Purpose and Need, the response of the alternatives in relation to the 

identified Significant and Other Issues will be used as important decision factors (see above). No one element of 

Purpose and Need or Issues will be used to make the decision, rather, they will be reviewed together with an 

assessment of tradeoffs to make the final decision, documented in a forthcoming Record of Decision, complying with 

Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities (36 CFR 215). 

For Forest Plan Amendments, the regulations require the decision-maker (the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Supervisor) to determine whether the proposal would result in a significant change to the Forest Plans based on an 

analysis of the goals, desired conditions, objectives, guidelines and other contents of the Plan. If the amendment is 

determined not significant, then the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate public 

notification and satisfactory completion of (in this case concurrent) NEPA procedures. 

WHAT MONITORING IS NECESSARY? 

Monitoring is a required element of all Action Alternatives and would be carried out according to a detailed Monitoring 

Plan for authorized use and/or development activities. This Monitoring Plan would be developed specifically to the 

activities contained in the ROD, and be specific to the action(s) and area(s) where authorized actions would occur. 

Project activities should be monitored during and after implementation of management actions to ensure that design 

features and mitigation measures are implemented as specified. Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the 

effectiveness of planned activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving desired 

outcomes. 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS THE PREFERRED? 

NEPA requires that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) identify the agency’s Preferred 

Alternative or alternatives, if more than one exists. The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative (or 

alternatives) which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to 

economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different 

from the "environmentally preferable alternative," (an element documented in a Record of Decision); although in 

some cases they may be both. A Preferred Alternative is identified so that agencies and the public can understand 

the agency's orientation. 

The Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified Alternative 5 as the Preferred 

Alternative. This alternative would implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212 Subpart B), and 

provide a designated and managed system, provide changes to reduce existing resource damage from motorized 

use, and reduce social impacts, user conflicts and safety concerns, and is the preferred course of action.