Draft EIS

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Off -highway Vehicle (OHV) 

Management Plan, including 

Forest Plan Admendment #17

Mt Hood National Forest

Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco Counties

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

August 2009
AAAAA
 i

AAAAA

Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) 

Management Plan,

Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah and Wasco Counties

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Gary L. Larsen, Forest Supervisor 

Mt. Hood National Forest 

16400 Champion Way 

Sandy, OR 97055

For Information and Comments: Jennie O’Connor Card, OHV EIS

Hood River Ranger District

Mt. Hood National Forest

6780 Highway 35

Parkdale, OR 97041

(541) 352-6002 x634

jennieoconnorcard@fs.fed.us
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

ii
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 iii

Guiding Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on the Mt. Hood National Forest 

Preamble

Roads constructed to support decades of timber harvesting on the Mt. Hood National Forest (the Forest) 

has created an extensive legacy road system, which spans approximately 3,383 miles. Maintaining this vast 

road system has largely been funded by Congressional appropriations for timber sales. However, as timber 

harvesting has been reduced from 370 million board feet in 1990 to about 25 million board feet today, 

road maintenance funding has dramatically reduced as well. While reduced timber traffic has reduced 

maintenance needs, the maintenance needs associated with recreation and weather have not decreased. With 

the continued deterioration of the Forest’s transportation system coupled with greatly diminished finances, 

we have been forced to make tough administrative decisions to reduce maintenance needs.

In order to better manage the Forest’s transportation system, we have embarked on several planning 

processes that address travel and access management. This project – aimed specifically at managing offhighway vehicles (OHVs) – is just one of these planning processes. We have also embarked on an aquatic 

restoration planning process, in which we will review approximately 20 percent of the existing road 

system each year to identify roads to decommission or close. Also, the Forestwide Roads Analysis (2003), 

which assessed the environmental risks, access needs, and costs of roads, will inform all decisions related 

to achieving a minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for managing the Forest 

lands (FSH 7709.55, Chpt 20 (January 8, 2009)). In the end, these efforts, along with future efforts, will 

systematically lead us to achieving our end goal of having a manageable, responsible transportation system.

This project focuses on OHV management across the Forest with the goal of designating roads, trails and 

areas for OHV use by class of OHV and time of year. We developed the following principles to guide the 

project and achieve this goal.

Guiding Principles

•	 The Forest will designate an OHV system that will set the stage for future access management decisions. 

•	 The Forest recognizes that honoring relationships with other government agencies is a vital condition for 

the long-term success of managing OHV recreation on the Forest. 

•	 The OHV system designated should reflect that the Mt. Hood National Forest is not a key OHV recreation 

destination in the Pacific Northwest. 

•	 The safety of all visitors to the Forest, including motorized and non-motorized recreationalists, is an 

important consideration in designating OHV roads, trails and areas.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

iv
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 v

Abstract

The purpose of this project is to designate roads, trails and areas for Off-highway Vehicles (OHV) use 

by class of OHV and time of year. The Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest) is proposing to designate and 

construct OHV routes on the Forest to provide motorized recreation opportunities. Also, the Forest proposes 

a Forest Plan Amendment to change the current management direction in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource 

Management Plan to comply with 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 – Travel Management; Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule [Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216 (2005)] (Final Travel 

Management Rule). Although the Final Travel Management Rule addresses all motor vehicle access and 

travel management, this project focuses on OHV use on the Forest. The Scope of the Project Section of 

Chapter 1 explains how the Forest is complying with all components of the Final Travel Management Rule.

The Mt. Hood National Forest OHV Management Plan strives to balance recreation opportunities for 

OHV use with other recreational uses of the National Forest and resource sustainability. The Final Travel 

Management Rule states that the US Forest Service “must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types 

of recreational activities. To this end, a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use 

established with public involvement will enhance public enjoyment of National Forests while maintaining 

other important values and uses of NFS [National Forest Systems] lands” (page 68265). 

Four alternatives were developed: Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative; Alternative 2 – Proposed Action; 

Alternative 3; and Alternative 4.

The No Action Alternative represents the current conditions. Based on direction in the Forest Plan, the 

implied policy on the Forest is “open unless posted closed.” Overall, this alternative allows OHV use on 

2,463 miles of roads, 49 miles of motorized trails, and 394,886 acres of forestland. The Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2), Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would change OHV access through much of the Forest by 

designated roads, trails and areas The Proposed Action focuses on travel management within six locations, 

and allows OHV use on 124 miles of road and 97 miles of trail. Alternative 3 focuses on travel management 

within eight locations, and allows OHV use on 223 miles of roads and 102 miles of trails. Alternative 4 

focuses on travel management within three locations, and allows OHV use on 59 miles of roads and 40 miles 

of trails. All of the action alternatives include a Forest Plan Amendment, which would limit OHV use to 

designated routes, prohibit cross-country travel, replace the enforcement tool to the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM), and remove the requirement to post areas or roads as closed. 

Implementing any of the action alternatives would comply with the Final Travel Management Rule. All 

the action alternatives provide motorized recreation opportunities across the Forest and balance this use 

with non-motorized recreation opportunities. After a decision is made, all cross-country OHV travel and 

associated resource damage would be eliminated.

The Preferred Alternatives for this project are Alternatives 3 and 4. These alternatives best respond to the 

public comments received during the scoping period.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

vi
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 vii

Table of Contents

1.0. Purpose and Need for Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1. Document Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3. Scope of the Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Licensed Motor Vehicle Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Motor Vehicle Use for Dispersed Camping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Motor Vehicle Use for Game Retrieval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Use by Over-snow Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4. Purpose of and Need for Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Desired Future Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.5. Proposed Action (Alternative 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.6. Management Direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Forest Service National Travel Management Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

State of Oregon OHV Classifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mt. Hood National Forest – Forest Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.7. Management Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.8. Decision Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.9. Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.10. Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.10.1. Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Key Issue 1: Motorized OHV Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Key Issue 2: Non-motorized Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.10.2. Resolved Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Heritage Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.10.3. Tracking Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Local Economies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cost of OHV Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Aquatic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Invasive Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Native Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.0. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1. Alternative Development Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2. Assumptions and Analysis Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3. Alternatives Considered in Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3.1. Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

General Description and Location of Current OHV Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Current OHV Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Proposed OHV Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

viii

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

General Forest Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.3. Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

General Description and Location of each Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Proposed OHV Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.3.4. Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

General Description and Location of each Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Proposed OHV Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.4. Project Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

OHV Routes (Seasonal Restrictions, Rerouting). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Recreation Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Public Awareness and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Wildlife Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Invasive Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Soil and Erosion Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Heritage Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Wildland Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Road Decommissioning:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Culvert Replacement:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.5. Monitoring Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Previous Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Proposed Monitoring Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.7. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.7.1. Prohibit Off-highway Vehicle Use on the Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.7.2. Designate All Existing “On-the-Ground” Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.7.3. Continued Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Specific Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.7.4. Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Gravel and Native Surface Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.0. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1. Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Recreation Planning Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Description of Recreation Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Recreation Niche Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Quality of OHV Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

OHV System Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Loop Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Diversity in Trail Difficulty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Supply and Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Access to Rock Creek OHV Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Noise from OHVs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.1.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 ix

3.2. Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.2.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.2.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Alternative 1 – No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Cumulative Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.3. Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.3.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.3.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Alternative 1 – No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.3.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3.4. Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

3.4.1. Existing Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

3.4.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.4.3. Comparison of Effects and Aquatic Fauna Effects Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

ESA Listed Fish and Regional Forester’s Special Status Species Effects/Impacts Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

3.4.4. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.5. Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.5.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.5.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat Modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl due to Noise Disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Cumulative Effects for the Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat and Noise Disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Endangered Species Act Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Northwest Forest Plan Wildlife Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Effects to Species and Focal Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Snags and Down Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Direct and Indirect Effects for Snags and Downed Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Cumulative Effects for Snag and Downed Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Management Indicator Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Deer and Elk Habitat (Management Indicator Species). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Direct and Indirect Effects for Deer and Elk Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Cumulative Effects for Deer and Elk Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

American Marten & Pileated Woodpecker (Management Indicator Species). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Direct and Indirect Effects for Pileated Woodpeckers and American Marten. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Cumulative Effects for Pileated Woodpecker and American Marten. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Direct and Indirect Effects for Gray squirrel and Wild Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Cumulative Effects for Gray Squirrel and Wild Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Avian Resources (Migratory birds or Land Birds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Direct and Indirect Effects for Avian Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Cumulative Effects for All Species and All Focal Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

3.5.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

x

3.6. Botany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

3.6.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

3.6.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

General Forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Peavine Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

3.6.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

3.7. Aquatic Conservation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

3.8. Heritage Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

3.8.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

3.8.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Alternative 1 – No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

3.8.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

3.9. Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

3.9.1. Existing Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

3.9.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

3.10. Fire Suppression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

3.10.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

3.10.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Alternative 1 – No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Action Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

3.10.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

3.11. Transportation and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

3.11.1. Existing Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

3.11.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

3.11.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

3.12. Air Quality and Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

3.12.1. Affected Environment – Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

3.12.2. Effects Analysis – Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Alternative 1 – No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

3.12.3. Background – Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

3.12.4. Effect of OHV Route Designation on Climate Change Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

3.12.5. Incomplete and Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

3.13. Congressionally Designated Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

3.13.1. Existing Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

3.13.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

3.14. Socio-Economic, Civil Rights, and Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

3.14.1. Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

3.14.2. Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Estimated Economic Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Balancing Motorized and Non-Motorized Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Effects of OHV Use Adjacent to Irrigation Ditch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Effects of OHV use on the Availability and Performance of Emergency Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 xi

3.14.3. Environmental Justice Analysis and Civil Rights Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

3.14.4. Incomplete or Unavailable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

3.15. Other Required Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

3.15.1. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

3.15.2. Short-term Uses and Maintenance of Long-term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

3.15.3. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

3.15.4. Cumulative Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

3.15.5. Conflicts with Plans or Policies of Other Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

3.15.6. Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, Women and Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

3.15.7. Effects on American Indian Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

3.15.8. Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, Forestlands, or Parklands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

3.15.9. Wetlands and Floodplains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

3.16. Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

4.0. Consultation and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.1. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.2. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.3. Consultation with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.4. Consultation with Tribal Governments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.5. Consultation with Federal, State, and County Governments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5.0. List of Preparers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

6.0. Distribution List of Draft EIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

xii

Appendices

Appendix A Maps for all Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

•	 Alternative 1 OHV Use in the Mt. Hood National Forest

•	 Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Barlow Ranger District

•	 Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Clackamas River Ranger District

•	 Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Hood River Ranger District

•	 Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Zigzag Ranger District

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Overview

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Bear Creek

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Gibson Prairie

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal LaDee Flats

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal McCubbins Gulch

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Peavine

•	 Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Rock Creek

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Overview

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Bear Creek

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Gibson Prairie

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Graham Pass

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal LaDee Flats

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal McCubbins Gulch

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Mount Defiance

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Peavine

•	 Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Rock Creek

•	 Alternative 4 OHV Proposal Overview

•	 Alternative 4 OHV Proposal LaDee Flats

•	 Alternative 4 OHV Proposal McCubbins Gulch

•	 Alternative 4 OHV Proposal Rock Creek

•	 Appendix B Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) 

•	 Appendix C Access and Travel Management Guide Summary

•	 Appendix C Oregon State Regulations

•	 Appendix D Applicable Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

•	 Appendix E Alternative 2 Road Data

•	 Appendix F Alternative 3 Road Data

•	 Appendix G Alternative 4 Road Data

•	 Appendix H Natural Range of Variability

Appendix B Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) Appendix C – Access 

 and Travel Management Guide Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Appendix C Oregon State Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

Appendix D Applicable Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Appendix E Alternative 2 Road Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3

Appendix F Alternative 3 Road Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3

Appendix G Alternative 4 Road Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

Appendix H Natural Range of Variability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Allowable OHV use under the Proposed Action.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 1-2. Comparison of combinations of State OHV Classes identified in the Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed 

Action with Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) motor vehicle categories required by the Forest Service Manual (FSM 

7711.3.5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 xiii

Table 1-3. Complete list of Forest Orders (as of January 2009) for the Forest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1-4. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines discussing off-road vehicle (ORV) travel included in the proposed Forest Plan 

Amendment for all Alternatives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 1-5. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines discussing off-road vehicle (ORV) travel included in proposed Forest Plan 

Amendment for Alternatives 2 and 3. All standards are included in the proposed Forest Plan Amendment for 

Alternative 2. The proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 3 does not include the Standards and Guidelines 

shaded in gray. None of these Standards and Guidelines would be included in Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2-1. Summary of where and what type of OHV use is currently not prohibited based on Forest Plan direction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2-2. Summary of where and what type of OHV use is currently limited or prohibited based on current Forest Orders.. . . . . . 7

Table 2-3. Summary of existing motorized trails.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2-4. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 1 for areas, roads and trails.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 2-5. Forest Plan land use allocations for motorized trails in Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2-6. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2-7. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2-8. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created trails, for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2-9. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2-10. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2-11. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2-12. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2-13. Proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 for all action alternatives. Suggested changes are 

italic or strikethrough print. The proposed changes limit OHV use to designated routes, prohibit cross-country travel, 

replace the enforcement tool to the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and eliminate the requirement to post areas or 

roads closed to OHV use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2-14. Additional proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 for Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. 

Suggested changes are italic or strikethrough print. The proposed changes allow OHV to continue using existing 

roads and trails; no new OHV trail construction would be permitted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 2-15. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Table 2-16. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2-17. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created trails, for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2-18. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 2-19. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 2-20. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 2-21. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 2-22. Additional proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 for Alternative 3. Suggested changes are 

italic or strikethrough print. The proposed changes allow OHV to continue using existing roads and trails; no new 

OHV trail construction would be permitted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 2-23. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Table 2-24. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 2-25. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created trails.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 2-26. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 2-27. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2-28. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2-29. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 2-30. Comparison of alternatives by areas, roads, and trails where OHV use is designated or not prohibited.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 2-31. Comparison of proposed routes for action alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 2-32. Comparison of proposed roads and trails for action alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 2-33. Comparison of staging areas for action alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 2-34. Comparison of major components of alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

xiv

Table 2-35. Comparison of environmental effects of implementing the alternatives in relation to purpose and need/desired future 

conditions, and key and tracking issues.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 3-1. Descriptions of semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural and roaded modified recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) 

settings (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 3-2. Selected OHV recreation sites and areas in Oregon (source: http://atv.prd.state.or.us/places.php).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3-3. Frequency of motorized trail participation in Oregon among households reporting OHV participation. Data is from the 

2004 Oregon Statewide Motorized Trail User Survey. N = 196.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3-4. Mt. Hood National Forest activity participation and primary activity (NVUM) and national user participation (NSRE) 

in comparable recreation activities. NVUM data source is the first round of National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys 

(Kocis, English et al 2004 NRIS HD-NVUM 1.5). NSRE data source is 1999-2007 survey information for the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (Cordell, Betz, Green and Stephens 2008). “No data” indicates that there 

was no direct cross-walk between NVUM and NSRE. “+” indicates that the activity participation rate is actually 

higher than indicated because participation in variations of the activity were reported separately. The NVUM activity 

participation data is based upon only those visitors who agreed to be interviewed. Activities that are distinctly 

seasonal in nature (such as hunting) may not be adequately captured in the NVUM data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3-5. Secondary activities reported by primary OHV users in the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service. Data source 

is the first round of National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 3-6. Trends in number of people participating and number of participation days for selected outdoor recreation activities 

in the United States, 1999-2008. Excerpted from Cordell, Betz et al 2008. Source: NSRE 1999-2001 (n=52607) and 

2005-2008 (n=19,186). Note: 1999-2001 participants based on 214.0 million people age 16+ (2000 Census). 2005-

2008 participants based on 230.0 million people age 16+ (2006 Census estimate). Missing data indicate that either 

participation or annual days were not collected during that time period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3-7. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting in Alternative 2. Total miles displayed in 

this table vary slightly from the totals in Chapter 2 due to rounding of different data sets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 3-8. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting in Alternative 3. Total miles displayed in 

this table vary slightly from the totals in Chapter 2 due to rounding of different data sets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 3-9. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting in Alternative 4. Total miles displayed in 

this table vary slightly from the totals in Chapter 2due to rounding of different data sets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3-10. Qualitative description of the adequacy of an OHV experience based solely on the number of connected miles in a 

route system for each vehicle class. Note: the number of miles that describes the lower boundary of “moderately 

adequate” is from Stokowski (2000); the number of miles dividing “moderately adequate” from “adequate” is based on 

anecdotal information.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 3-11. Motorized trails in Alternative 1. The route system for Class I and III vehicles providing only a moderately adequate 

one-day experience is italicized; route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day 

experience are not italicized.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 3-12. Miles of connected OHV roads and trails by vehicle class and proposed system for Alternative 2. “Short term” includes 

the route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized 

trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction. Route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing 

an adequate one-day experience are shaded in bold; route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing only a 

moderately adequate one-day experience are italicized; route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an 

inadequate one-day experience are not shaded.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3-13. Miles of connected OHV routes by vehicle class and proposed system for Alternative 3. “Short term” includes the route 

miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long 

term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction. OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an adequate 

one-day experience are shaded in bold; OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing only a moderately 

adequate one-day experience are italicized; OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate oneday experience are not shaded.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 3-14. Miles of connected OHV routes by vehicle class and proposed system for Alternative 4. “Short term” includes the route 

miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long 

term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction. There are no route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing 

an adequate one-day experience; OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing only a moderately adequate oneday experience are italicized; OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day experience 

are not shaded.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 xv

Table 3-15. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) in Alternative 1 for several combinations of vehicle classes. 

Mileages do not include off-road and off-trail riding opportunities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3-16. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in Alternative 2 for several combinations of 

vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to long-term management, after all new trail construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 3-17. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in Alternative 3 for several combinations of 

vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to long-term management, after all new trail construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 3-18. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in Alternative 4 for several combinations of 

vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to long-term management, after all new trail construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3-19. Approximate OHV route miles in Hood River County (Eastside Area and Northwest Area) combined with proposed 

National Forest system routes in the Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance locations for several combinations of vehicle 

classes in Alternative 3. The approximately 63 miles of trail in the Eastside area have not yet been assigned to specific 

vehicle classes. Mileages were estimated with a map measure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 3-20. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short term and long term, by proposed system in 

Alternative 2. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and 

roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3-21. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short term and long term, by proposed system in 

Alternative 3. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and 

roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3-22. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short term and long term, by proposed system in 

Alternative 4. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and 

roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction.. . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3-23. Route miles (native surface, single-lane gravel roads and trails) and percentage of total proposed connected routes 

Forestwide for three difficulty levels in Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 3-24. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by proposed system for three difficulty levels in 

Alternative 2. Construction and maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Assumes road-to-trail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective and all new trails have been 

constructed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 3-25. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by proposed system for three difficulty levels in 

Alternative 3. Construction and maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Short-term mileages include new trail construction; and all road-to-trail conversions assumed to be “easier” 

difficulty level. Long-term mileages assume road-to-trail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective.. . . . 25

Table 3-26. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by proposed system for three difficulty levels in 

Alternative 4. Construction and maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Short-term mileages include new trail construction; and all road-to-trail conversions assumed to be “easier” 

difficulty level. Long-term mileages assume road-to-trail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective.. . . . 26

Table 3-27. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes in Hood River County including proposed connections 

to National Forest system routes in the Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance locations for three difficulty levels in 

Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 3-28. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 2 based on available season, staging 

area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is 

based on seasonal restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = weekends and 

holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were assumed to be four people per parked 

vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except for Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads 

per trailer).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3-29. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 3 based on available season, staging 

area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is 

based on seasonal restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = weekends and 

holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were assumed to be four people per parked 

vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except for Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads 

per trailer). No capacity or available visitor day estimates were calculated for the Gibson or Mt. Defiance route 

systems because they would not have staging areas in the Forest. They would essentially be extensions of Hood River 

County trail systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

xvi

Table 3-30. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 4 based on available season, staging 

area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is 

based on seasonal restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = weekends and 

holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were assumed to be four people per parked 

vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except for Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads 

per trailer).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 3-31. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially affected (non-motorized trails, developed 

recreation sites and wilderness areas) by OHVs on proposed routes by proposed system for Alternative 2. Noise effect 

symbols: VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A = annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour exposure). Alignment 

symbols: parallel (=); perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed 

OHV route, the highest sound pressure (column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the sound would 

diminish to 20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = wilderness; A3 = research natural 

area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 3-32. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially affected (non-motorized trails, developed 

recreation sites and wilderness areas) by OHVs on proposed routes by proposed system for Alternative 3. Noise effect 

symbols: VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A = annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour exposure). Alignment 

symbols: parallel (=); perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed 

OHV route, the highest sound pressure (column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the sound would 

diminish to 20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = wilderness; A3 = research natural 

area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 3-33. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially affected (non-motorized trails, developed 

recreation sites and wilderness areas) by OHVs on proposed routes by proposed system for Alternative 4. Noise effect 

symbols: VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A = annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour exposure). Alignment 

symbols: parallel (=); perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed 

OHV route, the highest sound pressure (column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the sound would 

diminish to 20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = wilderness; A3 = research natural 

area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3-34. Proposed OHV system and alternative comparison for soils.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3-35. Proposed OHV roads, trails and area within drinking water source areas by alternative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3-36. Streams on the Forest that are in or adjacent to proposed OHV locations and do not meet Federally-approved state 

water quality standards. These streams are listed as Category 5 water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the 

Clean water Act on the DEQ 2004 list. The parameter for which they are limited is listed below.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 3-37. ACS indicators and where they are discussed in this EIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3-38. Proposed OHV systems located in Key Watersheds.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3-39. Total OHV road and trail miles by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 3-40. Total OHV road and trail miles within 100 feet of streams by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 3-41. Total OHV route stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 3-42. Miles of OHV roads and trails located in drinking water source areas that have a surface water source.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 3-43. Miles of OHV roads and trails located in drinking water source areas that have a groundwater source.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 3-44. Total OHV road and trail miles within Riparian Reserves by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 3-45. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 3-46. Cumulative effects summary for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 3-47. WEPP model run showing the potential decrease in soil erosion from a road that has been converted to an OHV trail. . 68

Table 3-48. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1 and 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 3-49. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternatives 1 and 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 3-50. WEPP model run showing the difference in erosion and sedimentation between a gravel surface road and a native 

surface road.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 3-51. Miles of OHV roads and trails within drinking water source areas for Alternatives 1 and 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 3-52. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 1 and 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 3-53. Staging area information for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 3-54. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 xvii

Table 3-55. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 3-56. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field watershed for Alternatives 1 and 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 3-57. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternatives 1 and 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 3-58. Staging area information for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 3-59. Miles of OHV roads and trails within in drinking water source areas for Alternative 1 and 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 3-60. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 1 and 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 3-61. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 3-62. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 3-63. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field watershed for Alternatives 1 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 3-64. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 3-65. Staging area information for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 3-66. Miles of OHV roads and trails within in drinking water source area for Alternatives 1 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 3-67. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 1 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 3-68. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 3-69. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 3-70. Summary of cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 3-71. ESA listed, special status and other important aquatic species found in Forest fifth field watersheds. The date in the 

status column is the date of listing or most recent status review and subsequent Federal Register notice for ESA listed 

species and the date of the most recent sensitive species list and/or Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision for 

special status species.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 3-72. Presence of ESA listed fish, Regional Forester’s Special Status Species, designated critical habitat, and essential fish 

habitat within one half mile of the eight proposed OHV locations on the Mt. Hood National Forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 3-73. Spawning habitat fine sediment levels in surveyed streams within or downstream of proposed OHV locations in the Mt. 

Hood National Forest. Fine sediment values highlighted in green are <2 mm as that was the survey protocol during 

those surveys. Reaches in bold italics are those that do not meet Forest Plan standards. Begin and end miles are the 

river miles of the surveyed reach. There were no streams surveyed near the Mt. Defiance OHV location.. . . . . . . . . 108

Table 3-74. Miles of OHV roads/trails within 100 feet of streams, grouped by intermittent (I) and perennial (P) flow regime, within 

the Mt. Hood National Forest for all alternatives addressed in this EIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Table 3-75. Miles of OHV roads/trails within 100 of streams, grouped by fish and non-fish bearing designation, within the Mt. 

Hood National Forest for all alternatives addressed in this EIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 3-76. OHV road/trail stream crossings, grouped by intermittent (I) and perennial (P) flow regime, within the Mt. Hood 

National Forest for all alternatives addressed 

in this EIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 3-77. OHV road/trail stream crossings, grouped by fish and non-fish bearing designation, within the Mt. Hood National 

Forest for all alternatives addressed 

in this EIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 3-78. Estimated amounts of soil delivered to a stream from a ford in the McCubbins Gulch location based on varying trail 

approach gradients. The pounds delivered are for an entire year and only take into account one side of the crossing.112

Table 3-79. Summary of cumulative effects to aquatic fauna and habitat for all alternatives. Effects are based on description in the 

column titled “Extent, Detectable?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 3-80. Roads within 100 feet of water bodies proposed for decommissioning for all action alternatives. No road 

decommissioning is proposed in the Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, Graham Pass, Mt. Defiance, and Rock Creek 

location.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 3-81. The number of stream crossings on roads proposed for decommissioning for all action alternatives. No road 

decommissioning is proposed in the Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, Graham Pass, Mt. Defiance, and Rock Creek 

locations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 3-82. Proposed OHV road and trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface water for each of the proposed OHV 

locations in Alternative 2. For each location the information is grouped by fish bearing or non-fish bearing water 

body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

xviii

Table 3-83. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 2 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Table 3-84. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 2 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table 3-85. OHV road/trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface water for each of the proposed OHV locations in 

Alternative 3. For each location the information is grouped by fish bearing or non-fish bearing water body.. . . . . . . 130

Table 3-86. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 3 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 3-87. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 3 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 3-88. Road/trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface water for proposed OHV locations in Alternative 4. For each 

location the information is grouped by fish bearing or non-fish bearing water body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 3-89. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 4 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 3-90. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails proposed in Alternative 4 for each OHV 

location. Non-native erosion risk refers to non-native surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native 

surface roads and trails. Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table 3-91. Effects determination summary for all alternatives for ESA listed fish and designated critical habitat, Regional Forester’s 

Special Status Species, and Essential 

Fish Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Table 3-92. Comparison of user created trails vs. new trail construction (i.e., constructing trails where there has been no previous 

ground disturbance).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Table 3-93. Number of known owls sites within the disturbance and disruption distances for each action alternative.. . . . . . . . . . 144

Table 3-94. Summary of effects to sensitive, rare and uncommon species.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Table 3-95. Summary of the effects of the alternatives to wildlife and LSR habitat.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Table 3-96. OHV roads, trails and area that would occur in summer and winter range by alternative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Table 3-97. Road densities by alternative and proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Table 3-98. Past, present and foreseeable future projects and actions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Table 3-99. ACS indicators and alternative effects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Table 3-100. ACS objectives and indicators that comprise each objective.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Table 3-101. Summary of heritage resources for the LaDee Flats proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Table 3-102. Summary of heritages resources for the Peavine proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Table 3-103. Summary of heritage resources for the Graham Pass proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Table 3-104. Summary of heritage resources for the McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Table 3-105. Summary of heritage resources for the Rock Creek proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Table 3-106. Summary of heritage resources for the Gibson Prairie proposed OHV system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Table 3-107. Summary of heritage resources for the Bear Creek proposed OHV system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Table 3-108. Fire behavior for each representative weather station and OHV system. Fuel Model 10 was used for all the OHV 

systems; included Fuel Model 9 for lower Pine/Oak locations of the Rock Creek and McCubbins Gulch proposed 

OHV Systems for comparison. Information in bold font denotes Flame Length significantly exceeding 4 ft in height; 

only the Fuel Model 9 keeps Flame Length at or below 4 ft, even in the worse case scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Table 3-109. Fire size class and corresponding acres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

 xix

Table 3-110. Ignition and statistical causes on the Mt. Hood NF from 1980 to 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Table 3-111. Total of Forestwide lightning and human caused fires from 1980 to 2007.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Table 3-112. Total of ignition causes and acres for each OHV system from 1980 to 2007.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Table 3-113. Suppression costs based on fire behavior and size of IA fires (through the first four hours).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Table 3-114. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Table 3-115. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Table 3-116. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Table 3-117. Miles of road to be converted to OHV trail by alternative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Table 3-118. Total costs to maintain ML 1 and 2 roads by alternative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Table 3-119. Total miles of mixed-use proposed by alternative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Table 3-120. State and Federal air quality standards.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Table 3-121. Potential air quality cumulative effects for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Table 3-122. Potential air quality cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Table 3-123. Land area and miles of trail in the nine wilderness areas that are entirely or partially in the Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Miles of trail are those that are within the boundaries of the wilderness in the Forest. Note: The entire Mark O. 

Hatfield Wilderness is within the proclaimed boundary of the Mt. Hood National Forest; however the portion of the 

wilderness managed by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is not considered in this analysis (and is not 

shown in this table). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Table 3-124. Miles of proposed OHV route by alternative and proposed system that coincide with the boundary of a 

congressionally designated area or inventoried roadless area in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Route miles were 

estimated with a map measure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Table 3-125. Age distribution for the study area in 1990 and 2000.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Table 3-126. Percent of population and number of people age 16 and older participating in off-highway vehicle recreation, by 

demographic category, 1999-2007, Pacific Region (Cordell et al.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Table 3-127. Percent of population and number of people age 16 and older participating in off-highway vehicle recreation, by 

demographic category, 1999-2007, Oregon (Cordell et al.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Table 3-128. Economic contribution of Mt. Hood National Forest recreation use. Employment and labor income effects by activity 

type (NRIS HD-NVUM 1.2 Estimates): non-motorized, motorized, nature related, and all other.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Table 3-129. Motorized use broken into OHV and other motorized categories.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Table 3-130. OHV expenditures for in-State and out-of-state visitor contributions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Table 3-131. Total OHV trip expenditures by type of purchase.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Table 3-132. Total annual expenditures: by region in Oregon.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Table 3-133. Annual expenditures: income and jobs by region in Oregon.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Table 3-134. Final CMTL and CMRD budget.*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Table 3-135. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for Alternative 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Table 3-136. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for Alternative 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Table 3-137. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for Alternative 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Table 3-138. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for Alternative 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Table 3-139. Adverse effects that cannot be avoided for proposed OHV systems for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

xx

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map for Alternative 2-Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map for Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

Figure 2-3. Vicinity Map for Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

Figure 3-1. OHV routes within 100-feet of streams by alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-69

Figure 3-2. Stream crossing for each alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70

Figure 3-3. Native surface stream crossings by soil erosion potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-72

Figure 3-4. Native surface crossings by OHV system for Alternative 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-72

Figure 3-5. OHV routes in drinking water source areas by action alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73

Figure 3-6. OHV routes in Riparian Reserves for the action alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-74

Figure 3-7. Map of bull trout distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-94

Figure 3-8. Map of Lower and Middle Columbia River steelhead trout distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-96

Figure 3-9. Map of Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-98

Figure 3-10. Map of Lower Colombia River Coho salmon fish distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-100

Figure 3-11. Map of rainbow and cutthroat trout fish distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-102

Figure 3-12. Map of Clackamas, Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, Multnomah and Wasco counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-251

Figure 3-13. Population in the study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-252
Chapter 1 — 1

Chapter 1 -

Purpose and Need for Action
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 2
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 3

1.0. Purpose and Need for Action

1.1. Document Structure

The US Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

The document is organized into four parts:

• Chapter 1: Introduction – This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose 

of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also 

details how the Mt. Hood National Forest informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action – This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These 

alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion 

also includes project design criteria. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

• Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – This chapter describes the environmental 

effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

• Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted – This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the environmental analysis.

• Appendices – The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EIS.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project 

record located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

1.2. Background

Recreation is an important value and use of Mt. Hood National Forest (the Forest). Off-highway vehicle (OHV)1

riders and non-motorized recreation visitors share an interest in enjoying outdoor recreation in a natural 

environment. OHV recreation is a legitimate activity on National Forest System lands; however, unmanaged and 

inappropriate OHV use is a potential threat to ecosystem sustainability. 

The current OHV use policy for the Forest was developed during land management planning in the 1980s. The 

current policy allows OHVs to venture off roads and trails in areas that have not been specifically closed to off-road 

use. Additionally, current state law allows OHVs to operate on any road open to the public which is not paved. (For 

more information on current Oregon State Laws regarding Off-Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles go 

to: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/ATV/links.shtml). Many gravel and native surface roads on the Forest meet these 

criteria and thus are open to OHV travel. Since these policies were established, there has been rapid growth in the 

popularity and use of OHVs. There has also been a trend toward closing private lands adjacent to the Forest to OHV 

use. These two trends have resulted in significantly increased use of the Forest by OHVs.

The designation of OHV roads, trails, and areas (OHV systems) would enhance management of the Forest; sustain 

natural resource values through more effective management of OHV use; enhance opportunities for motorized 

recreation experiences; and preserve areas of opportunity for non-motorized travel and experiences. This EIS 

1 Off-highway vehicle (OHV) is defined as: “Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, 

ice, ash, swampland, or other natural terrain” [Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216 (2005), p. 68288]. OHV is also referred to as an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 4

discloses the effects of establishing and designating a system of roads, trails and areas for OHV use, not including 

over-snow vehicles. Designations are made by class of OHV and by time of year. The decisions resulting from the 

final EIS will be used to prepare a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Forest, which is expected to be published 

in 2010.

The Final Travel Management Rule only allows motor vehicles on designated roads, trails and areas, and directs 

that routes be designated on a MVUM. The MVUM would display the roads, trails and areas designated for motor 

vehicle use (licensed and non-licensed vehicles) by vehicle class and, if appropriate, time of year. The map would be 

standardized nationally to facilitate user compliance and reduce variation between National Forests. It is a single 

purpose map necessary for the enforcement of the prohibition. The map would be produced in accordance with the 

Forest Service “Motor Vehicle Use Map Production Guide” (originally published June 2006; recently published April 

2009). Based on Regional Direction, the MVUM “is to be updated and published annually. The initial publication 

should be as soon as practical after making Forest travel management decisions. Updated motor vehicle use maps 

shall be published annually in January” (R6 Guidelines, 9/6/2006). When the maps are updated each year, changes to 

the designated OHV routes or Forest Road system would be incorporated. Prior to publishing any changes, the routes 

or roads would have to be changed through a NEPA decision or Forest Order. 

1.3. Scope of the Project

The scope of the project is to designate which roads, trails and areas on the Forest that would be used by OHVs. The 

resulting Record of Decision will designate roads, trails and areas open to OHV use (by vehicle class and time of 

year), and these designated roads, trails, and areas will be displayed on the MVUM. The other components of the 

Final Travel Management Rule are addressed through other decision processes as described below.

The project is being undertaken within the context of the Final Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, 

and 295 – Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule [Federal Register Vol. 

70, No. 216 (2005)]). The purpose of the Final Travel Management Rule is to provide for: “a system of National Forest 

System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor 

vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, including the class of OHV and time 

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

roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13” (Subpart B, §212.50(a), page 68289).

The Final Travel Management rule states that, in providing for a system of National Forest System roads, trails 

and areas for motor vehicle use that: “The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions 

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

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

lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart” (Subpart B, §212.50(b), page 68289). The designations described 

above include motor vehicle access, OHV use, motor vehicle use for dispersed camping, and motor vehicle use for 

game retrieval. Subpart C of the Final Travel Management Rule provides regulations of use by over-snow vehicles on 

National Forest System roads, trails and areas (Subpart C, §212.80, page 68290).

The following sections describe how the Forest has addressed each component of the Final Travel Management Rule. 

The sections include: motor vehicle access, motor vehicle use for dispersed camping, motor vehicle use for game 

retrieval, use by over-snow vehicles, and use by off-highway vehicles on National Forest System roads, trails, and 

lands.

Licensed Motor Vehicle Access

This project and the resulting decision will not change the access for licensed motor vehicles on open roads 

throughout the Forest. The responsible official will designate all existing administrative decisions regarding 

designations and prohibitions of licensed motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads on the MVUM as 

permitted by the Final Travel Management Rule in Subpart B, §212.50(b) (page 68289). The existing administrative 

decisions include all existing NEPA decisions regarding roads management, including closing (year round or 

seasonal), decommissioning, storm proofing, and upgrading roads as well as all administrative decisions pursuant to 

26 CFR 212.50(b) and Forest Service Manual 7715.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 5

Future NEPA decisions regarding the road system will be designated on the MVUM during the annual map 

update process. Currently, the Forest is reviewing select watersheds to identify roads to decommission or close for 

restoration purposes. The Forest plans to review approximately 20 percent of the existing road system each year. In 

2009, the Forest completed the planning for the Clackamas Road Decommissioning for Habitat Restoration Project 

and the Forestwide Road Decommissioning for Aquatic Restoration Project. In fiscal year 2010, the Forest plans to 

make another decision regarding road decommissioning for terrestrial and aquatic restoration on the Clackamas and 

Zigzag Ranger Districts. In addition, site-specific projects include some road management decisions, as appropriate. 

Such projects include North Fork Mill Creek Restoration Opportunities on the Hood River Ranger District and 2007 

Plantation Thinning on the Clackamas River Ranger District.

Since all of the decisions have or will be made through the NEPA process, designating these decisions comply with 

the criteria for designating roads, trails and areas as outlined in Final Travel Management Rule in Subpart B, §212.55 

(a) through (e) (page 68289-68290).

Motor Vehicle Use for Dispersed Camping

The Final Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, §212.51(b) states: “In designating routes, the responsible official may 

include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, 

and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping . . .” (page 68289). The 

responsible official will designate on the MVUM all existing motor vehicle access to dispersed camping based on the 

analysis and decision made in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan [Forest Plan], and corresponding 

Record of Decision (1990). As such, no changes will be made at this time to motor vehicle access to dispersed camping.

The existing use of road corridors for motor vehicle access to dispersed camping will be designated on the MVUM. 

Motor vehicle access for dispersed camping will not be allowed in areas where motor vehicle travel is prohibited in 

the Forest Plan and in areas prohibited by existing Forest Orders. For example, no motor vehicle access to dispersed 

camping will be permitted in designated wilderness areas, unroaded recreation areas, inventoried roadless areas, 

municipal watersheds, or wild and scenic river corridors. Motor vehicle access to dispersed camping will be restricted 

to licensed vehicles only; OHV use will be prohibited. Also, motor vehicle access to dispersed camping only will 

be permitted from National Forest System roads; motor vehicle access to dispersed camping will not be permitted 

from user-created roads or trails, old skid trails, or any other road that is not designated as an official National Forest 

System road.

Since the Forest Plan was completed through the NEPA process, this decision complies with the criteria for 

designating roads, trails and areas as outlined in Final Travel Management Rule in Subpart B, §212.55 (a) through (e) 

(page 68289-68290).

Motor Vehicle Use for Game Retrieval

The Final Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, §212.51(b) states: “In designating routes, the responsible official may 

include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, 

and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of . . . retrieval of a downed big game animal 

by an individual who has legally taken that animal” (page 68289). The Regional Forester has reserved the authority 

for decisions to designate the use of motor vehicles, including OHVs, within a specific distance of designated routes 

for the purposes of big game retrieval (R6 Guidelines, 9/6/2006). To date, no off-road motor vehicle travel to retrieve 

big game has been authorized by the Regional Forester.

Use by Over-snow Vehicles

The Final Travel Management Rule, Subpart C, §212.80 provides regulations for the use of over-snow vehicles, 

including establishing restrictions and prohibitions (page 68290). At this time, there are no proposed changes to 

the management of over-snow vehicles on the Forest. Over-snow vehicles trails have been previously analyzed and 

designated on a map provided to the public by the Forest each year.

For the reasons stated above, this project does not include roads management, motorized access to dispersed 

camping, large game retrieval or over-snow vehicles. This project does not include changes to the motorized access 

for dispersed camping, large game retrieval, or access for over-snow vehicles. Also, this project does not change 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 6

access by licensed motor vehicles, except indirectly where existing roads would be decommissioned or converted to 

motorized trails for OHVs. Previous designations and prohibitions regarding motor vehicle access in the Mt. Hood 

National Forest, including those related to licensed motor vehicles, over-snow vehicles, motorized access to dispersed 

camping and seasonal road closures that are not explicitly changed or modified by this project will remain in place 

and will be designated on the MVUM until changed by future analysis and NEPA decisions. After this project is 

implemented, the Forest will be in full compliance of the Final Travel Management Rule for all motor vehicles.

1.4. Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to designate roads, trails and areas for OHV use by class of OHV and time of year. 

By meeting this purpose, OHV use on the Forest would comply with 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 – Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule [Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216 

(2005)]. The Final Rule states that the US Forest Service “must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types 

of recreational activities. To this end, a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use established 

with public involvement will enhance public enjoyment of National Forests while maintaining other important values 

and uses of NFS [National Forest Systems] lands” (page 68265). 

In order for OHV use on the Forest to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule, there is the underlying need 

for:

• Designating and/or constructing OHV roads, trails, and areas (as appropriate) on Mt. Hood National Forest to 

provide recreation opportunities;

• Changing the current management direction in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan to comply 

with the Final Travel Management Rule by designating roads, trails, and areas; and,

• Balancing recreation opportunities for OHV use with other recreational uses of the National Forest and natural 

resources as directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Desired Future Condition

More than four million people visit the Forest each year, many of whom come from the Portland/Vancouver 

metropolitan area only 20 miles west of the Forest. Since the Forest provides wildland recreation to an urban 

population, the Forest’s recreational niche is strongly influenced by its local, urban visitors; and therefore, strives to 

provide diverse recreation opportunities (US Forest Service 2006). Currently, there are substantial OHV recreation 

opportunities on established roads and trails (as well as off-road opportunities) in the vast, undeveloped forest area 

outside of wilderness, major highway corridors and significant rivers and lakes. 

In 2007, the Forest (with public input) developed a recreation niche statement that characterizes the distinct role the 

Forest plays in providing outdoor recreation opportunities, experiences, and benefits. The niche allows managers 

to focus management efforts on what is unique and valuable about the Forest. The niche is, in part, determined 

by public expectations (demand) and by the ecological land base. Public participants described and mapped their 

preferred recreation activities and where they recreate. The niche statement follows:

A Mountain of Possibilities - Mt. Hood is an Oregon icon, exemplifying the connection between community 

and place. With its many historic and cultural threads, the mountain is woven into the economic and social 

fabric of people and communities in and around the Forest. Through collaboration, Mt. Hood National Forest 

staff fosters citizen stewards who contribute their talents toward the betterment of the forest or who share their 

outdoor skills with others. Sustainable partnerships increase the Forest’s contribution to quality of life and sense 

of place. More than four million people come to the Forest each year for play, exercise, learning, connection 

to nature, and spiritual renewal. Visitors appreciate the variety of year around, easily-accessible recreation 

activities; many consider it their “back yard.” They value the landscape tapestry that provides great trails 

and opportunities for solitude. Others may only see the mountain from afar, but their lives are enriched by its 

intrinsic values (US Forest Service 2006).
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 7

Based on the public’s input and NVUM data (see Section 3.1.1.), the Forest concluded that the area currently 

available for OHV recreation is disproportionate to current use and need. This disparity is compounded by the 

documented incompatibility of OHV and “quiet” recreation uses (Moore 1994). Therefore, the Forest’s recreation 

niche, encapsulated above, captures the Forest’s desire to offer only a moderate opportunity for OHV recreation in 

the future. The Forest is not striving to be known as a major provider of OHV recreation, or major OHV destination, 

even for the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area.

Achieving the desired balance between OHV opportunities and other recreation pursuits will be a delicate balancing 

act. To successfully protect lands and resources, while providing opportunities for the safe use and enjoyment of 

OHVs on designated roads, trails and areas, the Forest must manage OHV use in partnership with other government 

agencies, communities, and interest groups. Offering too few OHV route systems, or routes of inferior challenge 

and quality, could jeopardize the trust relationship that the Forest needs to earn and maintain with OHV interests. 

Offering route systems that rival or exceed (in length or level of challenge) those offered by the State’s premier 

OHV destinations (for example, the Tillamook State Forest OHV Area or East Fort Rock); however, would not be 

consistent with the Forest’s desired future condition. Therefore, the proposed action and the action alternatives were 

each designed using the following goals: (1) to provide a set of connected OHV routes, each robust enough to interest 

and challenge beginning and intermediate OHV users; (2) to not exceed the challenge offered by better-known OHV 

destinations available to the Portland/Vancouver OHV community; and, (3) to dedicate a majority of the Forest to 

“quiet” recreation pursuits.

1.5. Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) designates OHV roads and trails, and one small OHV area (approximately four 

acres) within six proposed OHV locations (Appendix A, Map: Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Overview) listed below. 

After the Record of Decision is signed for this project, the Final Travel Management Rule would require all OHVs to 

remain on these designated routes and area, and no OHV cross-country travel2

 would be permitted.

• McCubbins Gulch, Barlow Ranger District

• Rock Creek, Barlow Ranger District

• Gibson Prairie, Hood River Ranger District

• Bear Creek, Hood River Ranger District

• Peavine, Clackamas Ranger District

• LaDee Flats, Clackamas Ranger District

All National Forest System roads and trails were considered for OHV access by the Forest Service and members of 

the public during a two-year long dialogue with the public. The six locations that resulted from this dialogue provide 

a balance between providing recreational opportunities and protecting natural resources as required by the Final 

Travel Management Rule. Within each location, specific OHV roads, trails and areas are proposed by OHV class, and 

new trails are proposed for construction where they would create trail loop opportunities.

The Proposed Action includes the following features:

• Some roads identified in the Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Analysis (2003) as decision roads (i.e., not needed 

for management purposes) would be converted to OHV trails and removed from the road system.

• New OHV trails would be constructed to connect existing roads and trails and to provide loop opportunities.

• Approximately 13 miles of decision roads would be decommissioned (i.e., closed and removed from the Forest’s 

transportation system). These roads would be decommissioned because designating nearby routes would cause 

these roads to become a law enforcement or natural resource problem.

• Mixed-use routes would be proposed in each location. Mixed-use routes allow OHVs and licensed motor vehicles to use the same routes.

• Classes of OHVs allowed would be designated for all routes.

• A day-use area within the Rock Creek OHV location would have restrictions on camp fires and overnight dispersed camping. 

2 OHV cross-country travel is defined as an OHV leaving the designated road, trail or area.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 8

• A staging area would be identified within each of the six proposed OHV locations. The staging area would be a 

day-use area that serves as a trailhead for motorized recreation. McCubbins Gulch Campground would continue 

to be the staging area for this OHV system.

• Project design criteria (PDC), including seasonal restrictions for some of the OHV routes and areas, would 

reduce or eliminate potential impacts.

The following table summarizes the allowable OHV use under the Proposed Action.

Table 1-1. Allowable OHV use under the Proposed Action.

Location Class of OHV*

Trails (miles) Roads (miles) Total Miles 

by Area Existing 

Trails New Construction Convert to Trail Mixed-Use

Bear Creek Class III 0.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 39.1

Gibson Prairie Class I 4.0 4.3 1.8 5.1 15.2

LaDee Flats Class I, II and III 0.0 0.4 5.4 19.1

Class I and III 0.0 1.2 4.5 0.0 38.9

Class II 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3

McCubbins Gulch Class I and III 32.0 0.0 4.7 8.8 50.6

Class III 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0

Peavine Class I, II and III 0.0 3.0 19.6 15.2 37.8

Rock Creek Class I and III 2.1 6.2 14.6 16.7 39.6

Total Miles 38.1 59.3 50.6 73.2 221.2

*Class I OHV (Quads, 3-wheelers): OHVs 50 inches wide or less; dry weight of 800 pounds or less; has a saddle or seat; and travels on three or more tires. 

Class II OHV (Jeeps, Sand rails, SUVs, etc.): OHVs wider than 50 inches; and dry weight more than 800 pounds. 

Class III OHV (motorcycles): OHVs on two tires; and dry weight less than 800 pounds.

Also, a small OHV area is proposed in the LaDee Flats location. The area is located at the North Fork Quarry 

(approximately four acres) located on Road 4610-120. The legal description is T4S, R6E, Section 19, NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4. 

The project would be implemented using a combination of appropriated funding, grant funding (i.e., Oregon Parks 

and Recreation ATV Grant Program), and volunteer and partnership in-kind support. Currently, the Oregon Parks 

and Recreation ATV Grant Program helps pay for operation and maintenance, law enforcement, emergency services, 

land acquisition, leases, planning, development and safety education in Oregon’s OHV recreation areas. No new 

construction would be completed until funding is secured. Funding for new trail construction would come from one 

of the three sources listed above.

A Forest Plan Amendment would be required to bring the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) into consistency with the Final Travel Management Rule. To achieve this, the 

amendment would limit OHV use to designated roads, trails and areas; prohibit cross-country travel by OHVs; close 

existing off-road areas; and remove the requirement to post areas or roads as closed to OHV use. This would include 

amending the following standards in the following land use allocations: A3-Research Natural Areas, A4-Special 

Interest Area, A7-Special Old Growth, A9-Key Site Riparian, B1-Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers, B3-Roaded 

Recreation, B5-Pileated Woodpecker/Pine Martin Habitat Area, B6-Special Emphasis Watershed, B11-Deer and Elk 

Winter Range, and C1-Timber Emphasis.

1.6. Management Direction

This EIS process and documentation have been completed according to direction provided in the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. In addition, the EIS process and 

documentation have been completed according to direction provided in the Wilderness Act, including the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009 (H. R. 146). All newly designated wilderness areas prohibit OHV use, and the 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 9

Huxley Ridge trail will no longer be open for OHV use. Similar to the existing wilderness areas, “buffers” from other 

management activities on adjacent lands are not required for newly designated wilderness areas [H.R. 146 Section 

1202(f)(1)].

The EIS is tiered to the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (US Forest Service 1990a) and Record of Decision (US Forest Service 1990c) as well as the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (US Forest Service and USDI BLM, 1994) (also 

called the Northwest Forest Plan). This EIS also incorporates by reference the accompanying Land and Resource 

Management Plan (US Forest Service 1990b) (also called the Forest Plan), as amended by the Northwest Forest 

Plan. The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and 

guidelines for the Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, 

and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. The Northwest Forest Plan identifies land 

allocations and management direction to respond to the underlying needs of managing substantial parts of these 

forests for late-successional and old-growth conditions, for a predictable and long-term supply of timber. The project 

is consistent with all applicable Federal, state and local laws.

Current management direction for travel management, including OHV travel, on the Forest is provided by the 

Forest Plan Access and Travel Management Guide, Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Analysis, Executive Orders 

11644 and 11989, Final Travel Management Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 70, pgs. 68264-68291), State of Oregon OHV 

Classifications, and Forest Orders (prohibitions pursuant to 36 CFR part 261). More specific information for each 

type of management direction is provided in the following sections. State of Oregon traffic laws for licensed and 

unlicensed vehicles apply to traffic on Forest Service roads.

Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Policies

The Forest Plan Access and Travel Management Guide (Appendix C of Forest Plan) provides broad direction for 

travel management of vehicles used for recreation specific to each management area and identified by vehicle type 

and provides general Forest guidelines for preparation and implementation of travel management plans for the 

purpose of assigning specific access management goals and objective to individual routes, trails and land areas. This 

management direction was designed to comply with Forest Service Manual 2355 to provide a diversity of off-road 

vehicle recreation opportunities when:

• The use is compatible with established land and resource objectives;

• The use is consistent with the capability and suitability of the resources;

• The type of off-road vehicle opportunity is an appropriate National Forest recreational activity; and,

• There is demonstrated demand which cannot be satisfied elsewhere.

OHV use was determined for roads, trails, and cross-country areas for each management area (see Appendix B).

In January 2001, the Forest Service issued interim administrative directives requiring that all road management 

activities, including construction, reconstruction, or obliteration, must be preceded by a roads analysis that identifies 

the need for a road and emphasizes a minimum road system. The Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Analysis (US 

Forest Service 2003) addresses both the access benefits and ecological costs of road-associated effects, gives priority 

to reconstructing and maintaining needed roads and decommissioning unneeded roads, or, where appropriate, 

converting them to less costly and more environmentally beneficial other uses. This process is outlined in Forest 

Service Manual 7700. Responsible officials are directed to use a Roads Analysis process to ensure that road 

management decisions are based on identification and consideration of social and ecological effects. The objective 

is to manage the Forest transportation system to provide user safety, convenience, and efficiency of operations in an 

environmentally responsible manner and to achieve road related ecosystem restoration within the limits of current or 

likely funding levels. This EIS incorporates by reference the Roads Analysis.

Forest Service National Travel Management Regulations

The issue of increasing OHV use on public lands, and its associated resource impact concerns and public conflicts, 

has existed since the issuance of Executive Order 11644 in 1972 (Federal Register, Vol. 37, pg 2877), as amended by 

Executive Order 11989 in 1977 (42 Federal Register, Vol. 42, pg 26959). The Executive Order states: “The widespread 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 10

use of such vehicles on the public lands – often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land 

and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreation activity – has demonstrated 

the need for a unified Federal policy toward the use of such vehicles on the public lands.” The purpose of this 

Executive Order was “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.”

Former Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, also recognized unmanaged recreation, especially OHV use, as 

one of “Four Key Threats Facing the Nation’s Forest and Grasslands” (US Forest Service June 2004). This recognition, 

as well as past intentions to better manage motor vehicle use on public land, led to the development of the Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule (Final Travel Management Rule) that 

was released by the US Forest Service on November 9, 2005 (Federal Register, Vol. 70, pgs. 68264-68291). The new 

travel management rule revised regulations 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to require designation of roads, 

trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on all national forests. The Final Rule provides a consistent framework for 

administrative units (i.e., national forests) to designate roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use, by class of 

OHV, and if appropriate, by time of year. The purpose of the rule is to “provide for a system of National Forest System 

roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor vehicle 

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

not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.12. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and 

trials and outside designated areas is prohibited by 26 CFR 261.13” (70 FR 62289). The rule directed that designated 

routes will be identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). According to direction in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM 7711.3.5), the MVUM will display roads and trails according to the following seven categories to identify 

permitted motor vehicle classes:

1. Roads Open to Highway Legal Motor Vehicles Only. These roads are open only to motor vehicles licensed under 

state law for general operation on all public roads within the state.

2. Roads Open to All Motor Vehicles. These roads are open to all motor vehicles, including smaller off-highway 

vehicles that may not be licensed for highway use, but not vehicles that are oversized or overweight under state 

traffic law.

3. Trails Open to All Motor Vehicles, including both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles.

4. Trails Open to Motor Vehicles 50 inches or Less in Width.

5. Trails Open to Wheeled Motor Vehicles 50 Inches or Less in Width.

6. Trails Open to Motorcycles Only. Sidecars are not permitted.

7. Special Vehicle Designation. This category includes any classes of vehicles that are not listed in the categories 

other six categories listed above.

The Final Rule provides a framework for decisions which will improve opportunities for sustainable motorized 

recreation, better protection of the environment, increased public safety, and ample high-quality access to National 

Forest System lands.

State of Oregon OHV Classifications

The State of Oregon considers all vehicles intended for off-highway use to be all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). ATVs are 

broken into three classes and defined as follows:

Class I ATV (quads, 3-wheelers)

• Vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and

• Dry weight of 800 pounds or less

• Has a saddle or seat

• Travels on 3 or more tires
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 11

Class II ATV (jeeps, sand rails, SUVs, etc)

• Vehicles wider than 50 inches and

• Dry weight more than 800 pounds

Class III ATV (motorcycles)

• Vehicles on two tires

• Dry weight less than 600 pounds

The State of Oregon defines an off-highway vehicle (OHV) as a “term used to describe all vehicles designed for offhighway travel and classified as one of the three classes of ATVs in Oregon.” The State regulates and licenses vehicles. 

Because the recreating public is most familiar with State OHV classes, this EIS uses State terminology to describe the 

permitted vehicles. To implement a decision resulting from this analysis; however, the State classes and combinations 

of classes must be translated into the appropriate MVUM categories. Table 1-2 provides a crosswalk between the two 

terminologies.

Table 1-2. Comparison of combinations of State OHV Classes identified in the Proposed Action 

and alternatives to the Proposed Action with Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) motor vehicle 

categories required by the Forest Service Manual (FSM 7711.3.5).

Travelway State OHV Class 

Combination Analyzed

Corresponding MVUM Motor Vehicle 

Class Category

Road Class I only Special Vehicle Designation

Road Class II only Special Vehicle Designation

Road Class III only Special Vehicle Designation

Road Class I and III only Special Vehicle Designation

Road Class I, II and III Roads Open to All Motor Vehicles

Trail Class I only Special Vehicle Designation

Trail Class III only Trails Open to Motorcycles Only

Trail Class I and III only Trails Open to Wheeled Motor Vehicles 50 Inches or 

Less in Width

Trail Class I, II and III Trails Open to All Motor Vehicles, including both 

highway-legal and non-highway legal vehicles.

Mt. Hood National Forest – Forest Orders

The Forest has closed specific roads, trails, and areas to motor vehicle travel, including OHV trail, using Forest 

Orders. According to 36 CFR 261.50, a Forest Order may close an area to entry or may restrict the use of an area by 

applying any or all of the prohibitions authorized, including closing or restricting the use of National Forest System 

roads or trails. Table 1-3 includes a complete list of Forest Orders applicable to OHV use on the Forest, as of January 

2009. Based on current regulations, the following areas are closed to off-road travel: Old Maid Flat, Clear Lake, 

Camas Prairie (March 1 to August 1), Ramsey Creek Parcel, Gibson Prairie, Gordon Creek Watershed, La Dee Flat, 

Summit Meadow, Bull Run Watershed, and The Dalles Watershed. OHV use is prohibited on some gravel and native 

surface roads, including the Barlow Road #3530. It is prohibited to operate any vehicle off National Forest System, 

State or County roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife or vegetative resources. 

Forest Orders may be updated or changed at any time; a current list of Forest Orders is available at: http://www.fs.fed.

us/r6/mthood/leo/forest-orders/.

A decision to implement Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 would replace the 

management direction provided in the Forest Plan Access and Travel Management Guide (Appendix C of Forest 

Plan) as well as any previous NEPA decisions allowing cross-country travel. Any NEPA decision prohibiting crosscountry travel would remain in place, unless specifically identified in the alternatives discussion contained in Chapter 

2. Forest Orders would be amended and adjusted as necessary in the implementation phase.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 12 Table 1-3. Complete list of Forest Orders (as of January 2009) for the Forest. Order Number Date Prohibitions Location District CFR Regulations MH-115-01-89 1/15/1986 Using any motorized wheeled vehicle Flag Point Road 2730-200, Mile Post 3.06 to 3.32 Barlow 36 CFR 231.54(a)

MH-239-01-95 5/3/1995 Motor vehicle on Eight mile Interpretive 

Trail.

150 yards of trail between Eightmile & Lower Crossing Campgrounds.

Barlow 36 CFR 261.55 (b)

MH-256-03-98 3/20/1998 Possess, use vehicle off Forest developed 

roads

LaDee Flats Area, National Forest System lands in Sections 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, and 36 or T4S, R5E.

Clackamas 36 CFR 261.54(a)

MH-263-01-99 5/6/1999 Possession or use of vehicle off Forest 

developed roads

Camas Prairie Barlow 36 CFR 261.56

MH-275-09-01 1/5/2001 1) Using a motor vehicle on Forest Roads, 

except road 15; 2) Using a motor vehicle on Forest development trail; 3) Possess or use a motor vehicle off-road

Gordon Creek Watershed Zigzag 36 CFR 261.54(a); 

261.55 (b), 261-56

MH-278-06-01 8/24/2001 1) Using a motor vehicle on Forest Roads; 

2) Possess or us a motor vehicle off-road

Clear Lake Hood River 36 CFR 261.54(a), 

261.56

MH-282-09-02 1/31/2003 Possess or use a motor vehicle off Road Summit Meadow, between Roads 2656 & 

2650

Zigzag 36 CFR 261.56

MH-295-09-04 1/22/2004 Possession or use of a vehicle off Forest 

roads

Old Maid Flat Zigzag 36 CFR 261.56

MH-2003-2 5/2008 Being on any road with a motorized vehicle where entry is restricted by a sign, 

closed or locked gate, barrier, barricade or berm, except snowmobiles and Class I All Terrain Vehicles on designated oversnow routes. 

Forestwide (this includes Ramsey Creek Parcel, Gibson Prairie, The Dalles Watershed, and Bull Run Watershed)

Forestwide 36 CFR 261.54(e)
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 13

Land Use Allocations

The proposed OHV routes and one area for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are located in the following Forest Plan 

Management Areas. The goals for each management area are provided below. Specific mileage within each 

management area is provided in the alternative discussion in Chapter 2. No management area is “buffered” from use 

on the adjacent lands.

A1 – Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – White River

Goal: The ultimate goal . . . is to protect and enhance the resource values for which the White River was designated 

into the Wild and Scenic River system.

A3 – Research Natural Area

Goal: Preserve examples of natural ecosystem in an unmodified condition for research and education and to provide 

areas to serve as a baseline against which human impacts on natural systems can be measured. 

A4 – Special Interest Area

Goal: Protect and where appropriate, foster public recreational use and enjoyment of important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national heritage. Preserve and provide interpretation of unique geological, biological, and 

cultural areas for education, scientific, and public enjoyment purposes.

A6 – Semi-Primitive Roaded Recreation

Goal: Provide a variety of year-round dispersed motorized opportunities and opportunities for semi-primitive 

recreational experiences.

A7 – Special Old Growth

Goal: Provide the many significant values of old growth forests for present and future generations. Maintain old 

growth to provide for wildlife and plant habitat, ecosystem diversity, preservation of aesthetic qualities, and to 

provide opportunities for a high degree of interaction between people and forests with old growth character.

A9 – Key Site Riparian Area

Goal: Maintain or enhance habitat and hydrologic conditions of selected riparian areas, notable for their exceptional 

diversity, high natural quality and key role in providing for the continued production of riparian dependent resource 

values. 

B2 – Scenic Viewshed

Goal: Provide attractive, visually appealing forest scenery with a wide variety of natural appearing landscape features. 

Utilize vegetation management activities to create and maintain a long-term desired landscape character.

B3 – Roaded Recreation

Goal: Provide a variety of year-round recreation opportunities in natural appearing roaded settings. A secondary goal 

is to maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of timber management practices.

B4 – Pine/Oak (Wildlife Emphasis)

Goal: Maintain key deer and elk winter habitat with additional emphasis on nesting and forage production for yearround turkey and squirrel habitat. Secondary goals are to maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of 

timber management practices and to provide summer dispersed and developed recreational opportunities.

B6 – Special Emphasis Watershed

Goal: Maintain or improve watershed, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions and water quality for municipal uses 

and/or long-term fish production. A secondary goal is to maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of 

timber management practices.

B8 – Earthflow Area

Goal: Maintain hydrologic and physical balances to prevent reactivation or acceleration of large, slow moving 

earthflow areas. Allow for the management and utilization of forest resources through the use of special management 

practices.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 14

B10 – Deer and Elk Winter Range

Goal: Provide high quality deer and elk habitat for use during most winters. Provide for stable populations of 

mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk on the eastside and black-tailed deer and Roosevelt Elk on the westside of the 

Cascades. Secondary goals are to maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of timber management 

practices and to provide dispersed summer and developed recreation opportunities.

B11 – Deer and Elk Summer Range

Goal: Provide high quality summer rearing habitat for deer and elk. A secondary goal is to maintain a healthy Forest 

condition through a variety of timber management practices.

B12 – Backcountry Lake Area

Goal: Protect or enhance the recreation, fish and wildlife, or scenic values of designated lakes. A secondary goal is to 

maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of timber management practices.

C1 – Wood Product Emphasis

Goal: Provide lumber, wood fiber, and other forest products on a fully regulated basis, based on the capability and 

suitability of the land. A secondary goal is to enhance other resource uses and values that are compatible with timber 

production.

The proposed OHV systems for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are located in the following Northwest Forest Plan Land 

Allocations. Specific mileage and maps within each land use allocation are provided in the alternative discussion in 

Chapter 2. No land allocation is “buffered” from use on the adjacent lands.

Tier 1 Key Watershed 

Some of the project area is located within Tier 1 Key Watershed – a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(USDA & USDI 1994). These watersheds were designated as sources for high water quality; they contain at-risk 

anadromous fish (e.g., salmon) and bull trout. The following subwatersheds include designated OHV routes: White 

River, West Fork of Hood River, Mill Creek, Fivemile/Eightmile Creek, and Roaring River. Watershed analyses in 

all of these subwatersheds have been completed: White River Watershed Analysis (1994), West Fork of Hood River 

Watershed Analysis (1996e), Mill Creek Watershed Analysis (2000), Mile Creeks Watershed Analysis (1994), and 

Roaring River Watershed Analysis (1996d).

Riparian Reserve 

This land allocation includes areas along rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable 

areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial resources receives primary emphasis. 

Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines apply and are added to the standards and guidelines of other designations 

Matrix 

This land allocation management area consists of Forest Service lands outside of designated areas (i.e., 

Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Administratively 

Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are conducted in 

portions of matrix with suitable forest lands. Each of the subwatersheds proposed contain portions within matrix 

lands. 

Late Successional Reserve (LSR) 

LSRs are designed to maintain a functional, interactive, and late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem, in 

combination with the other land allocations and standards and guidelines of the 1994 amendment. The different LSRs 

serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, which includes the northern spotted owl. The 

following LSRs include proposed OHV routes: North Willamette LSR (1997b) and Surveyor’s Ridge LSR (1998).

1.7. Management Standards and Guidelines

All of the applicable standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan that pertain to this 

project are contained in Appendix D. These standards and guidelines cover all resource areas analyzed in this EIS. 

In addition, all watershed assessments prepared using the Northwest Forest Plan were reviewed and found to be 

consistent with the Proposed Action and alternatives.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 15

There are 20 standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan (Table 1-4) that currently allow cross-country travel by OHV 

or require signing to enforce a trail, road or area closed to OHV travel. Also, the Forest Plan includes monitoring 

requirements for Off-Road Vehicles (page 5-69). In addition, the existing situation and historic use of some trails and 

roads are inconsistent with the seven standard and guidelines in the Forest Plan found in Table 1-5. Although this 

Forest Plan amendment would allow OHV use on the designated roads and trails within these management areas, 

new trail construction would be prohibited within the Research Natural Areas (A3), Special Interest Areas (A4), Key 

Site Riparian (A9), Specialist Old Growth (A7), and Special Emphasis Watershed (B6) management areas.

Table 1-4. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines discussing off-road vehicle (ORV) travel included 

in the proposed Forest Plan Amendment for all Alternatives.

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE1

FW-413 

Transportation 4-95 Roads, areas and trails closed or restricted to recreational access shall be posted.

FW-447 

Transportation 4-97 ORV trails should not incorporate open roads as part of the trail system.

FW-459 

Dispersed Recreation 4-98 ORV trails should not incorporate open roads as part of the trail system.

FW-465 

Dispersed Recreation 4-99

Opportunities for ORV use should be available except where not allowed by 

management direction, and where determined to adversely impact land capability and 

resource values.

FW-483 

Wild & Scenic Rivers 4-102 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted.

FW-543 

Wild & Scenic Rivers 4-106 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted

A3-006, A3-007 

Research Natural Areas 4-147 ORV and non-motorized bicycle use shall be prohibited. RNAs shall be posted as closed to ORV and non-motorized bicycle use.

A4-038 

Special Interest Area 4-156 Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited except as noted in items 4 [A4-039] and 5 [A4-040], below.

B1-077, B1-078, 

B1-079 

Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers

4-216

Within scenic and recreational river corridors, motorized use shall be limited. 

1) Motorized vehicles shall be permitted only on open roads.

2) ORV may occur only on designated trails.

B1-082, B1-083 

Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers4-216 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted. Administrative 

use of motorized vehicles shall be allowed in all river segments.

B3-038 

Roaded Recreation 4-232 Off-road vehicle use shall be encouraged on designated trails and/or areas.

B5-001, B5-002 

Pileated Woodpecker 

/ Pine Marten Habitat 

Area

4-242 Off-road motorized vehicle use should not be permitted except on designated trails. All 

areas and rails closed to off-road vehicle use shall be posted.

B11-037 

Deer and Elk Summer 

Range

4-280 Recreational motorized vehicle activity shall not be permitted except on open roads and 

designated parking areas.

C1-041, C2-041 

Timber Emphasis 4-294 Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be encouraged. ORV use should be restricted within specific areas with conflicting resource objectives.

Monitoring Element: 

Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) 

Use

5-69 • Are high quality ORV opportunities provided in areas which are suitable for ORV use 

and the needs, skills, and interests of users?

• Are the ORV opportunities provided effective in minimizing conflicts between user 

groups and safe for users and the general public?

• Are ORV opportunities being located, designated, and managed to minimize the 

negative effects (within acceptable limits) on key fish and wildlife species and 

sensitive habitats?

1 Shall is defined as: “Action is mandatory!” Should is defined as: “Action is required; however, case by case exceptions are acceptable if identified during 

interdisciplinary project planning environmental analyses. Exceptions are to documents in environmental analysis (National Environmental Policy Act 

1969) public documents.” [Page Four – 45, Forest Plan].
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 16

Table 1-5. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines discussing off-road vehicle (ORV) travel included 

in proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternatives 2 and 3. All standards are included in the 

proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 2. The proposed Forest Plan Amendment 

for Alternative 3 does not include the Standards and Guidelines shaded in gray. None of these 

Standards and Guidelines would be included in Alternative 4.

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE

A3-040 

Research Natural 

Areas

4-149 All forms of off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited.

A4-039 

Special Interest 

Area

4-156

Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rights-of-way should be allowed where 

consistent with other management direction, e.g. riparian and cultural resources 

protection.

A7-024

Special Old Growth 4-172 Recreation off-road vehicle use should be prohibited.

A9-039 

Key Site Riparian 4-184 Recreation off-road vehicle use, except over-snow vehicles, shall be prohibited.

B6-036, B6-037

Special Emphasis 

Watershed

4-251

Recreational off-road vehicle use (other than over-snow) shall be discouraged. Recreational 

off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited in Still Creek and The Dalles Watershed 

Management Unit.

A Forest Plan amendment of the standards and guidelines presented in Tables 1-4 and 1-5 are proposed for 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule. The proposed Forest Plan 

Amendment for Alternative 3 would include all standards and guidelines in Tables 1-4 and 1-5, except A3-006, A3-

007, A7-024, B6-036, and B6-037 (shaded gray in Table 1-5). The proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 

4 would include all standards and guidelines in Table 1-4; no standards and guidelines from Table 1-5 would be 

included. Specific language for the Forest Plan Amendment is discussed by alternative in Chapter 2.

1.8. Decision Framework

The Forest Supervisor for the Mt. Hood National Forest is the responsible official for this EIS. Given the purpose and 

need, the Forest Supervisor will review the Proposed Action, alternatives, environmental consequences, and public 

comments in order to make the following decisions:

• Would this project be implemented as proposed, as modified by an alternative, or not at all? If the project is 

implemented, the Forest Supervisor would need to decide the following:

✓ What OHV roads, trails and areas would be designated?

✓ What new roads, trails and areas would be established or constructed on the Forest to provide OHV 

recreation opportunities?

✓ What class of OHV would be allowed on each designated route?

✓ What time of year will OHVs be allowed to operate on each designated route?

• What PDC and monitoring requirements would the Forest Service apply if this project is implemented? 

• What amendments, if any, to the Forest Plan are required to implement this project?
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 17

After the decision is made, all routes or areas not designated would be considered unauthorized and OHV use would 

be illegal based on the Final Travel Management Rule. Also, based on the Final Travel Management Rule, motorized 

cross-country travel would be prohibited except as specified for the purposes of dispersed camping, emergency 

fire suppression, search and rescue, law enforcement, military operations, and Forest Service administrative use, 

including uses authorized by permit such as firewood gathering. 

User-created OHV routes that develop after the decision would be considered unauthorized, and would be closed or 

removed by the Forest Service upon discovery. No public process or NEPA analysis would be necessary to remove 

such a route. 

Factors influencing the selection of an alternative include: 

• How well the alternative meets the purpose and need for action; 

• Potential effects of designating roads, trails and areas for OHV use to the environment; 

• Balancing of recreation opportunities for OHV use with other recreational uses of the National Forest and natural resources as directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; and,

• Resulting route density of OHV routes across the Forest.

1.9. Public Involvement

During the development of the project, the Mt. Hood National Forest Projects & Plans website contained potential 

OHV routes and requested public comment. The website announcement was posted from July 2005 until September 

2008. The announcement included maps of seven potential areas and requested the following.

The Forest has identified a number of areas that have potential for the development of trail systems. Forest personnel 

are asking for help in proposing trail routes in these areas, identifying concerns, identifying other areas that might be 

suitable for OHV trails construction, and in generating volunteer support from organizations interested in working 

on maintenance and monitoring use.

The public dialogue to develop the proposed action included two public workshops held in March 2005. The 

preliminary proposed action was shared with the public at two open houses held in Sandy, Oregon and Hood River, 

Oregon on May 30-31, 2007. The information from the open houses was used to begin the NEPA process.

Public involvement has occurred throughout the NEPA process. The project was included in the quarterly Schedule 

of Proposed Actions distributed by the Forest since November 2006. A Notice of Intent (NOI) requesting public 

comment was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2007. Information on the proposal was posted on a 

project website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/projects/), and provided via direct mailing to approximately 870 

individuals, organizations, agencies, businesses, recreational residence owners, and local and tribal governments. The 

Forest Service received approximately 375 comments through this process.

Due to the complexity of the Proposed Action, additional public involvement steps were taken to solicit public input 

during the analysis phases. An update letter was mailed to approximately 650 addresses, including all respondents to 

the scoping letter. Also, meetings were held with governmental agencies and tribal governments to discuss the project 

in greater detail. Lastly, the proposed action was presented to groups upon request. The presentation was made to 

Northern Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club (NOMAC), Sportsman’s Park Homeowners Associations, and Columbia 

Gorge Off-Road Association (CGORA). The presentation was posted on the Forest website as well.

All scoping comments and mailing lists are available in the project file, located in the Mt. Hood National Forest 

Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 18

1.10. Issues

NEPA directs federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation of significant issues related to the Proposed 

Action. The scoping process resulted in the identification of some potential issues to be addressed in the EIS. An 

“issue” arises from the relationships between actions (proposed, connected, similar, cumulative) and environmental 

consequences (physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic). In this EIS, issues are defined as points of 

discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the Proposed Action. The issues are divided into 

three groups: key, resolved, and tracking issues.

In addition, issues outside the scope of this analysis were identified. The Council of Environmental Quality requires 

the Forest Service to identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant (40 CFR 1501.7). Issues 

may be eliminated from further analysis when the issue is outside the scope of the EIS; are already decided by law, 

regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; are not clearly relevant to the decision to be made; or are 

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Issues outside the scope of this project are available in 

the project file, located in the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

1.10.1. Key Issues

Key issues are those that are within the scope of the Proposed Action and suggest the need to consider different 

actions or project design criteria. Key issues as used in this EIS are those that are used to formulate alternatives, affect 

the design of alternative components, prescribe PDC, or describe environmental effects. Key issues are identified 

as such due to their geographic distribution, duration of effects, intensity of interest by the public, or resource area 

conflict. Alternatives 3 and 4 were designed to address the key issues. The Forest Service identified three key issues:

a. Motorized Recreation

b. Non-motorized Recreation

c. Wildlife Disturbance

Brief summaries of each key issue are presented below.

Key Issue 1: Motorized OHV Recreation

Changes to the OHV route designation on the Forest can affect the viability and quality of the OHV system, 

especially decreasing the miles of motorized trails available. The proposed alternatives vary in how well they provide 

a meaningful riding experience. Specific concerns expressed include: 

• A reduction in OHV routes may result in an insufficient miles of trails to make the OHV experience worthwhile. 

• Having multiple-class OHV routes may result in a diminished recreation experience for motorcycles.

• Restricting some routes to a single OHV class may affect mixed OHV groups, such as families and OHV club 

groups.

• Designating OHV routes with dead-ends may adversely affect the motorized recreation experience.

• Designating OHV routes may not have the capacity to meet the existing or future needs of OHV users.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Number of proposed OHV systems with adequate3 miles of motorized trails.

• Miles of OHV routes by difficulty level.

• Miles of proposed routes by OHV class.

• Miles of dead-end routes by proposed OHV system.

• Number of staging areas and parking capacity.

Discussion of the issue can be found in Section 3.1 – Recreation.

3 Adequate OHV systems have more than 40-miles for Class I OHVs; a variable number of miles for Class II OHVs depending on the difficulty; and more than 

50-miles for Class III OHVs. Adequacy is explained further in Section 3.1 Recreation.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 19

Key Issue 2: Non-motorized Recreation

Motorized and non-motorized recreationalists have expressed concerns about their potential loss of access and/or 

loss of opportunities for desired experiences. Proposed new OHV routes may alter the balance between motorized 

and non-motorized recreation interests and uses. Altering this balance between users may result in an increase 

in user conflicts. For example, some residents of the Sportsman’s Park subdivision raised specific concern about 

restricting direct OHV access to the proposed Rock Creek OHV system, while other residents of the community 

expressed their desire for direct OHV access. In addition, changes to OHV route designation on the Forest can affect 

the quality of non-motorized recreation. A specific concern was that the noise of OHVs may adversely affect quiet 

recreation use, particularly where it carries into roadless and wilderness areas.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Miles of non-motorized trail and other locations where sound emitted by OHVs might be detected.

• Acres of designated wilderness where sound emitted by OHVs might be detected.

• Balance between recreation opportunities for OHV use and other recreation uses of the Forest, and protecting 

natural resources.

• Distance between the proposed Rock Creek OHV system and Sportsman’s Park subdivision.

Discussion of the issue can be found in Section 3.1 – Recreation and Section 3.14 – Socioeconomic.

Key Issue 3: Wildlife Disturbance

Designating OHV routes in summer and winter range habitat may affect big game (i.e., deer and elk) migration 

patterns. Also, the density of proposed OHV roads and trails and the amount and frequency of their use could 

disturb wildlife (including old-growth dependent species) during critical life stages, compromise security, and/or 

affect habitat. 

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Miles of OHV trails and roads. 

• Miles new trail construction.

• Acres of OHV open to cross-country travel.

• Effects to big game use in each proposed OHV system.

Discussion of the issue can be found in Section 3.5 – Wildlife.

1.10.2. Resolved Issues

Resolved issues are issues identified by the public that have been mitigated through the development of PDC. As 

such, these issues do not have any significant (see 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) impacts or environmental consequences.

Safety

Designating OHV route systems may increase traffic hazards on roads and trails. The public expressed concern 

that an increase of OHV use on the Forest would threaten public safety, including an increase in accidents within 

the OHV community as well as between OHV riders, motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Implementing 

the PDC discussed in Section 2.4, as required by the action alternatives, would reduce the risk of accidents (but not 

eliminate it). For example, routes should be maintained to provide the appropriate stopping sight distance based on 

posted speed limit or prevailing speed within the proposed OHV systems (PDC RD-2). Also, all planned road/trail 

intersections would be located based on site-specific examination for risk (PDC RD-5).

Additional information is available in Section 2.4 – Project Design Criteria and Section 3.11 – Transportation.

Compliance

The public has expressed concern about current law enforcement mechanisms being ineffective. It was expressed 

that new tools are needed to ensure that OHV riders comply with the change in OHV route designation. The PDC 

discussed in Section 2.4 include measures that would increase compliance by motorized recreationists, such as:
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 20

• Coordinating with County Sheriffs’ Offices that currently receive state OHV funding to plan for OHV emphasis 

patrols (PDC LE-1); and,

• Increasing public awareness of designated OHV routes through field contacts with forest visitors (PDC LE-4).

Additional information is available in Section 2.4 – Project Design Criteria and Section 3.9 – Law Enforcement.

Hazardous Materials

Accidental spills from OHVs may contaminate the Forest. Specifically, there is greatest concern that possible 

contamination at staging areas and stream crossings would cause an increase in pollutants within the Forest 

waterways. The PDC discussed in Section 2.4 include measures to minimize hazardous materials from leaching into 

surface waters. For example, restroom facilities would be provided, as usage warrants, at designated staging areas 

(RM-7). Also, spoils/fill materials would be disposed of in stable areas away from stream channels (PDC WR-11).

Additional information is available in Section 2.4 –Project Design Criteria and 3.3 – Water Quality.

Heritage Resources

Designating OHV route systems may damage or destroy historic resources. Implementing the PDC, as discussed in 

Section 2.4, would minimize possible impacts. As part of the planning process, for example, protection measures for 

specific sites were developed, and travel routes with the potential to adversely affect significant heritage resources 

were rerouted or realigned away from the resource (PDC HR-2). In addition, any protection measures necessary 

would be developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, appropriate Tribes, and, if 

necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (see Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination for more 

details).

Additional information is available in Section 2.4 – Project Design Criteria and Section 3.8 – Heritage Resources.

1.10.3. Tracking Issues

Tracking issues are those that have been determined to be relevant, but are not used to formulate alternatives. These 

issues often describe minor or consistent consequences among alternatives considered in detail. These issues usually 

are addressed through adherence to standards and guidelines, appropriate laws and regulations, or as covered by the 

PDC. Tracking issues are generally of interest or concern to the public, and are tracked throughout the document.

Local Economies

Motorized recreation may affect local economies in terms of the potential loss of jobs and income currently generated 

by OHV use on the Forest. Another financial concern expressed by the public was that local emergency services 

would not be well equipped to handle an increase in calls. Additionally, the Gate Creek ditch company stated that 

OHV designation adjacent to the ditch would disturb the integrity of the ditch structure and accelerate the delivery of 

sediment into the ditch, thereby increasing their ditch maintenance costs. 

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Effects of OHV use on local jobs and income.

• Effects of OHV use on local emergency services.

• Effects of OHV use adjacent to the irrigation ditch.

Cost of OHV Systems

Based on current budgets, the Forest may have difficulties paying for the implementation of OHV route designations. 

There may not be sufficient funding to adequately cover the maintenance and building of OHV trails or upkeep of 

staging areas.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Costs of road maintenance OHV roads per year.

• Savings on the cost of road maintenance per year.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1 — 21

• Cost of brushing on mixed-use roads. Increase in brushing costs per year.

• Costs of maintaining all OHV trails.

Discussion of this issue can be found in Section 3.14.

Aquatic Resources

OHV route designation may harm aquatic species and their habitat by affecting water quality and sedimentation 

rates. The public commented that increased OHV use would result in an increase in sediment loading, which could 

affect a stream’s natural hydrologic flow. Additionally, this increase in sediment could impact spawning and rearing 

habitat for native fish species. It was also expressed that OHV route designation and new trail construction may 

impact riparian areas.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Number of OHV routes crossing streams.

• Number of OHV routes crossing fish-bearing streams.

• Miles of OHV trails and roads within 100-feet of water bodies.

• Miles of OHV routes in drinking water source areas.

Discussion of this issue can be found in Section 3.4.

Soils

OHV route designation may result in changes to soil structure, which could affect soil characteristics, such as 

compaction, nutrient cycling, and susceptibility to erosion. Also, differences in elevation and season could result 

in differential erosion potential and recovery from disturbance. OHV route designation may result in increased 

sediment production, thereby affecting hydrologic regimes and drinking water supplies.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Risk ratings for effects of OHV use on soils.

Discussion of this issue can be found in Section 3.2.

Invasive Species

OHV routes may result in the spread of invasive plant species. OHVs, clothing, and pets could spread invasive plants 

to other OHV locations and areas throughout the Forest. Hound’s tongue, which already exists in McCubbins, could 

be transported to other locations. Also, new trails could create additional habitat for weeds to exist.

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Effects of OHV use on invasive plants, including the risk of spread and/or new infestations.

Discussion of this issue can be found in Section 3.6.

Native Species

Concentrating OHVs to designated routes could destroy vegetation, including rare and uncommon botanical species. 

The public commented that OHVs could crush and trample plants, damage germinating seeds, reduce vegetation 

cover, and/or destroy crucial root systems. 

Indicators for Comparing Alternatives

• Effects of OHV use to native plants, including sensitive plans.

Discussion of this issue can be found in Section 3.6.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 1 — 22
Chapter 2 — 1

Chapter 2 -

Alternatives,

Including the Proposed Action
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 2
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 3

2.0. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 describes and compares the alternatives considered for OHV road, trail and area designation on the Mt. 

Hood National Forest (the Forest). A description and map are provided for each. Also, this section presents the 

alternatives in comparison form, highlighting the differences between each alternative and providing a basis for 

choice among options for the Responsible Official and the public. The Responsible Official for this project is Forest 

Supervisor for the Mt. Hood National Forest.

2.1. Alternative Development Process

The interdisciplinary team (IDT), including the Responsible Official, followed the Forest Service Handbook (1909.15) 

for developing and considering alternatives. Alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need and to 

respond to public issues.

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, was developed over a two year period and included dialogue from a diverse 

public. The dialogue included two workshops where members of the public helped to identify potential OHV 

roads, trails and areas across the Forest as well as the opportunity to comment on the preliminary designations 

on the Forest’s website. OHV enthusiasts, environmental organizations, State government offices, and interested 

individuals all participated in the process. Using this information, recreational specialists across the Forest developed 

a preliminary proposed action. The preliminary proposed action was passed through three screens. First, resource 

specialists from each District conducted a preliminary effects analysis to determine if there were any unacceptable 

environmental effects. Second, a feasibility study was conducted on this preliminary proposed action. The objective 

of the study was to develop a trail system that “minimally affects resources, that provides opportunities for satisfying 

recreation experiences, that requires minimal maintenance, and that serves the intended type and level of use” 

(Higgins 2006). Third, the preliminary proposed action was shared with the public at two open houses. Based on this 

public collaboration and feasibility study, Alternative 2 was developed and carried forward into the NEPA process for 

analysis and consideration.

The Forest Service developed four alternatives: No Action (Alternative 1), Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and two 

other action Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4). The No Action (Alternative 1), defined as current OHV management 

as approved under existing NEPA decisions and Forest Orders, was compared to the underlying need for action. 

The current OHV policy for the Forest was developed during land management planning in the 1980s. The policy 

allows OHVs to venture off roads and trails in areas that have not been specifically closed to such use. Additionally, 

current state law allows OHVs to operate on any road open to the public which is not paved. (For more information 

on current Oregon State Laws regarding Off-Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles go to: http://www.

oregon.gov/OPRD/ATV/links.shtml). Many gravel and native surface roads on the Forest meet these criteria and 

thus are open to OHV travel. As such, the current management direction does not comply with the Final Travel 

Management Rule, specifically routes and areas on the Forest are not closed to OHV use unless designated open as 

directed by this rule. As such, the focus of this EIS is on the designation of OHV roads, trails and areas by class of 

OHV and time of year across the Forest. The analysis focuses on the designation of OHV roads, trails and areas.

Public and interagency issues centered on motorized recreation, non-motorized recreation, and route density. 

Motorized recreation considerations include: sufficiency of miles of trails, number of dead end routes, connectivity 

of routes, and OHV classes allowed. The primary non-motorized recreation issues focused on the balance between 

multiple recreational uses. Alternatives 3 and 4 vary in the amount of proposed OHV routes across the Forest. 

Alternative 3 considers all the routes proposed during the public involvement process and provides additional OHV 

opportunities across the Forest. Alternative 4 considers all the requests to close roads, trails and areas to OHV use 

across the Forest and reduce the number of locations where OHV use would be designated.

Twenty-five potential Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan were identified to be inconsistent with the Final 

Travel Management Rule or the action alternatives (see Section 1.7 Management Standards and Guidelines). This 

inconsistency and potential Forest Plan Amendment is analyzed with Alternatives 2 through 4. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 4

Some alternatives that would resolve public concerns were eliminated from detailed study because they do not 

meet the purpose and need for action. The eliminated alternatives include: Prohibit Off-highway Vehicle Use on the 

Forest, Designate All Existing “On-the-Ground” Routes, Continued Off-highway Vehicle Use in Specific Areas, Offhighway Vehicle Use on Gravel Roads, and Increased Off-highway Vehicle Use in Hunting Season. The specific areas 

considered include Black Wolf, Wildcat, Hillock Burn, Oak Grove, Hugh Creek, and Fish Creek. These are discussed 

in this chapter in Section 2.7.

2.2. Assumptions and Analysis Framework

Illegal OHV use occurs on the Forest, and has caused natural resource damage. The resource damage has led to Forest 

Order closures in some areas1. While recognizing that illegal OHV use occurs on the Forest, the analysis in Chapter 3 

does not include illegal use for the following reasons. First, no inventory of user-created roads and trails exists for the 

Forest to provide a baseline for potential future illegal use. An inventory would require a considerable amount of time 

and funding since the entire land base would need to be surveyed. Second, numerous possibilities exist for potential 

future illegal use. Given the number of possibilities, a likely scenario could not be characterized and analyzed for 

each alternative. Lastly, based on current regulations, it is illegal to operate any vehicle off National Forest System, 

State or County roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife or vegetative resources. 

The analysis for Alternative 1 does include some anecdotal evidence and field surveys that include illegal use. This 

analysis however does not capture all illegal use across the Forest. Because of these reasons, the analysis in Chapter 

3 assumes all OHV users would remain on the designated OHV routes (trails and roads) and one area as directed by 

the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The first MVUM is scheduled to be distributed in the spring of 2010. After the 

first MVUM is distributed, all OHV users would be required to remain on the designated OHV routes and one area, 

as required by the Final Travel Management Rule.

Although illegal use is not analyzed completely in the EIS, some of the project design criteria (PDC) minimize 

potential future illegal use. For example, PDC LE-2 requires the Forest Service to “plan and schedule for increased 

patrols during high use periods that can be utilized and implemented by Forest staff.” This should decrease illegal 

use during these periods. Another example is PDC RD-7 which requires “all roads proposed to be closed to all traffic 

would be actively obliterated within sight distance from the designated OHV route.” The requirement for active 

obliteration is to minimize the temptation for illegal use on these routes. In addition to the PDC, the route design and 

designation attempts to minimize illegal use by making the routes appealing to users. By providing appealing routes, 

such as loop opportunities, users would be less likely to create illegal routes. 

In addition, several assumptions were made about the OHV use across the Forest for analysis purposes. These 

following assumptions allow all resource specialists to analyze the impacts and effects of each alternative consistently. 

Additional assumptions may have been made by each resource area. These assumptions are discussed in the 

individual sections of Chapter 3 or in the Specialist Reports located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, 

Oregon.

• User-created roads and trails are not National Forest System (NFS) roads and trails. They are unauthorized. The 

agency never took an affirmative action to create, manage, or construct them for public use. They were created by 

the public as a result of cross-country travel.

• Temporary roads, trails and areas built to support emergency operations or temporarily authorized in association with contracts, permits or leases are not intended for public use, including OHV use. Any proposal to add 

these temporary roads to the NFS road system would require a NEPA decision.

• No NEPA decision is necessary to continue use of the NFS roads by licensed motor vehicles as currently managed. As such, all licensed vehicles can use NFS roads. Licensed vehicles include dual-sport motorcycles and 

many Class II OHVs (e.g., jeeps and SUVs).

• All proposed trail construction would be field verified for road and stream crossings before implementation.

1 If resource damage occurs after OHV routes are designated on the MVUM, law enforcement and line officers have the ability to close an area. This authority 

will not change with this project.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 5

• PDC would be applied effectively and would accomplish the necessary and desired outcome. Monitoring effectiveness of PDC and compliance would be a component of project implementation. (See Section 2.5 – Monitoring Strategy for more details.)

• Funding and law enforcement would be available to implement the project. No new trail construction would take 

place until funding is secured. Funding sources include appropriated funds, grant opportunities and volunteer 

and partnership organizations in-kind support.

2.3. Alternatives Considered in Detail

For Alternative 2, 3, and 4, the projects would be implemented using a combination of appropriated funding, grant 

funding (i.e., Oregon Parks and Recreation ATV Grant Program), and volunteer and partnership in-kind support. 

Currently, the Oregon Parks and Recreation ATV Grant Program helps pay for operation and maintenance, law 

enforcement, emergency services, land acquisition, leases, planning, development and safety education in Oregon’s 

OHV recreation areas. No new construction would be completed until funding is secured. Funding for new trail 

construction would come from one of the three sources listed above.

2.3.1. Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

The Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative represents the current conditions. The current OHV direction was 

developed in the 1980s as part of the forest planning process. Based on direction in the Forest Plan, the implied 

policy on the Forest is “open unless posted closed.” The current law enforcement mechanism is signing an area as 

closed to OHV use. In order to enforce the closures, the sign must be posted and visible. Only a limited number of 

the OHV routes were designated through an interdisciplinary or public process. OHV use is occurring on a majority 

of roads because this use is not prohibited by State of Oregon regulations or Forest Service regulations. The areas 

where cross-country travel is not prohibited were designated during the Forest Planning process when OHV use was 

much less popular. This alternative does not include project design criteria or designated staging areas, nor does it 

include a Forest Plan Amendment or a MVUM. Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need for action for this 

project and it does not meet the intent of the Final Travel Management Rule.

Overall, this alternative allows OHV use on 2,463 miles of gravel and native surface roads2, 49 miles of motorized 

trails, and 394,886 acres of forestland. This alternative provides the greatest opportunities for motorized recreation 

(see Appendix A, Alternative 1 OHV Use in the Mount Hood National Forest Map). Maps in Appendix A show the 

cross-country areas, roads and trails where OHV use is not prohibited for each Ranger District on the Forest. The 

components of Alternative 1 that will be discussed in the following sections are: general description and location of 

current OHV use, current OHV use, and land use allocations.

General Description and Location of Current OHV Use

The general forest area encompasses 1.1 million acres of the Forest in Multnomah, Clackamas, Hood River and 

Wasco counties with small pieces in Marion and Jefferson counties. Cross-country OHV travel and OHV travel on 

designated routes is allowed across much of the Forest, so site conditions vary greatly. Annual precipitation varies 

from 10 to 120 inches per year, primarily in the winter months. The average percent slope ranges from zero to 62 

percent. The average elevation ranges from 25 to 5,400 feet. Current OHV use is located in nearly every fifth (5th) 

field watershed on the Forest. There are over 1,600 miles of fish-bearing streams on the Forest, with approximately 

300 miles supporting anadromous populations of salmon and steelhead. The general vegetation type, flora, and fauna 

present vary greatly. The general forest area encompasses westside lowland conifer-hardwood forest, eastside mixed 

conifer forest, montane mixed conifer forest, ponderosa pine/Douglas fir conifer forest, and lodgepole pine forest 

and woodland habitat types. This includes both deer and elk winter range and elk and deer calving areas as well as 

Northern spotted owl dispersal and suitable habitat.

2 The miles of gravel and native surface roads were determined using miles of Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads, which are calculated using the INFRA 

database and GIS roads layer for the Forest. Both the database and GIS layer are updated on a regular basis to reflect new roads decision and to reflect 

changes identified on the road. These numbers represent the best information available on May 15, 2009.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 6

Current OHV Use

Areas that allow cross-country OHV travel3 are determined by the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management 

(Forest Plan) standards and guidelines as well as Appendix C – Access and Travel Management Guide. In addition, 

additional areas have been closed to cross-country OHV travel through Forest Orders. Forest Orders are discussed in 

more detail in Section 1.6 Management Direction. Table 2-1 illustrates where and what type of OHV use is currently 

not prohibited in the general forest area based on Forest Plan direction, and Table 2-2 illustrates where and what 

type of OHV use is currently limited or prohibited in the general forest area based on Forest Orders. Based on these 

guidelines, cross-country travel is not prohibited on 394,886 acres of forestland. This represents 36 percent of the 

Forest. An undetermined amount of this land is inaccessible due to physical barriers, such as rock outcrops, steep 

slopes, dense forest vegetation, rivers and streams. Cross-country OHV travel is prohibited on 695,684 acres of the 

Forest. On the acres where cross-country OHV use is prohibited, OHV use is permitted on designated roads and 

trails on 203,881 acres and all OHV use is prohibited on 491,803 acres.

In addition, current Oregon State Law allows OHVs to operate on any road open to the public, which is not paved 

(e.g., gravel or native surface roads), unless the landowner applies more stringent regulations. To date, the Forest has 

closed individual roads to OHV use on a limited basis, but it has not approved any regulations across the Forest. As 

such, the Forest has allowed OHVs to use the majority of Level 1 and 2 gravel and native surface roads across the 

Forest. Although Level 1 roads are classified as closed roads, OHV use is permitted on these roads in areas where 

the land use allocation allows cross-country travel. Overall, this includes approximately 2,463 miles of roads. This 

represents 82 percent of all Level 1 and 2 roads across the Forest, which is approximately 3,021 miles. Also, this 

represents 73 percent of all Forest roads (Levels 1 through 5), which is approximately 3,383 miles. A complete list 

of the roads where OHV use is permitted is available in the project record, located at Mt. Hood National Forest 

Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

3 OHV cross-country travel is defined as an OHV leaving the designated road, trail or area.

Table 2-1. Summary of where and what type of OHV use is currently not prohibited based on 

Forest Plan direction.

Land Allocation OHV Use 

Prohibited

OHV Use 

Allowed on 

Designated 

Roads/Trails1

CrossCountry 

OHV Use 

Allowed

Special Circumstance Apply

A1

Wild, Scenic and Recreation 

and Recreational Rivers – 

White River

X

OHVs prohibited on Road 48 north of its 

junction with Road 43 between November 

15 and April 1. Overlaps with B1 lands.

A2 Wilderness X

A3 Research Natural Areas X No OHV trails permitted.

A4 Special Interest Areas X OHVs allowed in powerline rights-of-way

A5 Unroaded Recreation X

A6 Semi-primitive Roaded 

Recreation X

A7 Special Old Growth X

A8 Spotted Owl Habitat Areas X Seasonal restriction from March 1 to September 30 

A9 Key Site Riparian X

A10 Developed Recreations Sites X Only on access roads and parking areas.

A11 Winter Recreation X

A12 Outdoor Education Area X

A13 Bald Eagle Habitat Area X

Only on designated trails and prohibited 

in active nesting areas from January 1 to 

August 15.

B1 Wild Rivers X
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 7

Land Allocation OHV Use 

Prohibited

OHV Use 

Allowed on 

Designated 

Roads/Trails1

CrossCountry 

OHV Use 

Allowed

Special Circumstance Apply

B1 Scenic and Recreational 

Rivers X

B2 Scenic Viewsheds X

B3 Roaded Recreation X Prohibited in Indian Mountain and Sherar 

Burn Road #2613

B4 Pine - Oak Habitat X

B5 Pine Marten/Pileated Woodpecker X

B6 Special Emphasis Watersheds X Prohibited in Still Creek and The Dalles 

Watersheds

B7 General Riparian Area X

B8 Earthflow Area X

B9 Wildlife/Visual Area X Only on open roads and designated parking areas

B10 Deer and Elk Winter Range X

B11 Deer and Elk Summer Range X Only on open roads and designated parking areas

B12 Back Country Lakes X

Not within a 1⁄2 mile of Buck, Dinger, and 

Veda lakes; Not permitted within 100-feet 

of lake

C1 Timber Emphasis X

D Bull Run X

1 Designated routes include existing trals and all open single-lane grgavel and native surface roads.

Table 2-2. Summary of where and what type of OHV use is currently limited or prohibited based on 

current Forest Orders.

Closed by Forest Order OHV Use Prohibited OHV Use Allowed on Designated 

Roads/Trails2

Gordon Creek Watershed X

The Dalles Watershed X

Summit Meadow X

Old Maid Flat X

Clear Lake X

Gibson Prairie X

LaDee Flats X

Camas Prairie X

Ramsey Creek Parcel X

Table 2-1. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 8

Finally, OHV use is permitted on the existing motorized routes across the Forest. Currently, there are three nonconnected trails designated for motorized use: North Section Line trail (#451), Rhododendron Ridge trail (#564), and 

Rocky Butte trail (#476). Also, McCubbins Gulch is an existing motorized trail system, located on the Barlow Ranger 

District. All motorized trails are open to non-motorized use as well. McCubbins Gulch OHV trails are currently open 

to mountain bikes, horses, and hikers as well as motorized vehicles. More complete description of the McCubbins 

Gulch OHV trail system is available in Section 2.3.2: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. Overall, OHV use is permitted 

on 48.5 miles of trails as shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Summary of existing motorized trails.

Trail Name Trail Number Miles OHV Class Permitted

McCubbins Gulch 575, 576, 577 31.98 Class I and III

North Section Line 451 4.04 Class III

Rhododendron Ridge 564 10.4 Class III

Rocky Butte 476 2.07 Class III

Total 48.5

Alternative 1 does not include any designated OHV staging areas; however, rock quarries and pits are often 

opportune staging areas. There are 61 rock quarries in the Forest. The average quarry size was conservatively 

estimated to be two acres with a parking capacity of 60 vehicles. As such, alternative 1 “staging areas” have the 

parking capacity for 3,660 vehicles.

Land Use Allocations

The Land Use Allocations (LUAs) for Alternative 1 are listed in Table 2-4 for all acres across the Forest, miles of roads, 

and miles of motorized trails. The majority of cross-country travel acres are located on C1-Wood Product Emphasis 

(58 percent) and B2-Scenic Viewsheds (38 percent) management areas. An additional three percent is on B3-Roaded 

Recreation and less than one percent is located on B12-Back Country Lakes management areas. Cross-country travel 

is prohibited within all other LUAs.

The majority of roads where OHV use (71 percent) is permitted are located in areas where cross-country travel also is 

not prohibited. The remainder of roads are located in LUAs where OHVs are allowed on designated roads and trails. 

For the roads where OHV use is permitted, 44 percent are on C1-Wood Product Emphasis lands; 25 percent are on 

B2-Scenic Viewsheds; 10 percent are in B6-Special Emphasis Watersheds; and seven percent are on B8-Earthflow 

Areas. Less than three percent of the roads are located on all other LUAs. 

For motorized trails, Table 2-5 lists the LUA for each trail. The majority of the motorized trails are located on C1-

Wood Product Emphasis Lands (66 percent). Trails are also in locations on B6-Special Emphasis Watersheds (14 

percent), B2-Scenic Viewsheds (eight percent), B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range (seven percent), and B10-Deer and 

Elk Winter Range (three percent). All other LUAs include less than one percent of the trails.

Based on the Northwest Forest Plan management direction, OHV use is not prohibited within the Tier 1 Key 

Watershed, Riparian Reserve, Matrix, and Late Successional Reserve (LSR). The type of OHV use is determined by 

the Forest Plan LUA as explained above. OHV use is prohibited in Administratively Withdrawn Areas.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 9

Table 2-4. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 1 for areas, roads and trails.

Forest Plan Land Use Allocation 1

Acres of OHV Travel Miles of Roads with OHV Travel Existing 

Motorized OHV 

Trails Cross-Country Travel Allowed Designated Roads/Trails Travel Only Travel Prohibited Cross-Country Travel Allowed Designated Roads/Trails Travel Only

A2 Wilderness Area, including newly designated Wilderness Areas   308,771  

A3 Research Natural Area 62 1

A3 Research Natural Area - Big Bend 778

A3 Research Natural Area - The Dalles Watershed 295

A4 Special Interest Area 25,238  

A5 Unroaded Recreation 5,113

A6 Semi-primitive Roaded Recreation 78,987   26

A7 Special Old Growth 1,261 1

A9 Key Site Riparian Area 13,895   22

A10 Developed Recreation Area 923

A11 Winter Recreation Area 9,172 6

A12 Outdoor Education Area 161 1

A13 Bald Eagle Habitat Area 1,005 2

A13 Bald Eagle Habitat Area - Clear Lake 51

B1 Wild & Scenic River Corridor, including newly designated Wild & Scenic River Corridors 39,781   0

B2 Scenic Viewshed 151,383 606

4

B2 Scenic Viewshed - Clear Lake 1,651

B2 Scenic Viewshed - Gibson Prairie 3,926

4

B2 Scenic Viewshed - La Dee Flats 761 2

B2 Scenic Viewshed - Old Maid Flat 1,107 5

B2 Scenic Viewshed - Summit Meadow 1

B3 Roaded Recreation 11,555 39

B4 Pine-Oak Habitat 22,305   70

B5 Pine Marten/Pileated Woodpecker 332

B6 Special Emphasis Watershed 0 254 7

B6 Special Emphasis Watershed - Gordon Creek 1,972

B6 Special Emphasis Watershed - Still Creek 3,772

B6 Special Emphasis Watershed - The Dalles Watershed 12,553  
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 10 Forest Plan Land Use Allocation 1 Acres of OHV Travel Miles of Roads with OHV Travel Existing Motorized OHV Trails Cross-Country Travel Allowed Designated Roads/Trails Travel Only Travel Prohibited Cross-Country Travel Allowed Designated Roads/Trails Travel Only

B8 Earthflow Area 30,471   162B9 Wildlife/Visuals Area 4,583 17

B10 Deer and Elk Winter Range 15,326   54 1

B11 Deer and Elk Summer Range 11,377   45

4

B12 Backcountry Lakes 3,456 11

C1 Wood Product Emphasis 228,492 1,093 32

C1 Wood Product Emphasis - Camas Prairie 1

C1 Wood Product Emphasis - Clear Lake

4

C1 Wood Product Emphasis - Gibson Prairie 4,831 26

C1 Wood Product Emphasis - La Dee Flats 3,891 16

C1 Wood Product Emphasis - Old Maid Flat 383 2

D Bull Run 90,901  

Sub-totals 394,886 203,838 491,803 1,749 715 49

Percent of Grand Total per Category 36.2% 18.7% 45.1% 71.0% 29.0% n/a

Grand Total 1,090,526 2464 n/a

Table 2-4. (continued)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 11

Table 2-5. Forest Plan land use allocations for motorized trails in Alternative 1.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Trails

McCubbins Gulch

A1-Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – White River 0.4

B2-Scenic Viewshed 3.7

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 1.3

C1-Timber Emphasis 26.7

North Section Line Trail

A3-Research Natural Area 0.5

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.2

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 2.3

C1-Timber Emphasis 1.1

Rhododendron Ridge

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 4.5

B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range 3.5

C1-Timber Emphasis 2.4

Rocky Butte

C1-Timber Emphasis 2.1

GRAND TOTAL 49

2.3.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Alternative 2 – Proposed Action would change OHV access on much of the Forest. The Proposed Action 

focuses on designated trails, roads, and areas for OHV use within six proposed locations. One location includes 

one small OHV area (approximately four acres) in an existing rock quarry. Figure 2-1 is a vicinity map for the six 

locations proposed in Alternative 2-Proposed Action. All Mt. Hood National Forest System lands were considered 

by the Forest Service and members of the public during a two-year long dialogue with the public as described in 

the Alternative Development Process (Section 2.1). The proposed OHV systems that resulted from this dialogue 

were designed to provide a balance between providing recreational opportunities and protecting natural resources. 

Overall, this alternative allows OHV use on 124 miles of road and 97 miles of trail. After the Record of Decision is 

signed for this project, the Final Travel Management Rule would require all OHVs to remain on these designated 

routes and area, and no OHV cross-country travel would be permitted. OHVs would be permitted only on the routes 

and areas designated by the selected alternative.

The six locations considered in Alternative 2 are: Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch, 

Peavine, and Rock Creek (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Overview Map). Each of the proposed OHV 

systems and components of Alternative 2 are discussed in the following sections. The components include: general 

description, proposed OHV systems, land use allocations, general forest area, and Forest Plan Amendment.

General Description and Location of each Proposed OHV System

Bear Creek: The Bear Creek proposed OHV system is located north of Mt. Hood at the upper reaches of the Middle 

Fork Hood River watershed just north of Laurance Lake. The OHV system is located on the Hood River Ranger 

District approximately six miles southwest of Parkdale and is accessed by the 16 road system. The legal description 

for the proposed OHV routes is T1S, R9E in Hood River County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV 

Proposal Bear Creek Map).

Elevations are fairly high ranging from 3200 feet to 4800 feet. This OHV system is located within the East Fork Hood 

River and West Fork Hood River fifth field watersheds. There are around 4.5 miles of intermittent streams and 12.5 

miles of perennial streams in the general area. Soils are derived from volcanic ash that has undergone considerable 

mixing with glacial deposits, resulting in rocky, sandy soils. These soils are similar to those in the Peavine and 

Graham Pass proposed OHV systems. The general area includes montane mixed conifer habitat type as well as deer 

and elk summer range. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 12 Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map for Alternative 2-Proposed Action.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 13

Gibson Prairie: The Gibson Prairie proposed OHV system is located on the Hood River Ranger District 

approximately four miles southeast of Parkdale and is accessed by the 17 Road. The legal description for the proposed 

OHV routes is T1N, R10-11E in Hood River County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Gibson 

Prairie Map). Gibson Prairie is at the center of this proposed OHV system.

Elevations range from 3400 feet to 4000 feet. This system is located within the Mosier Creek and Hood River fifth 

field watersheds. There are around five miles of intermittent streams and 7.6 miles of perennial streams in the general 

area. Soils have been derived from deep volcanic ash deposits that overlie old glacial deposits. The general area 

includes suitable spotted owl habitat as well as deer and elk summer range, and calving and fawning areas. Grand fir 

and Douglas fir dominate the sparse forests. Plant associations encountered include Grand fir/Oceanspray, Grand fir/ 

Snowberry and Douglas fir/Snowberry.

LaDee Flats: The LaDee Flats proposed OHV system is located on the Clackamas River Ranger District just south of 

the town of Estacada and is accessed by the 4610 Road. The legal description for the proposed routes is T4S, R5-

7E and T5S, R7E, Section 1 in Clackamas County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal LaDee 

Flats Map). The majority of OHV routes considered are located on LaDee Flat, a plateau separating the North Fork 

Clackamas and Clackamas Rivers just above their confluence.

The general area is in a wide elevation band ranging from 1400 feet to 4600 feet. This system is located entirely within 

the Middle Clackamas River fifth field watershed. There are around 15 miles of intermittent streams and 10 miles of 

perennial streams in the general area. Soils on this flat are not highly erosive due to very level terrain and because 

the high amount of sticky clay tends to hold particles together. LaDee Flats includes extensive dispersal habitat for 

Northern spotted owl as well as deer and elk summer and some winter range. The forested areas are approximately 

seventy years old and the plant association is Western Hemlock/Dwarf Oregon Grape/Swordfern.

McCubbins Gulch: The McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV system is already established Class I and III OHV trail 

system. The analysis area is approximately 10 miles west of the community of Wapinitia on the Barlow Ranger 

District and is accessed by the roads 2130 and 2110 of Highway 216. The legal description for the proposed routes 

is T5S, R10-11E in Wasco County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal McCubbins Gulch Map). 

Adjacent to the north boundary of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, the McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV 

system is situated on the watershed divide between the White River and Beaver Creek, a major tributary of the Warm 

Springs River. 

Elevations range from 2800 feet to 3600 feet. Average annual precipitation is highly variable ranging between 

approximately 22 to 38 inches. This system is located within the Middle Deschutes River, White River and Beaver 

Creek fifth field watersheds. There are around 20 miles of intermittent streams and 11.8 miles of perennial streams in 

the general area. Soils have been derived from deep volcanic ash deposits that overlie old glacial deposits. Deer and 

elk summer range are located in proposed OHV system. The forest areas fall in the Grand fir series and include the 

Grand fir/Chinkapin, Grand fir/Oceanspray, Grand fir/ Snowberry, and Grand fir/Twinflower plant associations.

Peavine: The proposed Peavine proposed OHV system is located on the crest of the Cascades near the headwaters 

of the Clackamas River and the Warm Springs River. The Peavine proposed OHV system is located approximately 

21 miles northeast of Detroit, Oregon, in Clackamas and Wasco Counties on the Clackamas River Ranger District. 

The proposed OHV system is accessed by the 42 and 57 road systems. The legal description of the proposed routes is 

T6-7S, R8E in Clackamas and Wasco Counties, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Peavine Map). 

The area takes its name from Peavine Mountain (4812 feet), a prominent landform in the northwest corner of the 

proposed OHV location. 

Elevations range from 2800 feet to 5000 feet. This system is located within the Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River and 

Upper Clackamas River fifth field watersheds. There are around 36 miles of intermittent streams and 17.4 miles of 

perennial streams in the analysis area. Soils are derived from volcanic ash that has undergone considerable mixing 

with glacial deposits, resulting in rocky, sandy soils. The general area includes marginal spotted owl habitat type and 

deer and elk calving areas. Silver fir/ big huckleberry/beargrass is the primary plant association with lesser amounts 

of Mountain hemlock/grouse huckleberry in the higher elevations.

Rock Creek: This system of roads and trails is located west of Rock Creek Reservoir and includes the Badger Lake 

road. The proposed Rock Creek proposed OHV system is adjacent to the Sportsman’s Park Community (a private 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 14

in-holding on the Forest) and located approximately 12 miles west of the town of Wamic in Wasco County on 

the Barlow Ranger District. The proposed OHV system is accessed by the 4820 Road. The legal description of the 

proposed routes is T4S, R10-11E in Wasco County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 2 OHV Proposal Rock 

Creek Map).

The general area is in a wide elevation band ranging from 2200 feet to 5400 feet. This system is located within the 

White River and Tygh Creek fifth field watersheds. There are around 23.3 miles of intermittent streams and 21.7 miles 

of perennial streams in the analysis area. Soils and landform are similar, dryer versions of the McCubbins analysis 

area, with more open grassland meadows and higher pH ‘sweet’ soils. Elk and deer winter range are located in the 

general area. The forest is dominated by Grand fir, Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine and western Larch. The primary plant 

association is Grand fir/ Snowberry.

Proposed OHV Systems

For each of these six locations, a system of OHV routes was proposed as summarized in Table 2-6. The routes include 

mixed-use roads, decision roads converted to OHV trails, existing motorized trails, and new motorized trails. Each of 

type of route is defined as follows.

• Convert to trails: Decision roads are defined in the 2003 Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Analysis as roads 

which are not needed to provide access to recreation opportunities or other management activities. They are 

labeled “decision roads” because a NEPA decision needs to be made on whether to close, decommission, or 

keep them open. This NEPA process is proposing to convert these roads to OHV trails. After these roads are 

converted to OHV trails, they would be managed to trail standards and maintained by the recreation staff.

• Motorized mixed-use roads: National Forest System (NFS) road designated for use by both highway-legal 

and specific classes of OHV vehicles.

• Decommissioned: These are decision roads that would be closed to all motorized vehicle traffic as part of 

this project. After the OHV routes are designated, these roads would be decommissioned and taken off the 

National Forest System road atlas. The portion of the road within sight distance would be actively obliterated 

as directed by PDC RD-7 to discourage future OHV use. The remaining length of decommissioned road 

should be left in hydrologically stable condition. Actions to achieve hydrologic stability could include, but 

are not limited to, culvert removal, water bar, and ditch cleaning. Table 2-7 provides a summary of the roads 

to be decommissioned in Alternative 2.

• Existing motorized trails: These are currently designated OHV trails on the Forest. The majority of these 

trails are within the McCubbins Gulch system.

• New motorized trail construction: New trail construction is proposed to connect roads and trails and provide 

loop opportunities. New motorized trails also include some user-created routes which are non-system roads 

and trails constructed without the authorization of the Forest Service. These trails would be brought up to 

Forest Service trail standards as part of this project. User-created trails are estimated in Table 2-8.

New motorized trail construction and convert to trails routes would be open to non-motorized users as well. All 

roads that are proposed as motorized mixed use or converted to OHV trail are shown in Appendix E – Alternative 2 

Road Data.

All of the routes are designated by class of OHV according to State of Oregon. The State of Oregon considers all 

vehicles intended for off-highway use to be all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). ATVs are broken into three classes as follows:

Class I ATV (quads, 3-wheelers)

• Vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and

• Dry weight of 800 pounds or less

• Has a saddle or seat

• Travels on 3 or more tires
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 15

Class II ATV (jeeps, sand rails, SUVs, etc)

• Vehicles wider than 50 inches, and

• Dry weight more than 800 pounds

Class III ATV (motorcycles)

• Vehicles on two tires

• Dry weight less than 600 pounds

The State of Oregon defines an OHV as “term used to describe all vehicles designed for off-highway travel and 

classified as one of the three classes of ATVs in Oregon.” OHV and ATV are used interchangeable in this document. 

The State regulates and licenses vehicles. Because the recreating public is most familiar with State OHV classes, this 

EIS uses State terminology to describe the permitted vehicles.

Table 2-6. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 2. 

OHV System OHV Class

Road Routes (miles) Trail Routes (miles) Total Route 

Miles by 

Location

Convert to 

Trail

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Existing 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

Bear Creek Class III 0 0 0 39.1 39.1

Gibson Prairie Class I 1.8 5.1 4 4.3 15.2

LaDee Flats

Class I, II, and III 5.4 19.1 0 0.4

Class I and III 4.5 0 0 1.2 38.9

Class II 0 8.3 0 0

McCubbins Gulch Class I and III 4.7 8.8 32 050.6 Class III 0 0 0 5.1

Peavine Class I, II, and III 19.6 15.2 0 3 37.8

Rock Creek Class I and III 14.6 16.7 2.1 6.2 39.6

Total Miles 51 73 38 59 221

Table 2-7. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 2.

OHV System Miles

Bear Creek 0.0

Gibson Prairie 0.0

LaDee Flats 3.7

McCubbins Gulch 0.9

Peavine 8.0

Rock Creek 0.0

Total Miles 13
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 16

Table 2-8. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created 

trails, for Alternative 2.

OHV System User-created Trails New Trail Construction

Bear Creek 0.0 39.1

Gibson Prairie 0.0 4.3

LaDee Flats 0.2 1.4

McCubbins Gulch 2.7 2.4

Peavine 1.1 1.9

Rock Creek 3.3 2.9

Totals 7.3 52.0

Grand Total 59.3

Each proposed system includes a staging area as shown in Table 2-9. The staging areas would be a day-use area that 

serves as a trailhead for motorized recreation. McCubbins Gulch Campground would continue to be the staging area 

for this OHV location. No improvements are proposed to any staging areas, except potentially a bathroom facility as 

required by PDC RM-7. In this alternative, there are no restrictions on OHV trails or use (e.g., nighttime use of trails 

is permitted). All OHVs must follow State laws, including the use of headlights.

Table 2-9. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 2.

OHV System Site Description Legal Description Size 

(Acres)

Parking 

Capacity

Bear Creek Storage Pit, Road 16 T1S, R9E, Sec 9, NE1/4 0.4 11

Storage Pit, Road 1610 T1S, R9E, Sec 10, NW1/4 0.4 9

Gibson Prairie Range Allotment Loading Area T1S, R10E, Sec 11, SE1/4 0.7 18

LaDee Flats No Whisky Timber Sale Landing T4S, R5E, Sec 20, NE1/4 1.0 30

McCubbins Gulch McCubbins Campground T5S, R10E, Sec 24, SW1/4 8.0 20

Peavine Warm Springs Quarry T7S, R8E, Sec 2, SE1/4 5.2 150

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry T4S, R10E, Sec 26, NE1/4 4.1 130

Total Area/Capacity Across Forest 20 368

Alternative 2 includes two additional components. First, Alternative 2 includes one small OHV area (North Fork 

Quarry) in the LaDee Flats location. This proposed OHV area is approximately four acres in size and is currently 

used by OHVs. This OHV area is in a currently disturbed rock quarry. The quarry is located on Road 4610-120. 

The legal description is T4S, R6E, Section 19, NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4. OHVs would not be permitted outside the North Fork 

Quarry OHV area. All staging areas and proposed OHV area are within rock quarries that may be needed for future 

management activities. PDC RD-6 states: “Allow temporary suspension of use of staging areas and designated OHV 

area, if necessary, where located in rock sources while rock resource operations are conducted” to avoid any conflicts.

Second, Alternative 2 would create a day-use area within the general area of the Rock Creek location. This area 

imposes restrictions on campfires and overnight occupancy in a 3,533 acre area adjacent to Gate Creek Ditch in 

the vicinity of the Sportsman’s Park community. The proposed day-use area overlays the Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) for Sportsman’s Park, as defined by Wasco County.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 17

As directed by PDC O-2 through O-6, the proposed OHV routes and staging areas in the Peavine, Gibson Prairie, 

McCubbins Gulch, Rock Creek, and Bear Creek areas would be closed for part of the year. 

• Peavine designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range and habitat during deer 

and elk calving season, and to prevent erosion from December 1 to June 15 (PDC O-2).

• Gibson Prairie designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range, and habitat during 

deer and elk calving season from November 1 to June 15 (PDC O-3).

• McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range 

from December 1 to April 1 (PDC O-4).

• Bear Creek designated OHV routes would be closed to prevent soil sedimentation on native trails from November 1 to June 1. No new construction would occur in Bear Creek from November 1 to June 1 to prevent erosion 

(PDC O-5).

All new trails proposed for construction as well as road-to-trail conversions would be open to non-motorized 

users. McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV system is currently open to mountain bikes, horses, and hikers as well as 

motorized vehicles; this would remain unchanged in all action alternatives.

All designated routes would be depicted on the MVUM. The MVUM designates the roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. The map would be updated on an annual 

basis, as required by Forest Service direction and the Final Travel Management Rule, to reflect any changes in 

the motor vehicle use across the Forest. Any changes to the motor vehicle access and use would require public 

involvement and may include additional NEPA analysis. The MVUM would be the new enforcement tool; all 

motorized recreationalists would need to consult the map to determine what routes are open. Routes would not 

longer be required to be posted as closed.

Land Use Allocations

As described in Section 1.6 Land Use Allocations, the proposed routes cross through a variety of Forest Plan Land 

Use Allocations and Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations. Table 2-10 lists the LUAs for the six proposed 

OHV systems. The majority of roads (71 percent) and trails (80 percent) are located on C1-Timber Emphasis Lands. 

For roads, an additional 12 percent are located in B3-Roaded Recreation and seven percent are located in B11-Deer 

and Elk Summer Range. For trails, an additional seven percent are located on B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range and 

five percent are located on B2-Scenic Viewshed. Less than five percent of the remaining miles of roads and trails are 

located in the other LUAs.

The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the A3-Research Natural Areas, A4-Special Interest Areas, A7-Special 

Old Growth, A9-Key Site Riparian, and B6-Special Emphasis Watershed discourage or prohibit OHV use. The roads 

and trails included in this alternative are all existing motorized routes on the Forest. This includes 0.5 miles of trails 

on A3 lands; 1.7 miles of roads on A4 lands; 0.3 miles of road on A7 lands; 0.5 miles of roads and 0.1 miles of trails 

on A9 lands; and 0.3 miles of road and 4.1 miles of trail on B6 lands. No new OHV trail construction would be 

permitted in these LUAs.

Table 2-10. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 2.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Bear Creek OHV System

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 0.0 1.8 1.8

C1-Timber Emphasis 0.0 37.3 37.3

Gibson Prairie OHV System

A3-Research Natural Area 0.0 0.5 0.5

A7-Special Old Growth 0.3 0.0 0.3

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.0 1.4 1.4

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 0.3 2.3 2.5

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 1.7 0.0 1.7

C1-Timber Emphasis 4.7 4.2 8.9
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 18

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

LaDee Flats OHV System

A4-Special Interest Area 1.7 0.0 1.7

A9-Key Site Riparian Area 2 0.2 0.0 0.2

B2-Scenic Viewshed 1.6 0.2 1.8

B3-Roaded Recreation 11.0 0.0 11.0

C1-Timber Emphasis 22.8 1.4 24.2

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

A1-Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – 

White River 0.0 0.4 0.4

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.5 3.7 4.2

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 0.6 6.4 7.0

C1-Timber Emphasis 12.4 26.7 39.0

Peavine OHV System

A9-Key Site Riparian Area 0.3 0.1 0.4

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.2 0.0 0.2

B3-Roaded Recreation 3.8 0.0 3.8

B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range 8.2 0.0 8.2

C1-Timber Emphasis 22.3 3.0 25.3

Rock Creek OHV System

B2-Scenic Viewshed 1.0 0.4 1.4

B4-Pine/Oak (Wildlife Emphasis) 3.8 2.5 6.2

C1-Timber Emphasis 26.5 5.4 31.9

GRAND TOTAL 124 97 221

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included.

2 - Existing road located on the boundary of A9 lands. 

Table 2-11 lists the Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations for the six proposed systems. Overall, 90 percent of 

the proposed routes are located on Matrix lands. The remaining ten percent are located in Late-Successional Reserves 

(LSR). Approximately 0.1 miles of an existing road within an administratively withdrawn area is included in this 

alternative.

Table 2-11. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 2.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Bear Creek OHV System

Matrix 0.0 39.1 39.1

Gibson Prairie OHV System

Administratively Withdrawn 2 0.3 0.5 0.8

Matrix 6.9 7.8 14.7

LaDee Flats OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 14.2 0.0 14.2

Matrix 23.1 1.6 24.7

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 2.0 5.8 7.8

Matrix 11.5 31.3 42.8

Table 2-10. (continued)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 19

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Peavine OHV System

Matrix 34.8 3.0 37.8

Rock Creek OHV System

Administratively Withdrawn 2 0.1 0.0 0.1

Matrix 31.3 8.3 39.6

GRAND TOTAL 124 97 222

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

2 - Existing routes located in Administratively Withdrawn Area

In addition to these Northwest Forest Plan LUAs, proposed OHV routes are found within riparian reserves, which 

overlap these allocations, as shown in Table 2-12. Approximately 10 percent of the proposed OHV routes are located 

within riparian reserves. The effects of proposed OHV routes within these riparian reserves are discussed in Section 

3.4 Water Quality and Section 3.5 Fisheries.

Table 2-12. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2.

OHV System Miles of 

Roads 1

Percent All 

Roads

Miles of 

Trails

Percent All 

Trails Total Miles Percent All Routes

Bear Creek 0.0 0.0% 2.4 0.0% 2.4 6.2%

Gibson Prairie 1.1 13.2% 0.1 2.0% 1.2 8.2%

LaDee Flats 5.1 322.8% 0.0 0.0% 5.1 13.1%

McCubbins Gulch 2.3 6.1% 4.2 31.3% 6.5 12.8%

Peavine 4.0 132.0% 0.7 2.0% 4.7 12.5%

Rock Creek 1.4 17.3% 0.6 1.8% 2.0 5.0%

Total 13.9 14.3% 8.1 6.5% 22.0 9.9%

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

General Forest Area

The general forest area includes all remaining roads, trails and areas on the Forest, located in Clackamas, Multnomah, 

Hood River, and Wasco counties as well as small portions of Marion and Jefferson counties. After the Record of 

Decision is signed for this project, no OHV use would be allowed outside of the designated routes, staging areas, and 

North Fork Quarry OHV area (4-acres) as described in the previous section based on the direction in the Final Travel 

Management Rule. Also, the Rule would prohibit cross-country OHV use. This would change the current OHV 

policy on the Forest from “open unless posted closed” to “closed unless designated open.” A Forest Plan Amendment 

(as described in the following section) is required to accomplish this policy change. This does not change current 

policy for the National Forest System road system: All licensed vehicles, including dual-sport motorcycles, are 

allowed on roads. Licensed vehicles exclude quads and three-wheeled vehicles.

Forest Plan Amendment

Under the existing Forest Plan, eleven standards and guidelines allow cross-country OHV use off designated 

routes (FW-447, FW-459, FW-465, A4-038, B1-077, B1-078, B1-079, B3-038, B11-037, C1-041, and C1-042). An 

additional nine standards and guidelines require areas closed to OHV use to be posted (FW-413, FW-483, FW-543, 

A3-006, A3-007, B1-082, B1-083, B5-001, and B5-002). These 20 standards and guidelines do not comply with the 

Final Travel Management Rule. In addition, the monitoring element for Off-Road Vehicle Use (Forest Plan, page 

5-69 to 5-70) would be replaced with the Monitoring Framework outlined in Section 2.5 as part of the proposed 

Forest Plan Amendment. The proposed Monitoring Framework is more applicable to the actions proposed in the 

Table 2-11. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 20

action alternatives and more accurately reflects the current Forest Service approach to monitoring. As a result, this 

EIS proposes to amend these twenty standards and guidelines (Table 2-13) to limit OHV use to designated routes, 

prohibit cross-country travel by OHVs, replace the enforcement tool to the MVUM, and to remove the requirement 

to post areas or roads as closed to OHV use. 

In addition, the proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 2 includes six additional standard and guidelines 

that prohibit OHV use on existing roads and trails (A3-040, A4-039, A7-024, A9-039, B6-036 and B6-037). The 

proposed amendment (Table 2-14) would allow historic OHV use to continue on existing roads and trails. No new 

trail construction would be permitted in these Land Use Allocations. Section 3.16 Forest Plan Amendment analyzes 

the significance of this amendment.

After implementation of this Forest Plan Amendment, only designated routes would be available for OHV use. All 

other roads, trails, and areas would be closed to OHV use, unless additional NEPA analysis is completed. This would 

be Amendment #17 to the Forest Plan.

Table 2-13. Proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 for all action 

alternatives. Suggested changes are italic or strikethrough print. The proposed changes limit OHV 

use to designated routes, prohibit cross-country travel, replace the enforcement tool to the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and eliminate the requirement to post areas or roads closed to OHV use.

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE PROPOSED Amendment

FW-413 

Transportation

4-95 Roads, areas and trails closed or restricted to 

recreational access shall be posted.

Roads, areas and trails closed or restricted

opened to recreational access shall be 

posted. designated on a map.

FW-447 

Transportation

4-97 Off-road vehicle trails should not incorporate 

open roads as part of the trail system.

Off-road vehicle trails should not incorporate 

open roads as part of the trail system. All 

off-road (off highway) routes and trails shall be 

designated on a map.

FW-459 

Dispersed 

Recreation

4-98 Off-road vehicle (ORV) trails should not 

incorporate open roads as part of the trail 

system.

Off-road vehicle (ORV) trails should not 

incorporate open roads as part of the trail 

system. All off-road (off highway) routes and 

trails shall be designated on a map.

FW-465 

Dispersed 

Recreation

4-99 Opportunities for ORV use should be available 

except where not allowed by management 

direction, and where determined to adversely 

impact land capability and resource values (see 

Appendix C, Travel and Access Management 

Guide, and see Forest Transportation System/

Facilitates; Travel and Access Standards and 

Guidelines)

Opportunities for ORV use should not 

be available except where not allowed 

by management direction, and where 

determined to not adversely impact land 

capability and resource values (see Appendix 

C, Travel and Access Management Guide, and 

see Forest Transportation System/Facilitates; 

Travel and Access Standards and Guidelines)

FW-483 

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

4-102 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to 

vehicle use shall be posted.

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed

opened to vehicle use shall be posted. 

designated on a map.

FW-543 

Visual Resource 

Management

4-106 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to 

vehicle use shall be posted

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed

opened to vehicle use shall be posted. 

designated on a map.

A3-006, A3-007 

Research Natural 

Areas

4-147 Off-road vehicles (ORV) and non-motorized 

bicycle use shall be prohibited. RNAs shall be 

posted as closed to ORV and non-motorized 

bicycle use.

Off-road vehicles (ORV) and non-motorized 

bicycle use shall be prohibited. RNAs shall be 

posted as closed to ORV and non-motorized 

bicycle use. Off-road motorized vehicle use 

shall not be permitted except on designated 

routes. Only existing roads or trails shall be 

designated on a map. 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 21

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE PROPOSED Amendment

A4-038 

Special Interest 

Area

4-156 Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be 

prohibited except as noted in items 4 [A4-039] 

and 5 [A4-040], below.

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be 

prohibited except as noted in items 4 [4-

039] and 5 [A4-040], below. All off-road (off 

highway) routes and trails shall be designated 

on a map. 

B1-077, B1-078, 

B1-079 

Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational 

Rivers

4-216 Within scenic and recreational river corridors, 

motorized use shall be limited. 

1) Motorized vehicles shall be permitted only 

on open roads.

2) Off-road vehicles (ORV) may occur only on 

designated trails.

Within scenic and recreational river corridors, 

motorized use shall be limited. 1) Motorized 

vehicles shall be permitted only on open 

roads.

2) Off-road vehicles (ORV) may occur only on 

designated trails. All off-road (off highway) 

routes and trails shall be designated on a map.

B1-082, B1-083 

Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational 

Rivers

4-216 Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to 

vehicle use shall be posted. Administrative use 

of motorized vehicles shall be allowed in all 

river segments.

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed

opened to vehicle use shall be posted. 

designated on a map. Administrative use of 

motorized vehicles shall be allowed in all 

river segments.

B3-038 

Roaded 

Recreation

4-232 Off-road vehicle use shall be encouraged on 

designated trails and/or areas.

Off-road vehicle use shall be encouraged on 

designated trails and/or areas. All off-road (off 

highway) routes and trails shall be designated 

on a map.

B5-001, B5-002 

Pileated 

Woodpecker 

/ Pine Marten 

Habitat Area

4-242 Off-road motorized vehicle use should not be 

permitted except on designated trails. All areas 

and rails closed to off-road vehicle use shall be 

posted.

Off-road motorized vehicle use should shall

not be permitted except on designated 

trails routes. All areas roads and trails closed

open to off-road vehicle use shall should be 

posted. designated on a map).

B11-037 

Deer and Elk 

Summer Range

4-280 Recreational motorized vehicle activity shall 

not be permitted except on open roads and 

designated parking areas.

Recreational motorized vehicle activity shall 

not be permitted except on open roads and 

designated parking areas. All off-road (off 

highway) routes and trails shall be designated 

on a map.

C1-041, C1-041 

Timber Emphasis

4-294 Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be 

encouraged. ORV use should be restricted 

within specific areas with conflicting resource 

objectives.

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be 

encouraged. ORV use should be restricted 

within specific areas with conflicting 

resource objectives. All off-road (off highway) 

routes and trails shall be designated on a map.

Monitoring 

Element: Off-Road 

Vehicle (ORV) Use

5-69 • Are high quality ORV opportunities 

provided in areas which are suitable for 

ORV use and the needs, skills, and interests 

of users?

• Are the ORV opportunities provided 

effective in minimizing conflicts between 

user groups and safe for users and the 

general public?

• Are ORV opportunities being located, 

designated, and managed to minimize 

the negative effects (within acceptable 

limits) on key fish and wildlife species and 

sensitive habitats?

Replace all language with the following.

Are OHV remaining on the designated 

system of routes?

• Are the trail widths being maintained or 

widened?

• Are the signs being maintained and 

followed?

• Is the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

being updated and distributed 

effectively on an annual basis?

• Is the selected alternative being 

implemented properly? Is the selected 

alternative having the intended effects? 

• Are the project design criteria being 

implemented properly? Are the design 

criteria having the intended effect?

Table 2-13. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 22

Table 2-14. Additional proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 

for Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. Suggested changes are italic or strikethrough print. The 

proposed changes allow OHV to continue using existing roads and trails; no new OHV trail 

construction would be permitted.

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE PROPOSED Amendment

A3-40

Research Natural 

Areas

4-149 All forms of off-road vehicle use shall be 

prohibited.

All forms of off-road vehicle use shall be 

prohibited. Off-road motorized vehicle use shall 

not be permitted except on designated routes.

A4-039 

Special Interest 

Area

4-156 Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rightsof-way should be allowed where consistent 

with other management direction, e.g. 

riparian and cultural resources protection.

Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rights-of-way 

should be allowed where consistent with other 

management direction, e.g. riparian and cultural 

resources protection. Off-road motorized vehicle 

use shall not be permitted except on designated 

routes. 

A7-024

Special Old 

Growth

4-172 Recreation off-road vehicle use should be 

prohibited.

Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rights-of-way 

should be allowed where consistent with other 

management direction, e.g. riparian and cultural 

resources protection. Off-road motorized vehicle 

use shall not be permitted except on designated 

routes. Only existing roads or trails shall be 

designated. 

A9-039 

Key Site Riparian

4-184 Recreation off-road vehicle use, except 

over-snow vehicles, shall be prohibited.

Recreation off-road vehicle use, except oversnow vehicles, shall be prohibited. Off-road 

motorized vehicle use shall not be permitted except 

on designated routes. Only existing roads or trails 

shall be designated. 

B6-036, B6-037

Special Emphasis 

Watershed

4-251 Recreational off-road vehicle use (other 

than over-snow) shall be discouraged. 

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be 

prohibited in Still Creek and The Dalles 

Watershed Management Unit.

Recreational off-road vehicle use (other than 

over-snow) shall be discouraged. Recreational 

off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited in Still 

Creek and The Dalles Watershed Management 

Unit. Off-road motorized vehicle use shall not 

be permitted except on designated routes. Only 

existing roads or trails shall be designated. 

2.3.3. Alternative 3

Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would change OHV access through much of the Forest. This alternative 

considered all additional motorized routes proposed by the public during the scoping comment period. Alternative 

3 designates additional routes in the Bear Creek, LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch, Peavine, and Rock Creek proposed 

systems. Although the proposed OHV routes in the Gibson Prairie area decrease, the routes in Alternative 3 provide 

access to a larger OHV system on private and Hood River County lands to the north4. In addition, two additional 

locations are added to this alternative. The Graham Pass proposed system adds the existing Rho Ridge motorized trail 

and an adjoining system of gravel roads and Mount Defiance adds a system of gravel roads that access existing Hood 

River County4 OHV routes. Figure 2-2 is a vicinity map for the eight locations proposed in Alternative 3.

In addition, recommendations resulting from government-to-government consultation were incorporated into this 

alternative. Based on consultation with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the routes in the proposed Peavine 

system have been altered. The revised system does not include routes to the south of the Warm Spring River and 

adds additional routes to the west. Based on recommendations from consultation with Wasco County, the routes 

4 Maps of the county OHV systems are available from Hood River County and are contained in the project record located at the Mt. Hood National Forest 

Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 23

in the proposed Rock Creek system have been altered. The resulting system only includes one access route within 

the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and increases the mileage to the west. This system represents a compromise 

between Wasco County and the residents of Sportsman’s Park. Overall, Alternative 3 allows OHV use on 223 miles 

of roads and 102 miles of trails. After the Record of Decision is signed for this project, the Final Travel Management 

Rule would require all OHVs to remain on these designated routes and area, and no OHV cross-country travel would 

be permitted. OHVs would be permitted only on the routes and areas designated by the selected alternative.

The proposed OHV systems considered in Alternative 3 are: Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, Graham Pass, LaDee 

Flats, McCubbins Gulch, Mount Defiance, Peavine, and Rock Creek (see Appendix A, Alternative 3 OHV Proposal 

Overview Map). Each of the proposed systems and components of Alternative 3 are discussed in the following 

sections. The components include: general description, proposed OHV systems, land use allocations, and Forest Plan 

Amendment.

General Description and Location of each Proposed OHV System

The general descriptions for Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch, Peavine, and Rock Creek 

are the same as Alternative 2. The legal descriptions for several areas differ. For Gibson Prairie, the legal description 

only includes T1N, R10E, Sections 1-2 and T1N, R11E, Section 6 for this alternative. For McCubbins Gulch, the legal 

description for the proposed routes is expanded to include R9E. For Rock Creek, the legal description is expanded to 

include T3S, R10E, Sections 17-18, 21-22, 29 and 34. The legal descriptions for Bear Creek, LaDee Flats and Peavine 

are the same as Alternative 2. See Appendix A for maps of each of these six proposed OHV systems for Alternative 3. 

A general description and location for Graham Pass and Mount Defiance each are as follows.

Graham Pass: This proposed OHV system is located at the southern end of the Forest, along Rhododendron Ridge, 

which separates the Collawash River watershed from the upper Clackamas River watershed. The location is 12 miles 

northeast of the town of Detroit, in Clackamas and Marion Counties on the Clackamas River Ranger District and 

is accessed by the 46 and 63 road systems. The legal description for the proposed routes is T7-9S, R7E in Clackamas 

County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Graham Pass Map).

Elevations range from 2800 feet to 5200 feet. This system is located within the Collawash River and Upper Clackamas 

River fifth field watersheds. Major streams in the general area include Clackamas River, Hunter Creek, Collawash 

River, Berry Creek, Rhododendron Creek and Lowe Creek. This analysis area is very similar to Peavine with gentle 

rounded slopes; glaciated, sandy and rocky soils with high infiltration. The area historically had a fair amount of big 

game utilization. The general forested area includes westside lowland conifer and montane mixed conifer habitat 

types.

Mount Defiance: The proposed OHV system is located on the eastern slopes of Mt. Defiance. The location is on the 

Hood River Ranger District approximately eight miles west of Hood River in Hood River County. The OHV system 

is accessed by 2820 Road. The legal description for the proposed routes is T2N, R9E, Sections 16, 21, and 28-29 in 

Hood River County, Oregon (see Appendix A, Alternative 3 OHV Proposal Mount Defiance Map).

Elevations range from 3000 feet to 4200 feet. This system is located within the Hood River and West Fork Hood River 

fifth field watersheds. The major stream in the area is Ditch Creek. This analysis area contains extremely rocky soils. 

The area is Montane mixed conifer and is mostly summer range for deer and elk and contains no winter range. 

Proposed OHV Systems

For each location, a system of OHV routes was proposed as summarized in Table 2-15. Similar to Alternative 2, new 

motorized trail construction and convert to trails routes would be open to non-motorized users as well. The types of 

routes and classes of OHV are described under the description of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. All roads that are 

proposed as motorized mixed use or converted to OHV trail are shown in Appendix F – Alternative 3 Road Data. 

The roads proposed to be decommissioned are summarized in Table 2-16 and the user-created trails are estimated in 

Table 2-17.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 24 Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map for Alternative 3.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 25

Table 2-15. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 3.

OHV System OHV Class

Road Routes (miles) Trail Routes (miles) Total Route 

Miles by 

Location

Convert to 

Trail

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Existing 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

Bear Creek Class III 3 7.5 0 28.8 39.3

Gibson Prairie Class I and III 0.1 4.5 0 0.3 4.9

Graham Pass Class I, II, and III 0 50.6 0 063.2 Class III 0 2.2 10.4 0

LaDee Flats

Class I, II, and III 4.3 17.9 0 0.3

Class I and III 14.5 0 0 5 42.0

Class II 0 0 0 0

McCubbins Gulch Class I and III 7.3 3.2 25.6 0.760.1 Class III 9.9 0 0 13.4

Mt. Defiance Class I and III 0 5.5 0 0 5.5

Peavine Class I and III 28.9 11.6 0.2 8.9 49.6

Rock Creek Class I and III 25.9 26.6 2.1 6.6 61.2

Total Miles 94 130 38 64 326

Table 2-16. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 3.

OHV System Miles

Bear Creek 0.4

Gibson Prairie 0.0

Graham Pass 0.0

LaDee Flats 5.2

McCubbins Gulch 7.9

Mt. Defiance 0.0

Peavine 16.9

Rock Creek 4.3

Total Miles 35

Table 2-17. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created trails, for 

Alternative 3.

OHV System User-created Trails New Trail Construction

Bear Creek 0.6 28.2

Gibson Prairie 0.0 0.3

Graham Pass 0.0 0.0

LaDee Flats 0.2 5.1

McCubbins Gulch 3.1 11.0

Mount Defiance 0.0 0.0

Peavine 0.1 8.8

Rock Creek 0.8 5.8

Totals 4.8 59.2

Grand Total 64.0
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 26

Six proposed systems include a staging area as shown in Table 2-18. The Gibson Prairie and Mount Defiance 

proposed OHV systems do not include a staging area. Staging areas for these areas are provided by Hood River 

County in the adjoining OHV systems. All staging areas would allow dispersed camping and would serve as a 

trailhead for motorized recreation. McCubbins Gulch Campground would continue to be the staging area for this 

OHV location and would be the only developed campground. No improvements are proposed to any staging areas, 

except potentially a bathroom facility as required by PDC RM-7. In this alternative, there are no restrictions on OHV 

trails or use. All OHV riders must follow State laws, including the use of headlights.

Table 2-18. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 3.

OHV System Site Description Legal Description Size 

(Acres)

Parking 

Capacity

Bear Creek Storage Pit, Road 16 T1S, R9E, Sec 9, NE1/4 0.4 11

Storage Pit, Road 1610 T1S, R9E, Sec 10, NW1/4 0.4 9

Gibson Prairie No Staging Area

Graham Pass Lowe Creek Pit T7S, R7E, Sec 9, SE1/4 1.4 43

LaDee Flats

No Whisky Timber Sale 

Landing T4S, R5E, Sec 20, NE1/4 1.0 30

Round Wolf Pit T5S, R7E, Sec 1, NE1/4 2.2 64

McCubbins Gulch

McCubbins Campground T5S, R10E, Sec 24, SW1/4 8.0 20

McCubbins Day-Use Site T5S, R10E, Sec 17, SE1/4 0.8 27

Path Timber Sale Landing T5S, R10E, Sec 24, NW1/4 1.1 32

Mt. Defiance No Staging Area

Peavine Devil’s Ridge Quarry T6S, R8E, Sec 19, SE1/4 3.2 97

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry T4S, R10E, Sec 26, NE1/4 4.1 130

Total Area/Capacity Across Forest 23 463

Alternative 3 includes two additional components similar to Alternative 2. First, Alternative 2 includes one small 

OHV area (North Fork Quarry) in the LaDee Flats location. This proposed OHV area is approximately four acres 

in size and is currently used by OHVs. This OHV area is in a disturbed rock quarry. The quarry is located on Road 

4610-120. The legal description is T4S, R6E, Section 19, NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4. OHVs would not be permitted outside the 

North Fork Quarry OHV area. All staging areas and proposed OHV area are within rock quarries that may be 

needed for future management activities. PDC RD-6 states: “Allow temporary suspension of use of staging areas and 

designated OHV area, if necessary, where located in rock sources while rock resource operations are conducted” to 

avoid any conflicts.

Second, Alternative 2 would create a day-use area within the general area of the Rock Creek location. This area 

imposes restrictions on campfires and overnight occupancy in a 3,533 acre area adjacent to Gate Creek Ditch in 

the vicinity of the Sportsman’s Park community. The proposed day-use area overlays the Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) for Sportsman’s Park, as defined by Wasco County.

As directed by PDC O-2 through O-7, the proposed OHV routes and staging areas in the Peavine, Gibson Prairie, 

McCubbins Gulch, Rock Creek, Bear Creek, and Mount Defiance areas would be closed for part of the year. 

• Peavine designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range and habitat during deer 

and elk calving season, and to prevent erosion from December 1 to June 15 (PDC O-2).

• Gibson Prairie designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range, and habitat during 

deer and elk calving season from November 1 to June 15 (PDC O-3).
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 27

• McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek designated OHV routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range 

from December 1 to April 1 (PDC O-4).

• Bear Creek designated routes would be closed to prevent soil sedimentation on native trails from November 1 

to June 1. No new construction would occur in Bear Creek from November 1 to June 1 to prevent erosion (PDC 

O-5).

• Mount Defiance designated routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range from December 1 to 

May 15 (PDC O-7).

The general forest area would remain the same as described in Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, all designated 

routes would be depicted on the MVUM. The MVUM would be the new enforcement tool; all motorized 

recreationalists would need to consult the map to determine what routes are open. Routes would no longer be 

required to be posted as closed.

Land Use Allocations

As described in Section 1.6 Land Use Allocations, the proposed routes cross through a variety of Forest Plan Land 

Use Allocations and Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations. Table 2-19 lists the LUAs for the eight proposed 

OHV systems. The majority of roads (68 percent) and trails (73 percent) are located on C1-Timber Emphasis 

Lands. For roads, an additional seven percent are located in B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range and eight percent in 

B2-Scenic Viewshed. For trails, an additional ten percent are located on B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range and nine 

percent are located on B2-Scenic Viewshed. Less than five percent of the remaining miles of roads and trails are 

located in the other LUAs.

Similar to Alternative 2, the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the A4-Special Interest Areas, A9-Key Site 

Riparian, and B6-Special Emphasis Watershed discourage or prohibit OHV use. The roads and trails included in this 

alternative are all existing motorized routes on the Forest. This includes 1.7 miles of roads on A4 lands; 0.4 miles of 

roads on A9 lands; and 11.3 miles of road and 4.9 miles of trail on B6 lands. No new OHV trail construction would 

be permitted in these LUAs.

Table 2-19. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 3.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Bear Creek OHV System

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 0.0 0.4 0.4

C1-Timber Emphasis 10.5 28.4 38.8

Gibson Prairie OHV System

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 0.2 0.0 0.2

C1-Timber Emphasis 4.3 0.3 4.6

Graham Pass OHV System

A9-Key Site Riparian 0.2 0.0 0.2

B2-Scenic Viewshed 3.8 0.0 3.8

B6-Special Emphasis Watershed 11.3 4.5 15.8

B8-Earthflow Area 0.5 0.0 0.5

B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range 9.0 3.5 12.6

B12-Backcountry Lakes 0.5 0.0 0.5

C1-Timber Emphasis 27.5 2.4 29.9

LaDee Flats OHV System

A4-Special Interest Area 1.7 0.0 1.7

A9-Key Site Riparian Area 2 0.2 0.0 0.2

B2-Scenic Viewshed 1.4 0.0 1.4

B3-Roaded Recreation 10.6 0.0 10.6

C1-Timber Emphasis 22.9 5.3 28.2
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 28

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

A1-Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – 

White River 0.0 0.4 0.4

B2-Scenic Viewshed 4.1 5.1 9.2

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 4.0 9.7 13.7

C1-Timber Emphasis 12.3 24.5 36.8

Mt. Defiance OHV System

C1-Timber Emphasis 5.5 0.0 5.5

Peavine OHV System

B2-Scenic Viewshed 6.4 2.6 9.0

B11-Deer and Elk Summer Range 7.7 0.0 7.7

C1-Timber Emphasis 26.4 6.5 32.9

Rock Creek OHV System

A6-Semi-Primitive Roaded Recreation 4.3 0.0 4.3

B2-Scenic Viewshed 2.2 1.4 3.6

B4-Pine/Oak (Wildlife Emphasis) 3.6 0.3 3.9

C1-Timber Emphasis 42.5 7.0 49.5

GRAND TOTAL 223 102 326

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

2 - Existing road located on the boundary of A9 lands 

Table 2-20 lists the Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations for proposed OHV systems. Overall, 92 percent 

of the proposed routes are located on Matrix lands. Seven percent are located in Late-Successional Reserves (LSR). 

Approximately 4.2 miles of an existing road within an administratively withdrawn area is included in this alternative.

Table 2-20. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 3.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Bear Creek OHV System

Matrix 10.5 28.8 39.3

Gibson Prairie OHV System

Matrix 4.6 0.3 4.9

Graham Pass OHV System

Matrix 52.8 10.4 63.2

LaDee Flats OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 13.8 0.2 14.0

Matrix 22.9 5.1 28.0

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 3.3 4.6 7.9

Matrix 17.1 35.1 52.2

Mt. Defiance OHV System

Matrix 5.5 0.0 5.5

Peavine OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 0.3 0.0 0.3

Matrix 40.2 9.1 49.3

Table 2-19. (continued)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 29

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

Rock Creek OHV System

Administratively Withdrawn 2 4.2 0.0 4.2

Late Successional Reserve 0.8 0.0 0.8

Matrix 47.5 8.7 56.2

GRAND TOTAL 224 102 326

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

2 - Existing routes located in Administratively Withdrawn Area

In addition to these Northwest Forest Plan LUAs, proposed OHV routes are found within riparian reserves, which 

overlap these allocations, as shown in Table 2-21. Approximately 10 percent of the proposed OHV routes are located 

within riparian reserves. The effects of proposed OHV routes within these riparian reserves are discussed in Section 

3.3 Hydrology and Section 3.4 Fisheries.

Table 2-21. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 3.

OHV System Miles of 

Roads 1

Percent All 

Roads

Miles of 

Trails

Percent All 

Trails Total Miles Percent All Routes

Bear Creek 0.7 6.7% 0.4 1.4% 1.1 2.8%

Gibson Prairie 0.9 20.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.9 18.8%

Graham Pass 10.7 20.3% 0.4 3.8% 11.1 17.6%

LaDee Flats 4.2 11.4% 0.0 0.0% 4.2 10.0%

McCubbins Gulch 2.0 9.8% 4.0 10.1% 6.0 10.0%

Mt. Defiance 0.2 3.6% 0.0 0.0% 0.2 3.6%

Peavine 5.8 14.3% 0.8 8.8% 6.6 13.3%

Rock Creek 3.5 6.7% 0.4 4.6% 3.9 6.4%

Total 28.0 12.6% 6.0 5.9% 34.0 10.4%

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 3 includes a Forest Plan Amendment incorporating the 20 standards and guidelines that do not comply 

with the Final Travel Management Rule. These are described under Alternative 2 and Table 2-13. This amendment 

limits OHV use to designated routes, prohibits cross-country travel by OHVs, replaces the enforcement tool to the 

MVUM, and removes the requirement to post areas or roads as closed to OHV use. 

In addition, the proposed Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 3 includes two additional standard and guidelines 

that prohibit OHV use on existing roads and trails (A4-039 andA9-039). The proposed amendment (Table 2-22) 

would allow historic OHV use to continue on existing roads and trails. No new trail construction would be permitted 

in these Land Use Allocations. Section 3.16 Forest Plan Amendment analyzes the significance of this amendment.

After implementation of this Forest Plan Amendment, only designated routes would be available for OHV use. All 

other roads, trails, and areas would be closed to OHV use, unless additional NEPA analysis is completed. This would 

be Amendment #17 to the Forest Plan.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 30

Table 2-22. Additional proposed standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Amendment #17 

for Alternative 3. Suggested changes are italic or strikethrough print. The proposed changes 

allow OHV to continue using existing roads and trails; no new OHV trail construction would be 

permitted.

Standard Page Standard and GUIDELINE PROPOSED Amendment

A4-039

Special Interest 

Area

4-156 Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rightsof-way should be allowed where consistent 

with other management direction, e.g. 

riparian and cultural resources protection.

Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rights-of-way 

should be allowed where consistent with other 

management direction, e.g. riparian and cultural 

resources protection. Off-road motorized vehicle 

use shall not be permitted except on designated 

routes. 

A9-039 

Key Site Riparian

4-184 Recreation off-road vehicle use, except 

over-snow vehicles, shall be prohibited.

Recreation off-road vehicle use, except oversnow vehicles, shall be prohibited. Off-road 

motorized vehicle use shall not be permitted 

except on designated routes. Only existing roads or 

trails shall be designated. 

2.3.4. Alternative 4

Similar to the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would change OHV access through much of 

the Forest. This alternative considered all scoping comments and government-to-government consultation that 

recommended dropping a proposed OHV system or reducing the number of routes within a proposed system. The 

following changes were incorporated into this alternative.

• The Bear Creek proposed OHV system is dropped from this alternative to minimize the environmental effects 

associated with new construction.

• The Gibson Prairie proposed OHV system was dropped from this alternative to address wildlife concerns as well 

as concerns associated with the previous illegal trail construction. Dropping this proposed system also eliminates 

any potential user conflicts with the Long Prairie Range Allocation permittee.

• The Abbott Road section of the LaDee Flats proposed OHV system is eliminated from this alternative to address 

concerns associated with managing the transportation system and providing adequate law enforcement coverage.

• The McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV system does not include the single-track trails to the west and modifies 

the Proposed Action to “clean up” some user-created routes. This alternative does not include any motorized 

mixed-use on paved roads.

• The Peavine proposed OHV system was dropped from this alternative to address potential fisheries and wildlife 

effects as well as concerns associated with the proximity to the Pacific Crest Trail.

• All routes within the WUI portion of the Rock Creek proposed OHV system were dropped from this alternative, 

including an access route from Sportsman’s Park.

• No additional locations were included in this alternative.

This alternative reduces the OHV routes included in the LaDee Flats and McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV systems 

and eliminates all OHV use in the Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, Graham Pass, Mount Defiance, and Peavine proposed 

systems. Figure 2-3 is a vicinity map for the three locations proposed in Alternative 4. Overall, Alternative 4 allows 

OHV use on 59 miles of roads and 40 miles of trails. After the Record of Decision is signed for this project, the Final 

Travel Management Rule would require all OHVs to remain on these designated routes and area, and no OHV crosscountry travel would be permitted. OHVs would be permitted only on the routes and areas designated by the selected 

alternative.

The three locations considered in Alternative 4 are: LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek (see Appendix 

A, Alternative 4 OHV Proposal Overview Map). Each of the proposed systems and components of Alternative 4 are 

discussed in the following sections. The components include: general description, proposed OHV systems, land use 

allocations, and Forest Plan Amendment.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 31

Figure 2-3. Vicinity Map for Alternative 4.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 32

General Description and Location of each Proposed OHV System

The general descriptions for LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek are the same as Alternative 2. The 

legal descriptions for McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek are the same as Alternative 2. For LaDee Flats, the legal 

description for the proposed routes only includes T4S, R5-6E and T4S, R7E, Section 18. None of the other proposed 

OHV systems described in the previous alternatives are included in Alternative 4. See Appendix A for maps of each 

of these three proposed OHV systems for Alternative 4.

Proposed OHV Systems

For each of the proposed systems, a system of OHV routes was proposed as summarized in Table 2-23. Similar to 

Alternative 2, new motorized trail construction and convert to trails routes would be open to non-motorized users 

as well. The types of routes and classes of OHV are described under the description of Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action. All roads that are proposed as motorized mixed use or converted to OHV trail are shown in Appendix G – 

Alternative 4 Road Data. The proposed decommissioned roads are summarized in Table 2-24 and the user-created 

trails are estimated in Table 2-25.

Table 2-23. Miles of OHV routes proposed by class for each system in Alternative 4.

OHV System OHV Class

Road Routes (miles) Trail Routes (miles) Total Route 

Miles by 

Location

Convert to 

Trail

Motorized 

Mixed Use

Existing 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

LaDee Flats Class I, II, and III 4.2 9.2 0 0.125.2 Class I and III 6.7 0 0 5

McCubbins 

Gulch Class I and III 7.3 0 25.6 0.7 33.6

Rock Creek Class I and III 15.1 16.9 2.1 3.2 37.3

Total Miles 33 26 28 9 96

Table 2-24. Miles of roads to be decommissioned in Alternative 4.

OHV Location Miles

LaDee Flats 5.1

McCubbins Gulch 5.4

Rock Creek 1.9

Total Miles 12

Table 2-25. Miles of new trail construction, including estimated mileage of user-created trails.

OHV System User-created Trails New Trail Construction

LaDee Flats 0.2 4.9

McCubbins Gulch 0.0 0.7

Rock Creek 0.2 3.0

Totals 0.4 8.6

Grand Total 9.0
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 33

All proposed systems include a staging area as shown in Table 2-26. Staging areas would serve as a trailhead for 

motorized recreation and would not allow dispersed camping. McCubbins Gulch Campground would continue 

to be the staging area for this OHV location and would be the only developed campground. No improvements are 

proposed to any staging areas, except potentially a bathroom facility as required by PDC RM-7. In this alternative, 

OHV trails would only be open during daylight hours. All OHV must follow State laws.

Table 2-26. Proposed staging areas for Alternative 4.

OHV System Site Description Legal Description Size 

(Acres)

Parking 

Capacity

LaDee Flats No Whisky Timber Sale 

Landing T4S, R5E, Sec 20, NE1/4 1.0 30

McCubbins Gulch

McCubbins Campground T5S, R10E, Sec 24, SW1/4 8.0 20

McCubbins Day-Use Site T5S, R10E, Sec 17, SE1/4 0.8 27

Path Timber Sale Landing T5S, R10E, Sec 24, NW1/4 1.1 32

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry T4S, R10E, Sec 26, NE1/4 4.1 130

Total Area/Capacity Across Forest 15 239

In addition to these proposed routes and staging areas, Alternative 4 includes one small OHV area (North Fork 

Quarry) in the LaDee Flats OHV system. This proposed OHV area is approximately four acres in size and is currently 

used by OHVs. The quarry is located on Road 4610-120. The legal description is T4S, R6E, Section 19, NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4. 

OHVs would not be permitted outside of this area or designated routes. As directed by PDC O-4, the McCubbins 

Gulch and Rock Creek proposed OHV routes and staging areas would be closed from December 1 to April 1. All 

staging areas and proposed OHV area are within rock quarries that may be needed for future management activities. 

PDC RD-6 states: “Allow temporary suspension of use of staging areas and designated OHV area, if necessary, where 

located in rock sources while rock resource operations are conducted” to avoid any conflicts.

The general forest area would remain the same as described in Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, all proposed 

routes would be depicted on the MVUM. The MVUM would be the new enforcement tool; all motorized 

recreationalists would need to consult the map to determine what routes are open. Routes would no longer be 

required to be posted as closed.

Land Use Allocations

As described in Section 1.6 Land Use Allocations, the proposed routes cross through a variety of Forest Plan Land 

Use Allocations and Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations. Table 2-27 lists the LUAs for the three proposed 

OHV systems. The majority of roads (95 percent) and trails (87 percent) are located on C1-Timber Emphasis Lands. 

For roads, the remaining five percent are located in B2-Scenic Viewshed. For trails, an additional six percent are 

located on B2-Scenic Viewshed. Less than one percent of the remaining miles of roads and trails are located in the 

other LUAs.

Similar to Alternative 2, the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the A9-Key Site Riparian, discourage or 

prohibit OHV use. Approximately 0.2 miles of road on A9 lands is included in the LaDee Flats location. These are 

existing roads on the boundary of the LUA. Since LUAs are not buffered, motorized use is permitted on this road.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 34

Table 2-27. Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 4.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

LaDee Flats OHV System

A9-Key Site Riparian Area 2 0.2 0.0 0.2

B2-Scenic Viewshed 1.4 0.0 1.4

C1-Timber Emphasis 18.5 5.0 23.6

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

A1-Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – White River 0.0 0.4 0.4

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.9 2.6 3.5

B10-Deer and Elk Winter Range 0.1 1.2 1.4

C1-Timber Emphasis 6.3 22.0 28.3

Rock Creek OHV System

B2-Scenic Viewshed 0.8 0.3 1.1

C1-Timber Emphasis 31.1 5.0 36.0

GRAND TOTAL 59 37 96

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

2 - Existing road located on the boundary of A9 lands 

Table 2-28 lists the Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocations for the three proposed systems. Overall, 93 percent 

of the proposed routes are located on Matrix lands. Seven percent are located in Late-Successional Reserves (LSR). 

Approximately 0.1 miles of an existing road within an administratively withdrawn area is included in this alternative.

Table 2-28. Northwest Forest Plan land use allocations for Alternative 4.

Land Use Allocation Miles of Roads 1 Miles of Trails Total Miles

LaDee Flats OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 0.2 0.0 0.2

Matrix 19.9 5.1 25.0

McCubbins Gulch OHV System

Late Successional Reserve 2.4 4.1 6.5

Matrix 4.9 22.2 27.1

Rock Creek OHV System

Administratively Withdrawn 2 0.1 0.0 0.1

Matrix 31.9 5.3 37.2

GRAND TOTAL 59 37 96

 1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

 2 - Existing routes located in Administratively Withdrawn Area

In addition to these Northwest Forest Plan LUAs, proposed OHV routes are found within riparian reserves, which 

overlap these allocations, as shown in Table 2-29. Approximately eight percent of the proposed OHV routes are 

located within riparian reserves. The effects of proposed OHV routes within these riparian reserves are discussed in 

Section 3.3 Hydrology and Section 3.4 Fisheries.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 35

Table 2-29. Proposed OHV routes within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 4.

OHV Location Miles of 

Roads 1

Percent All 

Roads

Miles of 

Trails

Percent All 

Trails Total Miles Percent All Routes

LaDee Flats 2.9 14.2% 0.0 0.0% 2.9 11.3%

McCubbins Gulch 1.5 20.4% 1.9 7.2% 3.4 10.1%

Rock Creek 2.0 6.2% 0.1 1.9% 2.1 5.6%

Total 6.3 10.6% 2.0 5.4% 8.3 8.6%

1 - Decommissioned roads are not included

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 4 includes a Forest Plan Amendment incorporating the 20 standards and guidelines that do not comply 

with the Final Travel Management Rule. These are described under Alternative 2 and Table 2-13. This amendment 

limits OHV use to designated routes, prohibits cross-country travel by OHVs, replaces the enforcement tool to 

the MVUM, and removes the requirement to post areas or roads as closed to OHV use. Section 3.16 Forest Plan 

Amendment analyzes the significance of this amendment.

After implementation of this Forest Plan Amendment, only designated routes would be available for OHV use. All 

other roads, trails, and areas would be closed to OHV use, unless additional NEPA analysis is completed. This would 

be Amendment #17 to the Forest Plan.

2.4. Project Design Criteria

Project design criteria (PDC) were developed to reduce or eliminate potential impacts off-highway vehicles (OHV) 

may cause. PDC define a set of conditions or requirements that an activity must meet to avoid or minimize potential 

effects on sensitive resources. All PDC are required for both all action alternatives. PDC are not optional and are 

incorporated in the effects analysis.

OHV Routes (Seasonal Restrictions, Rerouting)

O-1: Roads converted to trails would be designated as OHV trails and maintained to trail standards, rather than 

road standards.

O-2: Peavine designated routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range and habitat during deer 

and elk calving season, and to prevent erosion from December 1 to June 15.

O-3: Gibson Prairie designated routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range, and habitat during 

deer and elk calving season from November 1 to June 15.

O-4: McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek designated routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range 

from December 1 to April 1. 

O-5: Bear Creek designated routes would be closed to prevent soil sedimentation on native trails from November 1 to June 1. No new construction would occur in Bear Creek from November 1 to June 1 to prevent 

erosion.

O-6: New construction in Bear Creek would avoid talus slopes in order to protect heritage resource sites and 

habitat for sensitive salamander species.

O-7: Mount Defiance designated routes would be closed to protect deer and elk winter range from December 1 

to May 15. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 36

Recreation Management

RM-1: Develop and implement a sign plan for all designated OHV routes that includes measures to mitigate 

motorized-mixed use on forest roads. Post signs on designated OHV routes indicating appropriate vehicle 

classes. 

RM-2: Feature loop routes, and minimize dead end routes during route design.

RM-3: Design and build trails to standard using guidelines from the Forest Service Handbook 2309.18, Trails 

Management. These guidelines provide for visitor safety and help prevent resource damage.

RM-4: Use curvilinear design for new trails to decrease rider speed, increase user interest and challenge, and 

minimize the number of trees to be removed during construction.

RM-5: Locate new trails in ways that discourage and minimize off-trail travel access.

RM-6: Where feasible, utilize existing openings for staging areas.

RM-7: Provide restroom facilities, as usage warrants, at designated OHV staging areas.

RM-8: Target shooting is prohibited in all OHV staging areas. 

RM-9: OHV trails are open to other (non-motorized) trail users unless posted otherwise.

RM-10: ATV stickers are required for all Class I, II and III OHV on designated National Forest routes.

Roads

RD-1: All motorized mixed-use roads within the designated OHV locations should be signed to notify the user 

that there are OHV using the route and that all users must “share the road.”

RD-2: Routes should be maintained to provide the appropriate stopping sight distance based on posted speed 

limit or prevailing speed within the designated OHV locations.

RD-3: The Forest Service may restrict OHV access and/or commercial use on routes to reduce risks during 

commercial haul or Special Events.

RD-4: Encourage the daytime use of headlights/taillights, if so equipped, in all areas.

RD-5: Planned road/trail intersections would be located based on site-specific examination for risk. Existing 

road/trail intersections should be analyzed for safety and appropriate action taken.

RD-6: Allow temporary suspension of use of staging areas and designated OHV area, if necessary, where located 

in rock sources while rock resource operations are conducted.

RD-7: All roads proposed to be closed to all traffic would be actively obliterated5 within sight distance from the 

designated OHV route. The remaining length of decommissioned road should be left in hydrologically 

stable condition. Actions to achieve hydrologic stability could include, but are not limited to, culvert 

removal, water bar, and ditch cleaning.

RD-8: Decommission the following roads within the Bear Creek location under Alternatives 2 and 3: 1630-620, 

1630-630, 1630-640, 1630-650, and 1630-660.

5 Road obliteration would be done using active (i.e., mechanical) methods. Active obliteration would require work, such as slope rehabilitation and culvert 

removal. Any drainage structures to be removed or treated, such as culverts, bridges, or fords, must be accomplished in such a way that restores natural 

drainage. Additionally, a barrier closure device or feature (i.e., berm, gate, or guardrail) may be constructed at the beginning to deter vehicle access.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 37

RD-9: For the Bear Creek designated routes, remove all culverts and maintain the trail standards for all roads 

proposed to be converted to OHV trails (Alternative 3). 

RD-10: Fish passage barrier culverts on roads proposed to be closed should be removed.

RD-11: Review individual Motorized Mixed Use Reports for identified site specific hazards and recommendations 

prior to implementation, and implement the measures as appropriate.

Law Enforcement

LE-1: Forest Service Law Enforcement should coordinate with County Sheriffs’ Offices that currently receive 

state OHV funding to plan for OHV emphasis patrols.

LE-2: Plan and schedule for increased patrols during high use periods that can be utilized and implemented by 

Forest staff. 

LE-3: Employees and equipment should be readily identifiable as Forest Service personnel and equipment to 

provide for compliance and violation prevention efforts. 

LE-4: Increase public awareness of designated OHV routes through field contacts with forest visitors.

LE-5: Coordinate volunteers with Forest employees for OHV emphasis patrols on All Terrain Vehicles (ATV), 

motorcycles, and/or 4X4 trucks.

Public Awareness and Education

EDU-1: Maintain the Forest web page with OHV information including the most current version of the MVUM. 

EDU-2: Annually update the MVUM incorporating information from the public and changes in resource 

conditions.

EDU-3: Use interpretive signing at trailheads or staging areas, meet/make presentations to OHV clubs and other 

user groups, and publish/distributes brochures, as appropriate, to promote heritage resource protection 

goals.

EDU-4: A contact number for spills of hazardous materials would be provided in OHV educations pamphlets and 

education signs at staging areas. Preventing spills and contamination would be included into the rider 

education program.

EDU-5: In accordance with the Mt. Hood National Forest Invasive Plant Prevention Measures, develop and 

distribute informational materials at key locations (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, parking lot/staging 

areas, trailheads, boat launches, Visitor Centers, and District Offices). \Information should include “tips” 

for recreation users on ways to minimize the risk of introducing or spreading invasive plants, and a contact 

name or agency.

Wildlife Management

WM-1: Trail construction and maintenance (activities requiring motorized equipment, i.e., chain saw use) should 

be restricted to avoid impacts to landbirds, elk, deer, and spotted owls, as determined by a qualified wildlife 

biologist. 

WM-2: Avoid removing any trees with existing cavity nesting holes. Consider replacement of lost nesting habitat 

by installing artificial nesting habitat near the project area.

WM-3: If a raptor or Northern spotted owl nest is found, then OHV trail construction should minimize the loss of 

young birds.

WM-4: Trees felled for trail construction and maintenance would be retained in place, or near the site, for forest 

floor users. Down logs cut to open a trail would have the section of log remain on site and not sectioned if 

possible. Down logs would not be designated for firewood cutting.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 38

Invasive Plants

IP-1: OHV routes and OHV staging areas would be managed for invasive plants according to the Mt. Hood Site 

Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2005).

IP-2: Use native species unless it can be shown that they would not successfully establish. The use of native plant 

materials should also extend to using nursery grown native shrub and tree seedlings and to making field 

transplants. 

IP-3: No new trail construction would occur in the Bear Creek location until all existing invasive plant sites have 

been treated. Treatment would follow the Mt. Hood Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental 

Impact Statement Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2005).

Soil and Erosion Control

S-1: When a road or trail section is realigned, the old route should be concurrently decommissioned and 

properly drained. Preventing future use of the abandoned route is a primary goal.

S-2: Route locations should take advantage of existing constructed features such as abandoned roads, utility 

corridors, and access roads to use previously disturbed areas.

S-3: A comprehensive erosion control plan should be developed and would include measures such as 

“Minimize soil erosion by controlling drainage and runoff; and by minimizing areas of cut and fill. 

Drainage structures should be constructed in fall so they are fully operational by the time wet weather 

arrives.”

S-4: Monitor areas of cut and fill to identify any remaining stability problems that develop over time. Some sites 

may require additional level of erosion control. This would be an ongoing project and should be planned 

for early and often during the first snowmelt period following construction.

S-5: When using heavy equipment to build or maintain routes, use care to not blade fine materials off the road 

or trail. This creates the “berm” problems and the fine dirt is necessary for a usable tread.

S-6: In the LaDee Flats location, close sections not identified on trail system to allow native revegetation 

establishment.

S-7: Install appropriate erosion control measures in areas within at least 25 feet of stream crossings, wetlands, 

seeps and springs on designated OHV routes (roads and trails). 

S-8: Salvage topsoil to an appropriate depth (usually about 6-inches) from construction sites (e.g., routes, 

parking lots) and stockpile for use in reclamation. Scarify compacted areas prior to re-vegetation efforts.

Water Resources

WR-1: All routes and staging areas should be located and designed to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and 

hazardous materials from leaching into surface waters. Minimize erosion from OHV routes by designing 

and maintaining proper drainage structures with adequate spacing of water bars especially before stream 

crossings.

WR-2: For construction related activities, fueling of gas-powered machinery should not occur within 150-feet of 

any live waters, without extra protective measures, to maintain water quality. 

WR-3: If piling and burning are needed, then it should be done at least 100-feet away from surface water with as 

little disturbance as possible.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 39

WR-4: Stream crossings on new construction or reconstruction routes should be designed to prevent the 

restriction of expected flood flows. Perennial streams should have bridge crossings. All new crossings over 

fish bearing streams should incorporate stream simulation designs.

WR-5: Establish fords only in stream segments that would not cause sedimentation or stream bank erosion. These 

conditions are generally where the stream channel is comprised of bedrock, boulders or cobbles and the 

bank slopes are low, dry, and stable. It may be necessary to harden approaches to minimize sedimentation 

and erosion. Fords would not be permitted in fish bearing or perennial streams.

WR-6: Minimize soil surface compaction and disturbance in Riparian Reserves. Only allow use of heavy 

construction equipment in this environment during periods when the soil is least susceptible to 

compaction or rutting.

WR-7: When possible, schedule construction activities within Riparian Reserves during dry periods or low water 

periods.

WR-8: Discourage off-trail OHV use in Riparian Reserves and at stream crossings by the use of barriers or other 

methods. Special emphasis should be given to Key Site Riparian areas.

WR-9: Existing road and trail crossings on fish bearing streams should be upgraded to provide unimpeded fish 

passage.

WR-10: All in-water OHV route construction and maintenance would occur during the appropriate Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in-water work window.

WR-11: Dispose of spoils/fill materials in stable areas and away from stream channels.

WR-12: Wetlands, seeps and springs should be avoided where possible during final trail location or when not 

possible utilize construction techniques to avoid resource damage.

Heritage Resources

HR-1: Significant heritage resources within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) would be provided 

an appropriate degree of protection to preserve/conserve their values. Protection measures would be 

developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), appropriate Tribes, 

and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

HR-2: For proposed new construction, protection of heritage resources should avoid the site if possible. Travel 

routes with the potential to adversely affect significant heritage resources would be rerouted or realigned 

away from the resources. Distances would vary depending on the nature of the individual resource, local 

topography, and vegetation density. 

HR-3: For prehistoric sites primarily characterized by surface exposures of lithic artifact material in an existing 

trail tread or wheel track, site “hardening” methods may be employed as a protective measure. Normally, 

geotextile fabric and fill would be used to stabilize eroding surfaces and exposed cultural deposits within 

site boundaries. Depth of fill would be determined by slope and soil conditions. 

HR-4: To reduce threat of artifact theft and motorized vehicle damage to heritage resources adjacent to but 

outside designated travel routes, barricades and vegetative screening should be employed as a protective 

measure.

HR-5: Where avoidance or site hardening of heritage resources is not feasible, measures would be developed to 

reduce adverse effects. Such measures may include archaeological data recovery, and would be developed 

in consultation with SHPO, appropriate Tribes, and ACHP.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 40

Wildland Fire

WF-1: Measures for reducing the potential for human-caused fires during elevated fire danger levels (High to 

Extreme) would be implemented (e.g., trail closures, campfire restrictions, increased signing).

WF-2: OHV would be compliant with State and Forest Service laws, regulation and standards. (e.g., spark 

arrestors).

Range

R-1: Install cattle guards or appropriate devices (avoid using non self-closing gates) where OHV trails cross 

range allotment fencing.

R-2: In the Gibson Prairie area, use signing and possibly temporary closures to make the OHV use in staging 

area compatible with livestock permittee equipment used (e.g., temporary livestock panels, gates and 

loading chute). 

Road Decommissioning6:

DM-1: Ensure that an experienced professional fisheries biologist, hydrologist or technician is involved in the 

design of road decommissioning and/or culvert removal/replacement projects. The experience should be 

commensurate with technical requirements of a project. 

DM-2: Follow the appropriate Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) guidelines for timing of in-water 

work. Exceptions to the ODFW in-water work windows must be requested by the Forest or its contractors, 

and subsequently approved by ODFW. 

DM-3: Project actions would follow all provisions and requirements (including permits) of the Clean Water Act 

for maintenance of water quality standards as described by the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality.

DM-4: All equipment used for restoration work shall be cleaned and leaks repaired prior to entering the project 

area. Remove external oil and grease, along with dirt, mud and plant parts prior to entering National 

Forest system lands. Thereafter, inspect equipment daily for leaks or accumulations of grease, and fix 

any identified problems before entering streams or areas that drain directly to streams or wetlands. This 

practice does not apply to service vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that would 

remain on the roadway.

DM-5: Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) – The contractor would be required to have 

a written SPCCP, which describes measures to prevent or reduce impacts from potential spills (fuel, 

hydraulic fluid, etc). The SPCCP shall contain a description of the hazardous materials that would be used, 

including inventory, storage, handling procedures; a description of quick response containment supplies 

that would be available on the site (e.g., a silt fence, straw bales, and an oil-absorbing, floating boom 

whenever surface water is present.).

DM-6: All trucks used for refueling shall carry a hazardous material recovery kit, including absorbent pads to be 

used during refueling if that occurs in the project area. Any contaminated soil, vegetation or debris must 

be removed from National Forest System Lands and disposed of in accordance with state laws.

DM-7: Refuel mechanized equipment at least 150 feet from water bodies or as far as possible from the water body 

where local site conditions do not allow a 150-foot setback to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into 

water.

DM-8: Absorbent pads would be required under all stationary equipment and fuel storage containers.

6 These PDC apply only to the roads that will be actively decommissioned as part of this project.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 41

DM-9: Dispose of slide and waste material in stable sites out of the flood prone area. Waste material other than 

hardened surface material (asphalt, concrete, etc) may be used to restore natural or near-natural contours.

DM-10: Trees that need to be felled during project implementation should be directionally felled, where feasible, 

away from the road prism and into the surrounding forest. Trees would not be bucked and would be left 

undisturbed to the extent possible.

DM-11: Prior to implementation of any road decommissioning, culvert removal, or culvert replacement invasive 

plant surveys should be performed at the project site(s). If any invasive plants are found on or near roads, 

the full extent of the invasion should be determined by surveying off road to the extent that it is reasonable 

to assume the invasive species may have spread. The invasive plant infestations should then be mapped and 

weed site reports completed. Depending upon the seriousness of the weed invasion, as determined by a 

trained botany or noxious weed coordinator, recommendations for treatment of the weed site(s) would be 

made and an updated Noxious Weed Risk Analysis and Mitigation Report would be prepared. 

DM-12: Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material for invasive plants before use 

and transport. Treat or require treatment of infested sources before any use of pit material. Use only gravel, 

fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by District or Forest weed specialists.

DM-13: Place sediment barriers prior to construction around sites where significant levels of fine sediment may 

enter the stream directly or through road ditches. Maintain barriers throughout construction.

DM-14: For road decommissioning projects within riparian areas, re-contour the road prism to mimic natural 

floodplain contours and gradient to the greatest degree possible.

DM-15: Drainage features used for stormproofing projects should be spaced to disconnect road surface runoff from 

stream channels.

DM-16: Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings to the greatest extent 

possible.

DM-17: Conduct activities during dry-field conditions—low to moderate soil moisture levels.

DM-18: Restore the stream channel and banks to original pre-road (natural) contours as much as possible when 

culverts are removed from the road prism. 

DM-19: When removing a culvert from a non-fishing bearing stream, aquatic specialists shall determine if culvert 

removal should follow design criteria outlined below in the Culvert Replacement section. Culvert removal 

on fish bearing streams shall adhere to the Culvert Replacement design criteria. 

Culvert Replacement:

C-1: Follow stream simulation design requirements for all new stream crossings (i.e. match, to the degree 

possible, stream width, slope, and substrate conditions with up and downstream conditions).

C-2: Rip Rap – The use of riprap is permissible above bankfull height to protect the inlet or outlet of new 

culverts or open-bottomed arches. If the use of riprap is required for culvert stability, then additional 

analysis may be required to ensure that the structure is not undersized. Riprap may only be placed below 

bankfull height when necessary for protection of abutments and pilings for bridges. However, the amount 

and placement of riprap around the abutments and/or pilings should not constrict the bankfull flow.

C-3: Grade Control Structures – Grade control structures are permitted to prevent headcutting above or below 

the culvert or bridge where natural channel re-grading is not desired. Grade control typically consists of 

boulder structures that are keyed into the banks, span the channel, and are buried in the substrate.

C-4: Road Dips – Where applicable, incorporate road dips into stream crossing design, to ensure catastrophic 

flood events would transport overflow back into the stream channel instead of onto the road bed.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 42

C-5: Structures containing concrete must be cured or dried before they come into contact with stream flow.

C-6: When removing woody debris from the road-crossing inlet, place the debris downstream of the road 

crossing.

C-7: In streams where fish are present above and/or below the culvert a fish collection and removal procedure 

shall be implemented prior to dewatering (see below) and construction. The project area shall remain 

isolated using block nets or some other means during the construction period.

C-8: Dewater Construction Site: The preferred method for replacing a culvert involves dewatering the 

construction site to minimize impacts to water quality and fish populations. Upstream of the isolated 

construction area, divert flow around the construction site with a coffer dam (built with non-erosive 

materials) and an associated pump or a by-pass culvert. Pumps must have fish screens and be operated in 

accordance with NMFS fish screen criteria (NMFS 1995). Dissipate flow energy at the bypass outflow to 

prevent damage to riparian vegetation or stream channel. If diversion allows for downstream fish passage 

(i.e., is not screened), place diversion outlet in a location to promote safe reentry of fish into the stream 

channel, preferably into pool habitat with cover. When necessary, pump seepage water from the dewatered work area to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas and allow water to filter 

through vegetation prior to reentering the stream channel.

C-9: Stream Re-watering: Upon project completion, slowly re-water the construction site to prevent loss of 

surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden 

increase in stream turbidity. Monitor downstream during re-watering to prevent stranding of aquatic 

organisms below the construction site.

In addition to these PDC, additional measures may be taken by the Forest to prevent OHV from entering restricted 

areas and to prevent cross-country travel. For example, implementation of the proposed Palomar Pipeline project 

would include development of an OHV blocking plan to prevent OHV from travel along the proposed pipeline. The 

blocking plan would look at site-specific crossings to determine the best approach to prevent OHV use. Examples of 

methods that may be used include: boulders, berms, gates, visual marking, downed woody debris, and rough road 

access.

2.5. Monitoring Framework

Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions and the accuracy of analysis 

assumptions and conclusions. Monitoring of road and trail conditions is required, and must meet regional and 

national standards. Forest Service Manual (FSM) directs Forest Supervisors to monitor all elements of the National 

Forest System transportation system to fulfill the objectives of forest transportation system established in FSM 7702 

(FSM 7704.4). Also, the FSM 2355.04d directs Forest Supervisors to establish monitoring intervals and criteria, 

practices, sampling basis, and standards against which the effects of off-road vehicle use shall be evaluated and 

reported through the Forest planning and management review procedures. 

Previous Monitoring

This proposed monitoring framework would replace the Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Use Monitoring Plan found in the 

Forest Plan (page 5-69 to 5-70). This would be part of the Forest Plan Amendment proposed for Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4, and analyzed in Section 3.16. The Monitoring Plan adopted with the Forest Plan in 1990 poses the following 

evaluation questions regarding OHV use:

• Are high quality OHV opportunities provided in areas which are suitable for OHV use and the needs, skills, and 

interest of users? Unit of measure is OHV RVDs (recreation visitor days).

For nearly two decades, the OHV policy in the Mt. Hood National Forest has afforded OHV access in areas 

which are suitable as well as areas which are unsuitable for OHV use and needs, skills and interests of users. 

Other than the limited findings of National Visitor Use Monitoring report (NVUM) (see Section 3.1.1, OHV Use 

in Mt. Hood National Forest for more information), no systematic measurement of OHV RVDs has been con-
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 43

ducted. With minimal active management by the Forest Service (McCubbins Gulch is the only actively managed 

OHV system), users have sought out and concentrated OHV activities in locations that represent the optimum 

experiences in the Forest. Areas of interest to OHV enthusiasts are mostly (although not exclusively) represented 

by the six route systems in the proposed action. 

• Are the OHV opportunities provided effective in minimizing conflicts between user groups and safe for users and the 

general public? Unit of measure is the number and types of accidents and complaints.

No systematic Forest system exists for recording and tracking OHV accidents and complaints. County emergency services are the primary first responders to OHV accidents. Clackamas, Hood River and Wasco counties 

do not routinely report accidents to the Forest Service; however, Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers are 

usually aware and routinely respond to serious accidents with the counties. The concentrated-use area with the 

highest anecdotal account of accidents is west of Rock Creek Reservoir in Wasco County. Most accidents involve 

only a single OHV.

• Are OHV opportunities being located, designed, and managed to minimize the negative effects (within acceptable 

limits) on key fish and wildlife species and sensitive habitats? Measurement is specific to species or habitat selected.

In the past two decades, OHV management on the Forest has been mostly reactive rather than proactive. Actions 

have primarily been exclusionary in nature, restricting motorized access in localized geographic areas where 

there has been actual or threatened harm to key fish and wildlife species and sensitive habitats from OHV use. 

Old Maid Flat, Camas Prairie and Summit Meadow are examples of areas where OHVs have been restricted for 

these reasons. 

This EIS is the first comprehensive examination and analysis since the adoption of the Forest Plan about what areas 

in the Forest are suitable and desirable for OHV users. Although there is limited quantifiable monitoring data, the 

alternatives and project design criteria were based on public input of current use, anecdotal evidence, and field 

observations.

Proposed Monitoring Framework

A monitoring plan would be developed to assess the following: 

• Are OHVs remaining on the designated system of routes?

• Are the trail widths being maintained or widened?

• Are the signs being maintained and followed?

• Is the Motor Vehicle Use Map being updated and distributed effectively on an annual basis?

• Is the selected alternative being implemented properly? Is the selected alternative having the intended effects? 

• Are the project design criteria being implemented properly? Are the design criteria having the intended effect?

The results of monitoring would be reported in the annual Forest Plan Monitoring Report. The monitoring reports 

are available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/publications/. If monitoring reveals undesirable outcomes, corrective 

actions may be taken. If the mitigations are not possible or effective, road or trail closures may be necessary and 

additional environmental analysis would be conducted. 

In addition, monitoring would be completed for heritage resources and invasive plant species.

• Heritage Monitoring: Cultural resource inventory reports filed with State Historic Preservation Office require 

additional work to achieve no adverse effect, including developing a monitoring plan. The plan would focus on 

at-risk historic sites in order to measure effects on those sites. Also, the plan would include monitoring in areas 

within the route system with high concentrated use, high site density or high value sites (Priority Heritage Assets).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 44

• Invasive Plant Species Monitoring: OHVs are a known vector for transporting invasive plant species. As such, the 

establishment and spread of invasive plants within the OHV locations would need to be monitored according to 

the protocols established in the Mt. Hood Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision (2005).

In addition to monitoring, any illegal OHV use and/or trail construction would be reported to Law Enforcement 

and Investigations and the appropriate actions may be taken. The appropriate actions include, but are not limited to 

incident investigation, warning notices, writing citations, or closures.

An implementation team would develop the details of how the monitoring framework would be implemented. The 

monitoring approach would be developed to meet the current budget and workforce levels. The approach would be 

adopted as the budget and workforce levels change in the future to match the future levels and monitoring needs.

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the tables focuses on 

treatment activities and effects where different levels of effects could be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively 

among alternatives. Table 2-30 summarizes the alternatives by areas, roads, and trails where OHV use is permitted. 

Table 2-31 summarizes the miles of proposed routes, Table 2-32 summarizes the miles of proposed roads and trails, 

and Table 2-33 summarizes the staging areas for the action alternatives. Table 2-34 compares the major components 

of the action alternatives. Table 2-35 compares the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives.

Table 2-30. Comparison of alternatives by areas, roads, and trails where OHV use is designated or 

not prohibited.

Alternatives

Cross-Country 

OHV Use 

(Acres)1

Designated 

OHV Area 

(Acres)

OHV Use 

Permitted on 

Roads (miles)2

OHV Use on 

Motorized 

Trails (miles)

Roads 

Decommission 

(miles)

Total OHV 

Routes (miles)

Alternative 1 394,886 0 2,463 49 0 2,512

Alternative 2 0 1 (4 acres) 124 97 13 221

Alternative 3 0 1 (4 acres) 224 102 35 326

Alternative 4 0 1 (4 acres) 59 37 12 96

1. OHV cross-country travel is defined as an OHV leaving the designated road, trail or area.

2. Miles of roads includes convert to trail and motorized mixed-use.

Table 2-31. Comparison of proposed routes for action alternatives. 

OHV System Total Route (Miles)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Bear Creek 39.1 39.3  --

Gibson Prairie 15.2 4.9  --

Graham Pass  -- 63.2  --

LaDee Flats 38.9 42.0 25.1

McCubbins Gulch 50.6 60.1 33.6

Mount Defiance  -- 5.5  --

Peavine 37.8 49.6  --

Rock Creek 39.6 61.2 37.2

Total Miles 221 326 96
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 45

Table 2-32. Comparison of proposed roads and trails for action alternatives. 

OHV System

Road Routes (miles) Trail Routes (miles)

Convert to Trail Motorized Mixed Use Existing Trails New Trail Construction

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Bear Creek 0 3   0 7.5   0 0   39.1 28.8  

Gibson Prairie 1.8 0.1   5.1 4.5   4 0   4.3 0.3  Graham Pass   0     52.8     10.4     0  LaDee Flats 9.9 18.8 10.9 27.4 17.9 9.2 0 0 0 1.6 5.3 5.1McCubbins Gulch 4.7 17.2 7.3 8.8 3.2 0 32 25.6 25.6 5.1 14.1 0.7

Mount Defiance   0     5.5     0     0  

Peavine 19.6 28.9   15.2 11.6   0 0.2   3 8.9  

Rock Creek 14.6 25.9 15.1 16.7 26.6 16.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 6.2 6.6 3.2

Total Miles 51 94 33 73 130 26 38 38 28 59 64 9

Table 2-33. Comparison of staging areas for action alternatives. 

OHV System Staging Area Name Acres Parking Capacity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Bear Creek Gravel Storage Area (Road 16) 0.4 10 X X X  

Gravel Storage Area (Road 1610) 0.4 10 X X X  

Gibson Prairie Range Allotment Load Area 0.7 20   X    

Graham Pass Lowe Creek Pit 1.4 45 X   X  

LaDee Flats

No Whisky Timber Sale Landing 1 30   X X  

Round Wolf Pit 2.2 65     X  

No Whisky Timber Sale Landing 1 30       X

McCubbins Gulch

McCubbins Campground X X X X

McCubbins Day-Use Site 0.8 25 X   X X

Path Timber Sale Landing 1.1 30 X X X X

Peavine Warm Springs Quarry 5.2 150 X X    

Devils Ridge Quarry 3.2 100 X   X  

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry 4.1 130 X X X X
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 46 Table 2-34. Comparison of major components of alternatives. OHV System Seasonal Restriction Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Peavine No OHV use from Dec 

1 to June 15.

Current legal use. Proposed trails and roads. 

OHV Classes I, II, and III.

Includes northern portion of the Proposed Action. All routes south of Road 42 are dropped. Add some additional routes to the west to make a viable system. Move the staging area to an open area adjacent to Road 4661. OHV Classes I and III.

No OHV use proposed.

LaDee Flats No seasonal 

restriction.

Forest Order prohibits crosscountry travel. OHV use permitted on designated roads and trails.

Proposed trails and roads. OHV Classes I, II, and III. Includes proposed OHV area at North Fork Quarry (approximately 4-acres).

Add some connector routes on west end of proposal. Road 4610-115, 4610-018, 4610-019 would be converted to trail (rather than mixed-use road). Change Abbott Road to allow all classes of OHV to use the route. Add a second staging area at the end of Abbott Road at viewpoint. 

Eliminate Abbott Road sections. 

Bear Creek No OHV use from 

Nov 1 to June 15.

No OHV use. Proposed new construction. 

OHV Class III only.

Same as Alternative #2, plus some additional decision roads (e.g., Road 1612 and 1640-620). Add small segment of new construction to connect routes. 

No OHV use proposed.

Gibson Prairie No OHV use from 

Nov 1 to June 15.

Forest Order prohibits crosscountry travel. OHV use permitted on designated roads and trails.

Proposed trails and roads. OHV Class I only.

Connectors to Hood River county trails only. Drop all proposed routes that are included in the proposed action. 

No OHV use proposed.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 47

OHV System Seasonal Restriction Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

McCubbins Gulch No OHV use from 

December 1 to April 1.

Designated OHV system of trails.

Continue existing use and add new trails to east. OHV Classes I and III.

Modified the Proposed Action to “clean up” some user-created routes. Adds some additional singletrack trails to the West. No motorized mixed-use on paved roads.

Drop single-track trails to the West. Modified the Proposed Action to “clean up” some user-created routes. No motorized mixeduse on paved roads.

Rock Creek No OHV use from 

December 1 to April 1.

Current legal use. Proposed trails and roads. 

OHV Classes I and III. Includes a proposed day use area.

All routes, except access route, are outside the Wildland-Urban Interface Boundary. Single route allow access from Sportsman’s Park to OHV routes. Add Road 4860 for OHV use to allow access to Badger Lake Campground. Includes a proposed day use area.

OHV routes on west half only. Includes some additional routes (including additional mixed-use, conversion to trail, and new construction) on west end to increase the overall miles of use for OHV. No day use area proposed.

Graham Pass No seasonal 

restriction.

Current legal use. No OHV use proposed. OHV use proposed on gravel 

roads and current motorized trail (Rho Ridge Trail # 564).

No OHV use proposed

Mt. Defiance No OHV use from 

December 1 to May 15.

Current legal use. No OHV use proposed. OHV use proposed on gravel 

roads.

No OHV use proposed

Table 2-34. (conmtinued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 48 Table 2-35. Comparison of environmental effects of implementing the alternatives in relation to purpose and need/desired future conditions, and key and tracking issues. Component Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Purpose and Need/Desired Future ConditionsDesignate and/or construct OHV routes by class of OHV and time of year

2,463 miles of gravel and native surface roads and 49 miles of motorized trails are open to OHVs. Not designated by OHV classes. 

221 miles of OHV routes by class and time of year. This represents a 93% reduction from Alternative 1.

326 miles of OHV routes by class and time of year. This represents a 90% reduction from Alternative 1.

96 miles of OHV routes by class and time of year. This represents a 97% reduction from Alternative 1.

Change the current management direction in the Forest Plan to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule

Implied Forest Plan direction is “open unless signed closed.” Twenty standards and guidelines do not comply with the Final Travel Management Rule. Five standards and guidelines prohibit OHV use where use is occurring.

Forest Plan Amendment includes the 20 standards and guidelines that do not comply with the Final Travel Management Rule and the six standards and guidelines that prohibit OHV use where use is occurring. Implementing the Forest Plan Amendment will change the current management direction to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule.

Forest Plan Amendment includes the 20 standards and guidelines that do not comply with the Final Travel Management Rule and two standards and guidelines that prohibit OHV use where use is occurring. Implementing the Forest Plan Amendment will change the current management direction to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule.

Forest Plan Amendment includes the 20 standards and guidelines that do not comply with the Final Travel Management Rule. No standards and guidelines would be amended that prohibit OHV use where use is occurring. Implementing the Forest Plan Amendment will change the current management direction to comply with the Final Travel Management Rule.

Balance recreation opportunities for OHV use with other recreational uses of the Forest and natural resources as directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Current OHV use does not consider recreational balance. Alternative 2 was designed to achieve balance between 

motorized and non-motorized recreationists.

Alternative 3 considers additional OHV routes based on scoping comments. Overall, this alternative increases motorized recreation opportunities.

Alternative 4 considers dropping a proposed OHV system or reducing the number of routes within a proposed system. Overall, this alternative reduces motorized recreation opportunities.

Key Issue 1 – Motorized RecreationProposed OHV Systems 1 OHV system; 4 disconnected 

motorized trails; 2,463 miles of gravel and native surface roads

6 proposed systems 8 proposed systems 3 proposed systems
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 49

Component Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Number of locations with adequate miles

Forest-wide (combination of gravel and native surface roads and existing motorized trails)

Class I: one location (McCubbins) Class I: four locations (Graham Pass, LaDee, Peavine, Rock 

Creek)

Class I: no location

Class II: no location Class II: two locations (Graham 

Pass, LaDee)

Class II: no location

Class III: one location (McCubbins) Class III: three locations (Gra- ham Pass, McCubbins, Rock 

Creek)

Class III: no location

Miles of OHV routes by level of difficulty 

Easiest: 2,463 miles Easiest: 98 miles Easiest: 156 miles Easiest: 41 miles

More: 51 miles More: 98 miles More: 132 miles More: 42 miles

Most: 0 miles Most: 26 miles Most: 38 miles Most: 14 miles

Miles of OHV trails and roads by vehicle class(es)

Class I: 0 miles Class I: 15 miles Class I: 0 miles Class I: 0 milesClass II: 0 miles Class II: 8 miles Class II: 0 miles Class II: 0 miles

Class III: 17 miles Class III: 44 miles Class III: 76 miles Class III: 0 miles

Class I & III: 32 miles Class I & III: 91 miles Class I & III: 177 miles Class I & III: 82.5 miles

Class I, II, & III: 2,464 miles Class I, II, & III: 63 miles Class I, II, & III: 73 miles Class I, II, & III: 14 miles

Number of dead-end routes by OHV system

182 6 5 1

Number of staging areas and parking capacity

Estimated 61 staging areas based on the number of rock quarries. Estimated parking capacity of 4320.

7 staging areas with overall parking capacity of 368. Bear Creek location has 2 staging areas. All other systems have 1 staging area.

10 staging areas with overall parking capacity of 463. Bear Creek and LaDee Flats locations each have 2 staging areas. McCubbins Gulch has 3 staging areas. Gibson Prairie and Mount Defiance do not have any staging areas. All other systems have 1 staging area.

5 staging areas with overall parking capacity of 239. McCubbins Gulch location has 3 staging areas. LaDee Flats and Rock Creek have 1 staging area.

Key Issue 2 – Non-motorized RecreationMiles of non-motorized trail and other locations where sound emitted by OHVs might be detected

100 miles 15.4 miles 28.4 miles 6.6 miles

Acres of designated wilderness where sound emitted by OHVs might be detected

Not estimated 10,840 acres (Salmon-Huckleberry, Roaring River, Clackamas, and Lower White River 

Wildernesses)

14,870 acres (Salmon-Huckleberry, Mark O. Hatfield, Badger Creek, and Lower White River Wildernesses)

250 acres (Lower White River Wilderness)

Table 2-35. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 50 Component Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Miles of trails in designated 

wilderness where sound from OHVs might be detected

60 miles 3.8 miles 12.5 miles 0 miles

Distance between the Rock Creek proposed OHV system and Sportsman’s Park subdivision

0.1 mile 0.7 mile 0 mile 3.0 miles

Key Issue 3 – Wildlife DisturbanceMiles of OHV trails and roads 2,463 miles 221 miles 326 miles 96 milesMiles of new trail construction n/a 59 miles 69 miles 9 milesAcres of OHV open to crosscountry travel 394,886 acres 0 acre 0 acre 0 acreEffects to big game use in each proposed OHV system

Little to no protection from disturbance to big game (deer and elk). Seasonal closures in place at McCubbins Gulch and disconnected gravel and native surface roads.

Protection during winter use and summer calving areas. Includes seasonal closures at five proposed OHV systems: Peavine, Gibson Prairie, McCubbins Gulch, Rock Creek and Bear Creek.

Protection during winter use and summer calving areas. Includes seasonal closures at six proposed OHV systems: Peavine, Gibson Prairie, McCubbins Gulch, Mount Defiance, Rock Creek and Bear Creek.

Protection during winter use and summer calving areas. Includes seasonal closures at two proposed OHV systems: McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek.

Tracking IssuesUser capacity in available visitor days per year 2,664,480 days 290,008 days 388,744 days 173,280 daysMiles of motorized mixed use (safety)

2,463 miles 73 miles 130 miles 26 miles

Miles of decommissioned roads

0 miles 12.6 miles 34.6 miles 12.4 miles

Effects of OHV use on Irrigation Districts (economics)

Most damage to irrigation ditches due to cross-country travel and miles of OHV routes.

Less damage to irrigation ditches due to elimination of cross-country travel and decreased miles of OHV routes.

Less damage to irrigation ditches due to elimination of cross-country travel and decreased miles of OHV routes (greater than Alternative 2)

Least damage to irrigation ditches due to elimination of cross-country travel and decreased miles of OHV routes.

Effects of OHV use on soils (risk ratings)

Highest potential for soil damage of any alternative due primarily to cross-country travel. Low potential for soil damage (lower than Alt 3 and higher than Alt 4) Highest potential for soil dam- age of the action alternatives. Lowest potential for soil dam- age due to elimination of cross- country travel and decreased 

miles of OHV routes. 

Table 2-35. (continued)
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 51

Component Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Number of stream crossings and number of stream crossings over fish bearing streams

3,404 crossings 102 crossings 161 crossings 46 crossings435 crossings 12 crossings 22 crossings 8 crossings

Miles of OHV trails and roads within 100 feet of streams

203 miles 9 miles 15 miles 4 miles

Miles of OHV trails and roads in drinking water source areas

1,340 miles 66 miles 170 miles 25 miles

Effects of OHV use to native plants, including sensitive plants

Greatest potential for harm (due to cross-country travel)

Harm is greatly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (due to no cross-country travel); however there is still some potential for harm as a result of new OHV trail construction

Harm is greatly reduced compared to Alternative 1 (due to no cross-country travel); however there is still some potential for harm as a result of new OHV trail construction (greater than Alternative 2).

Least potential for harm compared to the other alternatives because there is no cross-country travel and limited new OHV trail construction 

Effects of OHV use on invasive plants (risk of spread and/or new infestations)

Greatest risk (due to crosscountry travel) Reduced risk (because routes are staging areas are designated) Reduced risk (because routes and staging areas are desig- nated). Slightly greater than 

Alternative 2 due to increased miles of proposed routes.

Least risk (because the least amount of proposed routes and staging areas)

Cost of road maintenance per year where OHV use is permitted. Savings on the cost of road maintenance per year

$1,231,500 $1,207,500 $1,184,500 $1,215,000$0.0 $24,000 $47,000 $16,500

Cost of maintaining all OHV trails

$41,650 $125,715 $166,430 $59,415

Heritage sites potentially affected 154 (estimated) sites 2 sites 8 sites 1 siteEffects of OHV use for law enforcement in regards to compliance and enforcement

High (due to cross-country travel and number of existing trail miles and mixed use road miles)

Low to Moderate (due to no cross-country travel and less trail miles and mixed use road miles)

Table 2-35. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 52

2.7. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and 

to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). 

Public comments received in response to the Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) as well as the preliminary effects 

analysis conducted by the interdisciplinary team suggested alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 

Some of these alternatives were outside the scope of this EIS, did not met the purpose and need for action, were not 

reasonably feasible or viable, were duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or were determined to cause 

unnecessary environmental harm. Four alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed consideration for 

reasons summarized below.

2.7.1. Prohibit Off-highway Vehicle Use on the Forest 

This alternative would prohibit OHV use on the Forest. Only street-legal highway licensed wheeled motor vehicles 

would be permitted on existing National Forest Service roads. No motorized trails would be located on the Forest. 

Public comments suggested this alternative to eliminate all environmental and social impacts associated with OHV 

use.

This alternative would not meet the purpose and underlying need for this project. The primary purpose of this 

project is to designate OHV use by class of OHV and time of year. Current regulations and policies direct National 

Forests to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities, including off-road vehicle recreation opportunities in 

appropriate places and under proper management (Forest Service Manual 2355.03). The Final Travel Management 

Rule states that the Forest Service “must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types of recreational activities. 

To this end, a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for OHV use established with public involvement will 

enhance public enjoyment of National Forests while maintaining other important values and uses of NFS [National 

Forest Systems] lands” (70 CFR 68265).

OHV use is an established and legitimate recreation opportunity on the Forest. OHVs are used by forest visitors 

for access and as a recreational experience in its own right. Based on current use and public input, providing for a 

balanced recreation experience across the Forest compels designating some OHV routes, where appropriate. As such, 

this alternative was not considered further.

2.7.2. Designate All Existing “On-the-Ground” Routes

In this alternative, all existing “on-the-ground” routes would be designated and incorporated into the OHV 

Management Plan. This includes classified as well as non-system (user-created) roads and trails. Current state law 

allows OHVs to operate on any road open to the public which is not paved. (For more information on current 

Oregon State Laws regarding Off-Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles go to: http://www.oregon.gov/

OPRD/ATV/links.shtml). Many gravel and native surface roads on the Forest meet these criteria and thus are open to 

OHV travel. Cross-country travel would be eliminated. New user-created routes would not be allowed. 

This alternative does not meet the underlying need to “balance recreation opportunities for OHV use with other 

recreational uses of the National Forest and natural resources as directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan.” In some cases, there are duplicate user-created roads and trails within a few hundred 

yards of each other. The trails may include dense, braided networks of intersecting paths. In other situations the usercreated roads and trails, because of their poor placement and lack of design, are causing resource damage.

Some of these user-created roads and trails would not meet the Forest Plan direction for resource and recreation 

management. Considerable work would be needed to bring some of these routes into compliance with applicable 

standards. Duplicate routes adjacent to one another would still exist. Designating all user-created trails would not 

minimize damage to soil, water, wildlife, vegetation, and other forest resources associated with motorized recreation 

use across the Forest.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2 — 53

In some instances, the user-created trails are located in the best locations to minimize resource damage and to 

connect existing trail networks. These user-created trails were considered in the development of alternatives and 

have been incorporated into the alternatives. These user-created trails are listed as “new trails” in the description of 

alternatives and Chapter 3 analyzes them in detail. These trails would be brought up to Forest Service trail standards 

when the project is implemented.

Rationale for not including all gravel and native surface roads is discussed in Section 2.7.4 Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

on Gravel and Native Surface Roads.

2.7.3. Continued Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Specific Areas

When designing the preliminary proposed action as described in Section 2.1, several other specific OHV locations 

were considered. The following locations were eliminated from detailed study because of incompatibilities with 

existing land use allocations, mixed-use analysis and/or adjacent landowners as well as existing resource damage. The 

reasons for eliminating each location are discussed below.

A. Black Wolf – This proposed OHV system is along roads near Forest Service Road 58 on the Zigzag and Clackamas River Ranger Districts. The proposed OHV system included gravel and paved roads. OHV use on the paved 

roads posed mixed-use and safety concerns. In addition, a large portion of the proposed system was located in 

Roaring River late-successional reserves (LSR) and Tier 1 Key Watershed (Salmon River). Based on these concerns, this area was eliminated from detailed study because it does not meet the guiding principle of providing 

safety for all forest visitors or the underlying need of “balancing recreation opportunities for OHV use with other 

recreational uses of the National Forest and natural resources as directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan.”

B. Wildcat – This proposed OHV location is an area near Wildcat Mountain along the Forest Service Road 36 system on the Zigzag Ranger District. The proposed area is near the Sandy Watershed which is the drinking water 

source for Sandy. Current OHV use has caused significant resource damage on and off roads in the area, including encroachments into the nearby Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness. The primary resource concerns include 

soils and water quality. Given the terrain and existing sedimentation, the water quality of the drinking water was 

a concern. Based on these resource concerns, this location was eliminated from detailed study because it does 

not meet the underlying need of “balancing recreation opportunities for OHV use with . . . natural resources as 

directed by the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.”

C. Hillock Burn – This proposed OHV system is along the Forest Service Road 45 system on the Clackamas River 

Ranger District. This location is adjacent to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Current OHV users 

travel between the Forest Service and BLM lands through interconnecting trails. BLM will begin OHV planning 

on its lands in the near future. When BLM begins planning, the Forest Service Roads in this area may be reconsidered as potential OHV routes through a separate NEPA process. Based on the incompatibility with adjacent 

landowners, this area was eliminated from detailed study.

D. Oak Grove –This proposed OHV system is adjacent to the proposed LaDee Flats location along the Forest 

Service 46 Road system on the Clackamas River Ranger District. The majority of the proposed routes are within 

newly designated wilderness area, including the Huxley Ridge motorized trail. Also, all routes within this proposed system were dead-ends with no loop opportunities provided. Lastly, the Road 4612 and Road 4612-130 

are high sediment producing roads based on the North Fork Clackamas Watershed Analysis and these roads 

were proposed as OHV routes in the Oak Grove system. Based on these concerns, this area was eliminated from 

detailed study because the system does not meet the underlying need of “balancing recreation opportunities for 

OHV use with . . . resource sustainability.” 

E. Hugh Creek – This proposed OHV system is along the Forest Service Road 70 system on the Clackamas River 

Ranger District. The proposed OHV system included gravel and paved roads. OHV use on the paved roads 

posed mixed-use and safety concerns. Also, the majority of the proposed system was in the Bagby LSR. In addition, listed fish species are located in Nohorn Creek and Hugh Creek which are adjacent to Road 7040, 7030 and 

70. Based on these concerns, this area was eliminated from detailed study because it does not meet the guiding 

principle of providing safety for all forest visitors or the underlying need of “balancing recreation opportunities 

for OHV use with . . . resource sustainability.”
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 2 — 54

F. Fish Creek – This proposed OHV system is located on the decommissioned main roads that used to traverse 

the Fish Creek watershed (former roads 54 and 5420) on the Clackamas River Ranger District. The Fish Creek 

Environmental Assessment (EA) (1997) analyzed motorized use in this area. The Decision Notice (DN) restricts 

motorized use and states that there will not be any trails or trail bridges constructed or added to the trail system. 

Although this NEPA could replace the Fish Creek EA and DN, the remaining trail system is not easily accessible 

from the Forest Service road system and does not provide any loop opportunities. As such, the proposed system 

in the Fish Creek area was not a viable OHV system and was eliminated from detailed system.

2.7.4. Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Gravel and Native Surface Roads

Current state law allows OHVs to operate on any road open to the public which is not paved. (For more information 

on current Oregon State Laws regarding Off-Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles go to: http://www.

oregon.gov/OPRD/ATV/links.shtml). Many gravel and native surface roads on the Forest meet these criteria and thus 

are open to OHV travel. Under this alternative, OHVs would be allowed to continue using all these roads. In addition 

to these roads, other OHV trails may be considered as well.

Since licensed, street legal Class II OHVs (jeeps, pickups) and Class III vehicles (motorcycle-dual sport) are not 

going to be restricted from existing roads on the Forest through implementation of any of the action alternatives, the 

District Rangers and interdisciplinary team considered a variety of options for including gravel roads in Alternative 

3. Gravel roads were incorporated into Alternative 3, using the following criteria. These criteria are based on 

meeting the purpose and need for the project. In particular, these criteria are intended to meet the underlying need 

to “balance recreation opportunities for OHV use with other recreational uses of the National Forest and resource 

sustainability.”

• Incorporate recommendations from local and state government agencies as well as tribal governments. If the recommendations from the government agencies contradict the guidelines below, defer to the government agencies.

• Do not include any routes that present major motorized mix-use concerns for OHV users or other vehicles. If 

concerns are at odd with the guidelines below, defer to the lowest risk situation.

• Do not include dead-ends roads unless these roads provide access to a specific viewpoint and/or destination.

• Do not include roads where a sizable portion of a paved road is needed as a connector (i.e., crossing the paved 

road is okay).

• Utilize routes that would provide loop opportunities.

• Utilize only roads that are currently open system roads.

• Avoid routes that would conflict with adjacent land management objectives.

• Unless there is a compelling reason, do not include routes if Class I OHV use is not already occurring and/or 

established unless there is a compelling reason. In addition, do not allow Class I vehicles on proposed routes in 

areas where there are existing issues (i.e., resources, user conflicts) with user created motorized trails.

• Consider seasonal restrictions, if needed. Follow all existing seasonal road closures.

• Do not include routes where the Forest Service would likely be proposing road decommissioning or year-round 

closure (i.e., storm proofing) in upcoming NEPA processes. 

• Review the resulting system of roads (single lane, gravel or native surfaced) for resource concerns. In particular, 

review the native surface roads to ensure these roads are not currently causing erosion problems that may be 

increased with additional OHV use.

Based on these criteria, the Graham Pass and Mount Defiance locations were added to Alternative 3. All other gravel 

roads were not considered further because they do not meet the all of the above criteria.
Chapter 3 — 1

Chapter 3 -

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 2
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 3

3.0. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Chapter 3 of this EIS summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project 

area (existing conditions) and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives 

discussed in Chapter 2. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented. 

Fore ease in presentation and comparison, discussions are separated into individual resource areas.

The focus of the analysis disclosed in each section is on the effects of the No Action and action alternatives on the 

issues described in Section 1.10. Effects are defined as:

• Effects: Adverse and/or beneficial direct effects occur at the same time and in the same general location as the 

activity causing the effects. Adverse and beneficial indirect effects are those that occur at a different time or location from the activity causing the effects. Both types of effects are described in terms of magnitude, intensity, 

duration, and timing.

• Cumulative Effects: These effects result from the incremental impacts of the proposed actions/alternatives when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on the Forest as well as other adjacent 

federal, state, or private lands.

Effects include ecological (i.e., the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning 

of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or 

cumulative (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).

3.1. Recreation

This analysis is based on the information found in the Recreation Specialist Report for this project, which is in the 

project file located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.1.1. Affected Environment

Recreation Planning Framework

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a classification system in which factors affecting recreation 

opportunities, such as access, naturalness, presence of other people, and management controls, are used to describe 

discrete recreation settings, and organize them along a continuum, or spectrum, from “urban” to “primitive.” Each 

ROS setting is described in terms of specific combinations of activities, facilities and experience opportunities. ROS 

settings are primarily affected by an area’s size, its distance from a road and the likelihood of users encountering 

other users. The seven ROS settings, from the most primitive to the most developed are: primitive; semi-primitive 

non-motorized; semi-primitive motorized; roaded natural; roaded modified; rural; urban. 

The ROS provides a framework for describing the types of outdoor recreation and experiences that the public 

can expect at any given location in the Forest. The ROS also provides a context and criteria for describing and 

measuring the recreation effects from projects and activities. The Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA FS 1990) prescribes a desired ROS setting for every acre of the Forest. Changing the 

existing mix of ROS areas in the Forest is not an objective of this project. The ROS settings that would be most 

compatible with designated OHV roads and trails are semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural and roaded modified. 

Table 3-1 describes these three ROS settings more thoroughly.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 4

Table 3-1. Descriptions of semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural and roaded modified 

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) settings (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986)

Semi-Primitive

Motorized (SPM)

Roaded

Natural (RN)

Roaded

Modified (RM)

• Moderate opportunity for 

solitude, tranquility and closeness 

to nature. High degree of selfreliance, challenge and risk in using 

motorized equipment.

• Predominantly natural appearing 

environment.

• Low concentration of users but often 

evidence of other users on trails.

• Minimum on-site controls and 

restrictions present but subtle.

• Limited facilities for signing sanitary 

and safety needs in native-like rustic 

materials.

• Minimal site modification for 

facilities.

• Vegetation alterations very small in 

size and number, widely dispersed 

and not obvious

• Opportunity to affiliate with 

other users in developed sites 

but with some chance for privacy. 

Self-reliance on outdoor skills of 

only moderate importance. Little 

challenge and risk.

• Mostly natural appearing 

environment as viewed from 

sensitive roads and trails.

• Interaction between users 

at campsites is of moderate 

importance.

• Some obvious on-site control of 

users.

• Access and travel is conventional 

motorized including sedan and 

trailers, RVs and some motor homes.

• Moderate amount and complexity 

of facilities for comfort and 

convenience of user. Use native 

materials but with more refinement 

in design.

• Vegetation alterations done 

to maintain desired visual and 

recreation characteristics.

• Opportunity to get away from others 

but with easy access. Some selfreliance in building own campsite 

and use of motorized equipment. 

Feeling of independence and 

freedom. Little challenge and risk.

• Substantially modified natural 

environment except for campsite. 

Roads, landings, slash and debris 

may be strongly dominant from 

within yet remain subordinate from 

distant sensitive road and highways

• Moderate evidence of other users 

on roads. Little evidence of others or 

interaction at campsites.

• Little on site controls of users except 

for some gated roads.

• Conventional motorized access 

including sedan and trailers, RVs, 

ORVs and motor bides.

• No on-site facilities except signing 

at major road junctions. Occasional 

sanitary facilities for user health 

protection.

• Site modification by users only.

• Shape and blend vegetative 

alterations. Maintain campsites and 

immediate foregrounds to site in 

natural appearing state.

Forest Recreation Niche

The recreation niche is a description, or characterization, of the distinct role the Forest plays in providing outdoor 

recreation opportunities, experiences and benefits. The niche allows managers to focus management efforts on what 

is unique and valuable about the Forest. The niche is, in part, determined by public expectations (demand) and by 

the ecological capabilities of the land. In 2007, the Forest (with public input) developed a recreation niche statement. 

Public participants in this process described and mapped their preferred recreation activities and where they recreate. 

This “sense of place” map product was translated into a narrative about the relative importance of the Forest for 

various recreation opportunities, experiences and benefits. The wide variety of visitor preferences and uses were 

grouped into six spatial categories (settings) named “the mountain,” “travel-ways,” “destination water,” “wilderness,” 

“neighbor-woods” and “communities.” The Forest’s recreation niche summary statement is in 

Section 1.4.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 5

The recreation niche statement discloses that the Forest offers only a moderate opportunity for OHV recreation. 

The Forest is not known as a major provider of OHV recreation, and it is not a major OHV destination. It 

currently provides mostly “easier” and a few “more difficult” OHV roads and trails close to the Portland/Vancouver 

Metropolitan area. The niche setting that would be most compatible with designated OHV roads, trails, and areas is 

“neighbor-woods,” the vast, undeveloped forest area outside of wilderness, major highway corridors and significant 

rivers and lakes (US Forest Service 2006).

Description of Recreation Resources

Mt. Hood National Forest Roads, Trails and Areas Available for OHV Use

Oregon State Law allows OHVs to travel on single-lane gravel and native-surface roads (Oregon 2007). 

Approximately 2,463 road miles are available for OHV use (all vehicle classes). Certain classes of vehicles are also 

permitted on roughly 49 miles of Forest trails. There are areas of the Forest where the Forest Plan (as amended) does 

not specifically prohibit cross-country travel by recreational vehicles. Cross-country OHV travel is not prohibited on 

394,886 acres of the Forest (GIS calculation). An indeterminate amount of this area is probably inaccessible because 

of other physical barriers, such as rock outcrops, steep slopes, forest vegetation, rivers and streams. The Alternative 

1 (No Action) description in this section lists the areas of the Forest where motorized cross-country travel are 

specifically prohibited. A more detailed description of Alternative 1 is available in Chapter 2 of the EIS.

Mt. Hood National Forest Trails Available for Exclusively Non-Motorized Use 

There are roughly 483 miles of Forest system trails outside designated wilderness areas that are managed exclusively 

for non-motorized uses. The 49 miles of Forest trails that are managed for OHV use are also open to non-motorized 

uses. In addition, there are roughly 468 miles of wilderness trails that are available only for hikers and equestrians. 

Developed Recreation Sites

The Forest manages 169 developed recreation sites: 83 campgrounds; 11 picnic (day-use) sites; 42 trailheads; eight 

rental cabins (including lookout towers); four horse camps; two resorts; one major and three minor interpretive sites; 

and 15 snow parks (and other minor sites). OHVs are currently only permitted at McCubbins Gulch Campground 

and McCubbins Day-Use area.

Other OHV Areas in Oregon

There are more than 40 designated OHV sites and areas in Oregon managed by several public land management 

agencies. Given the willingness of OHV users to drive substantial distances to recreate (Bergerson et al. 2005), many 

of those who use the existing roads and trails in the Mt. Hood National Forest for OHV recreation probably also use 

these other areas in addition to Forest routes. National Visitor Use Monitoring reported substitute behavior choices 

made by OHV users if for some reason they were unable to use their vehicles in the National Forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. About 64% of primary OHV users responded that they would go somewhere else (outside the National 

Forest System) for the same activity. Other substitute behavior choices included coming back another time, staying at 

home, going somewhere else for a different activity, and going to work (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).

Selected OHV areas in Oregon are displayed in Table 3-2. Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Sand Lake 

Recreation Areas, Christmas Valley Sand Dunes and other dune areas are not listed in the table because riding on 

sand dunes is fundamentally different than OHV experiences in the Mt. Hood National Forest.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 6

Table 3-2. Selected OHV recreation sites and areas in Oregon 

(source: http://atv.prd.state.or.us/places.php).

Name Managing Agency Location Vehicle Classes Season Description

Blue Mountain 

OHV Trail

Wallowa- Whitman 

National Forest1

8 miles east of 

Unity on Hwy 26 I and III Summer and Fall 60 miles of trails

East Fort Rock Deschutes National 

Forest1

21 miles east of 

Bend on US 20 I and III All year

318 miles of easy 

to most difficult 

trails

John’s Peak Bureau of Land 

Management

10 miles west of 

Jacksonville in 

southern Oregon

I, II and III All year

> 14,000 acres of 

trails with varying 

difficulty

Millican Valley Bureau of Land 

Management

25 miles SE of Bend 

on US 20 I, II and III Some restrictions

240 miles of easy 

to most difficult 

trails

Morrow County 

Trails

Morrow County 

Public Works

20 miles east of 

Heppner I, II and III All year > 100 miles of trails

Shotgun Creek 

OHV Area

Bureau of Land 

Management East of Springfield I, II and III All year

6,000 acres of 

trails with varying 

difficulty

Tillamook OHV 

Area

Oregon Dept of 

Forestry

State Hwy 6 

between Portland 

and Tillamook

I, II and III All year

> 100 miles of easy 

to most difficult 

trail

Upper Walla Walla Umatilla National 

Forest1

12 miles east of 

Milton- Freewater III Spring, Summer and Fall 40 miles of trails

Virtue Flat Bureau of Land 

Management

11 miles east of 

Baker City I, II and III All year

> 5,000 acres 

of trails with 

varying degrees of 

difficulty

West End 

(Sunflower)

Umatilla National 

Forest1 NE of John Day I and III All year

91,000 acres with 

all degrees of 

difficulty

1 All National Forests re completing analysis under th Final Travel Management Rule. Base on this process, some of these details may charge. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that these acres and season will remain unchanged, as stated in the assumptions discussed in the Recreaton Specialist 

Report.

OHV Use in Mt. Hood National Forest

National Visitor Use Monitoring1 (NVUM) findings confirm the niche statement that the Forest is not a major 

provider of OHV recreation (English, Kocis and Hales 2004). The first round of NVUM surveys for the Forest 

was conducted between October 2002 and September 2003. NVUM surveys involved a stratified, random sample 

(interviews) of visitors exiting the Forest. During the interview, visitors were asked to self-identify all of the 

recreation activities in which they participated during the sample trip. They were also asked to identify the primary 

recreation activity on their sample trip. The survey found that 0.16% of all recreation visits that year were primarily 

for OHV use. This percentage equates to roughly 6,214 visits during 2003 (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).

A somewhat larger percentage of Forest visitors indicated that they participated in OHV recreation even if it was not 

their primary reason for visiting the Forest. For example, a person visiting the Forest to hunt, but who rides an OHV 

1 NVUM information is valid and applicable at the forest level. It was not designed to be accurate at the District or site level, nor does it precisely describe 

participation in discrete activities. The study was designed to estimate the total number of people during a year visiting the forest. The quality of the 

visitation estimate is dependent on the preliminary sample design development, sampling unit selection, sample size and variability, and survey 

implementation. The descriptive information about national forest visitors, including activity participation, is based upon only those visitors who agreed to 

be interviewed. Activities that are distinctly seasonal in nature (such as hunting) may not be adequately captured in the NVUM data. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 7

while there, was not counted as a primary OHV visit. This person would be counted as a secondary OHV visit. The 

total percentage of visitors that reported participating in OHV recreation (combining both primary and secondary 

visits) was 0.52% of all visits, or roughly 22,731 visits according to NRIS HD-NVUM 1.2.

The Mt. Hood National Forest ranks fourteenth out of twenty administrative units in the Pacific Northwest Region 

of the Forest Service in terms of the percentage of primary OHV visits. In terms of the number of primary use OHV 

visits, the Forest ranks eleventh in the Region (English, Kocis and Hales 2004). 

The Forest ranks near the bottom in the Pacific Northwest Region for the percentage of total OHV participation 

(primary visits + secondary visits). Only the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State ranks lower. The 

total number of OHV participants (primary visits + secondary visits) was higher on only five other National Forests 

in the Region (Deschutes, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Siuslaw, Wallowa-Whitman, and Wenatchee) than on the Mt. 

Hood (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).

The percent of Forest visitors that report OHV participation as either their primary or secondary use in the Mt. 

Hood National Forest is considerably lower than the national average. Nationally, about 2.5% of the 205 million 

annual recreation visits to National Forests involve participation in OHV use as the primary activity. About 3.1% 

nationally reports OHV use as a secondary activity (English, Kocis and Hales 2004). These data are considerably 

below the average percent participation for Oregon overall (22.2% participation) as reported in the National Survey 

on Recreation and the Environment (Cordell, Betz, Green and Stephens 2008).

The 2004 Oregon Statewide Motorized Trail Use Survey reported that OHV enthusiasts are willing to travel 

reasonably long distances to pursue their most frequent activity. Survey results show that the median distance 

traveled to reach an OHV riding opportunity is in the range of 41 and 50 miles, and nearly one-fifth of OHV users 

travel more than 100 miles (Bergerson et al. 2005). NVUM also reported the distances OHV users travel to ride 

on National Forest System lands in the Pacific Northwest. The median distance traveled is over 200 miles (English, 

Kocis and Hales 2004). This finding is probably related to the long distances separating premier destinations (such 

as Oregon Dunes, East Fort Rock and Wenatchee National Forest) from major population centers (i.e., Seattle and 

Portland). Despite a willingness to travel longer distances, the proximity of Mt. Hood National Forest roads and trails 

makes the Forest an attractive, relatively-close location for OHV recreation for the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan 

area and the Willamette Valley.

Motorized Recreation Preferences

In Oregon, ATV riding (three- and four-wheel) is by far the most popular type of OHV use, reported by 40% of OHV 

users as their favorite activity. Seventy percent of Oregon households that participate in OHV sports report that they 

rode an ATV in 2004 (Table 3-3). Many households participate frequently. The State survey did not ask how many 

individuals in the household participated in each activity, so no figure for total participation is estimated by this 

source (Bergerson et al. 2005).

Off-road motorcycling is reported to be the favorite activity by 25% of OHV users. Eleven percent and 8% of OHV 

users favor four-wheel driving with stock vehicles and four-wheel driving with modified vehicles, respectively. 

Modified four-wheel drive vehicles have modified tires and/or suspension upgrades (Bergerson et al. 2005).

Table 3-3. Frequency of motorized trail participation in Oregon among households reporting OHV 

participation. Data is from the 2004 Oregon Statewide Motorized Trail User Survey. N = 196.

Activity

Participated 

in Last Year 

(percent)

Estimated 

Oregon 

Households

Of Participants in Last Year, How Often? 

(percent)

Weekly 2-3/ 

Month

Once/ 

Month

Less 

Often

ATV Riding (3 & 4 wheel) 70 68,600 12 34 19 34

Off-road motorcycling 44 43,100 16 29 20 35

4-wheel driving (stock) 44 43,100 21 24 24 31

4-wheel driving (modified) 29 28,400 21 21 33 24
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 8

The Oregon Statewide Motorized Trail User Survey asked OHV users about trail difficulty preferences. Fifty-one 

percent of respondents prefer “more difficult” trails. Twenty-eight percent prefer “most difficult” trails. Twenty-one 

percent prefer “easier” trails (Bergerson et al. 2005).

Quiet Recreation Uses

The 2003 NVUM for the Forest estimated that there are approximately 4.4 million recreation visits to the Forest each 

year (Kocis, English et al. 2004, NRIS HD-NVUM 1.5). A description of visitor activities was developed from the 

survey.2

 During their visit to the Forest, the top five recreation activities of visitors were relaxing, viewing wildlife, 

hiking/walking, viewing natural features, and driving for pleasure (Table 3-4). Each visitor surveyed also identified 

their primary activity for that specific recreation visit to the Forest. The top primary activities were downhill skiing, 

relaxing, hiking/walking, other non-motorized activities, and viewing natural features (Kocis, English et al. 2004).

OHV users enjoy many of the same recreation pursuits as the entire American population. Three of the top five 

most popular recreation pursuits in this country are common to the entire population and to OHV users. The 

recreation activities with the highest percent participation nationally in the entire population are walking for pleasure 

(developed setting), family gatherings outdoors, viewing and photographing natural scenery, visiting nature centers, 

and driving for pleasure. The recreation activities with the highest percent participation among all OHV users 

nationally are walking for pleasure (developed setting), driving for pleasure, family gatherings outdoors, sightseeing, 

and viewing/photographing natural scenery (Cordell, Betz, Green and Stephens 2008). These data are displayed in 

Table 3-4 for the purpose of comparing with Mt. Hood National Forest visitor participation.

Table 3-4. Mt. Hood National Forest activity participation and primary activity (NVUM) and 

national user participation (NSRE) in comparable recreation activities. NVUM data source is the 

first round of National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys (Kocis, English et al 2004 NRIS HD-NVUM 

1.5). NSRE data source is 1999-2007 survey information for the National Survey on Recreation and 

the Environment (Cordell, Betz, Green and Stephens 2008). “No data” indicates that there was no 

direct cross-walk between NVUM and NSRE. “+” indicates that the activity participation rate is 

actually higher than indicated because participation in variations of the activity were reported 

separately. The NVUM activity participation data is based upon only those visitors who agreed 

to be interviewed. Activities that are distinctly seasonal in nature (such as hunting) may not be 

adequately captured in the NVUM data.

Activity

% Mt. Hood 

Participating 

(NVUM)

% as Main Activity 

(NVUM)

% All Users 

Participation (NSRE)

% All OHV Users 

(NSRE)

Backpacking 5.9 1.0 11.4 19.9

Bicycling 5.3 1.3 22.0 34.4

Cross-country Skiing 4.2 2.1 4.8 6.7

Day Hiking 53.5 22.8 35.4 47.9

Developed Camping 7.3 4.4 29.1 44.7

Downhill Skiing 20.9 18.8 9.2 14.8

Driving for Pleasure 29.0 2.8 59.1 86.3

Family Gathering Outdoors no data no data 76.2 84.9

Fishing 6.1 1.4 24.5+ 44.6+

Gathering Forest Products 3.2 0.3 32.5 52.0

Horseback Riding 0.3 0.2 8.7 16.8

Hunting no data no data 10.0+ 28.4+

2 The descriptive information about National Forest visitors, including activity participation, is based upon only those visitors who agreed to be interviewed. 

Activities that are distinctly seasonal in nature (such as hunting) may not be adequately captured in the NVUM data. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 9

Activity

% Mt. Hood 

Participating 

(NVUM)

% as Main Activity 

(NVUM)

% All Users 

Participation (NSRE)

% All OHV Users 

(NSRE)

Motorized Water Activities 1.0 0.0 28.5+ 46.9+

Nature Center Activities 13.7 0.0 61.8 69.5

Nature Study 6.0 0.1 no data no data

Non-motorized Water 4.3 1.0 11.2+ 21.4+

OHV Use 0.6 0.1 19.0 100.0

Other Motorized Activities 0.1 0.1 no data no data

Other non-motorized 10.6 5.2 no data no data

Picnicking 7.5 0.5 58.9 65.2

Primitive Camping 2.8 0.7 17.8 37.2

Relaxing 47.4 10.0 no data no data

Resort Use 14.3 3.5 no data no data

Snowmobiling 0.2 0.2 4.3 16.4

Sightseeing no data no data 58.5 78.8

Viewing Natural Features 52.3 7.9 66.5 75.9

Viewing Wildlife 42.0 3.1 51.4 67.6

Visiting Historic Sites 24.3 0.6 51.5 59.3

Walking for Pleasure no data no data 86.2 88.9

Primary OHV users also participate in a variety of other recreation activities during their visit to a National Forest. 

In the Pacific Northwest Region, the most popular secondary activity for primary OHV users is developed camping 

(Table 3-5). Relaxing and viewing natural features also have high participation rates (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).

Table 3-5. Secondary activities reported by primary OHV users in the Pacific Northwest 

Region of the Forest Service. Data source is the first round of National Visitor Use 

Monitoring surveys (English, Kocis and Hales 2004).

Activity % of Primary OHV Users

Developed Camping 49.85

Primitive Camping 5.96

Viewing Wildlife 24.42

Viewing Natural Features 46.22

Visiting Historic Sites 0.04

Relaxing 46.46

Fishing 1.99

Hunting 0.03

Driving for Pleasure 16.74

Hiking/Walking 20.40

Gathering Forest Products 9.54

Table 3-4. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 10

Recreation Trends

In ten years, the top five outdoor recreation activities in the Forest are predicted to be viewing natural features, 

hiking, viewing wildlife, visiting historic sites and downhill skiing. In the market zone (the area of origin of most 

Forest visitors), the top five activities are predicted to be viewing natural features, viewing wildlife, pleasure driving, 

hiking and bicycling (Slider 2007; based on NSRE projections). Roughly three quarters of all visitors live within a 

150-mile radius of the Forest. About 50% of visitors come from Multnomah, Washington, Hood River and Wasco 

Counties in Oregon and Clark and Klickitat Counties in Washington (Kocis, English et al. 2004).

Cordell (2008) reports the remarkable growth of OHV use in the United States. During the first US National 

Recreation Survey in 1960, OHV recreation was not a reportable activity. OHV use today, however, is among the 

fastest growing outdoor activities. Nationally, the number of people (16+ years of age) who report participating in 

OHV sports is over 44 million (Table 3-6). Annual OHV sales more than tripled between 1995 and 2003 (sales have 

leveled off since 2003). Total OHV ownership of newly purchased and previously purchased machines increased 

174% between 1993 and 2003, from fewer than three million to more than eight million vehicles. More than twice as 

many OHV enthusiasts own three- and four-wheel ATVs than own motorcycles (Cordell 2008).

Based on survey data and sales trends, Cordell (2008) projects 9.8 million three- and four-wheel ATVs and off-road 

motorcycles in the U.S. in early 2008. Local sales of four-wheel ATVs in 2006 and 2007 were strong. During 2006 in 

Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, Wasco, Washington and Clark Counties, 2,999 four-wheel ATVs were sold. 

During the first six months of 2007, 2,666 vehicles were sold by the same dealerships (Gardner 2007).

Some quiet recreation activities show strong growth, and they are predicted to become even more popular (such 

as viewing natural scenery, hiking, bicycling, kayaking, and viewing wildlife). Other quiet activities are becoming 

less popular (such as horseback riding, primitive camping, and cross-country skiing). Such trends may represent 

Americans reordering their priorities (Cordell, Betz et al. 2008).

Table 3-6. Trends in number of people participating and number of participation days for 

selected outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 1999-2008. Excerpted from Cordell, 

Betz et al 2008. Source: NSRE 1999-2001 (n=52607) and 2005-2008 (n=19,186). Note: 1999-

2001 participants based on 214.0 million people age 16+ (2000 Census). 2005-2008 participants 

based on 230.0 million people age 16+ (2006 Census estimate). Missing data indicate that either 

participation or annual days were not collected during that time period.

Activity

Total U.S. 

Participants 

(1,000s), 2005-

2008

Percent Change in 

Participants, 1999-

2001 to

2005-2008

Total Annual 

Participant Days 

(millions), 2005-

2008

Percent change in 

Total Days, 1999-2001 

to

2005-2008

Developed Camping 52,021 2.7 532.3 9.3

Primitive Camping 33,330.2 -2.0 310.4 12.1

Backpacking 22,077.0 -0.6 277.7 24.0

Picnicking 115,836.2 -1.4 779.7 -17.2

Viewing Natural Scenery 145,489.2 14.1 11,482.3 60.5

Visiting Historic Sites 92,920.8 -4.5 590.8 -15.2

Nature Center Activities 127,406.5 5.0 1,044.0 23.2

Drive Off-road 44,231.3 18.6 1,349.6 56.1

Driving for Pleasure 111,069.0 3.1 2,637.3 -1.1

Snowmobiling 8,328.2 -29.7 92.7 -27.4

Day Hiking 74,032.5 6.8 1,993.4 -20.9

Horseback Riding (trail) 15,262.6 -8.2 278.3 -35.2

Bicycling 91,225.5 7.7 - -

Kayaking 12,480.5 63.1 76.1 29.4

Downhill Skiing 15,615.4 -14.8 126.4 -15.7

Cross-country Skiing 4,970.7 -39.2 58.8 -7.8

Gathering Forest Products 71,023.3 16.1 869.3 1.9

View or Photograph Birds 81,119.9 19.3 8,039.0 37.6

Viewing Other Wildlife 114,792.0 21.3 5,341.6 46.9

Mountain Climbing 11,811.2 -12.5 104.1 20.5

Visit a Wilderness 70,591.9 3.0 1,108.6 12.8
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 11

3.1.2. Effects Analysis

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Recreation Niche Settings

The number of miles of proposed OHV systems in each ROS setting for each of the action alternatives is shown in 

Tables 3-7, 3-8 and 3-9. In Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, all proposed systems are in roaded natural and roaded modified 

settings both of which are compatible with OHV use.

All proposed OHV systems are in the “neighbor-woods” recreation niche setting. OHV use is compatible with this 

niche setting.

Table 3-7. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting 

in Alternative 2. Total miles displayed in this table vary slightly from the totals in 

Chapter 2 due to rounding of different data sets.

Proposed OHV System and Route Type Roaded Natural Roaded Modified

Bear Creek Roads 0.0 0.0

Bear Creek Trails 0.0 39.1

Gibson Roads 0.0 6.9*

Gibson Trails 0.3 8.0*

LaDee Roads 5.7 31.6

LaDee Trails 0.0 1.6

McCubbins Roads 0.0 13.5

McCubbins Trails 0.5 36.6

Peavine Roads 5.7 28.8

Peavine Trails 1.4 1.6

Rock Creek Roads 0.8 30.5

Rock Creek Trails 0.4 7.9

Total Road Miles 12.2 111.3

Total Trail Miles 2.6 94.8

*Note: 1.9 miles of the North Section Line Trail (existing trail) and 0.2 miles of existing road are in The Dalles Watershed. This mileage is 

included in the Roaded Modified data shown in this table.

Table 3-8. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting 

in Alternative 3. Total miles displayed in this table vary slightly from the totals in 

Chapter 2 due to rounding of different data sets.

Proposed OHV System and Route Type Roaded Natural Roaded Modified

Bear Creek Roads 0.0 10.5

Bear Creek Trails 0.0 28.8

Gibson Roads 0.0 4.6

Gibson Trails 0.0 0.3

Graham Pass Roads 0.5 52.3

Graham Pass Trails 0.0 10.4

LaDee Roads 13.5 23.1

LaDee Trails 0.2 5.0

McCubbins Roads 0.0 20.4

McCubbins Trails 0.5 39.1

Mt. Defiance Roads 0.0 5.5
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 12

Proposed OHV System and Route Type Roaded Natural Roaded Modified

Mt. Defiance Trails 0.0 0.0

Peavine Roads 0.3 40.3

Peavine Trails 0.7 8.5

Rock Creek Roads 7.3 45.2

Rock Creek Trails 0.4 8.3

Total Road Miles 21.6 201.9

Total Trail Miles 1.8 100.4

Table 3-9. Miles of proposed roads and trails by proposed OHV system and ROS setting 

in Alternative 4. Total miles displayed in this table vary slightly from the totals in 

Chapter 2due to rounding of different data sets.

Proposed OHV System and Route Type Roaded Natural Roaded Modified

LaDee Roads 0.6 19.5

LaDee Trails 0.0 5.0

McCubbins Roads 0.0 7.3

McCubbins Trails 0.5 25.7

Rock Creek Roads 0.8 31.1

Rock Creek Trails 0.4 4.9

Total Road Miles 1.4 57.9

Total Trail Miles 0.9 35.6

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would prohibit cross-country motorized travel by incorporating Forest Plan Amendment 

#17. In areas of the Forest where such use is not prohibited by law or regulation, the Forest Plan currently states 

that, “opportunities for OHV use should be available except where not allowed by management direction or where 

determined to adversely impact land capability and resource values” (US Forest Service 1990, FW-465, p. Four-99). 

This standard establishes a high threshold for legal cross-country motor vehicle travel. Most cross-country OHV 

use in the Forest impacts some resource value and therefore violates this standard. While the proposed amendment 

would seem to reduce recreation opportunities, in a practical sense, it would have very little effect on opportunities 

that are environmentally sustainable and acceptable.

Quality of OHV Experience

The following is an analysis of Key Issue 1 (Section 1.10.1) – A reduction of motorized routes may result in an 

insufficient miles of trails to make the OHV experience worthwhile.

Measure and Analysis Methodology

Successful OHV systems provide sufficient distance for the customary duration of the recreation visit. Depending on 

trail difficulty and the skill of the rider, motorcyclists may ride 25 to 100 miles per day, and four-wheel ATV riders 

may travel 15 to 80 miles per day. For many four-wheel vehicle drivers, the time spent navigating a few difficult miles 

provides a quality experience (Crimmins 2006). A 1999 Colorado study by Crimmins concluded that most riders 

would prefer trail systems at least 29 miles in length in order to provide a variety of scenery and terrain types to 

reduce the temptation to create new routes (Stokowski 2000). 

Table 3-8. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 13

The alternatives were evaluated by measuring and comparing the number of miles of connected routes (roads and 

trails) in each proposed system by each vehicle class. To provide a basis of comparison for this issue, a qualitative 

descriptor (inadequate, moderately adequate, and adequate) was assigned to a range of contiguous route miles to 

describe the adequacy of an experience (based solely on the sufficiency of miles) for each vehicle class by proposed 

system for a one-day trip (Table 3-10).

Table 3-10. Qualitative description of the adequacy of an OHV experience based solely 

on the number of connected miles in a route system for each vehicle class. Note: the 

number of miles that describes the lower boundary of “moderately adequate” is from 

Stokowski (2000); the number of miles dividing “moderately adequate” from “adequate” 

is based on anecdotal information.

Experience Miles - Class I Miles - Class II Miles - Class III

Inadequate less than 29 depends on difficulty less than 29

Moderately Adequate 29 – 40 depends on difficulty 29 – 50

Adequate more than 40 depends on difficulty more than 50

Direct and Indirect Effects – Quality of OHV Experience

Alternative 1

In Alternative 1, there would be approximately 2,463 miles of single-lane, native and gravel surface roads open to 

all vehicle classes in the short term. In terms of distance alone, the system of gravel and native surface roads would 

provide an adequate recreation experience for one or more days. In the long term, the total number of available miles 

would diminish as Forest roads are closed by decisions resulting from other analysis processes.

Alternative 1 would also offer limited (48.5 miles) OHV trail opportunities as shown in Table 3-11. The North 

Section Line, Rhododendron Ridge, and Rocky Butte Trails are not interconnected. Each trail by itself would provide 

an inadequate one-day experience. These trails, however, are connected to the Forest’s gravel and native surface road 

system. Collectively, the road and trail system would provide an adequate one or more day recreation experience.

The McCubbins Gulch trail system would provide a moderately adequate one-day experience for Class I and Class III 

vehicles. These trails are also connected to the Forest’s gravel and native surface road system. Collectively, the road 

and trail system would provide an adequate one or more day experience.

Table 3-11. Motorized trails in Alternative 1. The route system for Class I and III vehicles 

providing only a moderately adequate one-day experience is italicized; route systems 

for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day experience are not italicized.

Trail Name Trail Number(s) Miles Vehicle Class(s) Permitted

McCubbins Gulch 575, 576, 577 32.0 Class I and Class III

North Section Line 451 4.0 Class III

Rhododendron Ridge 564 10.4 Class III

Rocky Butte 476 2.1 Class III

Total 48.5
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 14

Alternative 2

Only one proposed OHV system would provide a sufficient number of connected route miles to offer an adequate 

experience in Alternative 2 (Table 3-12). McCubbins Gulch would provide an adequate one-day experience for Class 

I vehicles in both the short term and the long term. McCubbins Gulch would also provide an adequate one-day 

experience for motorcycles (Class III) in the long term after new trails are constructed.

Proposed LaDee Flats, Peavine and Rock Creek OHV systems would provide a moderately adequate experience for 

Class I and III vehicles in both the short and long term (Table 3-12). Once constructed, the proposed Bear Creek 

OHV system would also provide a moderately adequate single-track system. Only the proposed Gibson Prairie OHV 

system is entirely insufficient in both the short term and the long term for Class I vehicles (Table 3-12).

Routes for Class II vehicles would be available in the LaDee Flats and Peavine proposed OHV systems. Considering 

distance only, the number of miles offered would probably only provide a moderately adequate experience. The 

LaDee proposed system, however, offers a hill climb area (North Fork Quarry) that would appeal to some Class 

II vehicle drivers. Road 4610 (referred to as Abbot Road) also provides a more challenging drive in places. The 

proposed Peavine OHV trails include three miles of new construction, roughly half of which would be constructed to 

provide a “most difficult” experience.

Table 3-12. Miles of connected OHV roads and trails by vehicle class and proposed 

system for Alternative 2. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already 

constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized trails). 

“Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for construction. Route systems for Class I and 

III vehicles providing an adequate one-day experience are shaded in bold; route systems 

for Class I and III vehicles providing only a moderately adequate one-day experience 

are italicized; route systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day 

experience are not shaded.

Proposed OHV System Short Term (miles) Long Term (miles)

Class I Class II Class III Class I Class II Class III

Bear Creek 0 0 0 0 0 39.1

Gibson Prairie 10.9 0 0 15.2 0 0

LaDee Flats 29.0 32.8 29.0 30.6 33.2 30.6

McCubbins Gulch 45.5 0 45.5 45.5 0 50.6

Peavine 34.8 34.8 34.8 37.8 37.8 37.8

Rock Creek 33.4 0 33.4 39.6 0 39.6

Alternative 3

Proposed OHV roads and trails in the Graham Pass and Rock Creek systems would be sufficient to provide an 

adequate experience for both Class I and Class III riders in the short term and the long term (Table 3-13). The 

proposed Peavine system would also be sufficient in both the short and long term to provide an adequate one-day 

experience for Class I vehicles. LaDee proposed routes would provide an adequate one-day experience for Class I 

vehicles in the long term. The McCubbins Gulch system would also be sufficient to provide an adequate one-day 

experience for Class III vehicle in the long term.

Proposed OHV roads and trails in the LaDee and McCubbins Gulch systems would provide a moderately adequate 

experience for both Class I and Class III vehicles in the short term (Table 3-13). The Peavine routes would also 

provide a moderately adequate experience for Class III vehicles in both the short and long term. Class III vehicles 

would only be provided with a moderately adequate experience in the Bear Creek proposed system in the long run 

when new trails are constructed.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 15

The proposed OHV roads and trails for the Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance systems are insufficient in and of 

themselves to provide an adequate experience (Table 3-13). In Alternative 3, however, both OHV systems connect to 

Hood River County trails (see Cumulative Effects discussion).

Class II vehicle routes would be available in the Graham Pass and LaDee systems. LaDee OHV roads, trails and area 

would probably only provide a moderately adequate experience, considering distance only. The LaDee proposal, 

however, includes a hill climb area (North Fork Quarry) that would appeal to some Class II vehicle drivers. Road 

4610 (referred to as Abbot Road) also provides a more challenging drive in places. The proposed Graham Pass roads 

and trails, while sufficiently long, are all on motorized mixed-use roads. This experience would appeal to some Class 

II vehicle drivers and not to others.

Table 3-13. Miles of connected OHV routes by vehicle class and proposed system 

for Alternative 3. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already constructed 

(motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” 

adds miles of trail proposed for construction. OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles 

providing an adequate one-day experience are shaded in bold; OHV systems for Class I 

and III vehicles providing only a moderately adequate one-day experience are italicized; 

OHV systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day experience are 

not shaded.

Proposed OHV System Short Term (miles) Long Term (miles)

Class I Class II Class III Class I Class II Class III

Bear Creek 0 0 10.5 0 0 39.7

Gibson Prairie 4.6 0 4.6 4.9 0 4.9

Graham Pass 50.6 50.6 63.2 50.6 50.6 63.2

LaDee Flats 36.7 22.2 36.7 42.0 22.5 42.0

McCubbins Gulch 36.1 0 46.0 36.8 0 60.1

Mt. Defiance 5.5 0 5.5 5.5 0 5.5

Peavine 40.5 0 40.5 49.4 0 49.4

Rock Creek 54.6 0 54.6 61.2 0 61.2

Alternative 4

In Alternative 4, none of the proposed systems (LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch, and Rock Creek) would offer 

sufficient miles to constitute an adequate one-day riding experience for either Class I or Class III vehicles (Table 

3-14). Both McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek systems, however, would offer moderately adequate one-day 

experiences for both Class I and Class III vehicles in the short and long term. The proposed LaDee Flats OHV roads, 

trails and area would be inadequate in both the short and long term for Class I and Class III vehicles.

Routes are proposed for Class II vehicles only in the LaDee Flats OHV system. Considering distance alone, the routes 

would probably provide an inadequate one-day driving experience. There is a hill climb area (North Fork Quarry) 

included in this alternative, however, which would appeal to some Class II vehicle drivers. Road 4610 (Abbot Road) is 

not included in this alternative, however, which would eliminate an incentive for Class II vehicles to use the system.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 16

Table 3-14. Miles of connected OHV routes by vehicle class and proposed system 

for Alternative 4. “Short term” includes the route miles that are already constructed 

(motorized mixed-use roads and roads to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” 

adds miles of trail proposed for construction. There are no route systems for Class I and 

III vehicles providing an adequate one-day experience; OHV systems for Class I and III 

vehicles providing only a moderately adequate one-day experience are italicized; OHV 

systems for Class I and III vehicles providing an inadequate one-day experience are not 

shaded.

Proposed OHV System Short Term (miles) Long Term (miles)

Class I Class II Class III Class I Class II Class III

LaDee Flats 20.1 13.4 20.1 25.1 13.5 25.1

McCubbins Gulch 32.9 0 32.9 33.6 0 33.6

Rock Creek 34.1 0 34.1 37.3 0 37.3

Cumulative Effects – Quality of OHV Experience

In Alternative 1, the Forest’s gravel and native surface road system connects to roads on private lands and on lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management along the western boundary of the Forest (south of Estacada and 

north of Opal Creek), an area popularly referred to as Goat Mountain. The number of connected miles open to 

OHVs on other ownerships in this vicinity is considerable, but is not known precisely. The Forest’s gravel and native 

surface road system also connects with roads and trails open to Class I and Class III vehicles on lands administered 

by Hood River County north of Gibson Prairie and also east of Mt. Defiance. There are 89 miles of roads and 64 

miles of trails open to OHVs on Hood River County lands that connect to National Forest system routes east of 

Mt. Defiance. For the area north of Gibson Prairie, there are 79 miles of roads and 63 miles of trails (across three 

ownerships: SDS, Longview Timber, Hood River County) open to OHV use that connect to proposed National Forest 

System routes. With or without these connections to routes on other jurisdictions, Alternative 1 routes in the Mt. 

Hood National Forest would provide an adequate one or more day recreation experience considering distance alone.

In Alternative 3, proposed OHV roads and trails would connect with roads and trails (open to Class I and Class III 

vehicles) on lands administered by Hood River County (north of Gibson Prairie and east of Mt. Defiance). There 

are 89 miles of roads and 64 miles of trails open to OHVs on Hood River County lands that connect to proposed 

National Forest system routes east of Mt. Defiance. For the area north of Gibson Prairie, there are 79 miles of roads 

and 63 miles of trails (across three ownerships: SDS, Longview Timber, Hood River County) open to OHV use that 

could connect to proposed National Forest System routes. Without these connections, the National Forest route 

systems proposed for both the Gibson and Mt. Defiance areas would not provide an adequate one-day recreation 

experience. With the connections, each route systems would be fully adequate.

There are no cumulative effects for Alternatives 2 and 4.

The Forestwide Road Decommissioning for Aquatic Restoration project (2009) and the Clackamas Road 

Decommissioning for Habitat Restoration project (2009) proposed to decommission roads that are no longer needed 

for the administration of the National Forest. These decisions, as well as future road decommissioning projects, 

reduce the number of miles of roads available for OHV use in Alternative 1.

OHV System Layout

The following is an analysis of Key Issue 1 (Section 1.10.1) – Having multiple-class OHV routes may result in a 

diminished recreation experience for miles; restricting some routes to a single OHV class may affect mixed OHV 

groups, such as families and OHV club groups.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 17

Measure and Analysis Methodology

OHV users are a diverse group with varying desires and expectations. Not all vehicle classes of OHVs perform 

the same on any given terrain or trail layout (Crimmins 2006). Some user separation would enhance specific 

rider experiences. On the other hand, providing separate trails for different vehicle classes can be expensive, cause 

resentment, be difficult to enforce, and limit opportunities for communication and cooperation (Moore 1994).

This issue is of particular concern for four-wheel ATVs and motorcycle riders. Some motorcycle enthusiasts want 

single-track trails. Maintaining trails for this experience necessitates excluding four-wheel ATVs. On the other hand, 

it is common for a family or friends to visit the Forest with more than one vehicle class of OHV in tow. Such a group 

usually would prefer routes open to more than one class of vehicle.

Alternatives were evaluated by comparing the following data: (1) the number of miles of connected routes (by 

proposed system) that would allow any single vehicle class alone; and (2) the number of miles of connected routes 

that would be open to more than one vehicle class.

Direct and Indirect Effects – OHV System Layout

Alternative 1

As displayed in Table 3-15, Alternative 1 would far exceed all other alternatives in the number of route miles available 

for all OHV classes together (approximately 2,463 miles). For family and other groups with more than one kind of 

vehicle, Alternative 1 would offer the most opportunities to ride together (measured in distance only).

Alternative 1 ranks higher than Alternative 4 and lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 for groups wanting to ride 

motorcycles on single-track trails. The routes designated solely for Class III vehicles in Alternative 1 would be the 

Rhododendron Ridge Trail (10.4 miles), North Section Line Trail (4.0 miles) and the Rocky Butte Trail (2.1 miles).

There would be nearly 32 miles of road and trail where Class I and III vehicles could ride together on the same road 

or trail (McCubbins Gulch Trails) making Alternative 1 the lowest ranking alternative for this opportunity. Also, 

Alternative 1 would provide no routes solely for Class I or Class II vehicles.

Table 3-15. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) in Alternative 1 

for several combinations of vehicle classes. Mileages do not include off-road and offtrail riding opportunities.

Proposed OHV System Class I Only Class II Only Class III Only Class I & III 

Only Class I, II, & III

Forest Roads 0 0 0 0 2,463

McCubbins Trails 0 0 0 32.0 0

N. Section Line Tr. 0 0 4.0 0 0

Rho. Ridge Trail 0 0 10.4 0 0

Rocky Butte Trail 0 0 2.1 0 0

TOTAL 0.0 0.0 16.5 32.0 2,463

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is the only alternative that would designate routes for Class I (Gibson Prairie routes) and Class II (Road 

4610 in LaDee Flats) vehicles alone (Table 3-16). This alternative provides the best opportunity to enhance routes in 

the long term solely for quads and four-wheel drive vehicles.

Alternative 2 ranks second in the number of miles of roads and trails where motorcycles would be the only vehicle 

class allowed. With 44.2 miles of Class III only routes, Alternative 2 would designate slightly more than half 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 18

the number of miles (59%) proposed in Alternative 3 (75.6 miles). Considering single-track opportunities only, 

Alternatives 2 compares somewhat more favorably against Alternative 3. All 44.2 miles in Alternative 2 would be 

single-track trails. In Alternative 3, only 65.5 miles of newly constructed trail and converted roads would be managed 

as single-track trail in the long term (the remainder of the Class III routes only would be motorized mixed-use 

routes). For Bear Creek, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 systems would be roughly the same lengths (39.1 miles in 

Alternative 2; 39.3 miles in Alternative 3).

Alternative 2 also ranks second among the alternatives when comparing the number of route miles proposed for 

Class I and Class III vehicles on the same routes. Alternative 2 ranks a distant third to Alternative 1 when comparing 

the number of miles that would be available to all vehicle classes sharing the same routes.

Table 3-16. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in 

Alternative 2 for several combinations of vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to longterm management, after all new trail construction.

Proposed OHV System Class I Only Class II Only Class III Only Class I & III Class I, II, & III

Bear Creek 0 0 39.1 0 0

Gibson Prairie 15.2 0 0 0 0

LaDee Flats 0 8.3 0 5.7 24.9

McCubbins Gulch 0 0 5.1 45.5 0

Peavine 0 0 0 0 37.8

Rock Creek 0 0 0 39.6 0

TOTAL 15.2 8.3 44.2 90.8 62.7

Alternative 3

From the standpoint of OHV recreation, Alternative 3 rates highest among the alternatives in two ways (Table 3-17). 

First, it would provide the greatest number of miles of Class III-only routes (75.6 miles) and the greatest number of 

single-track miles in the long term (65.5 miles). This alternative would probably be most appealing to motorcycle 

riders looking for routes managed exclusively for Class III vehicles.

Second, Alternative 3 would provide the greatest number of miles of routes that could be shared by Class I and Class 

III vehicles (177.3 miles). Although Alternative 1 would offer more route miles that could be shared by all classes 

of vehicles, Alternative 3 would offer the most miles that would be managed as trails in the long term for all vehicle 

classes. This alternative would probably be most appealing to groups that have more than one vehicle class and who 

prefer trail riding.

Table 3-17. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in 

Alternative 3 for several combinations of vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to longterm management, after all new trail construction.

Proposed OHV System Class I Only Class II Only Class III Only Class I & III Class I, II, & III

Bear Creek 0 0 39.7 0 0

Gibson Prairie 0 0 0 4.9 0

Graham Pass 0 0 12.6 0 50.6

LaDee Flats 0 0 0 19.5 22.5

McCubbins Gulch 0 0 23.3 36.8 0

Mt. Defiance 0 0 0 5.5 0

Peavine 0 0 0 49.4 0

Rock Creek 0 0 0 61.2 0

TOTAL 0 0 75.6 177.3 73.1
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 19

Alternative 4

With respect to route sharing, Alternative 4 is inferior to the other alternatives by several measures (Table 3-18). 

Alternative 4 is unique among the alternatives in providing no designated routes exclusively for Class III vehicles. 

This alternative would likely be least appealing to motorcycle riders that prefer single-track experiences or that simply 

prefer routes dedicated to their sport.

As in Alternatives 1 and 3, Alternative 4 would designate no routes exclusively for Class I or Class II vehicles (Table 

3-18). Only Alternative 2 would designate a modest number of routes exclusively for each of these vehicle classes 

(Table 3-16).

Alternative 4 ranks third in the number of shared routes proposed for Class I and III vehicles. Alternative 4 would 

designate 82.5 miles, compared to Alternative 3 which would designate more than twice as many (177.3 miles). 

Alternative 4 would designate fewer shared routes for all vehicle classes than Alternative 3 in each of the three 

proposed system that are common to the two alternatives (LaDee Flats, McCubbins Gulch, and Rock Creek).

Table 3-18. Number of miles of connected routes (by proposed system) proposed in 

Alternative 4 for several combinations of vehicle classes. Mileages correspond to longterm management, after all new trail construction.

Proposed OHV System Class I Only Class II Only Class III Only Class I & III Class I, II, & III

LaDee Flats 0 0 0 11.7 13.5

McCubbins Gulch 0 0 0 33.6 0

Rock Creek 0 0 0 37.2 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 82.5 13.5

Cumulative Effects – OHV System Layout

Two Hood River County areas adjacent to the Forest provide approximately 295 miles of road and trails for various 

combinations of vehicle classes. Hood River County’s Northwest Area offers 153 miles of roads and trails, and specific 

trails have been assigned to quad and motorcycle use. Included in this total is 89 miles of roads that are open to all 

vehicle classes. The County’s Eastside Area provides a total of 142 miles of roads and trails including 79 road miles 

that are open to all vehicle classes. The trails in the Eastside Area (approximately 63 miles) have not yet been assigned 

to specific vehicle classes.

The Hood River County OHV system would be available for motorized recreation in all of the alternatives described 

in this EIS. In Alternative 3, however, the Hood River County routes would connect directly to proposed National 

Forest system routes: Eastside Area routes would connect directly to proposed Gibson Prairie routes in the National 

Forest; Northwest Area routes would connect to proposed Mt. Defiance routes. Table 3-19 displays the cumulative 

number of miles that would be available for each combination of vehicle classes in Alternative 3.

The effect of directly connecting Hood River County routes to National Forest system routes in Alternative 3 would 

be to enhance the opportunities for quad-only, motorcycle-only, and combination route experiences. The only 

motorized experience that is not enhanced in Alternative 3 would be opportunities for vehicle Class II only. It should 

be noted that not all quad and motorcycle routes in the Hood River County system are connected.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 20

Table 3-19. Approximate OHV route miles in Hood River County (Eastside Area and 

Northwest Area) combined with proposed National Forest system routes in the Gibson 

Prairie and Mt. Defiance locations for several combinations of vehicle classes in 

Alternative 3. The approximately 63 miles of trail in the Eastside area have not yet been 

assigned to specific vehicle classes. Mileages were estimated with a map measure.

Proposed OHV System Class I Only Class II Only Class III Only Class I & III 

Only Class I, II, & III

Gibson Prairie - Eastside Area unknown 0 unknown 4.9 79.0

Mt. Defiance - Northwest 

Area 17.4 0 46.6 5.5 89.0

Loop Opportunities

The following is an analysis of Key Issue 1 (Section 1.10.1) – Designating OHV routes with dead-ends may adversely 

affect the motorized recreation experience.

Measure and Analysis Methodology

Loop trails provide diversity for OHV enthusiasts. Dead-end routes may be desirable if they lead to an outstanding 

feature or destination. Even so, loop routes provide a superior recreation experience. In-and-out (dead end) routes 

are generally considered less enjoyable, a situation that may contribute to undesirable behaviors and unacceptable 

impacts such as driving off of proposed routes (Crimmins 2006).

The number of dead-end routes, the number of miles of dead-end routes, and the percentage of total route miles 

in both the short term and the long term were used to compare alternatives. Mileages were estimated using a map 

measure.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Loop Opportunities

Alternative 1

In Alternative 1, OHVs could access approximately 182 dead-end routes totaling 633 miles, or 28% of the proposed 

route network. This percentage is substantially higher than the percentages in Alternatives 2, 3 or 4 after all new 

construction is completed. Although this percentage is high, because the total number of potential route miles is so 

much greater in Alternative 1 than in any of the other alternatives, the number of miles of routes that would not lead 

to dead ends is also far greater than in the other alternatives.

Alternative 2

Comparing miles of dead-end routes that would be available in the long term in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (Table 3-20), 

Alternative 2 would have a higher percentage of dead-end routes (10%) than either Alternatives 3 or 4 (9% and 3%, 

respectively). Numbers only tell part of the story, however. Some dead-end routes were designed into this alternative 

to provide unique recreation opportunities for certain OHV enthusiasts. In the LaDee Flats OHV system, a deadend route leads to North Fork Quarry that is used as a hill climb area. Another dead end route is Road 4610 (Abbot 

Road) that has outstanding views and a higher degree of challenge. Because of this road’s juxtaposition to the Salmon 

Huckleberry Wilderness and the Roaring River roadless area, designing a loop return route would not be feasible. In 

the Peavine location, the three dead-end routes lead to viewpoints on West Pinhead Butte and Peavine Mountain.

In Alternative 2, as in Alternatives 3 and 4, achieving the route system described in the long term would require 

constructing new trails. How quickly that would be achieved depends upon a number of factors. Before new trail 

construction, the route system would be much more disconnected with many more undesirable dead end routes. 

The short-term data in Table 3-20 reflects the situation that would appear on the first MVUM if Alternative 2 were 

selected. In the short term, among the three action alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the highest percentage 

(41%) of route miles leading to dead ends.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 21

Table 3-20. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short 

term and long term, by proposed system in Alternative 2. “Short term” includes the 

route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads 

to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for 

construction.

Proposed OHV System Short Term Long Term

# Routes # Miles % Miles # Routes # Miles % Miles

Bear Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gibson Prairie 4 10.9 100 0 0 0

LaDee Flats 11 31.5 84 3 20.0 51

McCubbins Gulch 0 0 0 0 0 0

Peavine 10 10.9 31 3 2.2 6

Rock Creek 13 12.9 39 0 0 0

TOTAL 38 66.2 41 6 22.2 10

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have only a slightly lower percentage of dead-end route miles (9%) than Alternative 2 (10%) in 

the long term (Table 3-21). Alternative 3 would have a higher percentage of dead-end route miles than Alternative 4 

(3%). The dead-end routes that were designed into Alternative 3 include some of the same routes as in Alternative 2 

(North Fork Quarry and Road 4610 in the LaDee Flats OHV system; Peavine Mountain in the Peavine OHV system). 

The Rock Creek system also would include two key dead-end routes in the long term. Road 4860-140 to Badger 

Lake would continue to provide access to a rustic campground that is currently popular with some OHV riders. The 

long in-and-out route between Road 4811 and Sportsman’s Park would serve primarily as direct access to the Rock 

Creek routes for OHV enthusiasts living in that residential area. For non-residents, this dead-end route would not be 

particularly desirable.

Before new trail construction, the route system in Alternative 3 would be moderately disconnected with many 

undesirable dead-end routes. The short-term data in Table 3-21 reflects the situation that would appear on the first 

MVUM if Alternative 3 were selected. In the short term, Alternative 3 would have a lower percentage (38%) of route 

miles leading to dead-ends than Alternative 2 (41%). Alternative 3 and 4 would have the same percentage of deadend route miles (38%).

Table 3-21. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short 

term and long term, by proposed system in Alternative 3. “Short term” includes the 

route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads 

to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for 

construction.

Proposed OHV System Short Term Long Term

# Routes # Miles % Miles # Routes # Miles % Miles

Bear Creek 6 10.5 100 0 0 0

Gibson Prairie 1 4.9 100 0 0 0

Graham Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaDee Flats 11 31.5 86 2 19.6 47

McCubbins Gulch 17 17.5 38 0 0 0

Mt. Defiance 0 0 0 0 0 0

Peavine 23 17.2 42 1 0.2 0.5

Rock Creek 24 20.4 50 2 9.4 15

TOTAL 82 102.0 39 5 29.2 9
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 22

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would have a substantially lower percentage of dead-end route miles (3%) than either Alternatives 2 or 

3 (10% and 9%, respectively) in the long term (Table 3-22). Alternative 4 would only include one dead-end route in 

the final design: the road to North Fork Quarry, a popular hill climb area in the LaDee Flats proposed OHV system.

Before new trail construction, the route system in Alternative 4 would be moderately disconnected with many 

undesirable dead-end routes. The short-term data in Table 3-22 reflects the situation that would appear on the first 

MVUM if Alternative 4 were selected. In the short term, Alternative 3 and 4 would have the same percentage of 

dead-end route miles (38%). Alternative 4 would have a lower percentage (38%) of route miles leading to dead-ends 

than Alternative 2 (41%).

Table 3-22. Number of dead-end routes and miles of dead-end routes, both short 

term and long term, by proposed system in Alternative 4. “Short term” includes the 

route miles that are already constructed (motorized mixed-use roads and roads 

to be converted to motorized trails). “Long term” adds miles of trail proposed for 

construction.

Proposed OHV System Short Term Long Term

# Routes # Miles % Miles # Routes # Miles % Miles

LaDee Flats 10 15.2 76 1 3.3 13

McCubbins Gulch 4 4.2 13 0 0 0

Rock Creek 12 13.7 40 0 0 0

TOTAL 26 33.1 38 1 3.3 3

Cumulative Effects – Loop Opportunities

In Alternative 1, the Forest’s gravel and native surface road system connects to numerous potential OHV routes on 

lands managed by other agencies. The routes administered by the Bureau of Land Management on the west boundary 

of the Forest and the routes in Hood River County are particularly popular with OHV enthusiasts. An unknown 

number of these routes lead to dead-ends. 

An unknown number of dead-end routes in Hood River County would affect the recreation experience in Alternative 

3 as well. The Forest routes in the Gibson and Mt. Defiance systems were designed specifically to connect to these 

routes outside the Forest.

None of the proposed routes in either Alternative 2 or Alternative 4 would interconnect with OHV routes outside the 

Forest, so there are no cumulative effects for these alternatives.

Diversity in Trail Difficulty

The following is an analysis based on concerns that failure to designate routes with specialized terrain or physical 

features may exclude certain motorized sports.

Measure and Analysis Methodology

For many OHV enthusiasts, the challenge offered by the route or terrain features is as important as the length of the 

ride. Different terrain features challenge each of the vehicle classes. Route width and grade also affect both diversity 

and difficulty. Motorcycles are challenged by the width of the track, and four-wheel drive vehicles are challenged 

by rock climbs. Mud bogs and hill climbs are specific features that some OHV enthusiasts enjoy. Route diversity, 

including horizontal and vertical dips and turns, can be designed into new trail construction. Existing roadways that 

currently offer only easy riding can be actively or passively managed to increase both diversity and difficulty. Virtually 

all riders look for diversity in experiences and activities (Crimmins 2006). 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 23

An ideal OHV route system layout would include between 10% to15% of route miles built and maintained for 

an “easier” riding experience; between 10% to15% of route miles built and maintained for the “most difficult” 

riding experience; and the remaining 70% to 80% of route miles built and maintained for a “more difficult” riding 

experience (Crimmins 2006). The alternatives in this analysis were measured and compared against this template. 

The criteria for the three difficulty ratings are contained in the Forest Service Trails Handbook, FSH 2309.18, and 

include variations in trail grade, surface and clearing. Mileages were estimated using a map measure.

The alternatives were also compared based on access to specific terrain features (i.e., hill climbs and open areas) and 

whether night riding would be allowed.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Diversity in Trail Difficulty

Alternative 1

Comparing the roads and trails that would be open to OHV use in each of the alternatives, Alternative 1 would 

provide the greatest total miles but the least diversity, complexity and difficulty (Table 3-23). Only the trail system 

at McCubbins Gulch and three other non-connected trails (North Section Line, Rhododendron Ridge, and Rocky 

Butte) would provide a “more difficult” riding experience and only for Class I and Class III vehicles.

Table 3-23. Route miles (native surface, single-lane gravel roads and trails) and 

percentage of total proposed connected routes Forestwide for three difficulty levels in 

Alternative 1.

Proposed OHV System Route Difficulty Route Miles

Long Term

% of Total Connected 

Miles

Forestwide Easier 2,463 98

More Difficult 48.5 2

Most Difficult 0 0

Permitting travel off of roads and trails increases the difficulty level of this alternative. It is difficult to drive off-road 

in the Forest without violating prohibitions against resource damage, however. There is no comparable opportunity in 

any of the action alternatives.

Alternative 1 ranks as moderately diverse and challenging for OHV enthusiasts based on the availability of some 

specialized terrain features and opportunities. Use of popular mud bog areas at LaDee Flats would continue to be 

prohibited. Road 4610 would continue to be accessible to all classes of vehicles. Night riding would continue to be 

permitted.

Alternative 2

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have similar percentages of proposed route miles in each of the difficulty categories (Table 

3-24, Table 3-25, and Table 3-26). Overall, Alternative 2 has a slightly higher percentage of “more difficult” routes 

than either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 in the long term. That percentage (44%), however, is substantially below the 

proportion of “more difficult” routes recommended in a planned OHV system (Crimmins 2006). This situation is due 

in large part to the motorized mixed-use roads that constitute one-third of the proposed route miles and which are all 

“easier” routes. 

Designing some “easier” loops in each proposed system contributed to the high total percentage of “easier” routes 

in Alternative 2. For example, one of the new loops in the proposed Bear Creek system would be constructed and 

maintained as an “easier” route in order to provide the full range of difficulty levels in this system. Doing so elevates 

the overall percentage of “easier” routes beyond the ideal range. The route system proposed in Alternative 2 would 

likely appeal to beginning riders and family groups with younger members. The overall percentage of “most difficult” 

routes is in the recommended range described by Crimmins (2006); however the shortage of “more difficult” routes 

may discourage use by both intermediate and advanced riders.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 24

Table 3-24. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by 

proposed system for three difficulty levels in Alternative 2. Construction and 

maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Assumes road-to-trail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective 

and all new trails have been constructed.

Proposed OHV System Route Difficulty Route Miles

Long Term

% of Total Connected 

Miles (by system)

Bear Creek Easier 7.1 18

More Difficult 24.9 64

Most Difficult 7.1 18

Gibson Prairie Easier 6.6 43

More Difficult 8.6 57

Most Difficult 0 0

LaDee Flats Easier 24.1 62

More Difficult 5.9 15

Most Difficult 8.9 23

McCubbins Gulch Easier 13.7 27

More Difficult 36.9 73

Most Difficult 0 0

Peavine Easier 19 50

More Difficult 13.5 36

Most Difficult 5.3 14

Rock Creek Easier 27.6 70

More Difficult 7.7 19

Most Difficult 4.3 11

Combined Easier 98.1 44

More Difficult 97.5 44

Most Difficult 25.6 12

North Fork Quarry would be available for its short hill climbs. The percentage of local OHV enthusiasts who seek out 

this particular specialized setting is not known. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it is used frequently. Easy access to 

the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area and relatively low elevation enables year around access. Road 4610 (Abbot 

Road) would be open to OHV use in Alternative 2 allowing use of one of the more technical 4-wheel driveways in the 

Forest.

Alternative 2 would permit OHV use day or night as is currently allowed. The percentage of local OHV enthusiasts 

who seek out this experience is not known, however anecdotal evidence indicates that some riders do so. Allowing 

night riding would broaden the range of OHV experiences compared to Alternative 4 in which night riding would 

not be permitted.

Alternative 3

As previously discussed, the three action alternatives have similar percentages of proposed route miles in each of 

the difficulty categories in the long term (Table 3-24, Table 3-25, and Table 3-26). Among the action alternatives, 

Alternative 3 has the lowest percentage of “more difficult” routes (41%) and the highest percentage of “easier” 

routes (48%). Both percentages are substantially outside the recommended guidelines for a planned OHV system as 

described by Crimmins (2006). This situation is due in large part to the motorized mixed-use roads that constitute 

40% of the proposed route miles and which are all “easier” routes. The overall percentage of “easier” routes in this 

alternative also results from designing some “easier” loops in each proposed system. For example, as in Alternative 2, 

one of the new loops in the proposed Bear Creek system would be constructed and maintained as an “easier” route in 

order to provide the full range of difficulty levels in this system. Doing so elevates the overall percentage of “easier” 

routes outside the ideal range. The route system proposed in Alternative 3 would likely appeal to beginning riders and 

family groups with younger members. The overall percentage of “most difficult” routes is in the range recommended 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 25

by Crimmins (2006); however the shortage of “more difficult” routes may discourage use by intermediate and 

advanced riders. The higher total route miles that would be available in Alternative 3 would augment the overall 

difficulty level.

North Fork Quarry would be available for its short hill climbs. The percentage of local OHV enthusiasts who seek out 

this particular specialized setting is not known. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it is used frequently. Easy access to 

the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area and relatively low elevation enables year around access. Road 4610 (Abbot 

Road) would be open to OHV use in Alternative 3 allowing use of one of the more technical 4-wheel driveways in the 

Forest.

Alternative 3 would permit OHV use day or night as is currently allowed. The percentage of local OHV enthusiasts 

who seek out a night riding experience is not known, however anecdotal evidence indicates that some riders do so. 

Allowing night riding would broaden the range of OHV experiences compared to Alternative 4 in which night riding 

would not be permitted.

Table 3-25. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by 

proposed system for three difficulty levels in Alternative 3. Construction and 

maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Short-term mileages include new trail construction; and all road-to-trail 

conversions assumed to be “easier” difficulty level. Long-term mileages assume road-totrail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective.

Proposed OHV System Route Difficulty Route Miles

Long Term

% of Total

Connected Miles (by 

system)

Bear Creek Easier 10 25

More Difficult 24.3 62

Most Difficult 5 13

Gibson Prairie Easier 4.9 100

More Difficult 0 0

Most Difficult 0 0

Graham Pass Easier 52.8 84

More Difficult 10.4 16

Most Difficult 0 0

LaDee Flats Easier 20.9 50

More Difficult 12.2 29

Most Difficult 8.9 21

McCubbins Gulch Easier 13.6 23

More Difficult 37.5 62

Most Difficult 9 15

Mt. Defiance Easier 5.5 100

More Difficult 0 0

Most Difficult 0 0

Peavine Easier 13.1 26

More Difficult 28.6 58

Most Difficult 7.7 15

Rock Creek Easier 35.1 57

More Difficult 18.8 31

Most Difficult 7.3 12

Combined Easier 155.9 48

More Difficult 131.8 41

Most Difficult 37.9 12
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 26

Alternative 4

As previously discussed, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have similar percentages of proposed route miles in each of the 

difficulty categories in the long term (Table 3-24, Table 3-25, and Table 3-26). Overall, Alternative 4 has a slightly 

higher percentage of “more difficult” routes than Alternative 3 and a slightly lower percentage than Alternative 2. 

This percentage (43%), however, is substantially below the proportion of “more difficult” routes recommended in a 

planned OHV system by Crimmins (2006). This situation is due in large part to the motorized mixed-use roads that 

constitute one-third of the proposed route miles and which are all “easier” routes. 

Table 3-26. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes by 

proposed system for three difficulty levels in Alternative 4. Construction and 

maintenance standards for each difficulty level are found in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18. Short-term mileages include new trail construction; and all road-to-trail 

conversions assumed to be “easier” difficulty level. Long-term mileages assume road-totrail conversions have reached desired difficulty objective.

Proposed OHV System Route Difficulty Route Miles Long Term

% of Total

Connected Miles (by 

system)

LaDee Flats Easier 9.2 37

More Difficult 7.0 28

Most Difficult 9.0 36

McCubbins Gulch Easier 10.7 32

More Difficult 22.9 68

Most Difficult 0 0

Rock Creek Easier 20.6 55

More Difficult 11.8 32

Most Difficult 4.9 13

Combined Easier 40.5 42

More Difficult 41.7 43

Most Difficult 13.9 14

The high percentage of “easier” routes in this alternative also resulted from designing some “easier” loops in each 

proposed system. For example, one of the loops in the proposed Rock Creek system would be constructed and 

maintained as an “easier” route in order to provide the full range of difficulty levels in this system. Doing so elevates 

the overall percentage of “easier” routes beyond the ideal range. The route system proposed in Alternative 4 would 

likely appeal to beginning riders and family groups with younger members. The overall percentage of “most difficult” 

routes is in the range recommended by Crimmins (2006); however the shortage of “more difficult” routes may 

discourage use by intermediate and advanced riders.

Like Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would officially open North Fork Quarry for its short hill climbs. The 

percentage of local OHV enthusiasts who seek out this particular specialized setting is not known. Anecdotal 

evidence indicates that it is used frequently. Easy access to the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area and relatively 

low elevation enables year around access. Road 4610 (Abbot Road) would not be open to OHV use in Alternative 4 

eliminating a potential technical four-wheel driveway.

Night riding would be prohibited in Alternative 4, narrowing the range of OHV experiences compared to 

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in which night riding would be permitted.

The combination of a high percentage of “easier” routes, the fewest total available miles, and no night riding make 

Alternative 4 the least diverse and difficult proposal (among the action alternatives) for OHV enthusiasts. Alternative 

1 offers fewer difficult routes and less access to special settings, but offers many more miles.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 27

Cumulative Effects – Diversity in Trail Difficulty

In Alternative 3, the percentages of connected routes in the three difficulty classes change when the Hood River 

County OHV system is considered. The difficulty levels for the connected Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance systems 

are shown in Table 3-27. Hood River County’s Eastside Area routes have not yet been finalized, so an estimate of 

route difficulties is not possible at this time.

The Hood River County OHV system would be available in Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 also, but they would not be 

integrated with the Forest’s OHV system.

Table 3-27. Route miles and percentage of total proposed connected routes in Hood 

River County including proposed connections to National Forest system routes in the 

Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance locations for three difficulty levels in Alternative 3.

Proposed OHV System Route Difficulty Route Miles

Long Term

% of Total Connected 

Miles

Gibson Prairie Easier not determined not determined

More Difficult not determined not determined

Most Difficult not determined not determined

Mt. Defiance Easier 95.8 60

More Difficult 46.2 29

Most Difficult 16.5 10

Supply and Demand

The following is an analysis based on Key Issue 1 (Section 1.10.1) – Designating OHV routes may not have the 

capacity to meet the existing or future needs of OHV users.

Measure and Analysis Methodology

Several key measures of OHV popularity indicate an upward trend in both vehicles sales and use days (Cordell 2008; 

Bergerson et al. 2005). There is a concern that the proposed routes may not be sufficient to accommodate the growth 

of OHV sports and the likely demand for more access.

Using the proposed staging area capacity for each proposed system (and several key assumptions), estimates of area 

PAOTs (persons at one time), and available visitor days were generated for each alternative. The estimates were used 

to compare the alternatives against current OHV use statistics described by English, Kocis and Hales (2004).

Several caveats are pertinent to an evaluation of supply and demand:

1. Information about current OHV use patterns in the Forest is scant. The 2003 National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) study provides a gross, Forestwide estimate of visitor participation in motorized vehicle sports. It does 

not, however, provide any information about how participation is distributed in time or space. The NVUM also 

does not indicate what vehicle classes were used at the time of the survey. 

2. It is neither necessary nor cost-effective to size staging areas for peak use since there is a substantial variation 

in seasonal and weekly use levels (Crimmins 2006). Some of the proposed areas are better suited than others to 

accommodate overflow parking.

3. This analysis is not the final word about OHV route designation in the Forest. Future route designations could 

be made as a result of future proposals and further NEPA analysis. Also, route designation on lands under other 

ownership and jurisdiction is also a dynamic situation that affects capacity.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 28

Direct and Indirect Effects – Supply and Demand

Alternative 1

Despite the large number of roads that would be open to OHVs, as well as off-road driving opportunities, the limiting 

factor in determining supply for Alternative 1 is parking for transport vehicles and trailers. Rock quarries and pits 

were found to be opportune staging areas in each of the action alternatives, so Forestwide quarries were used to 

estimate capacity for Alternative 1 as well. There are 61 rock quarries in the Forest. The average quarry size was 

conservatively estimated to be two acres with a parking capacity of 60 vehicles. It was also assumed that on average, 

Forest roads would be snow free for six months each year (56 primary days and 126 secondary days). Eighty percent 

of OHV recreation is assumed to occur on primary days (weekends and holidays).

Alternative 1 would potentially have the capacity to provide approximately 819,840 primary visitor days (weekends 

and holidays) and 2,664,480 total visitor days for OHV recreation. According to National Visitor Use Monitoring 

statistics for OHV participation, there are currently about 37,546 recreation visits involving OHV use in the Forest 

(English, Kocis and Hales 2004). Hence, this alternative would provide excess capacity when compared simply to 

current demand. 

Cordell reported growth of 56.1% nationally for off-road driving participant days from 1999 to 2008 (Cordell, Betz et 

al. 2008). If local growth in participant days continued to grow at this average national rate, total estimated demand 

would be 58,609 days in 2018 and 91,489 days in 2028. Assuming 80% of OHV use is on primary days (weekends and 

holidays), primary day demand would be 73,191 in the year 2028, and capacity would be 819,840 days. Capacity is 

predicted to exceed demand for the foreseeable future in Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have the capacity to provide approximately 89,632 primary visitor days (weekends and holidays) 

and 290,088 total visitor days for OHV recreation (Table 3-28). According to National Visitor Use Monitoring 

statistics for OHV participation, there are currently about 37,546 recreation visits involving OHV use in the Forest 

(English, Kocis and Hales 2004). As in Alternative 1, this alternative would also provide excess capacity when 

compared simply to current demand. 

If local growth in participant days continues to grow at the average national rate of 56.1% per decade (Cordell, Betz 

et al 2008), total estimated demand would be 58,609 days in 2018 and 91,489 days in 2028. Assuming 80% of OHV 

use is on primary days (weekends and holidays), primary day demand would be 73,191 in the year 2028, and capacity 

would be 89,632 days. Capacity is predicted to exceed demand for at least the next two decades in Alternative 2.

If Alternative 2 were implemented, many factors that influence demand would change, making a prediction about 

future demand difficult to quantify. Several features of this alternative may make the Mt. Hood National Forest less 

desirable for OHV recreation, and demand may go down: 

• The total number of route miles in the Forest would be reduced from about 2,300 presently to 221. 

• These routes are not all connected; rather they are in six discrete locations. 

• Even though most OHV use in the Forest currently takes place in the six OHV systems where routes are proposed in this Alternative, the proposed routes could be more crowded especially on primary days (weekends and 

holidays). For instance, if the Peavine routes were at full capacity, there would only be an average distance of 333 

feet between riders, based on the PAOT calculation shown in Table 3-28. 

• Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, LaDee Flats, and Peavine route systems would provide only moderately adequate 

day-long recreation opportunities (Table 3-12). 

• Class II vehicle enthusiasts would find only modest driving opportunities. 

• The opportunities to drive cross-country (off roads and trails) and to camp in the vicinity of Gate Creek Ditch 

(Rock Creek routes) would be eliminated.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 29

Conversely, other features in Alternative 2 may increase demand:

• The total number of designated OHV trail miles would increase from about 58 presently to roughly 148, including more single-track opportunities. 

• The McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek proposed route systems would each provide fully adequate day-long 

recreation opportunities (Table 3-12) with distances comparable with many other OHV areas in Oregon (such as 

Huckleberry Flat, Blue Mountain, Upper Walla Walla). 

• A higher level of trail difficulty would offer a greater degree of challenge when compared to the existing situation. 

• More developed staging areas, signing and management of proposed routes would provide an overall better 

recreation experience. 

Table 3-28. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 

2 based on available season, staging area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing 

a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is based on seasonal 

restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = 

weekends and holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were 

assumed to be four people per parked vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except for 

Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads per trailer).

Proposed OHV 

System

Available 

Season

Number of 

Rec. Days

Staging 

Area 

Parking 

Capacity

PAOT

Available Visitor Days Total

P + S 

Visitor 

Days P S P S

Bear Creek 6/16-10/31 42 96 20 80 3,360 7,680 11,040

Gibson Prairie 6/16-10/31 42 96 18 36 1,512 3,456 4,968

LaDee Flats 4/1-12/1* 76 168 30 120 9,120 20,160 29,280

McCubbins 5/1-11/30* 67 147 20 80 5,360 11,760 17,120

Peavine 6/16-11/30 53 115 150 600 31,800 69,000 100,800

Rock Creek 3/2-10/31 74 170 130 520 38,480 88,400 126,880

Total 354 792 368 1,436 89,632 200,456 290,088

*Note: McCubbins Gulch available season based on estimated snow-free season.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would provide approximately 120,236 primary visitor days (weekends and holidays) and 388,744 total 

visitor days for OHV recreation (Table 3-29). According to National Visitor Use Monitoring statistics for OHV 

participation, there are currently about 37,546 recreation visits involving OHV use in the Forest (English, Kocis 

and Hales 2004). Alternative 3 would provide considerably more excess capacity than Alternative 2 when compared 

simply to current demand.

If local growth in participant days continues to grow at the average national rate of 56.1% per decade (Cordell, Betz 

et al 2008), total estimated demand would be 58,609 days in 2018 and 91,489 days in 2028. Assuming 80% of OHV 

use is on primary days (weekends and holidays), primary day demand would be 73,191 in the year 2028, and capacity 

would be 120,236 days. Capacity is predicted to far exceed demand for at least the next two decades in Alternative 3.

Like Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 3 would introduce new variables making a prediction about future 

demand difficult to quantify. Several features of this alternative may make the Mt. Hood National Forest less desirable 

for OHV recreation, and demand may go down:

• The total number of route miles in the Forest would be reduced from about 2,300 presently to 326. 

• These routes are not all connected; rather they are in eight discrete locations. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 30

• Even though most OHV use in the Forest currently takes place in the proposed systems where routes are proposed in this Alternative, the proposed routes could end up being more crowded, especially on primary days 

(weekends and holidays). For instance, if the Rock Creek routes were at full capacity, there would only be an 

average distance of 621 feet between riders, based on the PAOT calculation shown in Table 3-29. 

• With 39.6 miles of single-track trail, the proposed Bear Creek route system would provide only a moderately 

adequate day-long recreation opportunity (Table 3-13). 

• Class II vehicle enthusiasts would find even fewer driving opportunities than in Alternative 2. 

• The opportunities to drive cross-country (off roads and trails) and to camp in the vicinity of Gate Creek Ditch 

(Rock Creek routes) would be eliminated.

Conversely, other features of Alternative 3 may increase demand: 

• The total number of designated OHV trail miles would increase from about 58 presently to roughly 200, including even more single-track opportunities than in Alternative 2. 

• LaDee Flats (Class I vehicles), McCubbins Gulch (Class III vehicles), Peavine (Class I vehicles) and Rock Creek 

(Class I and III vehicles) proposed route systems would each provide fully adequate day-long recreation opportunities (Table 3-13) with distances comparable with many other OHV areas in Oregon (such as Huckleberry 

Flat, Blue Mountain, and Upper Walla Walla). 

• Connectivity to Hood River County trails from Gibson Prairie and Mt. Defiance routes would provide a higher 

quality OHV experience in both jurisdictions. 

• A higher level of trail difficulty would offer a greater degree of challenge when compared to the existing situation. 

• More developed staging areas, signing and management of proposed routes would provide an overall better 

recreation experience. 

• The opportunity to camp at managed staging areas may be an attraction for those looking for extended trips.

Table 3-29. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 

3 based on available season, staging area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing 

a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is based on seasonal 

restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = 

weekends and holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were 

assumed to be four people per parked vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except 

for Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads per trailer). 

No capacity or available visitor day estimates were calculated for the Gibson or Mt. 

Defiance route systems because they would not have staging areas in the Forest. They 

would essentially be extensions of Hood River County trail systems. 

Proposed OHV 

System

Available 

Season

Number of 

Rec. Days

Staging 

Area 

Parking 

Capacity

PAOT

Available Visitor Days Total

P + S 

Visitor 

Days P S P S

Bear Creek 6/16-10/31 42 96 20 80 3,360 7,680 11,040

Graham Pass 6/1-10/31* 47 106 43 172 8,084 18,232 26,272

LaDee Flats 4/1-12/1* 76 168 94 376 28,576 63,168 91,744

McCubbins 5/1-11/30* 67 147 79 316 21,172 46,452 67,624

Peavine 6/16-11/30 53 115 97 388 20,564 44,620 65,184

Rock Creek 3/2-10/31 74 170 130 520 38,480 88,400 126,880

Total 359 802 463 1,852 120,236 268,552 388,744

*Note: Graham Pass, LaDee and McCubbins available seasons based on estimated snow-free period.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 31

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would provide approximately 52,960 primary visitor days (weekends and holidays) and 173,280 total 

visitor days for OHV recreation (Table 3-30). According to National Visitor Use Monitoring statistics for OHV 

participation, there are currently about 37,546 recreation visits involving OHV use in the Forest (English, Kocis and 

Hales 2004). Like all of the other alternatives, Alternative 4 would provide excess capacity in the short term when 

compared simply to current demand.

If local growth in participant days continues to grow at the national average rate of 56.1% per decade (Cordell, Betz 

et al. 2008), total estimated demand would be 58,609 days in 2018 and 91,489 days in 2028. Assuming 80% of OHV 

use is on primary days (weekends and holidays), primary day demand would be 46,887 in the year 2018, and capacity 

would be 52,960 days. In 2028, however, primary day demand would be 73,191, and capacity would still only be 

52,960 days. Capacity is predicted to exceed demand for at least the next decade in Alternative 2. It is predicted to fall 

short sometime during the second decade.

Alternative 4 would also introduce variables making a prediction about future demand difficult to quantify. Several 

features of this alternative may make the Mt. Hood National Forest less attractive for OHV recreation, and demand 

may go down:

• The total number of route miles in the Forest would be reduced from about 2,439 presently to 96.

• These routes are not all connected; rather they are in three discrete locations. 

• Even though much OHV use in the Forest currently takes place in the three proposed system where routes are 

proposed in this Alternative, the proposed routes could be more crowded especially on primary days (weekends 

and holidays). 

• LaDee Flats, McCubbins and Rock Creek route systems would provide only moderately adequate day-long recreation opportunities (Table 3-14). No system would provide a fully adequate daylong experience. 

• Class II vehicle enthusiasts would find the fewest driving opportunities, especially since Road 4610 (Abbot Road) 

is not included in Alternative 4.

• The opportunities to drive cross-country (off roads and trails), to ride trails at night, and to camp overnight at 

OHV staging areas (except McCubbins Gulch Campground) would be eliminated.

Conversely, other features of Alternative 4 may increase demand:

• The total number of designated OHV trail miles would increase from about 58 presently to roughly 70. 

• A higher level of trail difficulty would offer a greater degree of challenge when compared to the existing situation. 

• More developed staging areas, signing and management of proposed routes would provide an overall better 

recreation experience.

Table 3-30. Estimated available OHV visitor days (by proposed system) for Alternative 

4 based on available season, staging area parking capacity (number of vehicles towing 

a trailer), and persons-at-one-time (PAOTs). Available season is based on seasonal 

restrictions for soil and wildlife. Number of recreation days includes primary (P = 

weekends and holidays) and secondary (S = weekdays except for holidays). PAOTs were 

assumed to be four people per parked vehicle (four motorcycles per trailer) except for 

Gibson were it was assumed two people per parked vehicle (2 quads per trailer).

Proposed OHV 

System

Available 

Season

Number of 

Rec. Days

Staging 

Area 

Parking 

Capacity PAOT

Available Visitor Days Total

P + S Visitor 

P S P S Days

LaDee Flats 4/1-12/1* 76 168 30 120 9,120 20,160 29,280

McCubbins 5/1-11/30* 67 147 20 80 5,360 11,760 17,120

Rock Creek 3/2-10/31 74 170 130 520 38,480 88,400 126,880

Total 217 485 180 720 52,960 120,320 173,280

*Note: LaDee and McCubbins available season based on estimated snow-free season.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 32

Cumulative Effects – Supply and Demand

On the supply side, other National Forests in Oregon are analyzing designated OHV routes in accordance with the 

Final Travel Management Rule. Decisions have not yet been made, so it is not known if the overall supply of OHV 

routes would increase or decrease.

The 2008 Road Decommissioning for Aquatic Restoration project and the 2008 Clackamas Road Decommissioning 

for Aquatic Restoration proposed to decommission roads that are no longer be needed for the administration of the 

National Forest These decisions reduce the number of miles of roads available for OHV use in Alternative 1.

In Alternatives 1 and 3, the Forest’s proposed OHV routes would connect with roads and trails open to Class I and 

Class III vehicles on lands administered by Hood River County north of Gibson Prairie and also east of Mt. Defiance. 

The County’s Mt. Defiance route system includes 89 miles of roads and 64 miles of trails open to OHVs that would 

connect to National Forest system routes. In the area north of Gibson routes, there are 79 miles of roads and 63 miles 

of trails (across three ownerships: SDS, Longview Timber, Hood River County) open to OHV use that would connect 

to National Forest System routes.

High gasoline prices, negative consumer confidence, and tight credit markets may reduce demand for OHV 

recreation, at least in the short-term. Fuel prices hurt OHV recreation in 2008 (Albright 2008). In the face of chronic 

gas price escalation, OHV enthusiasts are predicted to recreate closer to home rather than abandon the sport 

altogether. For Portland, Vancouver and Willamette Valley residents, the Mt. Hood National Forest is substantially 

closer to home than central or eastern Oregon. Fewer than half of OHV survey respondents in 2005 said that “lack 

of money” was an important reason for not participating in their motorized activities more than they do (Bergerson 

et al. 2005). Given the extent and severity of the current recession, a survey done today would likely reveal a higher 

percentage affected by financial concerns.

Access to Rock Creek OHV Routes

The following is an analysis of Key Issue 2 (Section 1.10.1) – Designating new OHV routes may alter the balance 

between motorized and non-motorized recreation interests and uses. For example, some residents of the Sportsman’s 

Park subdivision raised specific concern about restricting direct OHV access to the Rock Creek proposed system, 

while other residents of the community expressed their desire for direct OHV access.

The following analysis is also based on concerns that the only proposed staging area for the Rock Creek routes may 

be too high in elevation to provide parking for early season riding. 

Measure and Analysis Methodology

Even before the Proposed Action for Rock Creek OHV roads and trails was formally announced for public scoping, 

tension developed between local property owners opposed to OHV use in the general area and their neighbors who 

own and enjoy OHVs. Some residents insisted that there be no designated routes closer than four or five miles from 

the western boundary of Sportsman’s Park subdivision. Other residents wanted continued access to traditional routes 

adjacent to Gate Creek Ditch, but also wanted to be able to continue riding directly from Sportsman’s Park to Forest 

OHV routes.

The interests of some residents seem to be (1) security and (2) quality of life. Perhaps first and foremost, they said that 

they were concerned about a wildfire erupting from some activity related to OHV recreation. They fear that a wildfire 

could easily overtake their community and destroy private property or worse. They also expressed concerns about the 

Forest Service “inviting” too many strangers so close to their homes. Theft and vandalism were among their concerns. 

Finally, the potential noise and dust from OHV use raises quality of life issues for property owners who moved to 

Sportsman’s Park to get away from such pollution.

The interests of other residents seem to be (1) fairness and (2) convenience. They fear losing one of the primary 

benefits that motivated some of them to move to Sportsman’s Park: easy access to National Forest roads and trails 

for OHV use. In at least one case, riding OHVs from private property at Sportsman’s Park into the Forest provides a 

unique, life-enriching experience for a family with special needs. OHV owners also feel it would be an unwarranted 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 33

inconvenience for them to have to trailer their OHVs to a distant staging area and then be able to ride on routes 

adjacent to their property. Further complicating the matter, in their view, the staging area might be too high in 

elevation to permit early-season riding. 

The alternatives were qualitatively evaluated according to how they meet the interests of local property owners. The 

distance separating the nearest proposed OHV route from Sportsman’s Park is also quantified.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Access to Rock Creek OHV Routes

Alternative 1

In Alternative 1, all routes in the vicinity of Sportsman’s Park and other private parcels near Rock Creek Reservoir 

would continue to be used by OHVs. The closest native surface road that could be used by OHVs (Road 4820-132) 

is less than 500 feet from the northern boundary of the residential area. In addition, OHVs would not be prohibited 

from driving off of roads throughout the general area. The terrain is fairly flat, and the vegetation type (ponderosa 

pine forest with a relatively open shrub understory) is conducive to driving off-road. Prescribed fires and thinning 

operations in the past several years have further reduced the vegetative understory density. The area west of Rock 

Creek Reservoir would likely continue to be a popular OHV riding destination. OHV use in the general area is 

predicted to increase in Alternative 1.

Because of its popularity among OHV enthusiasts, the area around Gate Creek Ditch (approximately 1/4 mile south 

of Sportsman’s Park) is also heavily used for dispersed camping, particularly on weekends during the spring, summer 

and fall. In Alternative 1, this area would continue to be available for dispersed camping.

Property owners at Sportsman’s Park that own OHVs would continue to be able to ride directly into the Forest from 

private property.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would permit OHV use on lower elevation (2,300 feet to 3,200 feet elevation) routes near Sportsman’s 

Park, but would not provide direct access from private property to these routes. OHV owners at Sportsman’s Park 

would need to transport their machines to the staging area at Post Point (elevation 3,600 feet), five miles west of the 

residential area. The closest designated route to Sportsman’s Park would be roughly 0.7 miles from the subdivision’s 

southern boundary.

Driving off-road (an attraction that helped popularize the general Rock Creek area among OHV enthusiasts) would 

no longer be allowed. This prohibition would put an end to OHV use in the wide-open area adjacent to Gate Creek 

Ditch, in several quarry areas west of Road 48, and south of Road 48 in the vicinity of an area under permit to the 

American Native Peoples Organization (ANPO). Also, the route across Gate Creek Ditch on Road 4800-130 would be 

bridged and armored to protect the structural integrity of the ditch.

Although OHV use would be permitted closer to Sportsman’s Park than some residents would prefer, the designated 

day-use area in Alternative 2 would address some of the security and quality of life issues. There would be a 

prohibition on campfires and overnight occupancy within a 3,533 acre area surrounding Sportsman’s Park, including 

Gate Creek Ditch. The restrictions on campfires, overnight use and cross-country travel would reduce noise, dust and 

risk of wildfire threatening private property. The area that would be restricted to “day-use only” represents less than 

one percent of the Mt. Hood National Forest, so the effect on overall dispersed camping would be very small.

If Alternative 2 were implemented, OHV use of the proposed system is predicted to decline slightly in the short term 

and grow less rapidly than either Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 in the long term because:

• Alternative 2 would offer fewer designated route miles than currently exist (39.3 miles of designated roads and 

trails in Alternative 2); 

• No off-road riding would be permitted; 

• No direct access from Sportsman’s Park would be provided; and, 

• No overnight use around Gate Creek Ditch would be permitted. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 34

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not permit OHV use on most of the lower elevation routes near Sportsman’s Park that would be 

designated in Alternative 2. The majority of designated routes would be more than four miles west of the residential 

area, and the closest loop route would be about 1.5 miles south. All loop routes are more than two miles west and 

south of private parcels other than Sportsman’s Park. 

Alternative 3 would provide direct access from Sportsman’s Park to designated OHV routes. OHV owners would be 

permitted to enter the route system from one proposed trail constructed to the western boundary of the residential 

area. This is the only route within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Three design features in this alternative 

should discourage heavy use on this access route. First, the route is not a loop, but rather a one-way-in/one-way-out 

route to the residential area. Second, there are more route miles in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2, and they are 

centered several miles west of private land. Third, the road to Badger Lake would be designated as an OHV route, 

providing a desirable destination in the opposite direction from private land.

As in Alternative 2, driving off-road (an attraction that helped popularize the general Rock Creek area among OHV 

enthusiasts) would no longer be allowed. This prohibition would put an end to OHV use in the wide-open area 

adjacent to Gate Creek Ditch, in several quarry areas west of Road 48, and south of Road 48, in the vicinity of an 

area under permit to the American Native Peoples Organization (ANPO). Also as in Alternative 2, there would be a 

prohibition on campfires and overnight occupancy within a 3,533 acre area surrounding Sportsman’s Park, including 

Gate Creek Ditch. These changes would contribute to a reduction of noise, dust and risk of wildfire threatening 

private property. The area that would be restricted to “day-use only” represents less than one percent of the Forest, so 

the effect on overall dispersed camping would be very small.

With one-third more designated route miles (61.2 miles in Alternative 3; 39.3 miles in Alternative 2), and with direct 

access from Sportsman’s Park, Rock Creek routes would likely be more popular in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 

2. However, with no off-road riding, and no overnight use permitted around Gate Creek Ditch, OHV use of the 

proposed system is predicted to remain level in the short term and grow less rapidly than in Alternative 1.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would not designate any OHV routes in the lower elevation area (2,300 feet to 3,200 feet elevation). All 

proposed routes would be more than three miles west of all private parcels in the general Rock Creek area.

Alternative 4 would not provide direct access from Sportsman’s Park to designated OHV routes. OHV owners at 

Sportsman’s Park would need to transport their machines to the staging area at Post Point (elevation 3,600 feet), five 

miles west of the residential area.

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, driving off-road, an attraction that helped popularize the Rock Creek proposed system 

among OHV enthusiasts, would no longer be allowed. This prohibition would put an end to OHV use in the wideopen area adjacent to Gate Creek Ditch, in several quarry areas west of Road 48, and south of Road 48, in the vicinity 

of an area under permit to the American Native Peoples Organization (ANPO). However, because no OHV routes 

would be designated in the vicinity of Sportsman’s Park and Gate Creek Ditch, there would be no prohibition on 

campfires or overnight occupancy in the area. Some overnight use would be expected to continue, but it would not be 

as convenient for OHV groups to camp there.

With roughly the same number of designated route miles (37.2 miles in Alternative 4; 39.6 miles in Alternative 2), but 

with no direct access from Sportsman’s Park, no permitted use of lower elevation routes (more likely to be snow-free 

in the spring) and no night riding allowed, Rock Creek routes would likely be less popular in Alternative 4 than in 

either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. If Alternative 4 were implemented, OHV use of the proposed system is predicted 

to decline in the short term and grow less rapidly than any of the other alternatives.

Cumulative Effects – Access to Rock Creek OHV Routes

In Alternative 1, cross-country use of OHVs would probably increase because the Sportsman’s Park and Ramsey 

under-burns have reduced understory vegetation providing easier access.

There are no cumulative effects related to this issue for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 35

Noise from OHVs

The following is an analysis of Key Issue 2 (Section 1.10.1) – Changes to OHV designation on the Forest can affect 

the quality of non-motorized recreation. A specific concern was that the noise of OHVs may adversely affect quiet 

recreation use, particularly where it carries into roadless and wilderness areas.

Measure and Analysis Methodology

The sound of OHVs in a wildland setting causes displeasure for many who visit the Forest seeking a “quiet” recreation 

experience. For some, the sound of motorized vehicles is an irreconcilable factor that makes sharing the same space 

with OHVs unacceptable. This attitude is most acutely felt by “quiet” recreators on trails constructed and maintained 

for non-motorized use, in developed recreation sites, and in wilderness areas. Notwithstanding the concerns about 

noise conflicts raised during scoping for this project, the Mt. Hood National Forest receives few complaints about 

OHV noise. 

The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to adopt standards for noise emissions from 

mufflers that are required for off-road vehicles for compliance with ORS 821.040. Currently, Class I, II and III ATVs 

must be muffled to produce no more than 99 decibels (dB) sound pressure (stationary test at 20 inches). Sound 

pressure radiating from a point source decreases by a factor of 1/2 as the distance is doubled (Sengpielaudio 2008). 

Using this principle, it is possible to estimate the damping of sound levels (dB) with distance. To compare the 

alternatives, an inventory of non-motorized trails, developed recreation sites, and wilderness areas was developed 

and evaluated for distance from proposed OHV roads, trails and one area. Assuming a point source emitting sound 

pressure of 99 dB (the highest level allowed by State law), the area within which sound might be readily detected was 

estimated. A decibel level of 30, commonly characterized as “very quiet,” was used as the lower limit of detection. A 

99 dB sound pressure measured at 20 inches from an OHV muffler would dampen to 30 dB at about 4,700 feet (0.89 

miles) from the source. A comparison of the alternatives was made using the number of miles of non-motorized 

trail and other areas where sound emitted by OHVs might be readily detected (30 dB or greater). Topographic relief 

dampens sound pressure; and this effect was considered in determining the affected distance along non-motorized 

trails or into wilderness areas. Distances were estimated with a map measure. Areas were estimated with a dot grid.

This analysis describes the area where OHV sounds might possibly be heard. No attempt was made to estimate the 

probability of hearing the sounds. First, there is insufficient in situ data about OHV use and about quiet recreation 

use (location, duration and timing) to draw any meaningful conclusions. Secondly, the 30+ dB sound detection area 

(with a radius of 4,700 feet) used in this analysis describes a much larger area than would be created by most OHVs 

which emit sound at much lower decibels than 99 dB. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Noise from OHVs

Alternative 1

The potential effect of OHV noise in Alternative 1 would be the highest among the four alternatives. In Alternative 

1, OHVs would be permitted to use 2,463 miles of National Forest System roads, many of which intersect or are near 

non-motorized trails. There are 271 managed, non-motorized trails in the Forest (excluding winter-only trails). These 

trails total approximately 940 miles in length. The cumulative length of non-motorized trails where users would be 

potentially affected by noise from OHVs is estimated to be 100 miles (estimated with map measure and topographic 

maps). This number of miles represents 11% of all non-motorized trails in the Forest. Users of even more nonmotorized trails could be affected by noise from OHVs traveling off-road.

Users of an estimated 60 miles of wilderness trails would be potentially affected by noise from OHVs (estimated with 

map measure and topographic maps). This number represents 13% of the 468 miles of wilderness trails in the Forest.

No estimate was made of the number of wilderness acres potentially affected by OHV noise.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 36

Alternative 2

The potential effect of OHV noise in Alternative 2 would be less than Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 and greater 

than Alternative 4. The number of non-motorized trails where users would potentially be affected by OHV noise 

would be 11 with a combined affected length of 15.4 miles. There are a total of 940 miles of non-motorized trails 

managed by the Forest, so OHV sound would potentially affect 2% of all non-motorized trail miles. Four of the 

potentially affected trails (3.8 miles) are in the Salmon-Huckleberry and Roaring River Wildernesses. There are 468 

miles of wilderness trails managed by the Forest, so OHV sound would potentially affect users on less than 1% of all 

wilderness trail miles (Table 3-31).

The average (mean) shortest distance between a proposed OHV road, trail, and one area and a non-motorized trail 

would be 1,159 feet. The median shortest distance would be 634 feet. At these distances, the mean and median sound 

levels would be 41 and 47 dB, respectively, an effect that is characterized as “quiet” (OMSI 2005). Users of the Pacific 

Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) would potentially be affected by OHV noises greater than 30 dB for approximately 

0.7 miles from sources along roads in the proposed Peavine system. The length of the PCT affected would be greater 

except for the sound damping effect of North and South Pinhead Buttes. Hikers on Vista Ridge Trail (Trail 626) 

would not be affected by noise from proposed Bear Creek system roads and trails because of favorable topography. 

The greatest potential OHV noise effect would be on Trails 783 and 788 which both terminate at a proposed 

motorized mixed-use road (Table 3-31).

OHV noise from Road 4610 in Alternative 2 could potentially penetrate 4,450 acres in the Salmon-Huckleberry 

Wilderness, and 5,900 acres of the Roaring River Wilderness. OHV noise from proposed OHV roads and trails could 

also potentially affect 400 acres of the Lower White River Wilderness and 90 acres of the Clackamas River Wilderness 

(Sisi Butte). For all practical purposes, human access to most of these acres is limited, and the highest probable effect 

would be along Trails 507 (Corral Springs), 521 (Huxley Ridge), 783 (Plaza Trail) and 788 (Plaza Lake Trail) for a 

combined distance of 3.8 miles (Table 3-31).

Four small, developed campgrounds (Clear Creek, Keeps Mill, Summit Lake, and Rock Creek) would be within the 

30 dB sound detection area of proposed OHV roads and trails. Campers would potentially experience OHV noise 

levels at 35 dB or less, an effect characterized as “quiet” (OMSI 2005). Sound from OHVs might be least acceptable to 

campers during night hours. Night riding would be permitted in Alternative 2 (Table 3-31).

Sportsman’s Park is not a National Forest recreation site; however it is addressed here because of the level of concern 

about OHV noise raised by some residents. In this alternative, the closest proposed OHV road or trail in the Rock 

Creek system would be 3,276 feet away from the southern boundary of the residential area. The potential OHV noise 

effect at this distance would be roughly 33 dB, a level characterized as “very quiet” (OMSI 2005).
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 37

Table 3-31. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially affected 

(non-motorized trails, developed recreation sites and wilderness areas) by OHVs on proposed 

routes by proposed system for Alternative 2. Noise effect symbols: VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A 

= annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour exposure). Alignment symbols: parallel (=); 

perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed OHV 

route, the highest sound pressure (column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the 

sound would diminish to 20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = 

wilderness; A3 = research natural area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.

Proposed OHV 

System

Name of

Non-Motorized 

Trail, Site or Area

Shortest 

Distance 

Between Motor 

and Non-Motor 

Trails (ft)

Motor Sound 

Level at 

Shortest 

Distance Point 

(dB)*

Noise 

Effect

Alignment of 

Non-Motor 

Trail or Area to 

Motor Route*

Length or Area 

Where Motor 

Sound May Be 

Detected

Bear Creek Trail 632 158 ft. 59 A/Q = 0.6 Mi.

Gibson Prairie Trail 688 211 ft. 57 A/Q = 3.6 Mi.

Mill Creek A3 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 487 Ac.

LaDee Flats Trail 507 (W) 917 ft. 44 Q ^ 1.1 Mi.

Trail 521 917 ft. 44 Q ^ 0.3 Mi.

Trail 521 (W) 2,321 ft. 36 Q/VQ ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 783 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 1.1 Mi.

Trail 788 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 0.9 Mi.

Salmon-Huck. W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 4,450 Ac.

Roaring River W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 5,900 Ac.

Squaw Mdws. A4 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 774 Ac.

McCubbins 

Gulch

Trail 487 3,310 ft. 33 VQ ^ 0.2 Mi.

Trail 490 211 ft. 57 Q ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 490A 634 ft. 47 Q = 2.9 Mi.

Clear Creek (C) 2,690 ft. 35 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Keeps Mill (C) 3,749 ft. 32 VQ O < 10 Ac.

L. White R. W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 400 Ac.

Peavine Trail 2000 3,696 ft. 32 VQ = 0.7 Mi.

Summit Lake CG 4,224 ft. 31 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Clackamas W 2,640 ft. 35 VQ O 90 Ac.

Rock Creek Trail 478 2,694 ft. 35 VQ = 2.6 Mi.

Rock Creek CG 3,379 ft. 33 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Grasshopper A5 0 99 SHD8 O 840 Ac.

Sportsman’s Park 3,379 ft. 33 VQ O 70 Ac.

Alternative 3

The potential effect of OHV noise in this alternative would be less than Alternative 1 and greater than Alternatives 

2 and 4. The number of non-motorized trails where users would be potentially affected by OHV noise would be 24 

with a combined affected length of 28.4 miles. There are a total of 940 miles of non-motorized trails managed by the 

Forest, so OHV sound would potentially affect 3% of all non-motorized trail miles. Eleven of the potentially affected 

trails (12.5 miles) are in designated wilderness areas. There are 468 miles of wilderness trails managed by the Forest, 

so OHV sound would potentially affect 3% of all wilderness trail miles (Table 3-32).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 38

The average (mean) shortest distance between a proposed OHV road, trail, and one area and a non-motorized trail 

would be 1,191 feet. The median shortest distance would be 634 feet. At these distances, the mean and median sound 

levels would be 42 and 47 dB, respectively, an effect characterized as “quiet” (OMSI 2005). In Alternative 3, the Pacific 

Crest National Scenic Trail falls outside the 30 dB OHV sound detection area. As in Alternative 2, hikers on the Vista 

Ridge Trail (Trail 626) would not be affected by noise from proposed Bear Creek system roads and trails because of 

topographic relief. The greatest potential noise effect on non-motorized trails would be at the intersections of Trails 

465, 466, 466A, 479A, 783 and 788 with proposed OHV roads and trails (Table 3-32).

OHV noise along proposed OHV roads and trails in Alternative 3 could potentially affect five designated wilderness 

areas: 4,450 acres in the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness; 5,400 acres in the Roaring River Wilderness; 320 acres 

in the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness; 400 acres in the Lower White River Wilderness; and 4,300 acres in the Badger 

Creek Wilderness. For all practical purposes, human access to most of these acres is limited, and the most likely effect 

would be along 11 wilderness trails for a combined distance of 12.5 miles (Table 3-32). Four wilderness trails (Trails 

465, 466, 783 and 788) intersect a proposed OHV road or trail, locations with the greatest potential sound conflicts 

(Table 3-32).

OHV noise from the proposed Mt. Defiance system would not affect users of trails or areas in the Columbia River 

Gorge National Scenic Area because of favorable topography.

The same four small, developed campgrounds as in Alternative 2 (Clear Creek, Keeps Mill, Summit Lake, and Rock 

Creek) would be within the 30 dB sound detection area of proposed OHV roads and trails in Alternative 3 (Table 

3-32). Compared to Alternative 2, Clear Creek Campground would be slightly closer to proposed OHV roads and 

trails in the McCubbins system, and Rock Creek Campground would be slightly farther away from proposed OHV 

roads and trails in the Rock Creek system. Campers would potentially experience OHV noise levels at 37 dB or less, 

an effect characterized as “quiet” (OMSI 2005). Sound from OHVs might be least acceptable to campers during night 

hours. Night riding would be permitted in Alternative 3.

In Alternative 3, a proposed OHV trail would intersect the boundary of Sportsman’s Park residential area allowing 

direct access for residents to the proposed Rock Creek system. The potential OHV noise effect at the boundary would 

be 99 dB, a level capable of causing serious health effects if the noise were sustained for eight hours (OMSI 2005). In 

reality, noises at this point location would be expected to be ephemeral. It is also likely that the sound level would be 

considerably less than 99 dB. Virtually all use of the access trail to Sportsman’s Park would be by homeowners who 

have a stake in the livability of their community. Also, most of the OHV use on the trail would be Class I ATVs that 

generally are quieter than motorcycles. There are currently 53 property owners at Sportsman’s Park that own a Class I 

ATV (Bursell, personal communication, 2008).
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 39

Table 3-32. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially affected 

(non-motorized trails, developed recreation sites and wilderness areas) by OHVs on proposed 

routes by proposed system for Alternative 3. Noise effect symbols: VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A 

= annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour exposure). Alignment symbols: parallel (=); 

perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed OHV 

route, the highest sound pressure (column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the 

sound would diminish to 20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = 

wilderness; A3 = research natural area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.

Proposed OHV 

System

Name of

Non-Motorized 

Trail, Site or Area

Shortest Distance 

Between Motor 

and Non-Motor 

Trails (ft)

Motor Sound 

Level at Shortest 

Distance Point 

(dB)*

Noise 

Effect

Alignment of 

Non-Motor 

Trail or Area to 

Motor Route*

Length or Area 

Where Motor 

Sound May Be 

Detected

Bear Creek Trail 632 158 ft. 59 A/Q = 0.6 Mi.

Gibson Prairie Trail 688 2,534 ft. 35 VQ = 1.2 Mi.

Graham Pass Sugar Pine A4 1,320 ft. 41 Q/VQ O 35 Ac.

La Dee Trail 507 (W) 917 ft. 44 Q ^ 1.1 Mi.

Trail 521 917 ft. 44 Q ^ 0.3 Mi.

Trail 521 (W) 2,321 ft. 36 Q/VQ ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 783 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 1.1 Mi.

Trail 788 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 0.9 Mi.

Salmon-Huck. W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 4,450 Ac.

Roaring River W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 5,400 Ac.

Squaw Mdws. A4 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 774 Ac.

McCubbins Trail 487 2,750 ft. 35 VQ ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 490 211 ft. 57 A/Q ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 490A 634 ft. 47 Q = 2.9 Mi.

Clear Creek CG 2,090 ft. 37 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Keeps Mill CG 3,749 ft. 32 VQ O < 10 Ac.

L. White R. W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 400 Ac.

Mt. Defiance Trail 413 (W) 3,106 ft. 34 VQ ^ 0.9 Mi.

Trail 413B 3,572 ft. 32 VQ ^ 0.4 Mi.

Trail 414 3,339 ft. 33 VQ ^ 0.1 Mi.

Trail 417 158 ft. 59 A/Q ^ 1.5 Mi.

Trail 417 (W) 1,766 ft. 39 VQ ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 417A 158 ft. 59 A/Q ^ 0.1 Mi.

Trail 610 528 ft. 49 Q ^ 0.9 Mi.

Mark Hatfield W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 320 Ac.

Peavine Summit Lake CG 4,224 ft. 31 VQ O <10 Ac.

Rock Creek Trail 458 (W) 1,109 ft. 43 Q/VQ = 1.4 Mi.

Trail 463 4,265 ft. 31 VQ ^ 0.3 Mi.

Trail 464 2,918 ft. 34 VQ ^ 0.4 Mi.

Trail 465 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 0.9 Mi.

Trail 466 (W) 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 1.2 Mi.

Trail 466A 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 0.9 Mi.

Trail 478 634 ft. 47 Q = 4.9 Mi.

Trail 479 (W) 684 ft. 47 Q = 2.9 Mi.

Trail 479A 0 ft. 99 SHD8 ^ 0.2 Mi.

Trail 479A (W) 673 47 Q ^ 0.7 Mi.

Rock Creek CG 3,592 ft. 32 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Sportsman’s Park 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 70 Ac.

Badger Creek W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 4,300 Ac.

Grasshopper A5 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 1,260 Ac.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 40

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would have the least potential effect from OHV noise (Table 3-33). The number of non-motorized trails 

where users would be potentially affected by OHV noise would be four, with a combined affected length of 6.6 miles. 

There are a total of 940 miles of non-motorized trails managed by the Forest, so OHV sound would potentially affect 

less than 1% of all non-motorized trails miles. No potentially affected trail is in a designated wilderness area. 

Table 3-33. Sound pressure (dB) estimates, noise effect and amount of area potentially 

affected (non-motorized trails, developed recreation sites and wilderness areas) by 

OHVs on proposed routes by proposed system for Alternative 4. Noise effect symbols: 

VQ = very quiet; Q = quiet; A = annoying; SHD8 = serious hearing damage (8 hour 

exposure). Alignment symbols: parallel (=); perpendicular (^); area (O). *Note: For a 

non-motorized trail perpendicular to a proposed OHV route, the highest sound pressure 

(column 4) would be only at the closest point (column 3); the sound would diminish to 

20 dB over the distance indicated in column 7. C = campground; W = wilderness; A3 = 

research natural area; A4 = special interest area; A5 = unroaded recreation.

Proposed OHV 

System

Name of

Non-Motorized Trail , 

Site or Area

Shortest 

Distance 

Between 

Motor and 

Non-Motor 

Trails

Motor 

Sound at 

Shortest 

Distance 

Point

(dB)*

Noise 

Effect

Alignment of 

Non-Motor 

Trail or Site to 

Motor Route*

Length 

or Area 

Where Motor Sound 

May Be 

Detected

LaDee Flats None

McCubbins 

Gulch

Trail 487 3,310 ft. 33 VQ ^ 0.2 Mi.

Trail 490 211 ft. 57 A/Q ^ 0.7 Mi.

Trail 490A 634 ft. 47 Q = 2.9 Mi.

Clear Creek CG 2,690 ft. 35 VQ O < 10 Ac.

Keeps Mill CG 3,749 ft. 32 VQ O < 10 Ac.

L. White R. W 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 250 Ac.

Rock Creek Trail 478 634 ft. 47 Q = 2.8 Mi.

Grasshopper A5 0 ft. 99 SHD8 O 840 Ac.

None of the trails in Table 3-33 intersect a proposed OHV road or trail. The median shortest distance between a 

proposed OHV road or trail and a non-motorized trail would be 634 feet. At this distance, the sound level would be 

47 dB, an effect characterized as a “quiet” (OMSI 2005). In Alternative 4, the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail falls 

outside the 30 dB OHV sound detection area.

OHV noise from proposed OHV roads, trails and one area in Alternative 4 would potentially affect people using 250 

acres in the Lower White River Wilderness (Table 3-33). There are no managed trails in this wilderness, so the effect 

to people would be minimal. 

Only Clear Creek and Keeps Mill Campgrounds would be within the 30 dB sound detection areas of proposed OHV 

roads and trails in Alternative 4 (Table 3-33). The potential effects from OHV noise at both of these campgrounds 

would be the same as in Alternative 2. Campers would potentially experience OHV noise levels at 35 dB or less, an 

effect characterized as “quiet” (OMSI 2005).

Sportsman’s Park residential area would not be directly affected by OHV noise from proposed Rock Creek system 

roads and trails. Some residents may notice noise from their neighbors loading OHVs onto trailers to haul them to 

designated routes.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 41

Cumulative Effects – Noise from OHVs

Virtually all of the noise effects on non-motorized trails would be related to OHVs on motorized mixed-use roads. 

Other routine and customary vehicular traffic would continue to use the roads, however most road noise from 

licensed vehicles would have a sound level less than 70 dB (OMSI 2005). The distance at which this sound level would 

dampen to 30 dB is about 166 feet, substantially less than the distance for OHV noise. The volume of traffic on all of 

the proposed motorized mixed-use roads is not known.

3.1.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Forest has not done a comprehensive inventory of user-created OHV routes resulting from repeated crosscountry travel. Early in the development of this project, OHV users were invited to suggest routes (both for Forest 

Service roads and trails as well as user-created routes) that they wanted to have considered as designated OHV 

routes. Some of these routes are included in the action alternatives. Knowing the location and condition of other 

user-created routes would be useful in order to decommission them, however such an inventory was not considered 

vital for this analysis.

The 2003 National Visitor Use Monitoring study provides a gross, Forestwide estimate of visitor participation in 

motorized vehicle sports. Statistics are only valid at the Forest level. NVUM does not provide any information 

about how that participation is distributed in time or space. The study also does not indicate what classes of vehicles 

were used at the time of the survey. Information about specific location of current OHV use is based on empirical 

information (field observation and discussions with users).

This analysis reports the potential sound level from OHVs that might be heard on non-motorized trails, at developed 

recreation sites, and in wilderness areas. It does not evaluate the probability that these sounds would actually be 

heard by humans or the duration of that sound. The amount of use that the affected non-motorized trails receive 

is not known, nor is the volume of traffic on all of the proposed motorized routes. Knowing current trail and road 

use could have provided a way to estimate the probability of noise conflicts. However, for many quiet users of the 

Forest, any OHV noise (or even knowing that such a noise might be heard) has a negative effect on their recreation 

experience (Moore 1994). Therefore, it was felt that determining the location of potential noise conflicts was more 

important than estimating the probability of such conflicts.

The Forest’s gravel and native surface road system connects to roads on lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management along the western boundary of the Forest (south of Estacada and north of Opal Creek). The number of 

connected miles open to OHVs on other ownerships in this vicinity is considerable, but not know precisely. The exact 

number of miles of connected roads would not affect the conclusions made in this analysis.

3.2. Soils

This analysis is based on the information found in the Soils Specialist Report for this project, which is in the project 

record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.2.1. Affected Environment

Soil types used in this analysis were derived from the Mt. Hood National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Howes 

1979). Each proposed OHV system was evaluated individually due to the variety of ecotypes and soils present. This 

analysis also provides unique and new challenges regarding how to measure and predict impacts using standards that 

apply primarily to timber management practices in the era of the Forest Plan when it was new. The existing standards 

still work very well for assessing and predicting impacts to soil productivity in specifically bounded and measurable 

areas, such as stands undergoing vegetation treatments. However, they are more difficult to use for recently 

completed analyses, such as grazing and invasive plant treatments where the analysis area is so large that collection of 

soil samples is not practical, or a standard does not exist to address a specific concern. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 42

For this EIS, the primary concerns are soil erosion risk, proximity to sensitive lands or features (such as meadows), 

and the ability of the soil to resist impacts and ability to recover from those impacts (resiliency) as a way to evaluate 

productivity. The scale for the soil erosion analysis were points and trail segments that are of highest risk for erosion, 

especially the potential for material that could be delivered to watercourses. The scale for productivity impacts (i.e., 

detrimental soil conditions caused by compaction) on the land have typically been evaluated and monitored at a 

stand scale of five to 60 acres and works very well, but is a very timber management point of view. Evaluating at an 

extremely fine scale, such as the trail tread itself, would no doubt show high detrimental impacts and nearly total 

productivity loss. From the standpoint of site scale and larger, this is not much different than viewing a patch of 

bare ground a few feet square and calling the area denuded and unproductive, even though it may be surrounded 

by healthy vegetation. Evaluating at a landscape or even a mid-scale, productivity impacts from OHV trail treads 

would appear almost invisible, narrow lines across hundreds of acres partially masked where they overlap existing 

roads. Based on this line of thinking, the focus of the analysis for all proposed OHV routes was based upon two main 

factors: 1) erosion risk at a very site-specific scale for potential off site impacts to water; and 2) at the OHV system 

scale for sensitive land risk and soil resistance/resiliency. Both factors are based on the amount of land potentially 

impacted system by system and by alternative. Comparison of the alternatives was measured relative to one another 

by OHV system using a set of tables to score proximity to sensitive land and landscape resilience/resistance.

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System (Soil Types 107, 312, 313, 320)

This analysis area has been impacted by many types of OHV use for several years, especially the flat western side 

where soil type 107 is mapped (the actual LaDee Flats proper). Soil 107 has a dense clay pan that restricts water 

infiltration, which causes ponding and high water tables year round. Despite the obvious visible damage, of the eight 

proposed OHV systems, this one is one of the most resilient to disturbance, and once vehicle traffic is eliminated 

from sensitive areas they should revegetate quickly. Soils on this flat are not highly erosive due to very level terrain 

and because the high amount of sticky clay tends to hold particles together. 

At present, no defined staging area exists to accommodate the current use, so public parking occurs spontaneously 

where there are existing wide spots or pullouts. Ditchline mudding is a chronic problem because of the frequent 

standing water in some ditches due to the high water table, and the water tends to remain muddy for long periods of 

time because the extremely fine clay particles remain suspended in water. Fortunately, very few active drainageways 

are present, so dislodged soil particles tend to remain close to their source in small depressions and ditches. 

On the eastern half of the area, 300 series soils are present. These particular soil types occur on the sideslopes 

of landforms that have been glaciated and are much steeper than the westside. No clay pan is present and water 

infiltration is very fast due to the sandy and rocky nature of these soils. 

Peavine Proposed OHV System (Soil Types 304, 305)

This analysis area has one flat native surface road and many gravel roads that are in stable condition. Existing 

legal use of roads is occurring; and no soil damage was observed. At present, no defined staging area exists to 

accommodate current incidental use. Soils are derived from volcanic ash that has undergone considerable mixing 

with glacial deposits, resulting in rocky, sandy soils. The landform is gentle and rolling. 

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System (Soil Type 309)

This analysis area is very similar to Peavine with gentle rounded slopes; glaciated, sandy and rocky soils with high 

infiltration. With the exception of the Rho Ridge Trail, most use would occur on existing gravel roads that are 

very stable. Some small wet meadows occur near the Rho Ridge Trail in the center of this proposed OHV system. 

Although Rho Ridge Trail is open to motorized use, it does not appear to be occurring. The northern part of the 

trail has a substantial needle cast groundcover from the overstory trees there, which is providing excellent protective 

groundcover. The southern part goes through old logging units and although bare, appears very stable. No motorized 

wheel tracks of any kind were seen on site visits.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 43

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System (Soil Type 333)

This analysis area is very rocky and water tends to infiltrate readily. No evidence of OHV use was observed although 

legal use on gravel roads is allowed. At present, no defined staging area exists to accommodate the current incidental 

use. The soils and landforms are similar to Graham Pass and Peavine.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System (Soil Types 333, 6)

This analysis area contains extremely rocky soils and may be the most resistant to damage of all the proposed OHV 

systems. This area is similar to Bear Creek, but rockier. Hundreds of acres in this area have had vegetation treatments, 

primarily commercial thinning, which has provided the opportunity to produce numerous planning and monitoring 

reports regarding the soils located here. Field reviews have shown repeatedly the rocky and resistant nature of this 

area. Some OHV use is occurring on the gravel roads in the project area.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System (Soil Type 347)

This analysis area is one of the most sensitive to disturbance and has more meadows and wet areas that may tempt 

some people. At present, no defined staging area exists to accommodate the current use. Soils have been derived from 

deep volcanic ash deposits that overlie old glacial deposits. Not as much mixing of the two materials has occurred 

compared with the previous areas described above. Although this analysis area has good infiltration, the lack of rock 

content and loamy soil textures make it erosive and susceptible to damage. 

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System (Soil Type 352)

This analysis area has been a designated OHV system destination for many years with an established trail system and 

use pattern. Lack of adequate parking and staging areas has resulted in encroachment into the Forest. Surface soils 

here are similar to Gibson Prairie, although the underlying bedrock and possible glacial outwash deposits have been 

mixed together more and contain more sand and rock in the soil profile.

McCubbins Campground and the surrounding area along Clear Creek Irrigation Ditch have been nearly denuded 

of all vegetation. Evidence of soil movement directly into the irrigation ditch was observed. Vehicle controls such as 

boulders and logs have been moved by the public so they can drive and park where they want. This area is the most 

damaged of all the proposed OHV systems in terms of a continuous, bare, compacted situation. Despite the surface 

soil damage, the large trees in and around the campground appear to be surviving. They are likely tapping in to 

the ditch water nearby, which may be offsetting some of the stress on their surface roots caused by the soil damage. 

This area would be difficult to restore, but it is possible to do so using techniques such as mulch addition and shrub 

planting used with very large boulders to keep vehicle impacts away from the ditch. This area is so heavily used that 

restoration success is only ultimately possible with cooperation from the people using the area.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System (Soil Types 152, 156, 352, 353)

The eastside of this OHV system is the least resilient of the eight proposed OHV systems. Once damage occurs it is 

very difficult to repair. Soils and landform are similar, dryer versions of the McCubbins analysis area, with more open 

grassland meadows and higher pH ‘sweet’ soils. Use has been occurring for several years, and numerous user created 

trails are already established. Lack of adequate parking and staging areas has resulted in encroachment into the 

Forest. At present, no defined staging area exists to accommodate the current use.

General Forest (Numerous Soil Types)

OHV use is occurring across the Forest in locations outside of the proposed OHV systems, and it is likely there are 

more trails existing across general forested areas than are documented. Mudding, trails, and/or stream crossings have 

been observed in Ramsey Creek (new parcel primarily), Larch Creek, White River, Tygh/Jordan Creeks, Fifteenmile 

Creek, Hood River, Mill Creek, and Clackamas River. This is all user created, and often is not located properly on the 

landscape to minimize impacts to vegetation, soils and water quality, as well as other resources.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 44

The current level of impact for the general forest area is the most difficult to characterize for two primary reasons. 

First, the extent (geographic location) is not fully known and probably increases from year to year; and second, the 

actual level of impact (heavily vs. slightly) within each geographic area has not been ranked. Despite the lack of hard 

data, anecdotal information from reliable resource professionals has been known for several years, with the consensus 

being that use is on an ever increasing upward trend. 

3.2.2. Effects Analysis

Indirect and Direct Effects

The indirect and direct effects for each alternative are discussed below. Effects for each alternative are discussed by 

proposed OHV system. A summary of the effects by alternative is presented at the end of this section. Following this 

section is a discussion of the cumulative impacts.

Alternative 1 – No Action

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

This analysis area has been closed by a Forest Order. However, illegal use is continuing and is hindering revegetation 

of bare areas. Circumstances described in the existing condition would continue. Damaged soils would remain in 

detrimental condition, and adjacent relatively undisturbed areas would remain at risk by encroachment of various 

types of off road vehicles, parking, and continued ditchline mudding. The abundance of water in this area provides an 

obvious attraction to some riders, and without more, larger, better placed physical controls and barriers they could 

continue to go off trail as they do now. 

Peavine Proposed OHV System

No OHV damage to soils was observed during field visits, and no damage would be expected with this alternative, 

even with the continuation of use from street legal vehicles on existing gravel roads. No staging area would be 

constructed. 

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

No OHV damage to soils was observed during field visits, and no damage would be expected with this alternative. No 

staging area would be constructed. Existing gravel road use would continue.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

No trail construction would occur. No OHV damage to soils was observed, and none would be expected with this 

alternative. No staging area would be constructed. Existing gravel road use would continue, although it appears to be 

very light and sporadic.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

With no action, existing gravel road use would continue to occur, causing very minimal impact to soils.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

This system has been closed by a Forest Order. Nevertheless, illegal use continues. This area is the most sensitive 

to disturbance and has more meadows and wet areas than other proposed OHV systems. These kinds of natural 

sensitive features tempt some riders, so it follows that there is the risk of damage to soils. No staging area would 

be constructed. As with the LaDee Flats OHV system, damaged soils would remain in detrimental condition, and 

adjacent relatively undisturbed areas would remain at risk by encroachment of various types of off road vehicles.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 45

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

This system has been an OHV destination for many years with established trail and use patterns. With no action, 

parts of this area would continue to be detrimentally compacted and denuded. Ultimately, at some point the large 

trees in the campground would likely begin to outwardly show signs of distress and may have to be removed if they 

show a decline in health that causes them to become hazardous to the public. Sediment input would continue to be 

chronic in the adjacent open ditch. 

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The eastside of this OHV location is the least resilient of the eight proposed OHV systems. Due to the poor resiliency 

and open access in this area, even light use has caused lingering damage. Once damage occurs it is very difficult to 

repair. Use has been occurring for several years, and numerous user created trails are already established. Lack of 

defined parking, staging areas, and traffic controls have resulted in continued encroachment into the Forest. With no 

action, we can expect to see further encroachment and lingering soil damage.

General Forest

With the no action alternative, locations currently experiencing OHV use would likely continue to be increasingly 

impacted. New use would continue to initiate in places where topography and vegetation allow. Existing user created 

trails, as well as those appearing in the future, have and could continue to be located in places prone to high erosion 

and sedimentation risks.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

This alternative would define specific routes and parking (staging) areas, which would provide the opportunity 

to recover parts of routes and variously shaped parking areas typically denuded and muddy. This would be an 

improvement over the existing condition by providing groundcover to reduce erosion risks. The staging area parking 

proposed in this alternative would occur on an already disturbed timber sale landing. Therefore, no additional 

impacts are expected.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

Very little impact is expected from this system. Almost all the OHV route surface in this alternative is graveled, 

which, along with the flat terrain and rocky soils, results in very low erosion potential.

 

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

In this alternative, 39 miles of new motorcycle trail would be built. Planned trails have numerous switchbacks to keep 

close to the contour, reducing the erosion risk. This analysis area is very rocky and water tends to infiltrate rapidly. 

The narrowness of the motorcycle trail would reduce the amount of clearing and width as compared with larger 

OHVs. Nevertheless, this system proposes the highest amount of new construction, as compared to the other action 

alternatives. As with most new disturbance, the highest risk for erosion is within the first few years. The risk then 

levels off. This situation is no different, and due to the areas rockiness, the risk after a few years should be quite low. 

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 46

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

In this alternative, the Gibson Prairie system has the potential to damage more sensitive land than any other system 

because of the proximity of trails to meadows and wet areas. Types of damage that occurs in such areas include wheel 

ruts, devegetation, loss of soil structure that reduces infiltration rates, subsequent runoff during heavy rains, and 

reduced revegetation rates. The staging area proposed in this alternative would occur on an already disturbed and 

graveled loading/unloading zone used for cattle drop-off and pick-up. Therefore, no additional impacts are expected.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

This alternative adds about five more miles to the current trail system, and would not address current problems with 

forest encroachment explained in the existing condition section. Therefore, additional miles of trial would increase 

the possibility of further encroachment into the forest. The staging area parking proposed in this alternative would 

occur on an already disturbed timber sale landing. Therefore, no additional impacts are expected.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The Rock Creek system in this alternative is not much different than what is currently on the ground. The Day Use 

Area is already impacted and being used frequently; and eliminating overnight camping would not change or reduce 

existing impacts. As with the McCubbins system, an additional 6 miles of trail construction would increase the 

possibility of further encroachment.

General Forest

Under this alternative no OHV use would be allowed outside proposed roads and trails, including gravel roads, with 

the new policy of the Forest being ‘closed unless designated open’. Therefore, further impacts to the general forest 

caused by OHVs would not occur, which is a substantial improvement from the current condition. Existing impacts 

would be able to mend themselves, with active restoration projects occurring where needed to speed the recovery 

process.

Alternative 3 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System 

This would be very similar to Alternative 2, but with slightly more mileage due to the conversion of three roads from 

mixed-use to strictly trail; and the addition of one more staging area on the Abbott Road viewpoint. Although this 

has the potential to be the most impactful of the action alternatives by simply adding to the system, it also has the 

potential to be a great improvement over the existing condition by controlling access and keeping riders restricted to 

defined trail treads. This is especially true with the practice of ditchline mudding. The staging area parking proposed 

in this alternative would occur on an already disturbed timber sale landing. Therefore, no additional impacts are 

expected. 

Peavine Proposed OHV System

In this alternative, routes south of Road 42 would be dropped and several miles would be added to the west to make 

a viable system. A total of approximately nine miles of new construction would occur compared to three miles in 

Alternative 2. In addition, route miles would add up to about 50, versus 38 in Alternative 2. This would cause more 

impact by virtue of the additional miles than the system in Alternative 2, thus increasing the risk of unintended 

effects.

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

Almost all the OHV route surface in this alternative is graveled, which, along with the flat terrain and rocky soils, 

results in very low erosion potential. The Rho Ridge Trail is the only native surface part, and it is very flat as well. 

Although very minor, this would pose the greatest risk to erosion from this system. If erosion does occur on the trail, 

it would be very small and travel a very short distance. A few small, wet meadows are visible along the north end of 

the trail and may be an unfortunate attraction to some riders. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 47

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

Effects would be very similar to Alternative 2. The risk of erosion from new trails would be less overall because some 

existing roads would be used, which would reduce new construction by about six miles. 

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

All six miles of the OHV trail surface in this alternative are graveled. In addition, the rocky nature of the area makes 

it very resistant to erosional forces. Therefore, no additional soil impacts are expected.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

In this alternative, the amount of trail proposed is much smaller than in Alternative 2, and is also located away from 

places like Gibson and Long Prairies. Therefore, the risk to sensitive land is less than alternative 2. 

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

Increasing total mileage of the system proposed in this alternative is the most potentially impactive of the action 

alternatives due to the increased risk of forest encroachment and direct soil impacts from the trail system itself. The 

staging area parking proposed in this alternative would occur on an already disturbed timber sale landing. Therefore, 

no additional impacts are expected.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The Rock Creek system in this alternative is not much different than what is currently on the ground. The Day Use 

Area is already impacted and being used frequently; and eliminating overnight camping would not change or reduce 

existing impacts. As with the McCubbins system, an additional seven miles of trail construction would increase the 

amount of current impact, as well as increase the possibility of further encroachment. Adding the 4860 Road is not 

expected to increase impacts. However, it does increase the possibility of more intense impacts in and around the 

Badger Lake Campground at the end of the road.

General Forest

Under this alternative no OHV use would be allowed outside proposed roads and trails, including gravel roads, with 

the new policy of the Forest being ‘closed unless designated open’. Therefore, further impacts to the general forest 

caused by OHVs would not occur, which is a substantial improvement from the current condition. Existing impacts 

would be able to mend themselves, with active restoration projects occurring where needed to speed the recovery 

process.

Alternative 4

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

The proposed eastside system and additional Abbott Road staging area located on glaciated soil types would be 

dropped in this alternative. Impacts from the remaining proposed system on LaDee Flats itself would be similar 

to Alternatives 2 and 3. The staging area parking proposed in this alternative would occur on an already disturbed 

timber sale landing. Therefore, no additional impacts are expected.

 

Peavine Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 48

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

No OHV use is proposed under this alternative. Current legal use would be eliminated; therefore, the risk of having 

impacts off the road systems would be reduced as discussed under ‘General Forest’ below.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

This is a substantially smaller proposed system than alternatives 2 or 3, with only one mile of new construction. 

In addition to reduced impacts, this alternative would close some user created trails, providing an opportunity 

to restore, revegetate, and reduce erosion risk on unauthorized trails. The staging area parking proposed in this 

alternative would occur on an already disturbed timber sale landing. Therefore, no additional impacts are expected.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The Rock Creek system in this alternative is smaller with less new construction and no Day Use Area proposed. 

Therefore, it is the least impactive of the action alternatives.

 

General Forest

Under this alternative no OHV use would be allowed outside proposed roads and trails, including gravel roads, with 

the new policy of the Forest being ‘closed unless designated open’. Therefore, further impacts to the general forest 

caused by OHVs would not occur, which is a substantial improvement from the current condition. Existing impacts 

would be able to mend themselves, with active restoration projects occurring where needed to speed the recovery 

process.

Summary of Alternatives

Of the alternatives, Alternative 4 is the least impacting, followed by alternatives 2, 3, and then 1. Because of the 

extensive area that has been impacted, along with the likely potential for increasing impacts in so many locations 

across the entire Forest, Alternative 1 is by far the most potentially damaging to soils across the General Forest of 

any action alternative. Of all the OHV systems proposed, Rock Creek, due to its proximity to numerous meadows 

and lack of resiliency to damage, ranks out as the most at risk with regard to possible soil damage in all action 

alternatives.

Two groups of OHV systems are evident regardless of alternative – set one includes Rock Creek, McCubbins Gulch, 

Gibson Prairie, LaDee Flat, and Graham Pass. This set of OHV systems is of higher concern than set two, which 

include Bear Creek, Peavine, and Mt. Defiance. OHV systems from set two occur on soils that are very resistant to 

forces that result in adverse soil conditions. 

If parts of alternatives are chosen, the absolute least impactive scenario would be to choose the least amount of OHV 

systems that occur on the most resistant/resilient land with no sensitive features nearby.

The following table is a useful visual illustration to show the impacts of each proposed OHV system by alternative 

compared to one another.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 49

Table 3-34. Proposed OHV system and alternative comparison for soils.

Ranking Based on Score*

OHV System Alternative 1 (No 

Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

LaDee Flats 4 4 3 2

Peavine 5 5 6 4

Graham Pass 4 6 4 4

Bear Creek 5 5 8 4

Mt. Defiance 5 6 7 4

Gibson Prairie 2 2 5 4

McCubbins Gulch 4 3 2 3

Rock Creek 3 1 1 1

General Forest 1 6 9 4

Overall Predicted 

Impact by 

Alternative

HIGHEST (1) LOW (3) HIGH (2) LOWEST (4)

*Scores were derived from a series of tables located in the project file at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, OR.

Cumulative Effects

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

Within the past year, trail closures have been implemented. Revegetation should occur within a few years, which 

would provide a slight improvement over the current condition, as well as offset impacts that would occur from 

implementing one of the action alternatives, if chosen.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

Timber sales and numerous road closures have been implemented within the last five years. Soil monitoring in the 

area has shown acceptable levels of soil impacts and the overall area is recovering well compared to when all the 

roads were open. The proposed OHV system would not likely bring the area back to the high level of disturbance 

when timber sales and open roads impacted the area.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

This area receives a great deal of current and expected use: Long Prairie Grazing Allotment (grazing, fences and other 

design criteria); closure of illegal OHV trails; and expected impacts from vegetation, restoration, and trail projects 

described in the North Fork Mill Planning Area. Add to this the possibility of an OHV system, and the trend is for a 

spike in increased disturbance over a 5-10 year period, which would then lower and level off to a higher baseline than 

today.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

In addition to the existing use, several timber sales have been implemented in this area. The most recent and the one 

that has the most bearing upon this particular OHV system is the Path sale. Soil quality monitoring for impacts from 

the timber sale will occur once the final fuel reduction treatment is implemented. 

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

As with Gibson Prairie, this area receives a great deal of current and expected use: grazing; several past and one active 

timber sale; underburning; and current OHV use. The disturbance trend would be similar to Gibson Prairie as well.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 50

Peavine, Graham Pass, and Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV Systems

There are no cumulative effects expected for these OHV systems.

General Forest

Under the No Action Alternative OHVs would continue to operate off roads and trails where they are currently not 

restricted. Projects that influence trail tread and soil erosion, such as road and trail maintenance, reconstruction and 

decommissioning, fuels treatments, and timber harvest, have the potential to cumulatively impact soil when overlain 

with OHV use. However, locations having the potential for cumulative impacts would be very site specific and would 

not influence the trend for soil disturbance to be Forestwide. Under all of the action alternatives OHVs would no 

longer be permitted to travel off of roads and trails. Because OHVs would not operate in these locations, there would 

be no cumulative impacts associated with the action alternatives. 

3.2.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

A complete inventory of current OHV impacts across the Forest is missing from this analysis.

3.3. Water Quality

This analysis is based on the information found in the Water Quality Specialist Report for this project, which is in the 

project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.3.1. Affected Environment

It has been speculated that research and study of the direct effects of OHV use on water quality has received very little 

attention due, in part, to the fact that research has been focused on OHV use in arid environments where aquatic 

environments are either seasonal or rare (Ouren et al. 2007). In some cases, scientists utilize research on effects of 

roads to draw parallels with potential effects from OHV trails (Ouren et al. 2007). In general, roads and OHV trails 

are similar in potential effects, but differ in the magnitude of some of these effects due to the smaller template (i.e., 

width) of a trail versus a road. Two main potential water pollutants resulting from OHVs are sediment and OHVdispersed chemicals. Sediment can be directly introduced into surface water via tires and indirectly through erosion 

and runoff from trail systems. There may be up to five major processes to introduce sediment into aquatic systems 

from OHVs: 1) the exposure of surfaces; 2) the concentration of surface runoff in wheel ruts; 3) soil compaction and 

subsequent reduction of water infiltration leading to increased surface runoff; 4) backwash from the vehicles as they 

enter and exit a crossing; and 5) undercutting of stream banks by wave action as vehicles travel through water (Brown 

1994). OHV-dispersed chemicals, such as oil and gas, can enter aquatic systems via direct flushing from spills and 

emissions or indirect flushing from residue that has settled on adjacent plants or soils.

Sedimentation

OHV use has the potential to increase compaction which, in turn, decreases water infiltration into soils and increases 

surface runoff. This runoff can mobilize and transport exposed soil particles to surface water. Iverson et al. (1981) 

found that this potential is highest in areas where infiltration rates are low, slopes are steep, soil types are fine grained 

and rainfall events are frequent and intense. In that same study Iverson et al. (1981) observed that where OHVs had 

traveled over the soil, surface runoff was five times greater and yielded 10-20 times more sediment than areas where 

there was no soil disturbance. Foltz (2006) found that there was not a statistically significant difference between 

OHV use levels and soil infiltration patterns, but there was a significant difference between undisturbed areas and the 

disturbed areas. In all cases sediment loss would be expected to increase due to OHV traffic (Foltz 2006).

Total suspended solid samples were collected at an OHV stream crossing during an Alabama study in 2003 and 

2004. They found that the largest suspended sediment load contributed by the stream crossing occurred during a 

large rainstorm when the trail was closed (Ayala 2005). Modeling was completed on the same stream crossing and it 

suggested that most of the sediment load delivered to the stream was coming from a steep hillslope section that flows 

directly into the stream. This illustrates the role that natural physical factors like precipitation and slope play in the 

erosion potential of an OHV trail.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 51

Welsh et al. (2006) attempted to quantify sediment production and delivery from unpaved roads and OHV trails in 

the Upper South Platte River in Colorado. Measurements including rainfall, sediment production and other road 

characteristics were taken on road and trail segments in the area. They found that “summer rainstorms larger than 

10 mm (0.4 inches) typically produce sediment from each road and OHV segment while undisturbed areas generally 

produce no surface runoff ”(Welsh et al. 2006). Sediment production from OHV trails was more than five times the 

mean value from unpaved roads.

Dust, Bacteriological and Chemical Contaminants

As described above, OHV use has the potential to introduce other chemicals into the aquatic environment. Airborne 

dust and contaminants absorbed to dust particles created by OHV traffic has the potential to settle out in wetlands 

(Forman et al. 2003). Contaminants, including petroleum products, may enter water through direct flushing. This 

could happen on trails, but is more likely to be a concern in staging areas where vehicles are parked and OHVs are 

refueled. 

Shepp (1996) compared total hydrocarbon contents from automotive sources in storm runoff from four urban 

settings: an all-day parking lot, a busy street, a gasoline station, and a convenience store parking lot. Highest 

hydrocarbon concentrations were found in runoff water from the convenience store parking lot and the lowest 

concentrations were from the all-day parking lot. Shepp (1996) suggests that seepage from oil bearing regions of a 

car are greatest during “thermal expansion and contraction” or immediately after you start a car or shut it off. He 

observed that high concentrations of hydrocarbons in parking lots are a function of two factors: 1) the duration 

of automobile exposure (i.e., the time a given impervious surface is exposed to hot vehicles in a thermal expansion 

mode); and 2) the volume of automotive exposure (i.e., the number of hot vehicles in a thermal expansion mode 

exposed to a given impervious surface). This would explain why a convenience store parking lot would have high 

concentrations of hydrocarbons when compared to an all-day parking lot. 

There is a potential for bacteriological water contamination from intensive recreation use. Introduction of fecal 

coliform is possible in areas that do not have toilet facilities. A discussion of this issue is included in the Fisheries 

section. 

Analysis Area Description

Current OHV use is located in nearly every fifth (5th) field watershed on the Forest. The range of elevation and 

precipitation ranges from 25 to 5,400 feet and 10 to 120 inches, respectively. Following are existing conditions for 

each of the proposed OHV roads, trails and area. 

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the East Fork Hood River and West Fork Hood River fifth field watersheds. There 

are around 4.5 miles of intermittent streams and 12.5 miles of perennial streams in the general area. Major streams 

include Tony Creek, Bear Creek, Boomer Creek, Marco Creek, Dry Run Creek and Tumbledown Creek. Elevations 

are fairly high ranging from 3,200 feet to 4,800 feet. Average annual precipitation is approximately 70 to 102 inches. 

Approximately 750 acres on the westside of the general area is located within the Tier 1 West Fork Hood River Key 

Watershed. Portions of this area are in the Clear Branch Hood River Special Emphasis Watershed.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the Mosier Creek and Hood River fifth field watersheds. There are around five 

miles of intermittent streams and 7.6 miles of perennial streams in the general area. Major streams include North 

Fork Mill Creek, West Fork Neal Creek and Mosier Creek. Elevations range from 3,400 feet to 4,000 feet, while 

average annual precipitation is approximately 40 to 78 inches. Almost 3,000 acres on the south side of the analysis 

area is located within the Tier 1 Mill/Fivemile/Eightmile Creeks Key Watershed. Some user created trails were noted 

during various field visits, mostly in the Long Prairie and Gibson Prairie areas. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 52

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the White River and Tygh Creek fifth field watersheds. There are around 23.3 

miles of intermittent streams and 21.7 miles of perennial streams in the general area. Major streams include Souva 

Creek, South Fork Gate Creek, Gate Creek, Rock Creek, Wildcat Creek and Lost Creek. The general area is in a wide 

elevation band ranging from 2,200 feet to 5,400 feet. Average annual precipitation is highly variable ranging between 

approximately 18 to 90 inches. Precipitation amounts are highest on the west end and lower as you move east. All of 

the analysis area is located within the Tier 2 White River Key Watershed. Based on field observations, there are user 

created trails focused in areas north and west of Sportsman’s Park and between Gate Creek and Sportsman’s Park.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the Middle Deschutes River, White River and Beaver Creek fifth field watersheds. 

There are around 20 miles of intermittent streams and 11.8 miles of perennial streams in the general area. Major 

streams include White River, Frog Creek, Indian Creek, Clear Creek and the Clear Creek Ditch. Elevations range 

from 2,800 feet to 3,600 feet. Average annual precipitation is highly variable ranging between approximately 22 to 

38 inches. Precipitation amounts are highest on the west end and lower as you move east. Most of the analysis area 

is located within the Tier 2 White River Key Watershed. This area is currently being used for motorized recreation. 

Numerous OHV trails were observed during field visits made during the summer of 2008. Areas of erosion and 

sedimentation were noted, the most severe being the area in and adjacent to the McCubbins Gulch Campground. 

Several OHV trails were noted in and around the McCubbins Gulch channel and riparian area and past efforts to 

discourage use in this area had been breached or compromised.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River and Upper Clackamas River fifth field 

watersheds. There are around 36 miles of intermittent streams and 17.4 miles of perennial streams in the general 

area. Major streams include Clackamas River, Last Creek, Warm Springs River, Peavine Creek, Pinhead Creek, Dyke 

Creek and Dry Creek. Elevations range from 2,800 feet to 5,000 feet. Average annual precipitation ranges between 

approximately 56 to 80 inches. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located entirely within the Middle Clackamas River fifth field watershed. There are around 15 

miles of intermittent streams and ten miles of perennial streams in the general area. Major streams include North 

Fork Clackamas River, Boyer Creek, Clackamas River, Moore Creek and Winslow Creek. The general area is in a wide 

elevation band ranging from 1,400 feet to 4,600 feet. Average annual precipitation ranges between approximately 70 

to 98 inches. The general area is adjacent to Tier 1 Salmon River Key Watershed, Tier 1 Roaring River Key Watershed, 

Tier 1 Clackamas River/Oak Grove Fork Corridors Key Watershed and Tier 2 Eagle Creek Key Watershed. This area 

is currently being used for motorized recreation. Numerous user-created OHV trails were observed during field 

visits made during the summer of 2008. Many areas of erosion and sedimentation were noted on user created OHV 

trails adjacent to the 4610 and 4611 road systems. These trails were less frequent on the eastern side of the area due to 

steeper topography that limited off-road use. 

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the Collawash River and Upper Clackamas River fifth field watersheds. Major 

streams in the general area include Clackamas River, Hunter Creek, Collawash River, Berry Creek, Rhododendron 

Creek and Lowe Creek. Elevations range from 2,800 feet to 5,200 feet. Average annual precipitation ranges between 

approximately 70 to 90 inches. Portions of the general area are located within the Tier 1 Collawash River Key 

Watershed and the Upper Collawash River Special Emphasis Watershed. 

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

This OHV system is located within the Hood River and West Fork Hood River fifth field watersheds. The major 

stream in the area is Ditch Creek. Elevations range from 3,000 feet to 4,200 feet and average annual precipitation 

ranges between approximately 50 to 80 inches. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 53

Drinking Water

Surface and groundwater drinking water protection areas were delineated by the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and Oregon Health Division (OHD) in response to source water assessments 

required by the 1996 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). DEQ and OHD were required 

to delineate the groundwater and surface water source areas which supply public water systems, inventory each of 

those areas to determine potential sources of contamination, and determine the most susceptible areas at risk for 

contamination. Public water systems with greater than three hook-ups or serving more than 10 people, year-round 

are regulated by the requirements in the SDWA. 

Watersheds originating on the Forest supply high quality drinking water to approximately one million people in 

Oregon. There are fifteen drinking water source areas including the City of Estacada, Hood River, The Dalles and the 

Timber Lake Job Corps (Table 3-35) on the Forest that contain proposed OHV roads, trails and area in them. Nine 

of the fifteen areas are surface water sources while six source water areas are groundwater. The table below shows the 

fifteen drinking water source areas and which alternative has proposed OHV roads, trails and area in them. 

Table 3-35. Proposed OHV roads, trails and area within drinking water source areas by 

alternative.

Drinking Water Source Areas and Water 

Source Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Canby Utility Board-Molalla River X

City of Estacada-Clackamas River X X X X

City of Molalla-Molalla River X

City of Sandy-Alder Creek X

Clackamas River Water-Clackamas River X

Corbett Water District-N. Fk. and S.Fk. 

Gordon Creek X

Rhododendron Summer Homes Assoc.-

Henry Creek X

The Dalles (Water Treatment)-Dog River 

and S. Fk. Mill Creek X X

USFS Ripplebrook RS/Timberlake Job 

Corps-Frog Lake* X X X

Crystal Springs Water DistrictGroundwater Source Area X

Government Camp Water SystemGroundwater Source Area X

City of Hood River-Groundwater Source 

Area X

Oak Grove Water Company-Groundwater 

Source Area X X

Sportsmans Park Water AssociationGroundwater Source Area X

USFS Timberline Lodge-Groundwater 

Source Area X

*Frog Lake is a back-up water source for the Timber Lake Job Corps. The primary water source is a well.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 54

Clean Water Act

Rivers, streams, and lakes within and downstream of the proposed OHV locations are used for boating, fishing, 

swimming, and other water sports. Additionally, Forest streams provide habitat and clean water for fish and other 

aquatic biota, each with specific water quality requirements. The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects water quality for 

all of these uses. The CWA requires States to set water quality standards to support the beneficial uses of water. The 

Act also requires States to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water bodies whose water quality is limited or 

impaired. For Oregon, the DEQ develops water quality standards and lists water quality limited waters. In addition, 

Region 6 of the Forest Service has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Oregon State DEQ to 

acknowledge the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency for implementation of the CWA on National 

Forest lands. 

In an effort to support the CWA, the Forest conducts a variety of monitoring and inventory programs to determine 

status of meeting state water quality standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements. In an average 

year, approximately 60 sites are monitored for water temperature throughout the Forest. In addition, other water 

quality monitoring occurs at various locations throughout the Forest depending on the year. This could be turbidity 

monitoring, instream sediment sampling, water chemical sampling or surveys of physical stream conditions. 

Currently, approximately 20 miles of physical stream habitat is surveyed every year and to date approximately 1200 

miles of stream have been surveyed. Information collected during these surveys includes the number of pools and 

riffles, the amount of large wood, riparian area condition and types and numbers of fish and other aquatic organisms 

to name a few of the parameters. 

Various portions of ten streams on the Forest are in or adjacent to proposed OHV locations that do not meet 

Federally-approved state water quality standards (www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/wqstdshome.htm), and are now 

listed as Category 5 water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the CWA on the DEQ 2004 303(d) list. Streams on 

the Forest that are on the 303(d) list are shown in Table 3-36, along with the listed parameter. 

Table 3-36. Streams on the Forest that are in or adjacent to proposed OHV locations and 

do not meet Federally-approved state water quality standards. These streams are listed 

as Category 5 water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean water Act on the 

DEQ 2004 list. The parameter for which they are limited is listed below.

Sub-basin Stream Listed Parameter(s)

Clackamas

Clackamas River Water Temperature

Collawash River Water Temperature

Nohorn Creek Water Temperature

Lower Deschutes

Clear Creek Water Temperature

Gate Creek Water Temperature

Rock Creek Water Temperature

White River Water Temperature

Middle Columbia-Hood

Mosier Creek Water Temperature

North Fork Mill Creek Water Temperature

Mill Creek Water Temperature

Water temperature standards are based on the seven-day average maximum temperature (a running average over 

seven days is used instead of the daily average temperature). Streams listed for temperature that do not meet the 

following current state water quality criteria for salmonids are:
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 55

• Clackamas River, White River, Gate, Rock and Clear Creeks: salmon and steelhead summer rearing (64 oF); and, 

• Mosier, North Fork Mill and Mill Creeks: Year around salmon and trout rearing and migration (64.4 oF).

• Collawash River: Core cold water habitat (60.8 oF).

• Nohorn Creek: Salmon and steelhead spawning (55.4 oF).

By direction of the CWA, where water quality is limited, DEQ develops Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans 

to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water quality limited streams on National 

Forest System lands, the Forest Service provides information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support 

state processes to protect and restore water quality. To date, three TMDL plans have been completed on the Forest 

(Clackamas River in 2006; Sandy River in 2005; and West Hood Subbasin in 2002). The Miles Creek TMDL plan 

was submitted for approval to the EPA on December 29, 2008 while the other basins are planned for completion in 

the next few years. Once the TMDL plans are completed, streams would be removed from the Category 5 303(d) list 

and stream recovery would be achieved through an implementation plan. Forest Service requirements for the two 

completed TMDL plans are to follow Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan measures that protect and restore water 

quality. Actions associated with this project would be consistent with all of the TMDL plans.

In addition, a Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) has been prepared for Fish Creek (Clackamas River 

watershed) and a draft WQRP has been prepared for the headwaters of Fivemile Creek, Eightmile Creek, Fifteenmile 

Creek and Ramsey Creek by the Forest Service. The purpose of the WQRP is to identify sources and causes of 

pollution, make recommendations for Best Management Practices (BMP) and restoration to reduce levels of potential 

pollutants, display any new monitoring that is pertinent to the 303(d) listing parameters and a proposed time-table 

for completing the restoration work. Information from the WQRP is often used by DEQ to develop their TMDL plan. 

The original water temperature 303(d) listing for Fish Creek is based on water temperature monitoring data. The 

WQRP recommended riparian planting where existing stream shading was insufficient and also riparian thinning to 

promote more rapid forest growth and shade recovery along streams.

The original 303(d) listing for the other segments identified above is based on information contained in the 1994 

Miles Creek Watershed Analysis (US Forest Service 1994). According to the draft WQRP, fine sediment levels have 

been reduced in all sample sites in Eightmile Creek and all but one sample site in Fifteenmile Creek between 1994 

and 2000. The WQRP attributes the reduction, at least in part, to the implementation of a number of restoration 

projects that occurred after 1994. The draft WQRP goes on to make several recommendations including continued 

restoration as funding allows, continued fine sediment monitoring, and implementation of BMP for Forest 

management activities.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

In order for a project to proceed, “a decision maker must find that the proposed management activity is consistent 

with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (NWFP ROD B-10). The nine objectives are listed on page B-11 

of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision. Portions of the effects analysis in this section will focus on key 

parameters or indicators that make up elements of the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives to determine 

if the project would restore, maintain, or degrade these indicators. Once this determination is made, the indicators 

are examined together with the Range of Natural Variability to ascertain whether the project is consistent with the 

objectives. The following table displays specific indicators that comprise the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives 

and the effects section that covers this indicator in the EIS.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 56

Table 3-37. ACS indicators and where they are discussed in this EIS.

Indicators Analysis Found in the Effects Section(s) of the EIS

Water Temperature Water Quality

Sediment Soils, Water Quality, Fisheries

Chemical Contamination Water Quality, Fisheries

Physical Barriers Water Quality, Fisheries

Substrate Fisheries

Large Woody Debris Fisheries

Pool Frequency Fisheries

Pool Quality Fisheries

Off-Channel Habitat Fisheries

Refugia Fisheries

Width/Depth Ratio Fisheries

Streambank Condition Water Quality, Fisheries

Floodplain Connectivity Water Quality, Fisheries

Peak/base Flows Water Quality

Drainage Network Increase Water Quality

Riparian Reserves Water Quality, Fisheries

As stated above, a description of the range of natural variability of the “important physical and biological 

components” is necessary for determining whether a project “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives (NWFP ROD B-10). A summary of the range of natural variability pertaining to 

the important physical component of sedimentation is included in Appendix H of this document. In general, natural 

sediment input tends to be episodic in nature and large pulses are associated with natural disturbances such as floods 

and fires.

Key Watersheds

The Northwest Forest Plan utilizes Key Watersheds as one of the four components of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (ACS). Key Watersheds are defined as “A system of large refugia comprising watersheds that are crucial to 

at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high quality water” (NWFP ROD, B-12). These refugia include areas of 

high quality habitat as well as habitat that has been degraded. This habitat can either be the focus of restoration efforts 

or efforts to maintain the high quality habitat depending on the area. Tier 1 Key Watersheds “contribute directly to 

conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish species” while Tier 2 Key Watersheds 

are “important sources of high quality water” (NWFP ROD, B-18). As discussed above, proposed OHV systems are 

within or adjacent to several Key Watersheds on the Forest. The table below displays those locations.

Table 3-38. Proposed OHV systems located in Key Watersheds.

OHV Location

Key Watershed

West Fork Hood 

River – Tier 1 Mill – Tier 1 White River – Tier 2

Roaring River – 

Tier 1

Collawash River – 

Tier 1

Bear Creek X

Gibson Prairie X

Rock Creek X

McCubbins X

LaDee Flats X

Graham Pass X
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 57

Groundwater

Groundwater is found throughout the Forest. Groundwater depths vary considerably and range from a few feet to 

hundreds of feet from the ground surface. Geologic conditions, soil type and precipitation are a few factors that help 

determine groundwater characteristics. The direction and speed with which groundwater moves is controlled by the 

slope of the water table and aquifer permeability. Aquifer permeability is a measure of how easy it is for groundwater 

to move through the geologic material that makes up the aquifer. The steeper the slope of the water table and the 

higher the aquifer permeability, the faster groundwater would move through a geologic formation. Depending on 

conditions, it can take anywhere from several hours to many decades for groundwater to move through an aquifer. 

Groundwater traditionally comes in contact with surface streams, lakes or ponds in the form of seeps or springs. 

These seeps or springs can be sources of high quality water due to their clean, cold condition.

Riparian Conditions and Riparian Reserves 

Native riparian vegetation plays a key role in forming aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Roots help 

stabilize stream banks, preventing accelerated bank erosion and providing for the formation of undercut banks, 

important cover for juvenile and adult fish. Riparian areas with native vegetation could supply downed trees 

(large wood) to streams. In turn, downed trees in streams influence channel morphology characteristics such as 

longitudinal profile; pool size, depth, and frequency; channel pattern; and channel geometry. Turbulence created by 

large wood increases dissolved oxygen in the water needed by fish, invertebrates and other biota. The extent of the 

hyporheic zone adjacent to and under the stream surface is increased by large wood in streams. 

Riparian forest canopy protects streams from solar radiation in summer, and could moderate minimum winter 

nighttime temperature, preventing the incidence of anchor ice or freeze-up in streams (Beschta et al. 1987). Changes 

in water temperature regime could affect the survival and vigor of fish, and affect interspecies interactions (FEMAT 

1993).

Riparian areas are dynamic. Disturbances characteristic of uplands such as fire and windthrow, as well as 

disturbances associated with streams, such as channel migration, floods, sediment deposition by floods and debris 

flows, shape riparian areas (FEMAT 1993). 

As part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan, Riparian Reserves were established “along 

streams and unstable and potentially unstable areas where special standards and guidelines direct land use” (NWFP 

ROD, B-12). Riparian Reserves are “portions of watershed where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

emphasis” and standards and guidelines “prohibit and regulate activities...that retard or prevent attainment of the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (NWFP ROD, B-12). Riparian Reserve widths vary depending on the 

type of stream, wetland or unstable area. Riparian Reserves and associated riparian areas are located within every 

proposed OHV location.

Summary of Affected Environment

Water quality may be influenced through the introduction of sediment and other chemical and bacteriological 

contaminants which will be the focus of the water quality effects analysis. Some of these effects have been observed 

during field visits to current motorized trail systems on the Forest. Proposed OHV locations are located in a variety 

of aquatically sensitive areas including Key Watersheds, Riparian Reserves, drinking water source areas, and Special 

Emphasis Watersheds.

3.3.2. Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Quality (Soil Disturbance, Turbidity, and Fine Sediment)

As described in the Affected Environment section, OHV use has the potential to influence a variety of water quality 

parameters. These include stream temperature, large wood recruitment, erosion and sedimentation, stream channel 

morphology, peak and base flows and riparian area condition. Several of the channel related effects are discussed in 

the Fisheries and Soils sections. It is expected that OHV use will have a minimal effect on stream temperature. Some 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 58

vegetation has been removed to clear a trail for these crossings. Due to the narrow width needed for the trail (2’ to 3’ 

tread width; 6’ to 8’ clearing width), very little vegetation that currently provides shade is expected to be removed, so 

no increase of stream temperature is anticipated from this activity. This conclusion is based on professional judgment 

that includes examination of many stream/trail crossings throughout the National Forest system. It is expected that 

this is the case for both changes in peak and base streamflows and large wood recruitment to streams as well. The 

major potential effects identified in research, monitoring and personal field reviews are erosion, sedimentation, 

chemical contamination and riparian area condition. These will be the focus of more detailed analysis in this water 

quality effects section.

OHV use has the potential to increase erosion and resulting sedimentation (as described in the Affected Environment 

section above). In addition, OHVs have the potential to disturb or displace soil, making the soil more vulnerable to 

erosion. Alternative 1 proposes to maintain OHV trails utilizing the existing road network open to OHV use and 

the existing motorized trail network. Following is a description of each of the trail types and the resulting expected 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Mixed Use Roads: These are approximately 2,463 miles of existing roads that are currently open to OHV traffic on 

the Forest. It is expected that these roads have a neutral to slight increase in erosion due to OHV use. Non-highway 

legal vehicles may be operated in a manner that increases road surface erosion; research has found the combination 

of vehicle and skill result in faster and more aggressive moves on slopes and curves (Foltz and Meadows 2007). These 

moves have the potential to dislodge more soil particles which in turn may increase erosion and sedimentation.

Existing Motorized Trails: There are about 49 miles of motorized trails that are currently part of the Mt. Hood 

National Forest trail system. Existing trails have a risk of erosion and sedimentation as described in the Affected 

Environment section. 

Land Allocations That Do Not Prohibit Cross-country OHV Travel: Several land allocations in the Forest 

Plan currently do not prohibit cross-country OHV travel. OHVs are not prohibited from cross-country travel 

on approximately 394,886 acres of land. This cross-country travel has the potential to increase erosion and 

sedimentation due to lack of project design criteria (PDC ) on OHV routes and stream crossings, OHV use on steep 

slopes and erosive soils and uncontrolled stream crossings.

Staging Areas: Currently OHV riders stage at a variety of locations around the Forest. These areas can be wide 

spots in roads, log landing areas, quarries or other spots wide enough to park in. Erosion risk is highly variable and 

depends on the soil types in these areas and the level of use. Staging areas located in quarries or log landings likely 

have a lower risk of increased erosion and sedimentation due to the lack of soils and abundance of exposed bedrock 

and/or surface rock. Staging areas located in sites other than quarries will have an increased risk of erosion due to 

loss of vegetation and disturbance. 

The following table displays the current amount of OHV roads and trails by 5th field watershed. As displayed in the 

table, for Alternative 1, approximately 2,463 miles of road, 49 miles of trail and 394,886 miles of land are available for 

OHV use. The information has been broken down into: 1) roads where OHV use is allowed; 2) existing motorized 

trail systems; and 3) acres of land allocations that do not prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 59

Table 3-39. Total OHV road and trail miles by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.

5th Field Watershed Roads (mi) Motorized Trail (mi) Cross-country Travel (ac)

Beaver Creek 9.8 4.6 1,321

Bull Run River 9.6 0 1,384

Collawash River 250.2 4.0 17,566

Columbia Gorge Tributaries 0 0 301

Eagle Creek 23.4 0 3,094

East Fork Hood River 143.1 0 32,058

Fifteenmile Creek 42.4 0 2,502

Fivemile Creek 71.4 0 5,130

Hood River 24.9 0 5,319

Lower Clackamas River 10.3 0 1,856

Lower Molalla River 2.3 0 231

Lower Sandy River 1.2 0 9.1

Middle Clackamas River 322.2 0 43,365

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek 5.8 0 295

Middle Columbia/Grays Creek 0.7 0 419

Middle Columbia/Mill Creek 23.3 4.0 930

Middle Deschutes River 13.9 9.7 1,319

Middle Sandy River 23.2 0 4,958

Mosier Creek 7.3 0 0

North Fork Breitenbush River 0 0 0.8

Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 320.7 0 63,994

Salmon River 87.0 0 21,098

Tygh Creek 90.1 0 7,109

Upper Clackamas River 377.6 6.4 64,456

Upper Molalla River 2.7 0 1,653

Upper Sandy River 18.0 0 7,630

Warm Springs River 38.9 0 9,769

West Fork Hood River 116.0 0 26,564

White River 416.3 19.8 65,355

Zigzag River 10.8 0 5,195

Grand Total 2,463 48.5 394,881

In general, the closer a disturbance is to surface water, the higher the risk of sediment delivery to that waterbody. 

Many different studies have analyzed the likelihood of sediment delivery with differing vegetative buffer widths. 

Vegetated buffer widths effective for reducing or eliminating sediment delivery are quite variable, but generally range 

from 30 to 100 feet or more, depending on a variety of physical site characteristics (Rashin et. al. 2006, Burroughs 

and King 1989, Packer 1967, NWFP ROD 1994, Riedel 2006). The table below displays the miles of trail within 100 

feet of surface water for Alternative 1. Based on research cited above, this will be used as a general indication of the 

relative risk of sedimentation. In addition, miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves will be used later 

to characterize potential OHV effects to other riparian area features.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 60

Table 3-40. Total OHV road and trail miles within 100 feet of streams by 5th field 

watershed for Alternative 1.

5th Field Watershed Road (mi) Motorized Trail (mi)

Beaver Creek 1.1 0.2

Bull Run River 0.6 0

Collawash River 28.6 0.1

Eagle Creek 2.3 0

East Fork Hood River 9.1 0

Fifteenmile Creek 1.8 0

Fivemile Creek 5.2 0

Hood River 1.6 0

Lower Clackamas River 1.5 0

Lower Molalla River 0.2 0

Middle Clackamas River 30.7 0

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek 0.2 0

Middle Columbia/Mill Creek 0.7 0

Middle Deschutes River 2.1 1.0

Middle Sandy River 2.3 0

Mosier Creek 0.3 0

Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 26.9 0

Salmon River 7.3 0

Tygh Creek 6.1 0

Upper Clackamas River 28.1 0.3

Upper Molalla River 0.03 0

Upper Sandy River 3.2 0

Warm Springs River 3.1 0

West Fork Hood River 11.7 0

White River 24.2 1.4

Zigzag River 1.5 0

Grand Total 200.3 2.9

As described in the Affected Environment section above, stream crossings can provide an avenue for sediment 

introduction because they are directly connected to stream channels. The table below shows the number of stream 

crossings by OHV roads and trails for Alternative 1 by 5th field watershed.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 61

Table 3-41. Total OHV route stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternative 1.

5th Field Watershed Stream Crossings on Roads 

(number of crossings)

Stream Crossings on 

Motorized Trail

(number of crossings)

Beaver Creek 13 2

Bull Run River 8 0

Collawash River 521 0

Eagle Creek 47 0

East Fork Hood River 180 0

Fifteenmile Creek 28 0

Fivemile Creek 33 0

Hood River 10 0

Lower Clackamas River 28 0

Middle Clackamas River 548 0

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek 4 0

Middle Columbia/Mill Creek 30 0

Middle Deschutes River 22 10

Middle Sandy River 29 0

Mosier Creek 4 0

Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 377 0

Salmon River 112 0

Tygh Creek 75 0

Upper Clackamas River 461 4

Upper Sandy River 141 0

Warm Springs River 32 0

West Fork Hood River 206 0

White River 436 12

Zigzag River 31 0

Grand Total 3,376 28

As is displayed in the tables above, current OHV use and associated erosion and sedimentation is spread throughout 

most of the watersheds in the Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Drinking Water

Several drinking water source areas are located within some of the existing OHV roads and trails. The following 

tables display the miles of OHV roads and trails in surface and groundwater drinking water source areas for 

Alternative 1.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 62

Table 3-42. Miles of OHV roads and trails located in drinking water source areas that 

have a surface water source.

Surface Drinking Water Source Areas Road (mi) Motorized Trail (mi)

Canby Utility Board 2.5 0

City of Estacada 979.9 10.4

City of Molalla 2.7 0

City of Sandy 7.8 0

Clackamas River Water 33.7 0

Corbett Water District 1.2 0

Rhododendron Summer Homes Association 2.0 0

The Dalles (Water Treatment) 8.5 0.5

USFS Ripplebrook RS/Timberlake Job Corps 290.8 0

Grand Total 1,329 10.8

Table 3-43. Miles of OHV roads and trails located in drinking water source areas that 

have a groundwater source.

Groundwater Drinking Water Source Areas Roads (mi) Motorized Trail (mi)

Crystal Springs Water District 9.3 0

Government Camp Water System 0.1 0

City of Hood River 32.9 0

Oak Grove Water Company 3.71 0

Sportsmans Park Water Association 0.7 0

USFS Timberline Lodge 0.30 0

Grand Total 47.0 0

Direct and Indirect Effects – Riparian Areas and Riparian Reserves

As described in the Affected Environment section above, riparian areas provide numerous benefits to water quality 

including woody material, stream temperature protection, bank stabilization and buffering ability to protect water 

quality. The Northwest Forest Plan established Riparian Reserves in recognition of these benefits. Riparian Reserves 

are established around streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes and unstable areas. The amount of area currently open to 

OHV use in Riparian Reserves is displayed by 5th field watershed in the table below.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 63

Table 3-44. Total OHV road and trail miles within Riparian Reserves by 5th field 

watershed for Alternative 1.

5th Field Watershed Roads (mi) Trails (mi)

Beaver Creek 1.2 0.2

Bull Run River 2.1 0

Collawash River 71.9 0.1

Eagle Creek 5.7 0

East Fork Hood River 25.8 0

Fifteenmile Creek 4.2 0

Fivemile Creek 9.2 0

Hood River 5.8 0

Lower Clackamas River 2.5 0

Lower Molalla River 0.2 0

Lower Sandy River 0.1 0

Middle Clackamas River 69.9 0

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek 0.3 0

Middle Columbia/Mill Creek 2.8 0

Middle Deschutes River 2.6 1.6

Middle Sandy River 4.5 0

Mosier Creek 0.6 0

Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 62.3 0

Salmon River 14.8 0

Tygh Creek 11.2 0

Upper Clackamas River 64.5 0.3

Upper Molalla River 0 0

Upper Sandy River 7.0 0

Warm Springs River 5.6 0

West Fork Hood River 25.8 0

White River 48.3 2.2

Zigzag River 3.6 0

Grand Total 452.6 4.3

Direct and Indirect Effects – Chemicals and Bacteriological Contaminants

Chemicals, such as hydrocarbons, have the potential to be introduced into adjacent surface and groundwater through 

vehicle leakage, incidental spills while refueling vehicles and indirectly through dust and flushing of residue from 

vegetation. Since parking and refueling can currently happen anywhere on the Forest, it is difficult to predict the 

effect to water quality. Larger OHV staging areas exist only in a few locations, so spills and leakage are expected to be 

very small. The amount and location of indirect introduction from dust and vegetation should roughly correlate to 

the 5th field watersheds listed in the tables above.

As described in the Affected Environment section, there is a potential for bacteriological water contamination 

from intensive recreation use. Introduction of fecal coliform is possible in areas that do not have toilet facilities. A 

discussion of this issue is included in the Fisheries section.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 1

Implementation of Alternative 1 maintains the current areas available for OHV use. The amount of potential indirect 

and direct erosion and resulting sedimentation would increase across the Forest as OHV use increases. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 64

Table 3-45. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 1.

Water Quality Effects Measure Alternative 1

Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of a stream 203 miles

Number of stream crossings 3,404

Miles of OHV roads and trails in drinking water source areas 1,387 miles

Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves 457 miles

Alternative 1 will be used as a baseline and a basis for comparing the other alternatives with. This comparison is 

included in the description of the effects for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1

Most of the existing OHV locations and areas of use on the Forest are upstream of other sources of sediment and 

OHV derived chemicals on both non-Federal and Federal lands. Where streams flow through other land ownerships 

(BLM, Federal, State, Tribal, or private), the potential exists for sediments and OHV derived chemicals originating 

from OHV locations on the Forest to mix with those originating from sites on and off-National Forest System lands. 

The effects could be additive or synergistic in nature. 

The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative watershed effects for Alternative 1. It shows 

existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with this project, 

whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is expected. 

Findings of this summary are supported by the analysis above which utilizes pertinent research, project design 

criteria, and applicable management standards and guidelines. 

Table 3-46. Cumulative effects summary for Alternative 1.

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Existing Forest

Service Timber Harvest 

Units

Suspended

Sediment No Yes No

Projects are completed.

No remaining sediment effects due to 

mitigation measures and design criteria 

implementation on the original projects 

and natural recovery.

Forest Service Vegetation Treatment Activities 

Planned or Underway (The 

Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak, 

North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project, Sportsman’s Park 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction, No Whisky Plantation 

Thinning, Upper Clackamas Plantation Thinning, 

Cascade Crest Fuel Break 

Project, Pre-commercial 

treatments)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in timing and 

location of these projects with this 

project. These projects have a chance 

of some short-term introduction of fine 

sediment that may mix with fine sediment from this OHV project. Some of 

the high risk areas would be in Neal 

Creek and West Fork Neal Creek due 

to North Fork Mill Restoration Project 

culvert replacements, road reconstruction on the 1700 road, OHV use on Hood 

River County lands, existing Long Prairie 

Grazing Allotment damage, and timber 

harvest on private lands. Other listed 

projects have a low risk of cumulative 

effects due to implementation of project 

design criteria that minimize erosion and 

sediment input.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on the existing projects.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 65

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Private Land Activities (SDS 

Timber Harvest, City of The 

Dalles Timber Harvest, Hood 

River County Trails Project)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

Some projects are completed so there 

are no remaining sediment effects due to 

natural recovery. Other ongoing projects 

on adjacent private land, such as road 

maintenance and vegetation manipulation, have a chance of some short-term 

introduction of fine sediment that may 

mix with minor fine sediment from this 

OHV project. Some of the high risk areas 

would be in Neal Creek and West Fork 

Neal Creek due to North Fork Mill Restoration Project culvert replacements, road 

reconstruction on the 1700 road, OHV 

use on Hood River County lands, existing 

Long Prairie Grazing Allotment damage, 

and timber harvest on private lands. 

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on the existing projects.

Miscellaneous Tree Salvage 

(Hazard Trees)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

this project with the OHV project; any 

minor suspended sediment would not 

be measurable due to implementation of 

project design criteria and conformance 

with existing standards and guidelines in 

the projects.

Long Prairie

Grazing Allotment

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

Current damage in riparian areas from 

grazing has a chance of some short-term 

introduction of fine sediment that may 

mix with minor fine sediment from this 

OHV project. The highest risk of this 

would be in West Fork Neal Creek due to 

the culvert replacement projects, road 

reconstruction on the 1700 road, Long 

Prairie Grazing allotment, OHV use on 

Hood River County lands, and timber harvest on private lands. Long-term restoration of a more natural sediment regime is 

likely with recovery due to project design 

criteria in the Long Prairie Grazing Allotment project coupled with road decommissioning, culvert removal/replacement 

and road closures associated with the 

North Fork Mill Restoration Project.

Table 3-46. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 66

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Ongoing road and trail 

maintenance

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in timing and 

location of these projects with the OHV 

project. These projects have a chance of 

some short-term introduction of fine sediment that may mix with fine sediment 

from the OHV project. Some of the high 

risk areas would be in Neal Creek and 

West Fork Neal Creek due to North Fork 

Mill Restoration Project culvert replacements, road reconstruction on the 1700 

road, OHV use on Hood River County 

lands, existing Long Prairie Grazing Allotment damage, and timber harvest on 

private lands. Other areas of potential 

concern include McCubbins Gulch and 

Cabin Creek in the Peavine area due to 

the number of OHV stream crossings and 

native surface roads. 

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on the existing projects.

Invasive Plant

Treatments

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

this project with the OHV project; any 

minor suspended sediment would not 

be measurable due to implementation of 

project design criteria and conformance 

with existing standards and guidelines in 

the projects. 

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on the existing projects.

Past Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment No Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

these project effects with the OHV 

project. Any minor suspended sediment 

may slightly slow the recovery resulting 

from restoration project implementation, 

but this would not be measurable due to 

implementation of project design criteria 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines in the projects.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to implementation of project design 

criteria and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines on the existing 

projects.

Table 3-46. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 67

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Clackamas Road DecommissioningSuspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be a spatial and temporal 

overlap of effects of this project with 

this OHV project. Any minor suspended 

sediment may slightly slow the recovery 

resulting from restoration project implementation but this would not be measurable due to implementation of design 

criteria and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in all projects 

on the Forest.

Future Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be a spatial overlap of these 

project effects with this OHV project. 

Any minor suspended sediment may 

slightly slow the recovery resulting from 

restoration project implementation, but 

this would not be measurable due to 

implementation of project design criteria 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines in all projects on National 

Forest.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to implementation of project design 

criteria and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines on the existing 

projects.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1

Sediment: Measurable cumulative effects are possible as a result of sediment introduction from OHVs. The risk 

depends on the timing of this project and other projects listed in the table above. If these projects are spaced closely 

together in time (within three years of each other), there is a higher chance that there would be a measurable 

cumulative effect than if they are implemented over a longer period of time. This is due to the dispersal of sediment 

throughout the stream system as time goes on. The highest risk of a cumulative sediment effect is in Neal Creek and 

West Fork Neal Creek due to the amount of activity confined in a fairly small area. The highest risk portions of this 

project are the culvert replacement and removals since they require work in the actual stream channel. 

OHV Related Chemicals: There would be little to no chance for cumulative effects related to OHV derived chemicals 

due to the implementation of PDC in existing and planned future projects that minimize the chance of introducing 

these chemicals to surface water. Some of these PDC include requirements to refuel equipment away from surface 

water, storage of chemicals away from surface water and providing a spill plan prior to project implementation.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects for Water Quality (Soil Disturbance, Turbidity and Fine Sediment)

As described in the Affected Environment section above, OHV use has the potential to increase erosion and resulting 

sedimentation. In addition, OHVs have the potential to disturb or displace soil, making the soil more vulnerable to 

erosion. Alternative 2 proposes to establish a series of OHV trails utilizing the existing road network, the existing 

motorized trail network and construction of new motorized trails. In addition, some existing roads would be 

decommissioned as part of this alternative. Following is a description of each of the trail treatments and the resulting 

relative change in erosion and sedimentation from Alternative 1.

 

Table 3-46. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 68

Mixed Use Roads: These are existing roads that are open to OHVs in Alternative 1 and would continue to be open to 

OHV traffic. It is expected that these roads would have a neutral to slight increase in erosion due to increased OHV 

traffic. Non-highway legal vehicles may be operated in a manner that increases road surface erosion; research has 

found the combination of vehicle and skill result in faster and more aggressive moves on slopes and curves (Foltz and 

Meadows 2007). These moves have the potential to dislodge more soil particles which in turn may increase erosion. 

Roads Converted to Trails: These are roads that are currently on the road system and would be converted to OHV 

use only. The roads are either closed or open to high clearance vehicles (cars, trucks and OHV) in Alternative 1. It is 

expected that these routes would have either a slight decrease to slight increase in erosion. Roads that are currently 

closed (level 1) would have a slight increase in erosion depending on the current use level of the road. If the road is 

used on a regular basis, this increased erosion would be less than a road that is totally closed to traffic (Wemple et al. 

1996). If the road is currently open (level 2), then conversion to an OHV trail would be neutral to a slight decrease 

in erosion and potential sedimentation. This is because of decreased overall traffic and the stabilization of a portion 

of the road surface. It is assumed that roads converted to OHV trails would be allowed to revegetate and stabilize on 

the unused portion of the road width. The following Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model runs were 

completed to illustrate this relationship. The model runs are for a 200 foot section of road that simulates an existing 

road (13 feet wide) and a road that has been converted to an OHV trail and has stabilized on the shoulder sections so 

only five feet of road surface is unvegetated.

Table 3-47. WEPP model run showing the potential decrease in soil erosion from a road 

that has been converted to an OHV trail.

Road Width (feet) Road Prism Erosion (Pounds of soil per year)

13 ft Wide Road 413.4 lbs.

5 ft Wide Road

(Road converted to trail) 158.7 lbs.

A cubic yard of soil (27 cubic feet) weighs roughly 2000 lbs (John Dodd, Mt. Hood NF Soil Scientist, personnel 

communication, December 2008). Therefore, a cubic foot of soil weighs approximately 75 lbs and a typical 

wheelbarrow holds from 4-6 cubic feet of soil (300-450 lbs). It should be noted that there would likely be some 

erosion from the revegetated area which is not represented in the erosion value for the five foot wide road. 

Decommissioned Roads: These are roads that are currently part of the road system, but would be decommissioned. 

These actions would have some short-term direct and indirect increase in erosion and sedimentation, but would 

provide a long-term decrease in erosion and sedimentation. Pulling culverts and disturbing the road surface has the 

potential to dislodge soil particles. Through time the decommissioned road surface would stabilize and revegetate, 

which would provide an overall decrease in erosion and sedimentation when compared to Alternative 1.

Existing and New Motorized Trails: These are motorized trails that are currently part of the Forest trail system 

or new trails that are proposed for construction. Existing trails would have a neutral to slightly increased risk of 

erosion and sedimentation depending on use levels. If use levels increase as a result of this project, then erosion and 

sedimentation would likely increase. New motorized trails would vary between increased and decreased erosion and 

sedimentation compared to Alternative 1. Areas that are currently vegetated and have low erosion rates would likely 

see an increased rate of erosion and sedimentation because of new ground disturbance. Sections of trail that currently 

exist as user-created trails would likely see neutral to decreased erosion and sedimentation due to implementation of 

PDC that are aimed at reducing erosion and sedimentation.

North Fork Quarry OHV Area: As described in Chapter 2, the North Fork Quarry OHV Area is a four acre rock 

quarry site where OHV use is currently occurring and allowed in all of the alternatives. The quarry site is not within 

any mapped Riparian Reserves. This use would have similar effects as those described below for staging areas in 

quarries and similar effects to Alternative 1. The quarry is predominately rock with little soil and has a low erosion 

potential. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 69

Staging Areas: Staging areas provide parking and staging opportunities to OHV users. Even though these areas 

are located in previously disturbed sites, they would have a neutral to increased risk of erosion and sedimentation. 

Staging areas located in quarries would likely have a low risk of increased erosion and sedimentation due to the lack 

of soils and abundance of exposed bedrock that are resistant to erosion. Staging areas located in sites other than 

quarries may have an increased risk of erosion due to loss of vegetation and disturbance. 

All Areas of Soil Disturbance: In general, the closer a disturbance is to surface water, the higher the risk of sediment 

delivery to that waterbody. Many different studies have analyzed the likelihood of sediment delivery with differing 

vegetative buffer widths. Vegetated buffer widths identified in research and monitoring as being effective in reducing 

or eliminating sediment delivery are variable. The effectiveness depends on numerous physical characteristics 

including slope, soil type, precipitation, and buffer composition. These buffer widths generally vary from 30 to 100 

feet or more, depending on site characteristics (Rashin et al. 2006; Burroughs and King 1989; Packer 1967; NWFP 

ROD 1994; Riedel 2006). The figure below displays the miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of surface water 

for the action alternatives. Based on research cited above, this width will be used as a general indication of the relative 

risk of sedimentation for each alternative. In addition, miles of OHV routes within Riparian Reserves will be used 

later to characterize potential OHV effects to other riparian area features.

Figure 3-1. OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by alternative.

As displayed in the Figure above, Alternative 2 proposes to decommission 0.64 miles of road, use or convert 7.72 

miles of existing roads or trails, and construct 1.55 miles of new trail within 100 feet of streams. The table below 

shows the length of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of a stream by proposed treatment for the different 5th field 

watersheds. This table compares Alternative 1 with Alternative 2. It should be noted that 394,886 acres of land where 

cross-country OHV travel is currently allowed is not included in the tables below for Alternative 1. It is expected that 

use of this land for cross-country travel by OHVs has an increased potential for erosion and sediment introduction.

OHV Routes Within 100 Feet of Streams

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Miles

New

Existing

Closed
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 70

Table 3-48. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field 

watershed for Alternative 1 and 2.

5th Field Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Roads (mi) Trails (mi) Roads (mi) Trails-Existing 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0

East Fork Hood River Gibson Prairie,

Bear Creek 9.1 0 0 0 0.9

Middle Clackama 

River LaDee Flats 30.7 0 1.2 0 0

Middle Columbia/Mill 

Creek Gibson Prairie 0.7 0 0.2 0 0.04

Middle Deschutes 

River

McCubbins 

Gulch 2.1 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.04

Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River

Peavine,

LaDee Flats 26.9 0 0.3 0 0.2

Upper Clackama River Peavine 28.1 0.3 0.4 0 0

Warm Springs River Peavine 3.1 0 1.4 0 0.2

White River

McCubbins 

Gulch,

Rock Creek

24.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.3

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 74.3 0.1 0 0 0

Grand Total 200.3 2.9 5.5 2.2 1.6

The majority of new trail construction within 100 feet of streams is proposed in the Bear Creek OHV location. These 

trail segments are mostly on tributaries to Tony Creek.

Stream crossings can also provide an avenue for sediment introduction because they are directly connected to stream 

channels. This relationship is detailed in the Affected Environment section. The figure below shows the number of 

stream crossings for each alternative which can be used as a measure for the potential to have direct and indirect 

introduction of sediment to surface water.

Figure 3-2. Stream crossings for each alternative.

Stream Crossings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Number

New

Existing 

Close
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 71

As displayed in the figure above, Alternative 2 proposes to decommission seven stream crossings, use 82 crossings on 

existing roads or trails and construct 20 new trail crossings on streams. Thirteen of the 20 new crossings are in the 

Bear Creek location. Most of those 13 crossings are on either intermittent or perennial tributaries to Tony Creek or 

Tony Creek. The table below shows stream crossings by 5th field watershed for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 3-49. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

5th Field 

Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

New Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 15 2 5 2 0

East Fork Hood 

River

Gibson Prairie, 

Bear Creek 180 0 0 0 13

Middle Clackamas 

River LaDee Flats 548 0 18 0 0

Middle Columbia/

Mill Creek Gibson Prairie 30 0 2 0 1

Middle Deschutes 

River

McCubbins 

Gulch 22 10 3 9 1

Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River

Peavine,

LaDee Flats 377 0 7 0 1

Upper Clackamas 

River Peavine 461 4 3 0 0

Warm Springs River Peavine 33 0 9 0 3

White River

McCubbins 

Gulch

Rock

436 12 13 11 1

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 1,274 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 3,376 28 60 22 20

Since stream crossings have been identified in research as a very important delivery mechanism for sediment, further 

analysis was done on the proposed stream crossings. Most of the time, native surface roads have higher erosion 

potential than gravel surfaced roads. Research has shown that application of a gravel surface can result in up to an 

85% reduction in soil loss over a native surface (Burroughs and King 1989; Swift 1984). The following WEPP model 

runs show the difference in erosion and sediment delivery (shown as sediment leaving buffer in table below) between 

a native surface road and a gravel surface road. All of the model inputs stayed the same except surface material which 

was changed from native to gravel surface.

Table 3-50. WEPP model run showing the difference in erosion and sedimentation 

between a gravel surface road and a native surface road.

Road Prism Erosion Sediment Leaving Buffer

Native Surface Road 579 lbs. 111 lbs

Gravel Surface Road 349 lbs. 78 lbs.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 72

Results from the WEPP model runs show that in this situation, the native surface road produced 579 pounds of 

eroded soil while the gravel surface road produced 349 pounds of eroded soil, which is a 40 percent reduction in 

eroded soil. It should be noted that under some circumstances, gravel surfaced roads may produce more runoff and 

erosion than native surface roads (WEPP manual).

All native surface road and trail stream crossings were analyzed for erosion potential using the soil resource 

inventory. Native surface road and stream crossings were classified as having a high, moderate or low relative erosion 

potential, based on the erosion potential of the underlying soil type. That information is displayed in the figure below.

Figure 3-3. Native surface stream crossings by soil erosion potential.

Alternative 2 has 11 native surface crossings on high surface erosion potential soils, 46 crossings on moderate surface 

erosion potential soils and eight native surface crossings on low surface erosion potential soils. As displayed in the 

figure below, the majority of these crossings are in the McCubbins Gulch location.

Figure 3-4. Native surface crossings by OHV system for Alternative 2.

Native Surface Stream Crossings by Soil Erosion Potential

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Number of Crossings

High

Moderate

Low

Alternative 2 - Native Surface Crossings by OHV System

Bear

21%

Gibson

5%

LaDee

8%

McCubbins

53%

Peavine

10%

Rock

3%
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 73

Direct and Indirect Effects – Drinking Water

As described in the Affected Environment section, several drinking water source areas are located within some of 

the proposed OHV locations. The following figure displays the miles of OHV trails in drinking water source areas by 

alternative.

Figure 3-5. OHV roads and trails in drinking water source areas by action alternative.

Most of the OHV roads and trails are located in the City of Estacada’s source area in the Clackamas River Watershed. 

Eighty-one percent of the 62 miles of OHV roads and trails are located in the City of Estacada’s source area in 

Alternative 2.

Table 3-51. Miles of OHV roads and trails within drinking water source areas for 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

Drinking Water 

Source Areas OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Roads (mi) Trails (mi) Roads (mi)

TrailsExisting 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

City of Estacada LaDee Flats,

Peavine 979.9 10.4 53.3 0 1.6

The Dalles (Water 

Treatment) Gibson Prairie 8.5 0.5 0 0.9 0

USFS Ripplebrook RS/

Timberlake Job Corps

LaDee Flats,

Peavine 290.8 0 8.6 0 1.2

All Other Drinking 

Water Source Areas 97.0 0 0.2 0 0.04

Grand Total 1,376 10.9 62.1 0.9 2.8

OHV Routes in Drinking Water Source Areas

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Miles

New

Existing

Closed
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 74

Direct and Indirect Effects – Riparian Areas, Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds

As described in the Affected Environment section, riparian areas provide numerous benefits to water quality 

including woody material, stream temperature protection, bank stabilization and buffering ability to protect water 

quality. The Northwest Forest Plan established Riparian Reserves in recognition of these benefits. Riparian Reserves 

are established around streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes and unstable areas. In Alternative 2, some benefits to water 

quality would be derived from road decommissioning while there would be some additional disturbance to Riparian 

Reserves. This relationship is displayed in the figure below.

Figure 3-6. OHV roads and trails in Riparian Reserves for the action alternatives.

In Alternative 2, some benefits to water quality would be derived from road decommissioning while there would 

be some additional disturbance to Riparian Reserves. A table comparing miles of OHV roads and trails in Riparian 

Reserves for Alternative 1 and 2 is shown below.

Table 3-52. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

5th Field Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi)

Roads 

(mi)

TrailsExisting 

(mi)

TrailsNew 

(mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins Gulch 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0

East Fork Hood River Gibson Prairie, Bear Creek 25.8 0 0 0 2.4

Middle Clackamas River LaDee Flats 69.9 0 4.2 0 0

Middle Columbia/Mill Creek Gibson Prairie 2.8 0 1.1 0 0.1

Middle Deschutes River McCubbins Gulch 2.6 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.05

Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River Peavine, LaDee Flats 62.3 0 0.7 0 0.2

Upper Clackamas River Peavine 64.5 0.3 0.9 0 0

Warm Springs River Peavine 5.6 0 2.2 0 0.5

White River McCubbins Gulch, Rock 

Creek 48.3 2.2 2.5 2.1 0.8

All Other 5th Field Watersheds 169.5 0.1 0 0 0

Grand Total 452.6 4.3 12.5 3.9 4.1

OHV Routes in Riparian Reserves

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Miles

New

Existing

Closed
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 75

Alternative 2 proposes to decommission approximately 1.46 miles of road in Riparian Reserves, but construct 

approximately 4.12 miles of new trail. This would be approximately 8.8 acres of decommissioning and four acres of 

new construction when converted to acres (assumes six acres per mile of road and about one acre per mile of quad 

trail). 

As stated in the Affected Environment section, the Northwest Forest Plan utilizes Key Watersheds as one of the 

four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Key Watersheds are defined as “A system of large refugia 

comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high quality water” (NWFP 

ROD, B-12). Alternative 2 doesn’t propose any new road construction in Key Watersheds and would decommission 

0.49 miles of road within the White River Key Watershed.

Direct and Indirect Impacts – Staging Areas

The table below shows the staging areas proposed in Alternative 2. 

Table 3-53. Staging area information for Alternative 2.

Geographic Location 

Name Staging Area Description Size (Acres) In Riparian Reserve?

Bear Creek Storage Pit, Road 16 0.4 No

Storage Pit, Road 1610 0.4 No

Gibson Prairie Range Allotment Loading Area 0.7 No

LaDee Flats No Whisky Timber Sale Landing 1.0 No

McCubbins Gulch McCubbins Campground 8.0 Yes

Peavine Warm Springs Quarry 5.2 No

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry 4.1 No

As described above, the staging areas are on previously disturbed ground, such as quarries, borrow pits or log 

landings, and have a low potential for erosion due to their flat nature and lack of erodible soil. One of the proposed 

staging areas is located within Riparian Reserves. The McCubbins Campground is within the Riparian Reserve along 

McCubbins Gulch. This area is already disturbed from OHV and other use and is currently lacking groundcover due 

to high intensity of use. Surface erosion was observed in places during a 2008 field visit. Implementation of PDC S-3, 

WR-2, WR-1, WR-6 and WR-7 should reduce the likelihood of erosion and resulting sedimentation during staging 

area construction and use by requiring design and construction measures that minimize erosion, sedimentation, 

and hazardous materials from leaching into surface waters. The PDC also give special recognition to and have 

requirements for activities within Riparian Reserves. Burroughs and King (1989) reported that measures such as 

erosion control blankets alone could reduce sediment production by 80 to 90 percent. This in conjunction with 

other measures such as minimizing the amount of ground disturbance decrease the chance of short-term direct and 

indirect sediment production. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Chemicals and Bacteriological Contamination

Chemicals, such as hydrocarbons, have the potential to be introduced into adjacent surface and groundwater 

through vehicle leakage, incidental spills while refueling vehicles and indirectly through dust and flushing of residue 

from vegetation. A thorough discussion about the potential for water quality impairment due to chemicals from 

OHV use is included in the Fisheries section. This analysis concluded that it would be unlikely that a direct spill of 

hydrocarbons into surface water would occur and the chance of indirect introduction of these pollutants is low as 

well based on pertinent research cited in the Fisheries section. PDC WR-1 and WR-2 would reduce the likelihood 

of direct and indirect introduction of chemical pollutants from OHV activities into surface waters. The chance of 

indirect airborne introduction of chemicals would be related to the amount on OHV stream crossings and use levels 

at these crossings since dust settling out near a stream would have the greatest chance of indirectly washing into 

surface water. The chance of this being a significant contributor to water pollution is not well known at this time. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 76

As described above, there is a potential for bacteriological water contamination from intensive recreation use. A 

discussion of this issue is included in the Fisheries section and according to this analysis is expected to low due to the 

installation of sanitation facilities. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a large reduction in the amount of OHV roads and trails compared 

to Alternative 1. OHV use would focus down to six proposed OHV locations. The amount of potential indirect 

and direct erosion and resulting sedimentation would increase in those six areas as OHV use increases. The project 

design criteria for OHV roads, trails, one area, and staging areas are expected to substantially reduce the potential for 

erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be realized by road decommissioning after some initial 

potential for short-term direct and indirect sedimentation. The table below is a summary of the changes to water 

quality indicators between Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, some of the restoration work that benefits water quality 

is summarized as well in Table 3-54. 

Table 3-54. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 2.

Water Quality 

Effects Measure Alternative 2 Change from Alternative 1

Areas of Greatest 

Reduction (5th Field 

Watersheds within 

OHV Locations)

OHV Location Summary

Miles of OHV roads 

and trails within 

100 feet of a 

stream

9.2 miles Reduced by 194 

miles or 95%

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River, Upper 

Clackamas River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas 

River

Bear Creek: 0.8 mi

Gibson Prairie: 0.3 mi

LaDee Flats: 1.2 mi

McCubbins Gulch: 3.7 mi

Peavine: 0.9 mi

Rock Creek: 0.9 mi

Number of stream 

crossings 102

Reduced by 

3,302 crossings 

or 97%

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River, Upper 

Clackamas River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas 

River

Bear Creek: 13 crossings

Gibson Prairie: 3 crossings

LaDee Flats: 19 crossings

McCubbins: 34 crossings

Peavine: 23 crossings

Rock Creek: 10 crossings

Miles of OHV 

roads and trails 

in drinking water 

source areas

65.8 miles

Reduced by 

1,313 miles or 

95%

City of Estacada,

USFS Ripplebrook RS/

Timberlake Job Corps

Gibson Prairie: 0.9 mi

LaDee Flats: 38.9 mi

Peavine: 25.8 mi

Miles of OHV roads 

and trails within 

Riparian Reserves

20.5 miles Reduced by 436 

miles or 96%

East Fork Hood River, 

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River

Upper Clackamas 

River, Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River

Bear Creek: 2.43 mi

Gibson Prairie: 1.28 mi

LaDee Flats: 4.24 mi

McCubbins: 6.11 mi

Peavine: 4.48 mi

Rock Creek: 1.98 mi

Number of Staging 

Areas 7 n/a n/a n/a
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 77

Table 3-55. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 2.

Aquatic Restoration Measure Alternative 2 Areas of Greatest Restoration

Miles of Decommissioned Roads Within 

100 feet of a Stream 0.6 miles Beaver Creek, Middle Clackamas River, Warm Springs River, White River

Number of Stream Crossings Restored 7 Middle Clackamas River, Warm Springs River

Miles of Decommissioned Roads in Drinking Water Source Areas 10.9 miles City of Estacada

Miles of Decommissioned Roads in Key 

Watersheds 0.5 miles White River Key Watershed

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Quality (Soil Disturbance, Turbidity and Fine Sediment)

Indirect and direct sediment effects are similar to those described for Alternative 2 but they differ in location and 

magnitude. Alternative 3 proposes more OHV roads and trails near surface water, in riparian areas and in drinking 

water source areas than Alternatives 2 and 4, but the disturbance is still greatly reduced from Alternative 1. Important 

factors relating to erosion and sedimentation have already been discussed above and in the Soils and Fisheries 

sections. The following tables display locations and magnitude of disturbances that have the potential to cause 

direct and indirect short- and long-term erosion and sedimentation. These are the same general tables displayed 

for Alternative 2, but compare Alternative 3 with Alternative 1. It should be noted that the 394,886 acres of land 

allocation that does not prohibit cross-country OHV travel is not part of the tables for Alternative 1. It is expected 

that use of this land for cross-country travel has a large potential for erosion and sediment introduction due to travel 

in and around aquatic areas.

Alternative 3 proposes to decommission 1.53 miles of road within 100 feet of streams. The decommissioning is fairly 

evenly spread out between the Beaver Creek, Middle Clackamas River, Middle Deschutes River, Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River, Upper Clackamas River and White River 5th field watersheds. This alternative would use or convert 

13.84 miles of existing roads or trails and construct 1.11 miles of new trail within 100 feet of streams. The table below 

shows the length of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of a stream by proposed treatment for the different 5th field 

watersheds. This table compares Alternative 1 with Alternative 3.

Table 3-56. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field 

watershed for Alternatives 1 and 3.

5th Field Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi)

Roads 

(mi)

Trails-Existing 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins Gulch 1.1 0.2 0.1 0 0

East Fork Hood River Bear Creek, Gibson 

Prairie 9.1 0 0.3 0 0.2

Collawash River Graham Pass 28.6 0.1 0.8 0.1 0

Middle Clackamas River LaDee Flats 30.7 0 1.2 0 0

Middle Columbia/Mill 

Creek Gibson Prairie 0.7 0 0 0 0

Middle Deschutes River McCubbins Gulch 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0

Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River Peavine, LaDee Flats 26.9 0 0.70 0 0.2

Tygh Creek Rock Creek 6.1 0 0.1 0 0

Upper Clackamas River Graham Pass, Peavine 28.1 0.3 5.9 0.3 0.4
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 78

5th Field Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi)

Roads 

(mi)

Trails-Existing 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

West Fork Hood River Bear Creek,

Mt. Defiance 11.7 0 0.1 0 0

White River

McCubbins Gulch, 

Rock Creek 24.2 1.4 2.3 1.2 0.3

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 31.0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 200.3 2.9 11.6 2.3 1.1

The majority of new trail construction within 100 feet of streams is proposed in the Bear Creek, Peavine and Rock 

Creek OHV locations. The Bear Creek trail segments are mostly on tributaries to Tony Creek while the Peavine trails 

cross numerous tributaries to the Clackamas River and Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River. The Rock Creek trails cross 

Souva Creek, Gate Creek and a number of other tributary streams.

Alternative 3 proposes to decommission 21 stream crossings, the majority of which are in the Upper Clackamas 

River and White River 5th field watersheds. Thirteen of the crossings are on intermittent streams while eight are 

on perennial streams. As described above, this decommissioning would cause short-term direct and indirect 

sedimentation to the adjacent stream, but would provide a long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation 

once these crossings revegetate and stabilize. Alternative 3 would use 145 crossings on existing roads or trails and 

construct 16 new trail crossings on streams. The new trail crossings are evenly distributed between Bear Creek, 

McCubbins Gulch and Peavine OHV systems. The table below shows stream crossings by OHV location and 

proposed treatment. 

Table 3-57. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for 

Alternatives 1 and 3.

5th Field 

Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

New Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Beaver Creek McCubbins Gulch 13 2 2 0 0

East Fork Hood 

River

Bear Creek, Gibson 

Prairie 180 0 4 0 5

Middle Clackamas 

River LaDee Flats 548 0 18 0 0

Middle Columbia/

Mill Creek Gibson Prairie 30 0 0 0 0

Middle Deschutes 

River McCubbins Gulch 22 10 1 9 0

Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River

Peavine, LaDee 

Flats 377 0 10 0 1

Tygh Creek Rock Creek 75 0 2 0 0

Upper Clackamas 

River

Graham Pass, 

Peavine 461 4 49 4 5

White River McCubbins, Rock 

Creek 436 12 36 10 5

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 1,234 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 3,376 28 122 23 16

Table 3-56. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 79

As discussed in Alternative 2, native surface road and trail stream crossings were analyzed for erosion potential using 

the soil resource inventory. Native surface roads have higher erosion potentials than gravel surfaced roads. All native 

surface road and stream crossings were classified as having a high, moderate or low relative erosion potential, based 

on the erosion potential of the underlying soil type. Alternative 3 has the highest number of native surface crossing 

between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Fourteen native surface stream crossings are on high surface erosion potential soils, 

52 crossings on moderate surface erosion potential soils and seven native surface crossings on low surface erosion 

potential soils. The majority of the erosive crossings are on the McCubbins and Peavine locations. Crossings in the 

McCubbins location flow into the White River and McCubbins Gulch stream systems while the Peavine crossings are 

located on tributaries to the Clackamas River such as Campbell Creek and other unnamed streams.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Staging Areas

The staging areas for Alternative 3 are presented in the table below. 

Table 3-58. Staging area information for Alternative 3.

OHV Location Name Staging Area Location Size (Acres) In Riparian Reserve?

Bear Creek Storage Pit, Road 16 0.4 No

Storage Pit, Road 1610 0.4 No

Gibson Prairie No Staging Area No

Graham Pass Lowe Creek Pit 1.4 No

LaDee Flats No Whisky Timber Sale Landing 1.0 No

Round Wolf Pit 2.2 No

McCubbins Gulch

McCubbins Campground 8.0 Yes

McCubbins Day-Use Site 0.8 No

Timber Sale Landing 1.1 No

Peavine Devil’s Ridge Quarry 3.2 No

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry 4.1 No

As described in Alternative 2, one of the eleven staging areas is located within Riparian Reserves. Implementation 

of PDC S-3, WR-2, WR-1, WR-6 and WR-7 should reduce the likelihood of erosion and resulting sedimentation 

during staging area construction and use by requiring design and construction measures that “minimize erosion, 

sedimentation, and hazardous materials from leaching into surface waters”. The PDC also give special recognition to 

and have requirements for activities within Riparian Reserves. Burroughs and King (1989) reported that measures 

such as erosion control blankets alone could reduce sediment production by 80 to 90 percent. Implementation of 

erosion control measures in conjunction with other measures such as minimizing the amount of ground disturbance 

and locating areas in stable landforms away from surface water, substantially decrease the chance of short-term and 

long-term direct and indirect sediment production from staging areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Drinking Water

As described in the Affected Environment section, several drinking water source areas are located within some of the 

proposed OHV locations. The following table displays the miles of OHV roads and trails in drinking water source 

areas for Alternatives 1 and 3.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 80

Table 3-59. Miles of OHV roads and trails within in drinking water source areas for 

Alternative 1 and 3.

Drinking Water 

Source Areas

OHV 

Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Roads (mi) Trails (mi) Roads (mi) Trails-Existing 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

City of Estacada LaDee Flats, 

Peavine 979.9 10.4 130.5 10.5 12.5

USFS Ripplebrook 

RS/Timberlake Job 

Corps

LaDee Flats, 

Peavine 290.8 0 12.6 0.1 1.5

Oak Grove Water 

Company Mt. Defiance 3.7 0 2.4 0 0

All Other Drinking 

Water Source Areas 101.8 0.5 0 0 0

Grand Total 1,376 10.9 145.4 10.6 14.0

Alternative 3 proposes to decommission almost 22 miles of road in drinking water source areas. Approximately 

13.7 miles are proposed for decommissioning in the City of Estacada’s source area while 8.3 miles are proposed in 

the USFS Ripplebrook RS/Timberlake Job Corps source area. This decommissioning would cause short-term direct 

and indirect sedimentation to adjacent surface water, but would provide a long-term reduction in erosion and 

sedimentation once these crossings road systems stabilize. Most of the OHV locations proposed for use are in the 

City of Estacada’s Source Area in the Clackamas River Watershed. These trails are associated with the LaDee and 

Peavine locations.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Riparian Areas, Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds

As described above, riparian areas and Riparian Reserves provide numerous benefits to water quality including 

woody material, stream temperature protection, bank stabilization and buffering ability to protect water quality. In 

Alternative 3, some benefits to water quality would be derived from road decommissioning while there would be 

some additional disturbance to Riparian Reserves. A table comparing miles of OHV roads and trails in Riparian 

Reserves for Alternative 1 and 3 is shown below.

Table 3-60. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for 

Alternatives 1 and 3.

5th Field 

Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Roads (mi) Trails (mi) Roads (mi) TrailsExisting (mi)

TrailsNew (mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 1.2 0.2 0.1 0 0

Collawash River Graham Pass 71.9 0.1 1.8 0.1 0

East Fork Hood 

River

Bear Creek, 

Gibson Prairie 25.8 0 0.7 0 0.4

Hood River Gibson Prairie 5.8 0 0.7 0 0

Middle Clackamas 

River LaDee Flats 69.9 0 4.2 0 0

Middle Deschutes 

River

McCubbins 

Gulch 2.6 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.1

Mosier Creek Gibson Prairie 0.6 0 0.2 0 0
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 81

5th Field 

Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

Roads (mi) Trails (mi) Roads (mi) TrailsExisting (mi)

TrailsNew (mi)

Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River

LaDee Flats, 

Peavine 62.3 0 1.4 0 0.2

Tygh Creek Rock Creek 11.2 0 0.3 0 0

Upper Clackamas 

River

Peavine, Graham 

Pass 64.5 0.3 13.2 0.3 0.6

West Fork Hood 

River

Bear Creek,

Mt. Defiance 25.8 0 0.2 0 0

White River McCubbins, 

Rock Creek 48.3 2.2 4.9 1.9 0.8

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 62.7 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 452.6 4.3 28.0 3.9 2.1

Alternative 3 proposes to decommission approximately 3.73 miles of road in Riparian Reserves but construct 

approximately 2.08 miles of new trail. This would be approximately 22.4 acres of decommissioning in Riparian 

Reserves and two acres of new construction when converted to acres (assumes six acres per mile of road and about 

one acre per mile of quad trail). Decommissioning in Riparian Reserves is spread throughout most of the Alternative 

3 5th field watersheds, but the highest amount is in the proposed LaDee Flats location and the Middle Clackamas 

River 5th field watershed.

As stated in the Affected Environment section, the Northwest Forest Plan utilizes Key Watersheds as one of the 

four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Key Watersheds are defined as “A system of large refugia 

comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high quality water” (NWFP 

ROD, B-12). Alternative 3 doesn’t propose any new road construction in Key Watersheds and would decommission 9 

miles of road within the White River Key Watershed.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Chemical and Bacteriological Contamination

Chemicals, such as hydrocarbons, have the potential to be introduced into adjacent surface and groundwater 

through vehicle leakage, incidental spills while refueling vehicles and indirectly through dust and flushing of residue 

from vegetation. A thorough discussion about the potential for water quality impairment due to chemicals from 

OHV use is included in the Fisheries section. This analysis concluded that it would be unlikely that a direct spill of 

hydrocarbons into surface water would occur and the chance of indirect introduction of these pollutants is low as 

well based on pertinent research. The chance of indirect airborne introduction of chemicals would be related to the 

amount on OHV stream crossings and use levels at these crossings since dust settling out near a stream would have 

the greatest chance of indirectly washing into surface water. The chance of this being a significant contributor to 

water pollution is not well known at this time. 

As described above, there is a potential for bacteriological water contamination from intensive recreation use. A 

discussion of this issue is included in the Fisheries section and according to this analysis is expected to low due to the 

installation of sanitation facilities. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a large reduction in the amount of OHV roads and trails compared 

to Alternative 1. OHV use would focus down to eight proposed OHV locations, all of which currently contain some 

level of OHV use. The amount of potential indirect and direct erosion and resulting sedimentation would increase 

in those eight areas as OHV use increases. Project design criteria for OHV roads, trails, one area, and staging areas 

Table 3-60. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 82

are expected to substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be 

realized by road decommissioning after some initial potential for short-term direct and indirect sedimentation. The 

table below is a summary of the changes to water quality indicators between Alternative 1 and 3. In addition, some of 

the restoration work that benefits water quality is summarized in Table 3-61. 

Table 3-61. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 3.

Water Quality Effects 

Measure Alternative 3 Change from Alternative 1

Areas of Greatest 

Reduction (5th Field 

Watersheds within 

OHV Locations)

OHV Location Summary

Miles of OHV roads and 

trails within 100 feet of a 

stream

15.0 miles Reduced by 188 

miles or 93%

Collawash River, Upper 

Clackamas River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas 

River, Middle Clackamas 

River

Bear Creek: 0.5 mi

Gibson Prairie: 0.01 mi

Graham Pass: 5.1 mi

LaDee Flats: 1.2 mi

McCubbins Gulch: 3.2 mi

Peavine: 3.0 mi

Rock Creek: 1.8 mi

Number of stream crossings 161 Reduced by 3,423 

crossings or 95%

Middle Clackamas 

River, White River, Upper 

Clackamas River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas 

River

Bear Creek: 9 crossings

Graham Pass: 34 crossings

LaDee Flats: 18 crossings

McCubbins: 36 crossings

Peavine: 35 crossings

Rock Creek: 29 crossings

Miles of OHV roads and 

trails in drinking water 

source areas

170 Reduced by 1,206 

miles or 88%

City of Estacada,

USFS Ripplebrook RS/

Timberlake Job Corps

Graham Pass: 63.2 mi

LaDee Flats: 46.9 mi

Mt. Defiance: 2.42 mi

Peavine: 65.5 mi

Miles of OHV routes 

within riparian reserves 33.9 Reduced by 423 miles or 93%

Collawash River, White 

River, Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River, Middle 

Clackamas River

Bear Creek: 1.04 mi

Gibson Prairie: 0.92 mi

Graham Pass: 11.06 mi

LaDee Flats: 4.24 mi

McCubbins: 5.98 mi

Mt. Defiance: 0.16 mi

Peavine: 6.59 mi

Rock Creek: 3.96 mi

Number of Staging Areas 11 n/a n/a n/a

Table 3-62. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 3.

Aquatic Restoration Measure Alternative 3 Areas of Greatest Restoration

Miles of decommissioned roads within 100 feet 

of a stream 1.5 miles

Beaver Creek, Middle Clackamas River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas River, Warm Springs 

River, White River

Number of stream crossings restored 21 Upper Clackamas River, White River

Miles of decommissioned roads in drinking 

water source areas 22.0 miles City of Estacada, USFS Ripplebrook RS/Timberlake JCC

Miles of decommissioned roads in key watersheds 9 White River Key Watershed
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 83

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Quality (Soil Disturbance, Turbidity and Fine Sediment)

Indirect and direct sediment effects are similar to those described for Alternative 2, but they differ in location and 

magnitude. Alternative 4 proposes less miles of OHV roads and trails near surface water, in riparian areas and in 

drinking water source areas than Alternatives 2 and 3, and the disturbance area is greatly reduced from Alternative 

1. Important factors relating to erosion and sedimentation have already been discussed above and in the Soils and 

Fisheries sections. The following tables display locations and magnitude of disturbances that have the potential 

to cause direct and indirect short- and long-term erosion and sedimentation. These are the same general tables 

displayed for Alternative 2 and 3, but compare Alternative 4 with Alternative 1. It should be noted that the 394,886 

acres of land allocation that does not prohibit cross-country OHV travel is not part of the tables for Alternative 1. It is 

expected that use of this land for cross-country travel has a large potential for erosion and sediment introduction due 

to travel in and around aquatic areas.

Alternative 4 proposes to decommission 0.69 miles of road within 100 feet of streams. The decommissioning is fairly 

evenly spread out between the Beaver Creek, Middle Clackamas River, Middle Deschutes River and White River 

5th field watersheds. This alternative would use or convert 3.74 miles of existing roads or trails and construct 0.08 

miles of new trail within 100 feet of streams. The table below shows the length of OHV roads and trails within 100 

feet of a stream by proposed treatment for the different 5th field watersheds. This table compares Alternative 1 with 

Alternative 4.

Table 3-63. Miles of OHV roads and trails within 100 feet of streams by 5th field 

watershed for Alternatives 1 and 4.

5th Field Watershed OHV 

Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 4

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi) Roads (mi) Trails-Existing (mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 1.1 0.2 0.1 0 0

Middle Clackamas River LaDee Flats 30.7 0 0.3 0 0

Middle Deschutes River McCubbins 

Gulch 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0

White River McCubbins, 

Rock Creek 24.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.1

All Other 5thField Watersheds 142.2 0.4 0 0 0

Grand Total 200.3 2.9 1.8 2.0 0.1

The majority of new trail construction within 100 feet of streams is proposed in the Rock Creek OHV location and 

includes one trail segment that is within 100 feet of an intermittent tributary to Gate Creek. 

Alternative 4 proposes to decommission seven stream crossings, the majority of which are in the Middle Clackamas 

River and White River 5th field watersheds. Four of the crossings are on intermittent streams while three are 

on perennial streams. As described above, this decommissioning would cause short-term direct and indirect 

sedimentation to the adjacent stream, but would provide a long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation once 

these crossings revegetate and stabilize. Alternative 4 would use 46 crossings on existing roads or trails and construct 

no new trail crossings on streams. The table below shows stream crossings by OHV location and proposed treatment. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 84

Table 3-64. Number of OHV road and trail stream crossings by 5th field watershed for 

Alternative 1 and 4.

5th Field 

Watershed

OHV 

Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 4

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Road 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

New Trail 

Crossings 

(number of 

crossings)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 13 2 2 0 0

Middle 

Clackamas River LaDee Flats 548 0 4 0 0

Middle 

Deschutes River

McCubbins 

Gulch 22 10 1 9 0

White River McCubbins, 

Rock Creek 436 12 20 10 0

All Other 5th 

Field Watersheds 2,357 4 0 0 0

Grand Total 3,376 28 27 19 0

As discussed in Alternative 2, native surface road and trail stream crossings were analyzed for erosion potential using 

the soil resource inventory. Native surface roads have higher erosion potentials than gravel surfaced roads. All native 

surface road and stream crossings were classified as having a high, moderate or low relative erosion potential, based 

on the erosion potential of the underlying soil type. Alternative 4 has the lowest number of native surface crossing 

between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Ten native surface stream crossings are on high surface erosion potential soils, and 

20 crossings on moderate surface erosion potential soils. The majority of the erosive crossings are in the McCubbins 

location. Crossings in the McCubbins location flow into the White River and McCubbins Gulch stream systems.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Staging Areas

The following staging areas are proposed under Alternative 4. 

Table 3-65. Staging area information for Alternative 4.

OHV Location Name Staging Area Location Size (Acres) In Riparian 

Reserve?

LaDee Flats No Whisky Timber Sale Landing 1.0 No

McCubbins Gulch

McCubbins Campground 8.0 Yes

McCubbins Day-Use Site 0.8 No

Timber Sale Landing 1.1 No

Rock Creek Post Point Quarry 4.1 No

One of the five staging areas is located within Riparian Reserves. Implementation of PDC S-3, WR-2, WR-1, WR-6 

and WR-7 should reduce the likelihood of erosion and resulting sedimentation during staging area construction and 

use by requiring design and construction measures that “minimize erosion, sedimentation, and hazardous materials 

from leaching into surface waters”. The PDCs also give special recognition to and have requirements for activities 

within Riparian Reserves. Burroughs and King (1989) reported that measures such as erosion control blankets alone 

could reduce sediment production by 80 to 90 percent. Implementation of erosion control measures in conjunction 

with other measures such as minimizing the amount of ground disturbance and locating areas in stable landforms 

away from surface water, substantially decrease the chance of short-term and long-term direct and indirect sediment 

production from staging areas. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 85

Direct and Indirect Effects – Drinking Water

As described in the Affected Environment section, several drinking water source areas are located within some of the 

proposed OHV roads and trails. The following table displays the miles of OHV trails in drinking water source areas 

for Alternatives 1 and 4.

Table 3-66. Miles of OHV roads and trails within in drinking water source area for 

Alternatives 1 and 4.

Drinking Water 

Source Areas OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 4

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi) Roads (mi) Trails-Existing (mi) Trails-New (mi)

City of Estacada LaDee Flats 980 10 20 0 5

All Other Drinking 

Water Source Areas 396 0.5 0 0 0

Grand Total 1,376 11 20 0 5

Alternative 4 proposes to decommission 5.12 miles of road in the City of Estacada’s drinking water source area. This 

decommissioning would cause short-term direct and indirect sedimentation to adjacent surface water, but would 

provide a long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation once these crossings stabilize. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Riparian Areas, Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds

As described above, riparian areas and Riparian Reserves provide numerous benefits to water quality including 

woody material, stream temperature protection, bank stabilization and buffering ability to protect water quality. In 

Alternative 4, some benefits to water quality would be derived from road decommissioning while there would be 

some additional disturbance to Riparian Reserves. A table comparing miles of OHV roads and trails in Riparian 

Reserves for Alternatives 1 and 4 is shown below.

Table 3-67. Miles of OHV roads and trails within Riparian Reserves for 

Alternatives 1 and 4.

5th Field 

Watershed OHV Location

Alternative 1 Alternative 4

Roads 

(mi)

Trails 

(mi)

Roads 

(mi)

Trails-Existing 

(mi)

Trails-New 

(mi)

Beaver Creek McCubbins 

Gulch 1.2 0.2 0.1 0 0

Middle Clackamas 

River LaDee Flats 69.9 0 1.7 0 0

Middle Deschutes 

River

McCubbins 

Gulch 2.6 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.1

White River McCubbins, 

Rock Creek 48.3 2.2 2.4 1.9 0.1

All Other 5th Field 

Watersheds 330.6 0.4 0 0 0

Grand Total 452.6 4.3 4.4 3.5 0.2

Alternative 4 proposes to decommission approximately 1.91 miles of road in Riparian Reserves, but construct 

approximately 0.18 miles of new trail. This would be approximately 11.5 acres of decommissioning in Riparian 

Reserves and 0.2 acres of new construction when converted to acres (assumes six acres per mile of road and about 

one acre per mile of quad trail). Decommissioning in Riparian Reserves is spread throughout most of the Alternative 

4 5th field watersheds, but the highest amount is in the proposed LaDee Flats OHV system and the Middle 

Clackamas River 5th field watershed.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 86

As stated in the Affected Environment section, the Northwest Forest Plan utilizes Key Watersheds as one of the 

four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Key Watersheds are defined as “A system of large refugia 

comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high quality water” (NWFP 

ROD, B-12). Alternative 4 does not propose any new road construction in Key Watersheds and would decommission 

4.04 miles of road within the White River Key Watershed.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Chemical and Bacteriological Contamination

Chemicals, such as hydrocarbons, have the potential to be introduced into adjacent surface and groundwater 

through vehicle leakage, incidental spills while refueling vehicles and indirectly through dust and flushing of residue 

from vegetation. A thorough discussion about the potential for water quality impairment due to chemicals from 

OHV use is included in the Fisheries section. This analysis concluded that it would be unlikely that a direct spill of 

hydrocarbons into surface water would occur and the chance of indirect introduction of these pollutants is low as 

well based on pertinent research. The chance of indirect airborne introduction of chemicals would be related to the 

amount on OHV stream crossings and use levels at these crossings since dust settling out near a stream would have 

the greatest chance of indirectly washing into surface water. The chance of this being a significant contributor to 

water pollution is not well known at this time. 

As described above, there is a potential for bacteriological water contamination from intensive recreation use. A 

discussion of this issue is included in the Fisheries section and according to this analysis is expected to low due to the 

installation of sanitation facilities.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 4

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in a large reduction in the amount of OHV roads and trails compared 

to Alternative 1. OHV use would focus down to three proposed OHV locations, all of which currently contain some 

level of OHV use. The amount of potential indirect and direct erosion and resulting sedimentation would increase in 

those three areas as OHV use increases. The project design criteria for OHV roads, trails, one area, and staging areas 

are expected to substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be 

realized by road decommissioning after some initial potential for short-term direct and indirect sedimentation. The 

table below is a summary of the changes to water quality indicators between Alternatives 1 and 4. In addition, some 

of the restoration work that benefits water quality is summarized in Table 3-68. 

Table 3-68. Summary of water quality indicators for Alternative 4.

Water Quality Effects 

Measure Alternative 4 Change from Alternative 1

Areas of Greatest 

Reduction (5th Field 

Watersheds within OHV 

Locations)

OHV Location Summary

Miles of OHV roads and 

trails within 100 feet of a 

stream

3.8 miles Reduced by 199 

miles or 98%

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River

LaDee Flats: 0.3 mi

McCubbins Gulch: 2.5 mi

Rock Creek: 1.0 mi

Number of stream crossings 46 Reduced by 3,358 

crossings or 98%

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River

LaDee Flats: 2 crossings

McCubbins: 28 crossings

Rock Creek: 16 crossings

Miles of OHV roads and 

trails in drinking water 

source areas

25 miles Reduced by 1,351 

miles or 98% City of Estacada LaDee Flats: 25.09 mi

Miles of OHV roads and 

trails within Riparian 

Reserves

8 miles Reduced by 449 

miles or 98%

Middle Clackamas River, 

White River

LaDee Flats: 1.72 mi

McCubbins Gulch: 4.27 mi

Rock Creek: 2.08 mi

Number of staging areas 5 n/a n/a n/a
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 87

Table 3-69. Summary of aquatic restoration activities for Alternative 4.

Aquatic Restoration Measure Alternative 4 Areas of Greatest Restoration

Miles of Decommissioned Roads Within 100 

feet of a Stream 0.7 miles Beaver Creek, Middle Clackamas River, Middle Deschutes River, White River

Number of Stream Crossings Restored 7 Middle Clackamas River, White River

Miles of Decommissioned Roads in Drinking 

Water Source Areas 5.1 miles City of Estacada

Miles of Decommissioned Roads in Key 

Watersheds 4.0 miles White River Key Watershed

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative watershed effects. It shows existing and 

potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with this OHV project, whether 

these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is expected. Findings of 

this summary are supported by the analysis above which utilizes pertinent research, mitigation measures and design 

criteria and applicable management standards and guidelines. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have been combined together 

due to the expectation of similar potential for cumulative effects for these three alternatives. 

Table 3-70. Summary of cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Existing Forest

Service Timber

Harvest Units

Suspended

Sediment No Yes No

Projects are completed.

No remaining sediment effects due to 

project design criteria implementation on 

the original projects and natural recovery.

Forest

Service Vegetation Treatment 

Activities Planned or 

Underway (The Dalles 

Watershed Fuelbreak, North 

Fork Mill Restoration Project, 

Sportsman’s Park Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction, No Whisky 

Plantation thinning, Upper 

Clackamas Plantation 

Thinning, Cascade Crest Fuel 

Break Project, Pre-commercial 

treatments)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in timing and 

location of these projects with this OHV 

project; these projects have a chance 

of some short-term introduction of 

fine sediment that may mix with fine 

sediment from the OHV project. Some of 

the high risk areas would be in Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due to North 

Fork Mill Restoration Project culvert 

replacements, road reconstruction on 

the 1700 road, OHV use on Hood River 

County lands, existing Long Prairie 

Grazing Allotment damage and timber 

harvest on private lands. The highest 

risk is associated with Alternative 2, a 

low risk in Alternative 3, and no risk in 

Alternative 4. Other listed projects have 

a low risk of cumulative effects due to 

implementation of project design criteria 

that minimize erosion and sediment 

input.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on both the existing 

projects and this OHV project 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 88

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Private Land Activities (SDS 

Timber Harvest, City of The 

Dalles Timber Harvest, Hood 

River County Trails Project)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

Some projects are completed so there 

are no remaining sediment effects due 

to natural recovery. Other ongoing 

projects on adjacent private land such 

as road maintenance and vegetation 

manipulation have a chance of some 

short-term introduction of fine sediment 

that may mix with minor fine sediment 

from the Mt. Hood National Forest OHV 

project. Some of the high risk areas 

would be in Neal Creek and W. Fork Neal 

Creek due to N. Fork Mill Restoration 

Project culvert replacements, road 

reconstruction on the 1700 road, OHV 

use on Hood River County lands, existing 

Long Prairie Grazing Allotment damage 

and timber harvest on private lands. 

N. Fork Mill Creek due to N. Fork Mill 

Restoration Project culvert replacements. 

The highest risk is associated with 

Alternative 2, a low risk in Alternative 3 

and no risk in Alternative 4. 

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected 

due to mitigation measures and design 

criteria implementation and conformance 

with existing standards and guidelines 

on both the existing projects and the Mt. 

Hood National Forest OHV project.

Misc. Tree Salvage

(Hazard Trees)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

this project with the Mt. Hood National 

Forest OHV project; any minor suspended 

sediment would not be measurable 

due to implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria and 

conformance with existing standards and 

guidelines in both projects.

Long Prairie

Grazing Allotment

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

Current damage in riparian areas from 

grazing has a chance of some shortterm introduction of fine sediment 

that may mix with minor fine sediment 

from the Mt. Hood National Forest 

OHV project. The highest risk of this 

would be in W. Fork Neal Creek due to 

the culvert replacement projects, road 

reconstruction on the 1700 road, Long 

Prairie Grazing allotment, OHV use on 

Hood River County lands and timber 

harvest on private lands. Long-term 

restoration of a more natural sediment 

regime is likely with recovery due 

to mitigation measures and design 

criteria in the Long Prairie Grazing 

Allotment project coupled with road 

decommissioning, culvert removal/ 

replacement and road closures associated 

with the N. Fork Mill Restoration Project.

Table 3-70. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 89

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Ongoing road and trail 

maintenance

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in timing and 

location of these projects with this OHV 

project; these projects have a chance 

of some short-term introduction of 

fine sediment that may mix with fine 

sediment from the OHV project. Some of 

the high risk areas would be in Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due to North 

Fork Mill Restoration Project culvert 

replacements, road reconstruction on 

the 1700 road, OHV use on Hood River 

County lands, existing Long Prairie 

Grazing Allotment damage and timber 

harvest on private lands. Other areas of 

potential concern include McCubbins 

Gulch and Cabin Creek in the Peavine 

location due to the number of OHV 

stream crossings and native surface 

roads. 

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on both the existing 

projects and this OHV project.

Invasive Plant

Treatments

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

invasive plant treatments with this OHV 

project; any minor suspended sediment 

would not be measurable due to 

implementation project design criteria 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines in both projects.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on both the existing 

projects and this OHV project.

Past Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment No Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in timing of 

these project effects with this OHV 

project. Any minor suspended sediment 

may slightly slow the recovery resulting 

from restoration project implementation, 

but this would not be measurable due to 

implementation of project design criteria 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines in both projects.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on both the existing 

projects and this OHV project.

Table 3-70. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 90

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Clackamas Road 

Decommissioning

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes No

There is a small spatial and temporal 

overlap of effects of the project with 

this OHV project. Any minor suspended 

sediment may slightly slow the recovery 

resulting from restoration project 

implementation but this would not be 

measurable due to implementation of 

design criteria and conformance with 

existing standards and guidelines in all 

projects on the Forest.

Future Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not 

Measurable

There may be a spatial overlap of these 

project effects with the OHV project. 

Any minor suspended sediment may 

slightly slow the recovery resulting from 

restoration project implementation but 

this would not be measurable due to 

implementation of project design criteria 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines in all projects on the 

Forest.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are expected due 

to project design criteria implementation 

and conformance with existing standards 

and guidelines on both the existing 

projects and this OHV project

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Sediment: Measurable cumulative effects are possible as a result of sediment introduction from this project. The 

risk depends on the timing of this project and other projects listed in the table above. If these projects are spaced 

closely together in time (within three years of each other), there is a higher chance that there would be a measurable 

cumulative effect than if they are implemented over a longer period of time. This is due to the dispersal of sediment 

throughout the stream system as time goes on. The highest risk of a cumulative sediment effect is in the Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due to the amount of activity confined in a fairly small area. The highest risk portions 

of this project are the culvert replacement and removals since they require work in the actual stream channel. The 

highest risk is associated with Alternative 2, a low risk with Alternative 3, and no risk in Alternative 4. 

OHV Related Chemicals: There would be little to no chance for cumulative effects related to OHV derived chemicals 

due to the implementation of PDC that minimize the chance of introducing these chemicals to surface water.

3.3.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Limitations of the Forest Service Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model can be found on the web 

site http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp. The total current OHV use is not complete and well documented. It is 

suspected that many user-created trails have not been inventoried. 

Table 3-70. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 91

3.4. Fisheries

This analysis is based on the information found in the Fisheries Specialist Report for this project, which is in the 

project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.4.1. Existing Condition

The following section describes existing distribution and status of native and/or culturally important fish species 

as well as four aquatic snails and one caddisfly species on the Forest. A description of habitat conditions, limited to 

those habitat parameters that could be affected by actions proposed in this EIS, follows the aquatic species discussion. 

Included is a description of designated critical habitat and essential fish habitat. Most of the information regarding 

fish distribution and habitat conditions was taken from existing Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or US 

Forest Service survey information, much of which is unpublished data.

The following discussion covers the entire Forest because the range of alternatives encompasses most of the 

Forest land base. Exceptions include wilderness areas and a few other land allocations. However, fish and aquatic 

macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to proposed OHV locations is summarized at the end of this section to 

better describe effects to Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status species.

Aquatic Organisms

The Forest uses salmonids (salmon, trout and char) as management indicator species for aquatic habitats. Due to 

their value as game fish and their sensitivity to habitat changes and water quality degradation, salmonids are used to 

monitor trends within Forest streams and lakes. Although other fish species may be present (e.g., lamprey, sculpins 

and dace), their population status and trends are unknown. Since more information exists on salmonids, this group 

serves as a more optimal choice for monitoring aquatic environments.

The Forest is home to several populations of salmon, steelhead, and resident trout. There are over 1,600 miles of 

fish-bearing streams on the Forest, with approximately 300 miles supporting anadromous populations of salmon 

and steelhead. Most salmonids that reside in Forest streams are an important cultural, economic and recreational 

resource. A number of species are listed as threatened under the ESA, or are Region 6 Regional Forester Special 

Status Species (Table 3-70). 

Salmonids listed under the ESA are grouped by distinct population segment (DPS) or evolutionary significant unit 

(ESU) – large geographic areas that are reproductively isolated from each other (i.e., different run and spawning 

timing). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have agreed the 

grouping name for Pacific salmon will be ESU and for steelhead DPS. More information may be found in Federal 

Register ESA listings. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 92

Table 3-71. ESA listed, special status and other important aquatic species found in Forest fifth field 

watersheds. The date in the status column is the date of listing or most recent status review and 

subsequent Federal Register notice for ESA listed species and the date of the most recent sensitive 

species list and/or Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision for special status species.

Species DPS/ESU Status Fifth Field Watersheds Where Found

Bull Trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) Columbia River DPS Threatened 6/98 East Fork Hood River

Steelhead Trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Lower Columbia River DPS Threatened 1/06

Middle Sandy River, Upper Sandy River, 

Zigzag River, Salmon River, Middle 

Clackamas River, Upper Clackamas 

River, Collawash River, Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River, Eagle Creek, East Fork 

Hood River, West Fork Hood River

Steelhead Trout Middle Columbia River 

DPS Threatened 1/06 Fifteenmile Creek, Fivemile Creek, Middle Columbia/Mill Creek

Chinook Salmon

(O. tshawytscha) Lower Columbia River ESU Threatened 6/05

Middle Sandy River, Upper Sandy River, 

Zigzag River, Salmon River, Bull Run River, 

East Fork Hood River, West Fork Hood River

Chinook Salmon Upper Willamette River 

ESU Threatened 6/05 Middle Clackamas River, Upper Clackamas 

River, Collawash River

Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) Lower Columbia River ESU Threatened 6/05

Middle Sandy River, Upper Sandy River, 

Zigzag River, Salmon River, Bull Run River, 

Middle Clackamas River, Upper Clackamas 

River, Collawash River, Oak Grove Fork 

Clackamas River, Eagle Creek, East Fork 

Hood River

US Forest Service, Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species (R6 SS)

Redband/ Inland Rainbow 

Trout (O. mykiss) Not Applicable (N/A) R6 SS – 1/08

White River, Tygh Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, 

Fivemile Creek, Middle Columbia/Mill 

Creek

Columbia duskysnail 

(Colligyrus sp. nov. 1) N/A

R6 SS – 1/08, Rare 

& Uncommon – 

1/01

Most 5th field watersheds within the 

Forest

Barren Juga

(Juga hemphilli hemphilli) N/A R6 SS – 1/08 Unknown*

Purple-lipped Juga

(Juga hemphilli maupinensis) N/A R6 SS – 1/08 Unknown*

Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly

(Allomyia scotti) N/A R6 SS – 1/08

Salmon River and White River; may 

present elsewhere but surveys not 

conducted*.

Basalt Juga (Juga (Oreobasis) 

n. sp. 2) N/A Rare & Uncommon – 1/01 Middle Columbia/Mill Creek**

Other Species Addressed in this Analysis

Pacific lamprey

(Lampetra tridentata) N/A Culturally and locally important

Fifteenmile Creek, Fivemile Creek, Middle 

Columbia/Mill Creek, Middle Sandy River, 

Upper Sandy River, Zigzag River, Bull Run 

River, Middle Clackamas River, Upper 

Clackamas River, Collawash River, Oak 

Grove Fork Clackamas River

Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki) N/A

Forest 

Management 

Indicator Species

Throughout the Forest except White River, 

Tygh Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, and West 

Fork Hood River 5th field watersheds.

*These three species were recently added to the Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list. Extensive surveys for these species have not been 

conducted. Habitat requirements (see below) indicate they could be present at least in some areas and where habitat is suitable they are assumed to be 

present.

**The Basalt Juga was found for the first time during the 2008 field season in North Fork Mill Creek. It has not been found in any other streams surveyed in the 

Forest. Given that all other known locations are within the Columbia Gorge near The Dalles it is presumed this snail is localized in distribution and not present 

in most watersheds on the Forest.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 93

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are important residents of streams, lakes, and ponds in the Forest. Presence, abundance, 

and status of invertebrate species that reside in area water bodies are not well understood. Most streams within the 

Forest have good water quality within their natural constraints (e.g., glacial streams are naturally turbid at times and 

carry a high sediment load) and habitat conditions are generally favorable. Macroinvertebrate populations appear 

robust and a range of species representing a wide variety of feeding groups (predators, grazers, leaf shredders) are 

usually present, but definitive studies to characterize diversity, richness, and biomass are lacking. Therefore, the 

following discussion, as well as the effects analysis, focus on the four snails and one caddisfly listed in Table 3-71. 

Listed or sensitive species in Table 3-71 were federally listed or designated as special status species for a number 

of factors. Although there are different reasons for their current status, as indicated in Table 3-71, common issues 

throughout their range include impaired fish passage at dams and other obstructions, commercial and recreational 

fishing, habitat modification and/or loss, hatchery influences, and pollution. Hydropower, irrigation, domestic water 

supply, and flood control dams have disrupted migrations and eliminated historically available habitat. Commercial 

and recreational fishing have reduced numbers of wild fish in some populations. Habitat has been degraded, 

simplified, and fragmented due to a variety of land management activities both on and off the Forest. Hatchery 

programs have influenced populations, partly by masking declines in native fish abundance and dilution of native 

gene pools due to interbreeding. Reduced water quality from both point and non-point sources has had an impact at 

localized and even watershed scales in some areas. Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates have primarily been from 

habitat modification and water quality degradation.

Columbia River Bull Trout

The only known population of bull trout in the Forest is found in the East Fork Hood River fifth field watershed. 

Bull trout presence in the Forest has been documented in the Middle Fork Hood River, Clear Branch both above 

and below Clear Branch Dam, Pinnacle Creek, Coe Branch, Eliot Branch, Bear Creek, and the mainstem Hood River 

below the Forest boundary (Figure 3-7: Map of Bull Trout Distribution). Most bull trout in the Forest are found 

primarily within Laurance Lake (reservoir), and in Clear Branch and Pinnacle creeks. Clear Branch Dam, completed 

in 1969, has effectively split the Hood River bull trout population into two segments. Although bull trout can migrate 

downstream over the dam when water is spilling, it is unknown how often and to what extent this occurs. There is an 

upstream migrant fish trap at the base of the dam but it has not been operated for several years. 

Above the dam the population of bull trout is believed to exhibit primarily an adfluvial life history: adult fish reside 

in the reservoir and move into Clear Branch or Pinnacle Creek as early as June, spawn mainly during September, and 

move back into the reservoir to spend the winter. There may be a fluvial (completely stream dwelling) population 

component above the reservoir as well. 

Below Clear Branch Dam it is believed there are fluvial and adfluvial subpopulations present, but relatively little is 

known about this segment of the overall population. A small number of individuals annually migrate into the Hood 

River from the Columbia River, and some individuals have returned more than once (Hood River Soil and Water 

Conservation District, 2004; French, 2006). Other large bull trout have been observed below Clear Branch Dam that 

are not tagged, thus leading biologists to believe there may be a wholly stream resident population as well. 

Bull trout reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age and are known to live as long as 12 years. Bull 

trout spawn in the fall, and require clean gravel and very cold water temperatures for spawning and egg incubation. 

Bull trout fry utilize side channels, stream margins, and other low velocity areas. Adults require large pools with 

abundant cover in rivers. Presumably, the various forms of bull trout interbreed, which helps to maintain viable 

populations throughout their range. 

In 2008 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a review of bull trout populations within their range of ESA 

listing. The Hood River population is described as “high risk, due to very limited and/or declining numbers, range, 

and/or habitat, making the bull trout in this core area vulnerable to extirpation.” A discussion of the Hood River 

population is found in the 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/

doc1907.pdf). A draft recovery plan was also completed for the Columbia River DPS in 2002 (USFWS). This 

document is also available on the web at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/Recovery.html.

In 2004 a working group of fisheries biologists convened to consider reintroducing bull trout into the upper 

Clackamas River. Bull trout were once abundant and widely distributed in the Clackamas River. The impetus is 

based on the listing of bull trout as threatened under the ESA, and the goal of that law is to recover species from 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 94

being threatened or endangered to the point that they no longer need its protection. A draft proposal for bull trout 

reintroduction was developed in 2007 amongst cooperating state and federal agencies in coordination with the 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/

BullTrout/ReintroductionProject.asp). 

Pending additional state, federal, and tribal administrative and rule-making procedures, reintroduction could begin 

in 2010 at the earliest. Reintroduction areas under consideration include Rhododendron Creek, Hunter Creek, Berry 

Creek, Cub Creek, Last Creek and Pinhead Creek, and the Upper Clackamas River.

Figure 3-7. Map of bull trout distribution. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 95

Lower Columbia River Steelhead 

Lower Columbia River steelhead are fairly widespread in the Forest as they are found in several fifth field watershed 

within the Clackamas, Sandy, and Hood River Basins (Table 3-71 and Figure 3-8: Map of Lower and Middle 

Columbia River steelhead trout distribution). Adult winter steelhead enter rivers and streams on the Forest primarily 

from March through June. A small run of summer steelhead occurs in the Hood River. These fish enter the mainstem 

Hood River from June through September, over winter in larger tributaries or the mainstem, and spawn the following 

spring. Adult steelhead spawn in late winter to spring (January–June), depending in part on the run type (summer 

or winter steelhead), stream discharge and water temperature. Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel between late 

June and late July, and rear in freshwater habitat for one to three years. Yearling juvenile steelhead are usually found 

in riffle habitat, but some of the larger juvenile steelhead are found in pools and faster runs. Smolt emigration takes 

place primarily from March through June during spring freshets.

In regards to habitat utilization, steelhead are more of an opportunist anadromous species compared to salmon. 

As such, they are often more widespread and can utilize smaller streams more readily than many salmon species. 

Their stronghold habitats on the Forest tend to be larger rivers and streams. Recovery planning is ongoing for Lower 

Columbia River steelhead but a draft recovery plan has yet to be completed. A full description of the status of the ESA 

listing and status of the DPS may be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/.

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

Middle Columbia River steelhead presence on the Forest is limited to the Fifteenmile, Fivemile and Middle 

Columbia/Mill Creek fifth field watersheds (Figure 3-8: Map of Lower and Middle Columbia River steelhead trout 

distribution). This stock is the easternmost run of wild winter steelhead trout in the Columbia River Basin3

, and thus, 

is unique at local and regional scales. Steelhead have been documented upstream of the Forest boundary in North 

Fork Mill Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, Ramsey Creek, Fivemile Creek, and Eightmile Creek. A barrier falls restricts 

steelhead from ascending to the Forest in South Fork Mill Creek. Life history information and run timing is similar 

to that described for Lower Columbia River winter steelhead. A draft recovery plan for the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS was completed in 2008 (NMFS). A full description of the status of the ESA listing and status of the 

DPS, including the draft recovery plan, may be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/.

3 It has not been confirmed that steelhear in the Mill Creek Watershed are the same genetic stock as those found in the Fifteenmile Creek and Fivemile Creek 

fifth field watersheds. The US Forest Service assumes these fish are the same, but that has not been validated.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 96

Figure 3-8. Map of Lower and Middle Columbia River steelhead trout distribution. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 97

Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon are found in several fifth field watersheds within the Sandy and Hood River 

Basins on the Forest (Table 3-71 and Figure 3-9: Map of Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook 

salmon distribution). This ESU is made up of both spring and fall run components. 

Most spring Chinook salmon in the Hood River Basin ascend the West Fork Hood River, and based on available 

information, use appears to be low in the East and Middle forks of the Hood River. Fall Chinook are found only in 

the mainstem Hood River and up to Punchbowl Falls near the mouth of the West Fork Hood River below the Forest 

boundary. 

Spring Chinook in the Sandy River Basin utilize the mainstem Sandy River and upper basin tributary streams, such 

as the Salmon River, Zigzag River, Still Creek, and Clear Fork of the Sandy River. They enter these watersheds from 

April through August and spawn from August through early October. Spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sandy 

River have been influenced by spring-run Chinook salmon introduced from the Willamette River ESU. Analyses, 

however, suggest that considerable genetic integrity still exists in the Sandy River population (Myers et al., 1998). 

Fall Chinook within the Sandy River primarily spawn and rear in the mainstem and larger tributaries downstream 

from the Forest boundary. Most fall run fish emigrate to the marine environment as sub-yearlings. Modifications in 

the river environment have altered the duration of freshwater residence. Tule fall Chinook salmon return at adult 

ages three and four; “bright” fall Chinook salmon return at ages four, five, and six. 

A full description of the status of the ESA listing and status of the ESU may be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/. As with LCR steelhead a draft recovery plan has not been prepared for 

LCR Chinook salmon.

Upper Willamette River Chinook 

Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon occur only in the Clackamas River Basin within the Forest (Table 

3-71 and Figure 3-9: Map of Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon distribution). The 

ESU consists of both naturally spawning and hatchery produced fish. These spring Chinook enter the Clackamas 

River from April through August and spawn from September through early October. These fish primarily spawn and 

rear in the mainstem Clackamas River and larger tributaries. Spawning in the upper Clackamas drainage has been 

observed in the mainstem Clackamas from the head of North Fork Reservoir upstream to Big Bottom, the Collawash 

River, Hot Springs Fork of the Collawash River, lower Fish Creek, South Fork Clackamas River, Oak Grove Fork, and 

Roaring River.

The life history of Upper Willamette River Chinook includes traits from both ocean- and stream-type developmental 

strategies. The timing of the spawning migration is limited by Willamette Falls. High flows in the spring allow access 

to the Upper Willamette River Basin, whereas low flows in the summer and autumn prevent later-migrating fish from 

ascending the falls. The low flows may serve as an isolating mechanism, separating this ESU from others nearby. A 

full description of the status of the ESA listing and status of the ESU may be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESASalmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/. A recovery plan has yet to be prepared.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 98

Figure 3-9. Map of Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

distribution.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 99

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

Coho stocks occurring on the Forest are currently found in various fifth field watersheds within the Sandy, 

Clackamas, and Hood River Basins (Table 3-71 and Figure 3-10: Map of Lower Columbia River Coho salmon fish 

distribution). The indigenous run of coho salmon in the Hood River is at a very low level and may be extinct, but 

there is some natural reproduction occurring (French, 2006). The coho salmon that do enter the Hood River appear 

to primarily utilize the mainstem as well as the lower reaches of the East Fork Hood River. 

The Clackamas River contains an early run stock and the last significant run of wild late-winter coho in the Columbia 

River Basin. Spawning occurs mid-September to the end of April with the peak occurring mid-February. Adults 

prefer deep pools and tributaries for over-wintering, while juveniles will seek out inundated floodplains and other 

protected slow-water habitats, such as side channels and slow water pools. Woody debris and habitat diversity are 

important to this species. Primary streams utilized in the Sandy River Basin include the Sandy River, Salmon River, 

Still Creek, and Zigzag River. In the Clackamas River, coho are found mostly in the Clackamas River, Collawash 

River, Fish Creek, Oak Grove Fork, and Hot Springs Fork. 

A full description of the status of the ESA listing and status of the ESU may be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/. A recovery plan has yet to be prepared.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 100

Figure 3-10. Map of Lower Columbia River Coho salmon distribution.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 101

US Forest Service, Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Sensitive Species

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act process the Forest Service reviews programs and activities to 

determine their potential effect on sensitive species. Species on the Mt. Hood National Forest included in the January 

2008 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List are described below. 

Redband Trout: Redband/inland rainbow trout (redband trout) occur in the White River, Tygh Creek, Fifteenmile 

Creek, Fivemile Creek, and Middle Columbia/Mill Creek fifth field watersheds on the Forest (Figure 3-11: Map of 

rainbow/redband and cutthroat trout distribution). Redband trout populations within the White River and Tygh 

Creek watersheds are genetically distinct from those in the Deschutes River and are unique among other redband 

trout populations east of the Cascades (Currens et al. 1990). Rainbow trout within the other watersheds listed above 

are believed to be the redband subspecies (Behnke 1992), but definitive genetic analysis has not been conducted.

Spawning occurs in the spring. Fry emergence from the gravel normally occurs by the middle of July, but depends on 

water temperature and exact time of spawning. Redband trout prefer water temperatures from 50 to 57 o

F, but have 

been found actively feeding at temperatures up to 77 oF in high desert streams of Oregon and have survived in waters 

up to 82 oF.

Columbia Duskysnail: This species of aquatic mollusk has been found across the Forest during surveys conducted 

over the past several years (Mt. Hood National Forest, unpublished data). Habitat requirements for this species are 

fairly specific: cold well oxygenated springs, seeps, and small streams, preferring areas without aquatic macrophytes 

(Furnish and Monthey 1998). Individuals have not been found in larger streams and rivers, or glacial streams.

Surveys for the Columbia duskysnail have been conducted at sites across the Forest for a wide range of projects. This 

aquatic mollusk species has been found in many locations across the Forest and it is presumed to be present in seeps, 

springs, and smaller streams near OHV use locations proposed in this EIS. 

Purple-lipped Juga: The Purple-lipped Juga snail is endemic to Oregon. It is found in large streams at low elevations. 

These snails prefer riffle habitat with stable gravel substrates, in cold well oxygenated water. It is more tolerant of silt 

and slack water than other Juga subspecies. The known range of the species is the Lower Deschutes River drainage, 

below Pelton Dam, and the Warm Springs River in Wasco and Sherman counties, Oregon. Sites where the species are 

known to occur are located on the Warm Springs Reservation and Prineville BLM in the Deschutes Wild and Scenic 

River Area. There are few locations on the Forest that match the above preferred habitat description. These locations 

are in larger rivers likely near the Forest boundary. Streams within or near proposed OHV locations do not meet the 

above habitat description and thus it is assumed that this snail is not present in these locations although surveys have 

not been conducted.

Barren Juga: This species of aquatic mollusk is found in freshwater habitats in small to medium sized highly 

oxygenated cold water streams at low elevations. The species prefers streams that have moderate velocity level 

bottoms with stable gravel substrates. The known range of this species is the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and 

Washington. They have been found in the Mt. Hood National Forest and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

Area. They are also suspected to occur in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Where streams match this description 

near proposed OHV locations the presence of this snail is assumed.

Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly: This species of caddisfly inhabits small cold mountain streams. The species has been 

found in four locations on Mt. Hood in two fifth field watersheds (White River and Salmon River): an alpine stream 

below Timberline Lodge, the south fork of Iron Creek, from a stream at the junction of Highways 35 and 48, and on 

a tributary of the Salmon River. The species may occur in other localities on or near Mt. Hood; however extensive 

surveys have not been conducted.

Basalt Juga: The Basalt Juga is not a sensitive species but it is on the Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status 

Species list. It is a rare and uncommon species as outlined in the Northwest Forest Plan. These small snails have only 

been found in one survey on the Forest in North Fork Mill Creek. They have not been found in any other stream or 

water body surveyed since Forest personnel began surveying in 1998. They are not believed to reside in watersheds 

other than those that drain into the Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon. Their habitat requirements appear 

similar to the Columbia duskysnail’s (Furnish and Monthey 1998). 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 102

Surveys for the four special status aquatic mollusks and the one caddisfly were not conducted as part of this project. 

Instead of conducting surveys, species presence is presumed where habitat conditions are similar to those described 

above. Riparian reserve standards and guidelines and project design criteria are sufficient to provide for the habitat 

needs of this species. Anticipated effects of implementing the action alternatives would not significantly affect habitat 

or species persistence at each site. 

Figure 3-11. Map of rainbow/redband and cutthroat trout distribution.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 103

Other Important Aquatic Species

Pacific lamprey: Relatively little is known about Pacific lamprey distribution and population status in streams within 

the Forest compared to salmonids. These fish have been documented in various watersheds including Fifteenmile 

Creek, Mill Creek, Clackamas River, and the Sandy River (Table 3-71). Pacific lamprey are culturally important to 

indigenous tribes in the area and some tribal fishing does occur in Fifteenmile Creek near the mouth. 

A falls near the mouth of the White River is a complete barrier to all fish species, thus Pacific lamprey are not present 

in this watershed upstream of that point. A dam barrier in the Hood River appears to preclude lamprey migration 

upstream. Pacific lamprey have been documented in Fish Creek, tributary to the Clackamas River upstream of North 

Fork Dam, but their overall distribution in the Clackamas River within the Forest is not well understood.

Pacific lamprey have a unique life history (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). The adults spawn from April through July 

in streams. Eggs hatch in about three weeks and the larvae burrow into silt and mud in slower areas of coldwater 

streams. The larvae live in the stream bottom like this for four to seven years at which point they metamorphose into 

adults and migrate to the Pacific Ocean to begin their adult, parasitic lifestyle. 

Coastal cutthroat trout: Cutthroat trout residing in waters of the Forest are composed of two native stocks: an 

anadromous (sea run) form and resident stock. These fish are a Management Indicator Species on the Forest. 

Resident populations of cutthroat are widespread throughout much of the Forest (Table 3-71 and Figure 3-11: Map 

of rainbow/redband and cutthroat trout fish distribution). Historically, sea run cutthroat trout occurred in the 

Clackamas River, Sandy River, and Hood River basins, but anadromous cutthroat populations appear to have greatly 

declined throughout these watersheds. Consistent indicators in abundance trends for most populations of either 

resident or sea run cutthroat trout do not exist.

Coastal cutthroat trout tend to spawn in small (first and second order) tributaries. They spawn from December to 

May; young emerge from gravel during June and July. Young fry move into channel margin and backwater habitats 

during the first several weeks. During the winter, juvenile cutthroat trout use low velocity pools and side channels 

with complex habitat created by large wood or other features. Coastal sea run cutthroat juveniles rear in freshwater 

for two to three years.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat has been designated for Columbia River bull trout, Lower Columbia River steelhead trout, MidColumbia River steelhead trout, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, and Upper Willamette River Chinook 

salmon. Much of the discussion concerning critical habitat, including effects analyses, will center on the primary 

constituent elements (PCE) described below for each species. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Bull trout critical habitat has been designated in the mainstem Hood River, West Fork Hood River, Middle Fork 

Hood River, and a short section of the East Fork Hood River (70 Federal Register 56233, September 26, 2005). The 

upper limit of designated critical habitat was halted at the Forest boundary in the West Fork and Middle Fork, but 

also includes sections of the West Fork Hood River privately owned within the Forest. No bull trout critical habitat 

was designated elsewhere in the Forest.

The PCE of bull trout critical habitat are derived from studies of bull trout habitat requirements, life history 

characteristics, and population biology. These PCE are: 

1. Permanent water having low levels of contaminates such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are 

not inhibited.

2. Water temperatures ranging from 36 to 590

F, with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the 

upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history 

stage and for geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian 

habitat, and local groundwater influence.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 104

3. Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to 

provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures.

4. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo over-winter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less 

than 0.25 inch in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions.

5. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a 

hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations.

6. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity.

7. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, 

over-wintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water 

temperatures or low flows.

8. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and 

forage fish.

9. Few or no predatory, interbreeding or competitive non-native species present. 

Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for the above species was designated in September 2005 by the NMFS (70 Federal Register 52630, 

September 2, 2005). Unlike bull trout critical habitat, which did not include stream reaches in the Forest, critical 

habitat for steelhead and Chinook encompasses most of the available anadromous habitat across all land ownerships. 

Lower Columbia River steelhead and Chinook critical habitat is the most ubiquitous across the Forest because these 

species are the most widespread. Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat is present only in the Fifteenmile 

Creek and Mill Creek watersheds on the eastside of the Forest. Critical habitat for Upper Willamette River Chinook is 

designated in the Clackamas River Watershed.

Primary constituent elements for steelhead and Chinook are sites and habitat components that support one or 

more life stages. The first three, listed below, refer to freshwater habitat components, whereas the last three relate to 

estuarine or marine habitat components. Nothing proposed in any alternative would have an affect on estuarine or 

marine habitat components, thus they are not discussed.

1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, 

incubation and larval development. 

2. Freshwater rearing sites with:

a. Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;

b. Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and

c. Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, 

aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.

3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions, and natural cover, such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large 

rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.

Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish 

habitat (EFH) for those species regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan – in this case, Chinook and 

coho salmon. Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all proposed actions that 

may adversely affect EFH. Adverse effects include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the 

waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem 

components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH.

Pacific salmon (Chinook and coho) EFH was designated in 1999, but the actual identification of stream reaches 

considered to be EFH was left to the action agencies, such as the US Forest Service. Essential Fish Habitat is 

coincident with Chinook salmon critical habitat where it’s designated. In addition, however, there are streams within 

the Fifteenmile Creek and Mill Creek watersheds that support either Chinook and/or coho, but were not designated 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 105

as critical habitat. Specifically, the US Forest Service considers the following stream segments as EFH: Fifteenmile 

Creek from its mouth to the Forest boundary; Eightmile Creek from its mouth to the Forest boundary; Mill Creek 

from its mouth to the confluence of the North and South Forks; South Fork Mill Creek from its mouth to the 

impassable falls at near river mile 2.3; and North Fork Mill Creek from its mouth to the Forest boundary.

Table 3-72 summarizes ESA listed fish and Regional Forester’s Special Status Species presence/absence, as well as 

designated critical habitat and essential fish habitat, by proposed OHV locations. Species and or suitable habitat 

found directly adjacent to proposed locations (i.e., fish known to reside in streams at or within 0.5 miles downstream 

of road/trail crossings) are designated with a “Y” in the table. In many cases the respective species may only reside 

in one stream near a proposed OHV location. The table is intended to give the reader a basic idea of where various 

aquatic fauna are located in relation to proposed OHV locations along with Figures 3-7 through 3-11. Aquatic fauna 

distribution related to specific OHV locations will be discussed in the effects section below. 

Table 3-72. Presence of ESA listed fish, Regional Forester’s Special Status Species, designated 

critical habitat, and essential fish habitat within one half mile of the eight proposed OHV locations 

on the Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Species/Habitat Peavine LaDee

Flats

Bear

Creek

Gibson

Prairie

McCubbins

Gulch Rock Creek Graham Pass Mt. Defiance

ESA Listed Fish Species

Bull Trout N1 N N N N N N1 N

Steelhead Trout (LCR) N N N N N N Y N

Steelhead Trout (MCR) N N N Y N N N N

Chinook Salmon (LCR) N N N N N N N N

Chinook Salmon (Willamette) N N N N N N N N

Coho Salmon (LCR) N N N N N N N N

Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species

Redband/ Inland Rainbow Trout N N N Y Y Y N N

Columbia duskysnail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Barren Juga Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk N

Purple-lipped Juga Unk2 Unk2 Unk2 Unk2 Unk2 Unk2 Unk2 N

Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk N

Basalt Juga (Rare & Uncommon) N N N Y N N N N

Other Important Aquatic Species

Pacific lamprey Unk Unk N N N N Unk N

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (MIS) Y Y Y Y N N Y N

Critical/Essential Fish Habitat

Bull Trout Critical Habitat N N N N N N N N

Steelhead Critical Habitat N N N Y N N Y N

Chinook Critical Habitat N N N N N N N N

Essential Fish Habitat N N N N N N N N

1Bull trout are not currently present in streams in the Peavine and Graham Pass OHV locations but are proposed for reintroduction nearby.

Table Key

N – species/habitat not present

Y – species/habitat known to be present

Unk – species presence unknown but suspected either due to nearby surveys or presence of suitable habitat.

Unk2 – species presence unknown but not suspected due to habitat preferences (large, low elevation streams).

MIS – Mt. Hood National Forest Management Indicator Species
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 106

Aquatic Habitat Conditions

Introduction

Aquatic habitat conditions across the Forest vary depending on the location, past land management activities, and 

natural events such as floods, fire, and debris torrents. In general, streams that have experienced little to no land 

management are in good condition even though Forest Plan standards (i.e., pools per mile, pieces of wood per mile, 

etc.) are not always met. Some of these streams have been impacted by natural events and, indeed, were formed or 

maintained by such events. Glacial streams such as the Sandy River, White River, Newton Creek and Eliot Branch are 

examples of streams exhibiting relatively degraded, but natural, conditions due to natural events (in this case repeated 

glacial debris flows). 

Fish habitat conditions within watersheds where land management has occurred range from poor to good, depending 

on the type and scale of disturbance, proximity to streams, timing and duration of land management activities, 

and sensitivity of channel type to perturbation. On the westside of the Cascades, watersheds have been affected by 

logging, dams, road construction, and past flood control activities. On the eastside, major land management activities 

contributing to degraded aquatic habitat have included logging, road construction, irrigation water withdrawals, 

agriculture, and grazing. Separately and cumulatively, these activities have resulted in some loss of function of natural 

processes such as large wood recruitment and movement, connectivity of habitat, reduction of stream shading, 

alteration in riparian vegetation and function, increased sedimentation, reduced instream large woody debris, and 

loss of pools. 

Forest management has changed since the signing of the Northwest Forest Plan in the early 1990’s. Changes in 

management of riparian areas have resulted in overall long-term recovery of riparian areas providing benefits 

to aquatic species. Examples include thinning streamside plantations to accelerate development of older stand 

conditions and obliteration of roads with a high risk of sediment production into streams. Despite past management 

impacts, most streams or stream segments contain some optimal fisheries habitat. There are no streams with 

degraded conditions over their entire length within the Forest, even those streams listed on the Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303d list. A common scenario is shorter stream segments experiencing some 

impairment interspersed with good habitat quality reaches. Water quality, in terms of temperature and fine sediment, 

is good to excellent across most of the Forest with few streams listed on the DEQ 303d list (see Water Quality Section 

for a complete discussion on water quality), but in some streams habitat/water quality conditions decline further 

downstream.

Action Area Description

The Action Area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the 

immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR §402.02]. Several aquatic habitat elements could be impacted by OHV 

use (discussed in detail below) but the primary elements that could be degraded are substrate and water quality from 

fine sediment and elevated turbidity, respectively. In regards to aquatic fauna and habitat potential effects would be 

most likely within 100 feet of surface water and particularly at road/trail stream crossings. However, fine sediment 

and turbid conditions would extend downstream varying distances from sources depending on stream flow, stream 

size, gradient, and habitat complexity (the more complex the habitat the more likely sediment would be trapped 

behind logjams or other structure). In no case, however, would fine sediment resulting from OHV use or related 

actions proposed in this EIS travel further downstream than one half mile from the source. This is based on the 

relatively small amounts potentially generated at each source and the fact that the sediment would be diluted and 

dissipated rapidly as it travels downstream. Both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2007) and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS 2007) agreed that fine sediment (including turbidity) related effects would not extend 

further downstream than one half mile from in-stream restoration activities such as culvert replacement and large 

wood addition. Only culvert removal proposed in this EIS as part of road decommissioning would result in fine 

sediment levels commensurate with those analyzed by the NMFS and FWS; other actions would produce far less 

fine sediment. As such, the action area for the fisheries and other aquatic fauna effects analysis includes existing and 

proposed roads/trails and other use areas, staging areas, and those streams crossed by roads/trails extending to a point up 

to, but not exceeding, one half mile downstream.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 107

Note that the following summary, and resultant analysis of effects, is organized by proposed OHV locations and not 

by fifth field or smaller watershed. This is because the proposed locations are relatively small and anticipated effects 

would not extend more than one half mile downstream. Any effects would be immeasurable at the fifth, and likely 

even the sixth, field scale given the expected magnitude of effects and proposed concentration of OHV use.

Aquatic Habitat Conditions Affected by One or More Alternative

Existing habitat conditions and subsequent analysis will focus on those habitat elements that could be affected by 

OHV use, trail construction, road decommissioning, conversion from road to trail, and designation of staging 

areas: fine sediment and substrate, pool quality, water chemistry, and connectivity (i.e., fish passage). Other habitat 

elements, such as water temperature, off-channel habitat areas, large wood levels, etc. would not be affected by OHV 

use and proposed actions so these elements are not discussed. The majority of streams within the Forest are in good 

condition for the habitat elements to be discussed based on available information from water quality and physical 

habitat surveys (stream surveys on file at Ranger District offices). 

Fine Sediment and Substrate

Levels of fine sediment (defined here as sand or silt <1 mm in diameter) in spawning habitat or riffles within stream 

reaches across the Forest vary widely (Table 3-73) depending on a variety of factors, including parent soil type, stream 

size, gradient, flow regime, water source (e.g., glacial, spring-fed, snowmelt), and past land management activities. 

Note that many streams outlined in Table 3-73 were surveyed over a decade ago; conditions likely have changed but 

the most recent survey information is displayed. Many streams on the Forest have naturally high sediment loads 

given their glacial origin. Local fish stocks and other stream dwelling animals have evolved to survive in these glacial 

conditions. Numerous studies have taken place to try and determine the amount of fine sediment in spawning gravel 

that limits survival of salmonid embryos. Many investigators have accepted that significant embryo mortality can be 

expected when fine sediment <0.8 mm approaches or exceeds 20 percent of the redd (Waters 1995).

As mentioned above, there are segments of some streams with high amounts of fine sediment that may be 

detrimental to salmonid spawning and egg incubation, reduce insect production or survival, and may decrease 

available rearing habitat by filling pools or other slow water areas. In glacial streams, such as the Sandy and East Fork 

Hood rivers, this is largely a natural phenomenon. In non-glacial streams the amount of fine sediment in suitable 

spawning areas and riffles can exceed 20 percent, thus exceeding the standards set in the Forest Plan. This standard is 

often exceeded in streams that have experienced little to no land management indicating the source is natural. 

In other areas the high amounts of fine sediment are a result of or exacerbated by past land management, very 

often roads. Some types of watershed restoration projects, such as road decommissioning, are designed to reduce 

sediment inputs from roads. During the past 10 years, over 410 miles of roads (representing about 10 percent of 

the road system) have been decommissioned and hydrologic function has been restored on the decommissioned 

segments (2003 Roads Analysis, Mt. Hood National Forest). Reductions in sediment transport to streams due to road 

decommissioning may not be reflected in the values in Table 3-73, due to the age of the surveys.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 108

Table 3-73. Spawning habitat fine sediment levels in surveyed streams within or 

downstream of proposed OHV locations in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Fine sediment 

values highlighted in green are <2 mm as that was the survey protocol during those 

surveys. Reaches in bold italics are those that do not meet Forest Plan standards. Begin 

and end miles are the river miles of the surveyed reach. There were no streams surveyed 

near the Mt. Defiance OHV location.

OHV Location Survey 

Year Stream Name Reach Begin Mile End Mile Fines <1 mm (%)

Bear Creek 2001 Bear 1 0 2.2 0

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 1 0 2.3 8

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 2 2.3 2.8 1

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 3 2.8 4.6 4

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 4 4.6 4.9 0

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 5 4.9 6.9 5

Bear Creek 1996 Tony 6 6.9 8 0

Gibson Prairie 2000 NF Mill 1 6.4 11.2 18

Gibson Prairie 2000 NF Mill 2 11.2 12.4 44

Gibson Prairie 1999 WF Neal 1 2.2 8.9 19

Graham Pass 1999 Cub 1 0 2.2 3

Graham Pass 1999 Cub 2 2.2 3.9 3

Graham Pass 1999 Cub 3 3.9 5.4 0

Graham Pass 1999 Cub 4 5.4 6.7 15

Graham Pass 1999 Cub 5 6.7 7.4 70

Graham Pass 2000 Jazz Creek 1 0 2.6 12

Graham Pass 2001 Rhododendron 1 0 0.8 0

Graham Pass 2001 Rhododendron 2 0.8 2.4 6

Graham Pass 2001 Rhododendron 3 2.4 3.5 6

Graham Pass 1998 Tumble 1 0 1.1 13

Graham Pass 1998 Tumble 2 1.1 1.7 22

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 1 0 2 3

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 2 2 2.8 1

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 3 2.8 5.9 3

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 4 5.9 7.1 2

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 5 7.1 7.6 7

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 6 7.6 11.4 8

LaDee Flats 1996 NF Clackamas 7 11.4 12.3 4

LaDee Flats 1995 Winslow 1 0 0.5 17

LaDee Flats 1995 Winslow 2 0.5 0.7 3

LaDee Flats 1995 Winslow 3 0.7 2.5 23

McCubbins 1997 Frog 1 0 2.5 29

McCubbins 1997 Frog 2 2.5 4.8 46

McCubbins 1997 Frog 3 4.8 6.2 49

McCubbins 1997 Frog 4 6.2 7.8 40

Peavine 1996 Pinhead 1 0 2.8 16

Peavine 1996 Pinhead 2 2.8 3.6 23

Peavine 1996 Pinhead 3 3.6 6.2 18

Peavine 1996 Pinhead 4 6.2 7.1 30

Peavine 1996 Pinhead 5 7.1 7.4 33

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 3 16.8 17.4 8
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 109

OHV Location Survey 

Year Stream Name Reach Begin Mile End Mile Fines <1 mm (%)

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 4 17.4 19.8 6

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 5 19.8 20.8 1

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 6 20.8 22 9

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 7 22 23.4 24

Peavine 1997 Upper Clackamas 8 23.4 24.5 11

Rock Creek 1998 Rock Creek NA RM 9.2 24*

*This value is not directly comparable to others in the table as the survey included pool habitat (other surveys sampled only riffles and pool 

tails). As such the percent fines in spawning habitat is likely less that 24%; however, this is the only data available for streams in the proposed 

Rock Creek OHV location.

Pool Quality

Pool quality is not a measured attribute for stream surveys on the Forest. In the context of this analysis, potential 

effects to pool quality refers to the potential for increased amounts of fine sediment resulting from proposed activities 

that could decrease pool volume. There are no current measures of pool volume to compare to, so the effects analysis 

will discuss the potential for pool volume reduction resulting from OHV use.

Water Chemistry (Chemical Contamination/Nutrients)

There are no known streams or stream reaches within the Forest that are impaired for water chemistry (in this 

context water chemistry refers to the presence of toxic material, primarily petrochemicals or fecal coliform bacteria). 

Mining utilizing cyanide leach methods has not occurred in the Forest. As such, surface waters do not contain large 

amounts of chemicals and there are no areas with long standing chemical sources leading to degraded conditions for 

aquatic organisms.

Connectivity/Physical Barriers

Connectivity from an aquatic species context relates primarily to the presence of human-made barriers that preclude 

or limit up and downstream migration of aquatic fauna. On the Forest the most prevalent human-made barriers are 

road culverts, although irrigation diversions are often barriers as well. The Forest conducted a comprehensive fish 

passage survey on culverts across the Forest in 1999 and 2000 (Asbridge et al. 2001). Over 80 percent of surveyed 

culverts were rated as fish passage barriers. However, since 2000 most of the high priority culverts (i.e., those culverts 

in streams supporting anadromous fish or bull trout) have been removed or replaced with “fish-friendly” crossings. 

Numerous resident fish culvert barriers remain in virtually all watersheds across the Forest.

3.4.2. Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

Fine Sediment and Substrate

Current OHV use is located in nearly every fifth-field watershed on the Forest. The current motor vehicle use policy 

for the Forest allows motor vehicles to venture off of roads and trails in areas that have not been specifically closed 

to such use. At present approximately 394,886 acres are open for OHV travel on the Forest with restrictions to avoid 

sensitive areas. There is no reasonable methodology to quantify location and impacts on hundreds of thousands of 

acres open to OHV use. 

As noted in the Water Quality and Soils Sections, there is a potential to increase erosion and sedimentation in these 

areas due to lack of project design criteria in locations, such as uncontrolled stream crossings. The lack of staging 

areas affects current conditions. For example, the Soils Section describes how the LaDee Flats location is lacking a 

staging area and associated enforcement results in spontaneous parking at wide pullouts along roads. This results in 

chronic mudding in ditchlines, resulting in increasing risk of sediment transport to streams. 

Table 3-73. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 110

It has been well documented that OHV use can result in bare ground and increase soil erosion rates. As described 

in the Water Quality Report, the closer a disturbance is to surface water, the higher the risk of sediment delivery to 

that waterbody. In general, erosion rates decrease over time for a given area since the soil becomes compacted and 

“hardened” (Soils Section). Although erosion does not stop completely, new roads/trails are more likely to contribute 

higher levels of fine sediment to water bodies than established roads/trails. Distance from water also plays a large role 

in determining the actual amount of eroded sediment reaching a given water body. As discussed in the Water Quality 

Section, available literature indicates vegetated buffer widths ranging from 30 to 100 feet can effectively capture 

eroded sediment before it enters the nearest water body. 

The majority of OHV routes currently open on the Forest are roads, both gravel and native surface (approximately 

2,463 miles of roads permit OHV use). Few designated trails systems are currently open to OHV use (approximately 

49 miles of motorized trails). The road/trail surface (bare soil or gravel) and road/trail width largely determines 

the erosion potential regardless of whether a route is a road or a trail (see WEPP example in the following section). 

Native surface roads/trails are more prone to erosion and thus potentially contribute more sediment to streams and 

other water bodies. Road/trail length adjacent to or near water, slope and soil type all affect the erosion potential as 

well. 

There are approximately 2071 existing road and motorized trail routes greater than 100 feet distant from streams that 

permit OHVs, and there are approximately 179 miles within 100 feet of surface water on the Forest (Table 3-74)4

. 

Of the roads/trails within 100 feet of streams, approximately 70 percent are within 100 feet of intermittent streams. 

Intermittent streams on the Forest generally do not harbor aquatic fauna, although seasonal use may occur by more 

mobile species, especially fish. However, based on known and suspected fish distribution very few intermittent 

streams on Forest are inhabited by fish. About 21 percent (44.5 miles) of existing roads/trails are within 100 feet of 

fish bearing stream reaches (Table 3-75). Existing roads/trails within 100 feet of perennial and/or fish bearing streams 

pose the greatest risk of fine sediment contribution to such streams and thus the greatest risk of impact to aquatic 

fauna and their habitat. 

Table 3-74. Miles of OHV roads/trails within 100 feet of streams, grouped by 

intermittent (I) and perennial (P) flow regime, within the Mt. Hood National Forest for all 

alternatives addressed in this EIS.

Alternative Flow Regime Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Total

Alternative 1 I 132.9 2.6 0.0 135.5

P 65.6 0.6 0.0 66.2

Alternative 2 I 3.7 1.8 0.9 6.4

P 1.7 0.4 0.6 2.7

Alternative 3 I 8.1 1.8 0.8 10.7

P 3.4 0.4 0.3 4.1

Alternative 4 I 1.1 1.5 0.1 2.7

P 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.1

Alt 1 lakes = 1.0 mi

Alt 2 lakes = 0.05 mi

4 Information summarized in Table 3-73 and subsequent tables in Section 3.4 are based on the most up to date geographic information available. However, 

many attributes, such as perennial or intermittent stream flow, has not been field verified across the Forest.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 111

Table 3-75. Miles of OHV roads/trails within 100 of streams, grouped by fish and nonfish bearing designation, within the Mt. Hood National Forest for all alternatives 

addressed in this EIS.

Alternative Fish Bearing Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Total

Alternative 1 Y 43.2 0.6 0.0 43.8

N 157.2 2.6 0.0 159.8

Alternative 2 Y 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.6

N 4.4 1.8 1.4 7.6

Alternative 3 Y 2.0 0.04 0.4 2.4

N 9.5 1.8 1.1 12.4

Alternative 4 Y 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.7

N 1.5 1.5 0.1 3.1

Increased erosion and sedimentation can result from roads/trails close to water bodies, but it is road/trail crossings 

over streams (or other surface waters) that pose the greatest risk of fine sediment input. The probability of sections of 

road or trail adjacent to crossings to transport eroded material directly to the crossing and thus into the water body 

is dependent on slope of approaches, road or trail surface material and vegetative cover between the road or trail and 

the stream. Fords would be of greater impact than bridges or culverts. There are over 3,000 crossings on existing open 

roads/trails within the Forest (Tables 3-76 and 3-77). Most are associated with roads, cross intermittent streams, and 

cross more non-fish bearing streams than fish bearing streams.

Table 3-76. OHV road/trail stream crossings, grouped by intermittent (I) and perennial 

(P) flow regime, within the Mt. Hood National Forest for all alternatives addressed 

in this EIS.

Alternative Flow Regime Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Total

Alternative 1 I 2863 25 0 2888

P 975 4 0 979

Alternative 2 I 45 18 12 75

P 14 4 8 26

Alternative 3 I 91 19 11 121

P 31 4 5 40

Alternative 4 I 17 15 0 32

P 10 4 0 14

Alt 4 – four crossings over lakes

Alt 2 – one crossing over a lake

Table 3-77. OHV road/trail stream crossings, grouped by fish and non-fish bearing 

designation, within the Mt. Hood National Forest for all alternatives addressed 

in this EIS.

Alternative Fish Bearing Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Total

Alternative 1 Y 431 4 0 435

N 2342 25 0 2367

Alternative 2 Y 7 4 1 12

N 53 18 19 90

Alternative 3 Y 17 4 1 22

N 105 19 15 139

Alternative 4 Y 4 4 0 8

N 23 15 0 38
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 112

Whether a road/trail crossing over a stream would actively contribute sediment or not depends on many of the 

factors described above. The WEPP model runs outlined in the Water Quality Section clearly indicate more sediment 

is generated from wider roads/trails and native surface roads/trails compared to graveled roads. Not all eroded 

sediment would make its way into area streams. Direct routing of sediment would be most likely from road/trail 

crossings as described above. To further illustrate this interaction a stream crossing was modeled with WEPP. The 

following describes the model assumptions and then results are presented.

WEPP Run - McCubbins Gulch Location – A new class III ford trail crossing on high erosion potential 351 soil using 

Hood River Weather Bureau Station precipitation data. The trail is outsloped and rutted, is a six foot wide tread with 

25 feet of trail running directly into the surface drainage. It is a native surface trail. Note that any predicted runoff 

or erosion value--by any model--will be, at best, within plus or minus 50 percent of the true value. Erosion rates are 

highly variable, and the models predict only a single value. Replicated research has shown that observed erosion 

values vary widely for identical plots, and for the same plot from year to year (Elliot and others 1994; Elliot and 

others 1995; Tysdal and others 1999). 

The lower the approach slope to the stream crossing the less sediment was delivered to the stream to the crossing 

(Table 3-78). Note that the pounds of sediment delivered are for an entire year and apply to only one side of the 

stream. For example, with a trail approach gradient of eight percent the pounds of soils delivered to the stream from 

one side of the crossing is 1.33 pounds – the total pounds delivered would be twice that, or 2.66 pounds. 

Table 3-78. Estimated amounts of soil delivered to a stream from a ford in the 

McCubbins Gulch location based on varying trail approach gradients. The pounds 

delivered are for an entire year and only take into account one side of the crossing.

Trail Gradient (%) Estimated Soil Delivered to Stream (lbs)

4 0.84

6 1.07

8 1.33

10 1.59

12 1.75

14 2.02

The above scenario reflects a “worse case situation” because the trail is native surface and the crossing is a ford. A 

bridge or culvert crossing would have less soil delivered because the road/trail would not empty directly into the 

stream. Likewise, a gravel road or narrower trail would contribute less sediment. The only situation that could be 

worse is a native surface road approximately 13 feet wide draining into the stream.

The following illustrates how much sediment is actually delivered to a stream using the WEPP modeling results 

presented in Table 3-78. A cubic yard of soil (27 cubic feet) weighs roughly 2000 pounds (John Dodd, Soil Scientist, 

Mt. Hood National Forest, personnel communication, December 2008). Therefore, a cubic foot of soil weighs 

approximately 75 pounds and a typical wheelbarrow holds from four to six cubic feet of soil (300-450 pounds). The 

maximum amount of sediment delivered to the stream at the modeled site would be four pounds per year at 14 

percent approach gradient. As such, the soil generated from the above estimate is only 1.3 percent of the capacity of 

a four cubic yard wheelbarrow, or less than 1/15th of a cubic foot. Thus, the amount of sediment one can expect from 

a highly erosive soil type from a typical trail approach is a small amount on a yearly basis. However, in streams with 

a large number of crossings and/or trail segments adjacent to the stream for long lengths to amount of sedimentation 

into the stream could be large over time. Of course large storm events with a high amount of precipitation could 

result in accelerated erosion rates compared to those listed above.

Fine Sediment Impacts to Fish and other Aquatic Fauna

Fine sediment can impact aquatic creatures directly or indirectly depending on the location of the sediment source in 

relation to aquatic life, amount of sedimentation, and timing of sedimentation. Direct impacts to aquatic fauna from 

increased sedimentation could occur in two ways – increased turbidity that could affect feeding or other behavior 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 113

and the actual smothering of individuals if enough sediment is deposited in the stream where fauna live. Indirect 

effects are possible if sediment fills pools and reduces living space (discussed separately, below), decreases food 

availability, and covers fish spawning areas thereby reducing spawning success. All of these elements will be discussed 

in the following pages.

Turbidity 

Increases in turbidity could affect fish by reducing feeding, stimulating movement out of the area, respiratory 

impairment, increasing stress, and reducing tolerance to disease (Waters 1995). Sigler et al. (1984) found steelhead 

trout and coho salmon growth rates decreased in turbid water with as little as 25 NTU measured turbidity over test 

periods ranging from 14-31 days. Visual impairment is likely the most common reason for reduced feeding rates and 

thus reduced growth rates. They also noted there was more fish emigration from tanks with turbid water compared 

to tanks with clear water. They speculated that salmonids emerging from the gravel would likely emigrate quickly if 

turbid conditions were encountered. In fact, Waters (1995) states that behavioral avoidance of turbid water may be 

one of the most important sub-lethal effects of turbidity. Direct mortality as a result of increased turbidity levels is 

possible but unlikely. Sigler et al. (1984) reported some mortality of very young coho and steelhead fry and turbidities 

ranging from 500 – 1500 mg/L; however, McLeay et al. (1983) found little mortality of arctic grayling under yearlings 

subject to prolonged exposure to concentrations around 1000 mg/L. 

The effect of increased turbidity on aquatic macroinvertebrates is likely similar to those described for fish, at least 

for aquatic insects, but most of the literature focused on fine sediment deposition rather than suspended sediment. 

Waters (1995) postulates that prolonged episodes of turbidity may result in insect drift stimulation (i.e., emigration) 

that can reduce food supplies. The level of turbidity would have to be very high for very long however, and Waters 

admits that in streams with such a high turbidity load there could be as much or more affect on macroinvertebrates 

from deposited sediment. Effects on mollusks are not well documented, but given that preferred habitat 

characteristics include clean water it is assumed that long periods of high turbidity could be detrimental. Aldridge et 

al. (1987) found that feeding was impaired for three species of clams in laboratory experiments when sediment was 

added frequently to simulate suspended solids churned up by dredging. Given their lack of mobility it is conceivable 

that snails could respond in a similar manner. 

Increased turbidity resulting from OHV use or other proposed activities would be limited both in space and time 

because of the small amounts of fine sediment introduced via erosion or other avenues. Increases in turbidity to 

levels discussed above are unlikely, and long durations of turbid conditions due solely to OHV related activities is 

not expected. Turbidity monitoring in streams below instream construction activities indicated turbidity increases 

were not be detectable 0.5 to 1 mile downstream of the worksite (Bengt Coffin, hydrologist, Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest, personal communication, 2009). Increased turbidity resulting from OHV use or road/trail erosion would 

much less than that associated with instream construction activities so turbid conditions would not extend even 0.5 

miles downstream. 

The greatest impact to fish from increased turbidity resulting from OHV use or road/trail erosion would be 

avoidance. There would be little to no effect on fish respiration given the small amount of suspended sediment and 

short duration. Impacts to feeding could occur, but unless the turbidity event was prolonged this would be a slight 

effect that could be “mitigated” to some degree by fish moving out of the area. Overall, the impact on fish from 

increased turbidity is expected to be negligible. The impact on aquatic invertebrates would be minimal although 

slightly impaired feeding and possibly respiration are possible, especially near sources. Increased turbidity has little to 

no effect on habitat conditions. 

Sedimentation

The deposition of fine sediment on the streambed could negatively impact habitat conditions and subsequent survival 

and/or production for both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates (Waters 1995). Direct effects of sediment deposition 

are unlikely, especially for juvenile and adult fish. Enough sediment would have to be deposited in a short period of 

time to bury individuals and either crush or suffocate them. Since adult and juvenile fish are mobile this is extremely 

unlikely unless there was a large debris torrent or some other event where the effects of OHV use on erosion rates 

would be insignificant in the larger context. Smothering of aquatic macroinvertebrates, especially snails or other 

relatively immobile creatures, is somewhat more likely although uncommon. The potential increase in insect drift 

resulting from increased sedimentation (Waters 1995) would alleviate to some degree the incidence of smothering. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 114

It is anticipated that larger rain events that could produce larger volumes of fine sediment from existing roads/trails 

could bury some aquatic snails and possibly insects. However, tying this specifically to OHV use is difficult as many 

other vehicles use many of the roads/trails and road maintenance and repair also play a role in erosion susceptibility. 

Indirect effects to both macroinvertebrates and fish from sedimentation are more likely and more common. The effect 

of fine sediment deposition on macroinvertebrate production, survival, and species composition is relatively well 

documented. Bjornn et al. (1974 and 1977) found riffles with the most sediment contained the lowest abundance of 

insects in Idaho streams but small amounts of sediment added to riffles in streams did not greatly affect abundance or 

drift. In laboratory studies they concluded that embeddedness levels more than one third around cobbles decreased 

insect abundance by over 50 percent, especially riffle- inhabiting taxa (e.g., stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies, 

which are most important as salmonid food). Other laboratory studies have supported these results (McClelland 

and Brusven 1980). The reduction in abundance associated with fine sediment appears to be related to respiration 

(Rutherford and Mackay 1986) and possibly the loss or reduction of organic detritus which is a source of food for 

macroinvertebrates (Culp et al. 1983). Most studies have focused on aquatic insects as these are more important as 

fish food, but it is likely that impacts to aquatic mollusks are similar.

It is unclear how much existing OHV road/trail related sedimentation has affected aquatic macroinvertebrates. 

Stream reaches directly below sediment sources are likely the most susceptible to impact for reasons given above. 

In many areas the sediment produced solely from OHV roads/trails may have little affect on macroinvertebrate 

abundance given the results in natural streams described by Bjornn et al. In streams where large amounts of fine 

sediment have been deposited both by natural and anthropogenic sources recolonization from upstream has 

occurred rapidly once conditions improved (Cline et al. 1982; DeWalt and Olive 1988; Tsui and McCart 1981). 

Therefore, episodic events such as large storms and construction projects may be less harmful over the long term 

compared to chronic sources of sediment.

Indirect effects of fine sediment deposition on fish and fish habitat, particularly salmonids, relates primarily to the 

following: reduction in the quantity and/or quality of spawning habitat for fish, reduction in food supply, reduction 

in fry survival in riffles, and reductions in living space (discussed separately below). The relationship between 

spawning success and fine sediment levels has been addressed in detail over the last 40+ years. Suffice it to say that 

the more fine sediment in spawning areas the lower the spawning success. Most research correlates the amount of 

fine sediment 0.84 mm or less with embryo survival (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Hall 1986; Tagart 1984; Reiser and 

White 1988) and it is now common acceptance that when fines < 0.8 mm exceed 20 percent then significant embryo 

mortality could be expected (Waters 1995). Note that in many cases fine sediment increases are temporary, occur at 

times of the year other than spawning or egg incubation, and may be tempered by the act of spawning itself. When 

adults digs redds they clear much of the fine sediment from the area (Sheridan and McNeil 1968; Everest et al. 1987; 

Bjornn and Reiser 1991) and increase the chances for egg and embryo survival. 

Reduction in food supply for salmonids, particularly riffle-dwelling insects, can be significantly impacted by surface 

and embedded sediment as described above. Reduction in food would lead to increases in competition, increased 

stress, decreased growth rates, and emigration from the area. The degree to which the above would occur depends on 

a variety of factors including the amount of sediment, overall productivity of a stream or reach, other water quality 

factors such as temperature or pollution, fish species present, and fish abundance prior to the sediment disturbance.

Salmonid fry spend some time throughout the year, much of it during the winter, living in the interstitial spaces 

between rocks, primarily cobble. Their survival can be reduced if the spaces between cobbles are filled with fine 

sediment because the actual living space is reduced and they are unable to utilize this protective habitat. Bustard 

and Narver (1975) found that sedimented substrates reduced winter survival of juvenile cutthroat trout. Similarly, 

Hillman et al. (1987) observed that age-0 Chinook salmon moved in the fall from areas where summer habitat was 

heavily sedimented; experimental additions of clean cobble the following year resulted in a fivefold increase in winter 

fry densities.

Fine Sediment Effects Summary

OHV use increases erosion rates which in turn could lead to increased sedimentation into streams or other water 

bodies. Although the sediment produced from any given crossing may be relatively small, the cumulative effect of 

many crossings and road/trail segments could contribute large amounts of fine sediment to water bodies. The fate 

of this fine sediment depends on precipitation, stream size, habitat conditions, and channel gradient, among other 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 115

factors. It is difficult to determine how much sediment is related specifically to erosion from roads/trails used by 

OHV since many existing routes are multi-use roads that receive a large amount of traffic. It is also unknown how 

much OHV use is occurring in any given location.

Despite this uncertainty, it is safe to assume that exacerbated erosion rates in some locations have resulted in fine 

sediment levels that could impact fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate individuals and/or habitat. Most impacts 

are indirect and may affect spawning habitat and success, feeding, abundance, and over-wintering survival. 

With over 3,000 stream crossings open to OHV use, Alternative 1 has the greatest impact on fish and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates compared to other alternatives. Alternative 1 has the greatest risk for future impacts. Given that 

exact amounts of erosion and sedimentation are unknown, the discussion of effects for other alternatives will focus 

primarily on sedimentation risk compared to Alternative 1. 

Pool Quality

Pool quality can be reduced by fine sediment deposition filling pools to varying degrees (Waters 1995). The frequency 

and magnitude of this would vary depending on road/trail location relative to a stream, level of OHV use, soil type, 

erosion rates, amount of fine sediment actually entering the stream, flow rates, channel gradient, and roughness 

elements (boulders, logs) that can slow water and trap sediment. As discussed above, pool quality is not measured 

during stream surveys on the Forest. Although studies can be conducted to measure the decrease in pool volume 

associated with the addition of fine sediment, there are no such studies on Forest related to OHV use.

OHV roads/trails and use would have no direct effect on pool quality unless OHVs are fording a creek in a pool. 

Although possible, professional experience shows that most fords are located at shallow stream sections, not in pools. 

The filling of pools would be an indirect effect from fine sediment entering streams via trail or bank erosion and some 

of that sediment settling in pools. If enough sediment is deposited, then pool volume can be appreciably reduced. 

A reduction in pool volume effectively reduces the available area for fish to live, especially during low flow periods. 

Reduced pool volume by one half was shown to decrease small salmonid numbers by two thirds in an Idaho study 

(Bjornn et al. 1977). Reduced living space can result in increased competition for space, increased competition for 

food and a subsequent lowered capacity for a given stream or stream section to support a healthy population of fish. 

Although the filling of pools can happen resulting from OHV use, the scope and degree of pool quality reductions 

are likely localized near erosion prone stream crossings. Riedel (2006) found that sedimentation downstream of an 

OHV ford occurred in pulses associated with rain events. He noted that runoff from individual rain events washed 

new sediment into the stream while sediment deposited from previous events was washed downstream. Therefore, 

although a particular OHV crossing can contribute sediment to a stream the amount of sediment may stay at 

relatively constant levels instead of continually building up and significantly filling pools. Given the low amounts of 

sediment contributed from a modeled ford on a yearly basis it is unlikely pools would be filled to any great degree 

below such a crossing. Riedel (2006) also found that the sediment from the crossing was flushed away quickly below 

the confluence with a tributary about 85 meters downstream. This is not meant to downplay the potential deleterious 

effects of fine sediment deposition on pool quality, but only to illustrate that it is unlikely for sediment from a stream 

crossing to significantly fill downstream pools. 

To summarize, it is likely that existing OHV use has caused some pool quality degradation in streams on the 

Forest. The location and degree of this degradation are unknown and thus the impact on salmonid and aquatic 

macroinvertebrate populations, although probable at least in some locations, is also unknown. Impacts have the 

greatest potential to occur near existing crossings, as sediment routed downstream would be deposited and diluted 

over time. 

Water Chemistry

As described in the existing condition section above, there are no surface water bodies on the Forest subject to 

chronic water quality degradation due to contaminants. From an OHV perspective the potential primary sources of 

contaminants into water bodies would be petroleum based products such as gasoline and engine oil, and possibly 

fecal coliform bacteria. The fate and effect these substances would have on water quality and subsequently aquatic 

biota in the event of a spill would depend on a variety of factors including distance from surface water, soil type, 

aquatic biota present, and weather (e.g., precipitation). 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 116

It is safe to assume, however, that the most likely locations where contamination could occur are at parking areas 

(see the discussion of Shepp 1996 in the Water Quality Section). Spills would not be expected while driving either to 

the parking area or out on the trail and once at the parking area; vehicles parked for longer periods are less likely to 

discharge contaminants. Therefore, the highest likelihood of a spill or discharge at any parking area would be from 

the OHVs themselves as they could leave and return fairly frequently. One scenario likely to occur at OHV parking 

areas that was not addressed in a report by Crabtree (2004) addressing ski area parking lot runoff and effects on water 

quality and fisheries is refueling and light maintenance (adding oil, fixing a tire, etc.). These activities may very well 

have the highest likelihood of a spill compared to actual OHV operation. 

There are no OHV staging areas currently designated on the Forest, although several areas are commonly used in 

this manner (McCubbins Gulch Campground for example). There have been no reported spills of petrochemicals 

associated with OHV use on the Forest. Unreported, accidental spills have likely occurred but there are no records 

and it is assumed the vast majority of spills would have been quite small for the following reasons:

• Most Forest recreation users respect the landscape and therefore the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous 

chemicals by OHV users is unlikely.

• Fuel, oil, and other fluids related to OHV use, including for transport vehicles, are valuable and people are not in 

the habit of wasting such material.

For this analysis it is assumed that across the Forest there is a low risk of spills at parking or staging areas. Most 

recreational OHV users do not carry extra fuel while riding and the chance that an OHV wreck or some other 

mishap would occur in or near a water body and result in a spill is extremely low. 

If a spill were to occur the effect on the aquatic environment would vary depending on factors listed above but in 

most cases the effects would be minimal. Crabtree (2004) conducted an extensive literature search that summarized 

the fate and effect of a wide variety of petroleum chemicals on water quality and fisheries from a ski area parking lot. 

He determined the flushing of hydrocarbon toxins into a creek from a paved parking lot in concentrations that would 

have any biological effects were unlikely. The following summarizes his findings:

• Automotive (and OHV) fluids most likely to be flushed into the stream are lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and 

antifreeze.

• Lubricants and hydraulic fluids (except brake fluid) are composed of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons that 

are of low solubility and low toxicity to fish and other organisms.

• Antifreeze is of very low toxicity and short half-life in the aquatic environment. Brake fluid is probably similar to 

antifreeze in its biological effects.

• The most toxic automotive fluids are gasoline and diesel. The volatility of gasoline, and to a lesser extent, some 

components of diesel, would ensure that much of it evaporates before entering a stream.

• Only a small proportion of vehicles used for private transportation use diesel as a fuel, which makes leakage of 

diesel less likely.

• Runoff from parking lots would be episodic, with periods of no runoff alternating with periods of runoff. Fish 

would be exposed to (somewhat) elevated levels of hydrocarbons for a few hours or a few days, followed by days, 

weeks, or months with no exposure. 

That Crabtree’s analysis focused on a paved parking lot is important to note as most, if not all, existing OHV parking 

areas on the Forest are either native surface or gravel. As such spilled material would infiltrate the soil which would 

bind and hold the petroleum products. Some movement would occur but compared to a paved lot the amount 

reaching streams would be much less and metered over a much longer period of time.

To summarize the above, there would be no direct effect from a petroleum product spill to aquatic organisms unless 

a spill was to occur directly into a stream or other waterbody harboring aquatic organisms. This would only occur 

at fords crossing such waterbodies. It is unknown how many such fords there are on the Forest but some are known 

to exist in the McCubbins Gulch location and on the Rho Ridge trail in the Graham Pass location (the latter are all 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 117

non-fish bearing). It is likely others are present but not documented. The most highly toxic materials are gasoline and 

diesel so the most damage would occur if one or the other of these two materials was spilled; some mortality or sublethal effects may occur. Lubricants and antifreeze have a much lower toxicity and their low solubility would inhibit 

mixing, i.e., they would float. Indirect effects from a spill away from water are unlikely given the reasons listed above.

Contamination of surface waters by fecal coliform bacteria associated with intensive recreational use is possible 

if toilet facilities are not available. Although the call of nature could happen anywhere it is the concentrated use 

of an area near water that could have the greatest potential effects on water quality. Available evidence indicates 

recreational use in watersheds does not always result in water quality degradation (Lee et al. 1970, as cited in Varness 

et al. 1978), especially if sanitary facilities are present (Aukerman and Springer 1976, as cited in Varness et al. 1978). 

However, Varness et al. (1978) found that fecal coliform indicator species densities increased in flowing surface 

waters near areas of heavy motorized camping without sanitation facilities, especially on weekends. Bacterial water 

quality degradation in impounded surface waters has also been evident in some areas (Dietrich and Mulamoottil 

1974; Wagenet and Lawrence 1974, both as cited in Varness et al. 1978). The impact on bacterial water quality from 

OHV recreational activities is unknown, but possible degradation could exist in areas of concentrated use without 

sanitary facilities. The degree of impact would depend on the level of use and proximity to water – direct effects are 

unlikely as this would imply contamination directly into a water body.

Connectivity

Under the no action alternative there would be a neutral effect to connectivity for aquatic species associated with 

road and/or trail crossings. Over 250 culverts were rated as fish passage barriers on the Forest in 1999 and 2000 

(Asbridge et al. 2001). However, OHV use in and of itself has no direct or indirect effect on fish or other aquatic 

fauna passage since existing routes utilize roads and trails built, in most cases, years ago. Most roads were built for 

timber sale purposes and at the time fish passage at crossings was not a consideration. Even at existing fords passage 

is possible, although it is conceivable aquatic fauna migration could be delayed for short periods when OHVs are 

crossing these streams. 

Disturbance

To be a direct effect from disturbance, there would have to be an immediate impact that would harm aquatic species. 

Most OHV crossing streams are on roads or trails with culverts or bridges and direct disturbance at these locations is 

unlikely. The direct disturbance of aquatic fauna could occur at fords crossing flowing streams or other water bodies 

where aquatic fauna are present. As mentioned above the location of all OHV related fords in perennial streams 

across the Forest are unknown. At least one is present in McCubbins Gulch which harbors redband trout and possibly 

Regional Forester’s Special Status macroinvertebrates. Another is present in Ramsey Creek on the Barlow Ranger 

District. This stream is inhabited by federally threatened steelhead trout among other species. Others are present on 

the Rho Ridge trail (trail 564) but these are all non-fish bearing. Additional fords are certainly present but locations 

are largely unknown. They likely occur on smaller streams and wetlands; larger streams and ponds/lakes would 

be relatively unaffected. Disturbance from OHV use and bridge or other crossing and trails adjacent to streams is 

minimal.

Disturbance effects range from individual injury or death to relocation away from the area. OHVs crossing streams 

could run over individuals, especially macroinvertebrates that cannot move fast. Fish would have an easier time 

getting away. In some cases salmonid redds (egg nests) could be run over causing egg and/or sac fry mortality or 

injury. The extent and duration of this type of disturbance has not been quantified but given known ford locations 

and the presence other fords it does occur.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would allow continued use on approximately 394,886 acres for overland OHV travel and over 3,000 

stream crossings open to OHV use. Although it is required for OHV users to avoid sensitive areas, it is difficult 

to regulate, and field observations have found impacts from unregulated use across the Forest. No project design 

criteria would be enacted to reduce and minimize OVH impacts. Although it is difficult to quantify, it is reasonable 

to conclude that under this alternative, exacerbated introduction of fine sediments to waterways would continue to 

cause the greatest negative impact to aquatic species. There would continue to be direct habitat and aquatic fauna 

disturbance at fords. There would be continued adverse effects to ESA listed species and their critical habitat. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 118

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1

A full description of cumulative effects for all alternatives is found in Table 3-79. Findings relevant to aquatic fauna 

and habitat are summarized below.

Fine Sediment

There is a probability of cumulative effects to aquatic habitat from sediment associated with vegetation treatments, 

road and trail maintenance, invasive plant treatments and aquatic restoration overlapping with effects from OHV use 

allowed in Alternative 1. 

Disturbance 

There is a probability of cumulative effects to aquatic fauna from treatment of invasive plants as some treatment may 

require wading or boating in waterways as well as OHV use near streams. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 119

Table 3-79. Summary of cumulative effects to aquatic fauna and habitat for all alternatives. Effects 

are based on description in the column titled “Extent, Detectable?” 

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Aquatic Species and 

Time Space Stream Habitat Effects

Existing Old Forest

Service Timber

Harvest Units

Suspended

Sediment No Yes No

Projects are completed.

No remaining sediment effects 

due to mitigation measures and 

design criteria implementation 

on the original projects and 

natural recovery.

None

Forest

Service Vegetation 

Treatment Activities Planned 

or Underway (The Dalles 

Watershed Fuelbreak, North 

Fork Mill Restoration Project, 

Sportsman’s Park Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction, No Whisky 

Plantation thinning, Upper 

Clackamas Plantation 

Thinning, Cascade Crest 

Fuel Break Project, Precommercial treatments)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in 

timing and location of these 

projects with the OHV project; 

these projects have a chance of 

some short-term introduction 

of fine sediment that may mix 

with fine sediment from the OHV 

project. Some of the high risk 

areas would be in Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due 

to North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project culvert replacements, 

road reconstruction on the 1700 

road, OHV use on Hood River 

County lands, existing Long 

Prairie Grazing Allotment damage 

and timber harvest on private 

lands. Other listed projects have a 

low risk of cumulative effects due 

to implementation of mitigation 

and project design criteria that 

minimize erosion and sediment 

input.

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of shortterm negative stream 

conditions. Except for culvert 

replacements and some road 

reconstruction, mitigation 

measures reduce the amount 

of sediment delivered to 

streams and affecting aquatic 

resources to a level that 

is not measurable and is 

insignificant, and have a low 

risk of cumulative effects. 

Culvert replacements 

and road reconstruction 

adjacent to streams have a 

higher potential to deliver 

sediment to streams. For 

example, in Neal Creek and 

West Fork Neal Creek the 

North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project culvert replacements 

sediments could mix with 

the OHV project and affect 

steelhead and resident trout.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust 

emissions from OHV use have 

a chance of mixing with dust 

and emissions from equipment 

associated with vegetation 

treatments. The most likely effect 

is mixing of dust on existing road 

systems from equipment using 

these roads. The cumulative 

effect is not expected to be 

measurable. 

None
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 120

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Aquatic Species and 

Time Space Stream Habitat Effects

Private Land Activities (SDS 

Timber Harvest, City of The 

Dalles Timber Harvest, Hood 

River County Trails Project)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes 

Some projects are completed so 

there are no remaining sediment 

effects due to natural recovery. 

Other ongoing projects on 

adjacent private land such as 

road maintenance and vegetation 

manipulation have a chance of 

some short-term introduction of 

fine sediment that may mix with 

minor fine sediment from the 

OHV project. Some of the high 

risk areas would be in Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due 

to North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project culvert replacements, road 

reconstruction on the 1700 road, 

OHV use on Hood River County 

lands, existing Long Prairie 

Grazing Allotment damage and 

timber harvest on private lands. 

There may be an overlap 

in timing and location of 

these projects with the OHV 

project. It is expected that 

levels of sediment from 

National Forest lands would 

be at extremely low levels, 

but could mix with sediment 

produced from private land 

activities. Effects to aquatic 

species would depend on 

the amount of sediment 

generated from private land 

activities and transported to 

streams with aquatic species.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Misc. Tree Salvage

(Hazard Trees)

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in 

timing of this project with 

the OHV project; any minor 

suspended sediment would 

not be measurable due to 

implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in the 

projects.

Any cumulative effect would 

be of minor magnitude 

due to the localized, minor 

impact of miscellaneous tree 

salvage when overlapped 

with effects of the OHV 

project. Any effects to 

aquatics would be minor and 

not be measurable.

Long Prairie

Grazing Allotment

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

Current damage in riparian areas 

from grazing has a chance of 

some short-term introduction 

of fine sediment that may mix 

with minor fine sediment from 

the OHV project. The highest 

risk of this would be in West 

Fork Neal Creek due to the 

culvert replacement projects, 

road reconstruction on the 

1700 road, Long Prairie Grazing 

allotment, OHV use on Hood 

River County lands and timber 

harvest on private lands. Longterm restoration of a more 

natural sediment regime is likely 

with recovery due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

in the Long Prairie Grazing 

Allotment project coupled with 

road decommissioning, culvert 

removal/ replacement and 

road closures associated with 

the North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project.

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of short-term 

negative stream conditions.

Table 3-79. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 121

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Aquatic Species and 

Time Space Stream Habitat Effects

Ongoing road and trail 

maintenance

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Yes

There may be an overlap in 

timing and location of these 

projects with the OHV project; 

these projects have a chance of 

some short-term introduction 

of fine sediment that may mix 

with fine sediment from the OHV 

project. Some of the high risk 

areas would be in Neal Creek 

and West Fork Neal Creek due 

to North Fork Mill Restoration 

Project culvert replacements, 

road reconstruction on the 1700 

road, OHV use on Hood River 

County lands, existing Long 

Prairie Grazing Allotment damage 

and timber harvest on private 

lands. Other areas of potential 

concern include McCubbins 

Gulch and Cabin Creek in the 

Peavine OHV location due to the 

number of OHV stream crossings 

and native surface roads. 

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of short-term 

negative stream conditions.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust 

emissions from OHV use have a 

chance of mixing with dust and 

emissions from road maintenance 

equipment. The most likely effect 

is mixing of dust on existing road 

systems. The cumulative effect is 

not expected to be measurable.

None

Table 3-79. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 122

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Aquatic Species and 

Time Space Stream Habitat Effects

Invasive Plant

Treatments

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in 

timing of this project with 

the OHV project; any minor 

suspended sediment would 

not be measurable due to 

implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in the 

projects. 

There may be an overlap in 

timing of this project with the 

OHV project, in addition to 

the effects described at left, 

there is a small probability 

sediment delivered and 

transported from invasive 

plant treatments such as 

knotweed removal resulting 

in bare ground could 

overlap with OHV generated 

sediment; due to the 

minor, localized knotweed 

populations sediment levels 

would not exceed the levels 

described at left.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Disturbance of 

Aquatic Species Yes Yes No

Treatment of invasive plants 

may require wading or 

boating in waterways. There 

may be an overlap in timing 

of this project with the OHV 

project. Disturbance from 

invasive plant treatments is 

expected to localized and 

minor, and not have any 

measurable cumulative 

effect. 

Past Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment No Yes Not Measurable

There may be an overlap in 

timing of these project effects 

with the OHV project. Any 

minor suspended sediment 

may slightly slow the recovery 

resulting from restoration 

project implementation, but this 

would not be measurable due 

to implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in the 

projects.

Cumulative effects to 

streams are described in 

the column on the left. 

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of short-term 

negative stream conditions.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Table 3-79. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 123

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Aquatic Species and 

Time Space Stream Habitat Effects

Clackamas Road 

Decommissioning

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be a spatial and 

temporal overlap of effects of 

this project with the OHV project. 

Any minor suspended sediment 

may slightly slow the recovery 

resulting from restoration 

project implementation but this 

would not be measurable due 

to implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in all 

projects on National Forest.

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of short-term 

negative stream conditions.

Future Aquatic Restoration 

Projects

Suspended

Sediment Yes Yes Not Measurable

There may be a spatial overlap 

of these project effects with 

the OHV project. Any minor 

suspended sediment may 

slightly slow the recovery 

resulting from restoration 

project implementation but this 

would not be measurable due 

to implementation of mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

and conformance with existing 

standards and guidelines in all 

projects on National Forest.

Potential for cumulative 

effects to fish is expected 

to be localized with a 

potential for some sediment 

avoidance behavior. Aquatic 

invertebrate species may 

have low levels of short-term 

negative stream conditions.

OHV Related 

Chemicals Yes Yes No

No cumulative effects are 

expected due to mitigation 

measures and design criteria 

implementation, conformance 

with existing standards and 

guidelines on the existing 

projects.

None

Table 3-79. (continued)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 124

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes to establish a series of OHV trails utilizing the existing road network, the existing motorized 

trail network and construction of new motorized trails. Staging areas would be built or improved and provide 

loading, unloading, parking and restrooms. Overland travel would not be allowed. In addition, some existing roads 

would be decommissioned as part of this alternative. Following is a description of each of the trail treatments and the 

resulting relative change in erosion and sedimentation from Alternative 1. This analysis tiers to the Water Quality and 

Soils Sections. 

Fine Sediment

Compared to Alternative 1 the proposed open OHV roads are significantly less in Alternative 2 (approximately 224 

miles of road). Road/trail length within 100 feet of surface water is significantly less in this alternative, approximately 

23 times less. Similarly, stream crossings are also reduced by about 30 times. As in Alternative 1, most roads/

trails within 100 feet of streams and streams crossings are associated with intermittent, non-fish bearing streams. 

Alternative 2 also proposes to decommission about 0.6 miles of road within 100 feet of streams (Table 3-80) with 

seven crossings (i.e., culverts) removed, one of them fish bearing (Table 3-81). The net result of this proposal would 

be a very large reduction in the risk of erosion and resultant sedimentation compared to Alternative 1 across the 

Forest. 

Table 3-80. Roads within 100 feet of water bodies proposed for decommissioning for 

all action alternatives. No road decommissioning is proposed in the Bear Creek, Gibson 

Prairie, Graham Pass, Mt. Defiance, and Rock Creek location.

OHV Location Fish Bearing Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

LaDee Flats Y

N 0.2 0.2 0.2

McCubbins Gulch Y 0.0 0.1 0.1

N 0.3 0.5 0.3

Peavine Y 0.1

N 0.2 0.6

Total 0.6 1.5 0.7

Table 3-81. The number of stream crossings on roads proposed for decommissioning for 

all action alternatives. No road decommissioning is proposed in the Bear Creek, Gibson 

Prairie, Graham Pass, Mt. Defiance, and Rock Creek locations.

OHV Location Fish Bearing Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

LaDee Flats Y

N 3 3 3

McCubbins Gulch Y 1 1 1

N 1 7 3

Peavine Y 2

N 2 8

Total 7 21 7
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 125

There are six proposed OHV locations in this alternative. Most of the proposed roads/trails are existing roads (some 

of which would be converted to trails), followed by existing trails and then new trails. Focusing on roads/trails within 

100 feet of surface water (including intermittent streams), McCubbins Gulch has the most proposed road/trail length 

(3.7 miles) followed by the Peavine and LaDee Flat locations (Table 3-82). Most roads/trails are adjacent to non-fish 

bearing streams so erosion and potential sedimentation would pose a greater risk to aquatic macroinvertebrates than 

fish, although some risk remains. Impacts to fish from road/trail erosion would be greatest in the McCubbins Gulch 

location where there are no ESA listed fish species or ESA critical habitat but redband trout, a Regional Forester’s 

Special Status Species, are known to reside. Other proposed locations have very few roads/trails near fish bearing 

streams.

Table 3-82. Proposed OHV road and trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface 

water for each of the proposed OHV locations in Alternative 2. For each location the 

information is grouped by fish bearing or non-fish bearing water body.

OHV Location Fish Bearing Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek

Y 0.0 0.0

N 0.8 0.8

Gibson Prairie

Y 0.1 0.1

N 0.2 0.0 0.2

LaDee Flats

Y 0.1 0.1

N 1.1 1.1

McCubbins

Y 0.7 0.4 1.1

N 0.6 1.8 0.2 2.6

Peavine

Y 0.2 0.1 0.2

N 1.9 0.3 2.2

Rock Creek

Y 0.0 0.0 0.1

N 0.7 0.0 0.8

Total Fish Bearing 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.6

Total Non-fish 4.4 1.8 1.4 7.6

Grand Total 5.5 2.2 1.5 9.3

As described above, the greatest potential for increased sedimentation into surface water is at stream crossings. Most 

road/trail crossings proposed in Alternative 2 are over intermittent streams (Table 3-83) compared to perennial 

streams (Table 3-84). To better estimate effects from proposed crossings from an erosion and sedimentation 

perspective, native surface crossings (those most prone to erosion) were further grouped into high, moderate, and 

low erosion risk categories (see Water Quality Section for more detail). Regardless of flow regime, most crossings fall 

into the “non-native” (generally gravel) erosion risk classification. These crossings are not erosion free, but are at a 

lower risk of erosion than native surface crossings. Of the native surface crossings relatively few are at a high risk of 

erosion and the vast majority of those are existing trails over intermittent streams in the McCubbins Gulch location. 

These high erosion risk crossings in the McCubbins Gulch location are those best represented by WEPP modeling 

presented above. Other crossings in the moderate to low category would be expected to contribute less sediment to 

streams.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 126

Table 3-83. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 2 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 1)

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek Moderate 6 6

Gibson Prairie Moderate 1 1(1) 2

LaDee Flats

Low 3 3

Non-native 9 9

McCubbins Gulch High 9 9

Moderate 3 16 3 22

Peavine

Moderate 4 1 5

Non-native 13 2 15

Rock Creek

Moderate 1 1

Non-native 7 7

Grand Total 41 25 13 79

Table 3-84. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 2 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 11)

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek

Low 1 1

Moderate 6 6

Gibson Prairie High 1(1) 1

LaDee Flats

Low 2 2

Non-native 4(2) 4

McCubbins Gulch

High 1(1) 1

Moderate 2(2) 2

Non-native 2(1) 2

Peavine

Low 1(1) 1(1) 2

Moderate 1(1) 1

Rock Creek

Moderate 1 1

Non-native 3(1) 3

Grand Total 15 3 8 26

Of the 105 stream crossings, only 12 cross fish bearing streams. Only one known intermittent stream in the proposed 

locations is fish bearing – North Fork Mill Creek in the Gibson Prairie location (Table 3-83). Most crossings over fish 

bearing streams are roads (7), with three on existing trails and another two on proposed new trails. There are only 

two fish bearing crossings rated as high erosion risk – a road in Gibson Prairie (native surface road 1711630) and an 

existing trail in McCubbins Gulch (Table 3-84). Both are spanned by a bridge or culvert. Only one existing crossing 

over a fish bearing stream is a ford and that is located across McCubbins Gulch itself (rated as moderate erosion risk). 

As outlined in the PDC, this ford would be replaced with a bridge or culvert if this alternative is selected.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 127

The 4230 road is a proposed OHV route within the Peavine OHV location. Some of this road is within the Pinhead 

Creek subwatershed where bull trout are proposed for reintroduction. However, the road lies a quarter mile or more 

from Pinhead Creek at its closest point with no direct drainage into the creek. OHV use on this road would not result 

in increased sedimentation into Pinhead Creek. One other proposed OHV road in the Peavine OHV location crosses 

Last Creek near the headwaters. This crossing is over two miles upstream of known steelhead trout distribution (and 

further from Chinook and coho salmon) and designated critical habitat.

Of all the proposed locations and associated roads/trails in Alternative 2 only one road crossing has a high likelihood 

of impacting ESA listed fish or habitat – the 1711630 Road crossing North Fork Mill Creek in Gibson Prairie. MidColumbia steelhead trout inhabit this stream and spawning has been documented upstream of this road crossing 

(Unpublished data, Mt. Hood National Forest, 2004). Other crossings in the Gibson location are either located over 

intermittent streams or are over 1.0 mile upstream of the upper limit of known steelhead distribution and designated 

critical habitat. 

ESA listed fish bearing stream reaches are located downstream of roads/trails in the LaDee location (the closest road 

is about 1 mile upstream of the North Fork Clackamas River) and Bear Creek (closest trail over two miles above a 

known bull trout spawning and rearing area). New OHV trails in the Bear Creek location were designed to minimize 

encroachment into riparian reserves and avoid stream crossings except where necessary. All crossings are low to 

moderate risk of erosion and cross non-fish bearing streams. At least one Regional Forester’s Special Status aquatic 

mollusk species and/or caddisfly are likely found in surface waters in all six proposed locations. Redband trout are 

only found near the McCubbins Gulch and Gibson Prairie locations. The rare and uncommon Basalt Juga snail may 

occur near roads/trails in the Gibson Prairie location.

Fine Sediment Summary 

OHV use as proposed in Alternative 2 could increase erosion rates on proposed roads/trails and may exacerbate 

sedimentation into nearby streams. However, compared to Alternative 1 the overall impact across the Forest would 

be far less. Fewer roads/trails overall, fewer roads/trails close to streams, and far fewer crossings would significantly 

reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation. Furthermore, erosion rates and stream sedimentation on any given 

road/trail, including at stream crossings, would be less than existing due to the implementation of PDC, particularly 

those that limit use in riparian areas and harden crossings to reduce erosion rates. There may be increased use in each 

of the proposed OHV locations since the majority of the Forest would be closed and use would thus be concentrated 

in the six locations. McCubbins Gulch and LaDee Flats already receive high levels of use and would likely experience 

similar use in the future. Therefore, erosion rates and sedimentation would be at similar levels (likely lower levels 

given PDC such as construction of a new OHV bridge at McCubbins Gulch) as the existing condition. There are also 

benefits expected from improved management of OHV use, such as staging areas that confine parking.

Impacts to aquatic fauna and habitat are difficult to quantitatively describe since use levels and potential 

sedimentation are unknown. However, any of the effects described in Alternative 1 are possible in this alternative 

as well, especially at high erosion risk perennial stream crossings. Since there are so few perennial stream crossings 

(26) compared to Alternative 1 (667) the risk of effects is far less. Sediment impacts would be localized near sources, 

particularly crossings, and because the sediment generated at each crossing is estimated to be minimal (even before 

PDC) the overall effects on aquatic life would also be small. Sedimentation would be exacerbated at one crossing near 

known distribution of ESA listed fish species (Mid-Columbia steelhead in NF Mill), but the amounts would be low 

with no chance of direct effects. 

Alternative 2 would obliterate two shorts spurs, located near the Forest boundary, off the 4610 road, the 4610011 and 

4610012 in the LaDee Flats OHV location. There would be localized disturbance of the old road bed as the road is 

decommissioned. Any disturbed soils are expected to have limited potential for transport if they enter the North Fork 

Clackamas due to instream habitat complexity. There is no predicted effect to ESA listed fish or critical habitat located 

over one mile downstream below a barrier falls. In the long term there would be a positive effect on the riparian area 

as riparian vegetation and riparian function is re-established. As described in PDC RD-9 the decommissioned roads 

will be left in a hydrologically stable condition. 

One of the seven staging areas is located within a Riparian Reserve at McCubbins Gulch. Implementation of 

PDC S-3, WR-2, WR-1, WR-6 and WR-7 should reduce the likelihood of erosion and resulting sedimentation 

during staging area construction and use by requiring design and construction measures that “minimize erosion, 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 128

sedimentation, and hazardous materials from leaching into surface waters.” There is no hydrologic connection 

from any staging area to any stream. There would also be positive benefits to water quality from designating staging 

areas. As described in the soils report, containing OHV vehicles and parking in staging areas removes the effects of 

opportunistic parking along roads that contributes to sedimentation in ditchlines. 

Alternative 2 would decommission numerous roads in the Peavine OHV location. All roads proposed for 

decommissioning are outside of riparian areas except two spurs off the 4200330 road. Decommissioning these roads 

may increase sedimentation to two small, unnamed tributaries in the short term, but the long term effect is beneficial. 

Because of stream size, instream channel complexity trapping sediment and distance from occupied fish habitat 

effects from decommissioning are predicted to be localized and not affect fish. 

Pool Quality

There would be an improvement in pool quality across the Forest under Alternative 2 compared to the existing 

situation (Alternative 1). Concentrating use in six locations, as opposed to more widespread use across the Forest, 

would result is less sediment input in areas outside the locations and thus less potential filling of pools with fine 

sediment. It is assumed that overall OHV use would increase in the six locations given that other areas on the Forest 

would be closed and this in turn could increase the erosion potential in these locations. However, careful route 

planning, closure of some roads, installation of crossings over perennial streams and some intermittent streams, 

conversion of some roads to trail (which should reduce overall erosion on these trails), and hardening of crossing 

approaches where warranted would reduce, but not eliminate, OHV related erosion and subsequent sedimentation. 

Overall these measures are expected to lead to reduced levels of fine sediment in streams and thus improve pool 

quality over time compared to Alternative 1.

Water Chemistry

Adoption of the six OHV locations and seven associated staging areas proposed in Alternative 2 would result in a 

reduced risk of petrochemical spills and fecal coliform bacteria input to surface waters compared to Alternative 1. 

This reduced risk is due to several factors: 

• Proposed staging areas would concentrate fueling and light maintenance use in small areas. Assessment of use 

and education of OHV users regarding the potential impacts of water contamination would be easier and corrective actions in the event of spills or other problems dealt with in a timely manner.

• Six of the seven proposed staging areas are located at least 100 feet from the closest waterway. The McCubbins 

Creek Campground staging area is within a Riparian Reserve. Despite their location pertinent PDCs (RM-7, 

EDU-3, EDU-4, WR-1) would improve site conditions and result in reduced risk of a spill and deleterious effects 

to water quality and aquatic fauna.

• During construction activities refueling would occur at least 150 feet away from surface water.

• Sanitary facilities would be present at each staging area.

• Proposed roads/trails and closed roads would significantly reduce the overall area accessible to OHV traffic, thus 

reducing the chance for water contamination Forest-wide.

• Newly constructed trails were designed to avoid riparian reserves where possible. Where unavoidable the vast 

majority of new trail within 100 feet of waterways are located near intermittent, non-fish bearing streams, greatly 

minimizing potential deleterious effects in the event of a spill away from staging areas (already a very low risk 

possibility).

The net result of the factors above is an extremely low risk (lower than Alternative 1) of a petroleum product spill that 

could affect surface water and thus fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Given the available research and presence of 

sanitation facilities risk of fecal coliform contamination is negligible.

Connectivity

Compared to Alternative 1 aquatic fauna connectivity would be slightly improved under this alternative due to 

the removal of one culvert in a fish-bearing (redband trout) stream within the McCubbins Gulch location on a 

road proposed for closure. In addition, as stipulated in PDC WR-4 all new trail stream crossings over fish bearing 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 129

streams would incorporate stream simulation design. This would ensure fish and other aquatic fauna passage so 

there would be no net reduction in connectivity. On roads converted to trails, mixed-use roads, and existing trails 

aquatic connectivity would remain as is since no new crossings are proposed nor modifications proposed at existing 

crossings.

Disturbance

The potential for direct disturbance to aquatic organisms from OHV traffic is much less in this alternative compared 

to Alternative 1. The primary reason is the closure of many current roads/trails and off road use across the Forest. 

This would greatly reduce the use of existing fords believed to be scattered across the Forest. Concentration of OHV 

use in the six locations with proposed roads/trails that have few fords, coupled with bridge and culvert crossings 

over fish bearing streams associated with new construction and to bring any existing fords into compliance with 

PDC, would result in less disturbance (PDC WR-5 fords would not be permitted in fish bearing streams). Some 

fords may remain that are over small perennial streams and/or small wet areas that are not fish bearing, so the 

disturbance impact to aquatic macroinvertebrates is not eliminated altogether. Some of these areas may contain 

Regional Forester’s Special Status aquatic macroinvertebrate species. Some existing and new road/trail crossings over 

intermittent streams, especially in the McCubbins Gulch location, would be fords. Impacts to channel conditions 

could be expected and there would be minimal disturbance to fish or Regional Forester’s Special Status aquatic 

macroinvertebrates.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a large reduction in the amount of OHV travel ways compared to 

Alternative 1. OHV use would be limited to six proposed OHV locations, five of which currently have some level of 

OHV use (Bear Creek is the lone new location). The potential erosion and resulting sedimentation would increase 

in those six locations as OHV use increases. The above-mentioned design criteria for OHV locations are expected 

to substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be realized by 

road decommissioning after some initial potential for short-term sedimentation. Generally, effects to fish and other 

aquatic species is expected to be insignificant and localized below stream crossings. Proposed OHV use may impact 

Special Status species in all six locations, especially snails, from small amounts of fine sediment entering at stream 

crossings. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 2

A full description of cumulative effects for all alternatives is found in Table 3-79. Since the spatial area of OHV 

use is confined to six proposed locations in Alternative 2, the potential for cumulative effects is much lower than 

Alternative 1.

Findings relevant to aquatic fauna and habitat are summarized below.

Fine Sediment

There is a probability of cumulative effects to aquatic habitat from sediment associated with vegetation treatments, 

road and trail maintenance, invasive plant treatments and aquatic restoration overlapping with effects from OHV use 

allowed in Alternative 2. If these projects are spaced closely together in time (within three years of each other), there 

is a higher chance that there would be a measurable cumulative effect than if they are implemented over a longer 

period of time. 

Disturbance 

There is a low probability of disturbance related cumulative effects to aquatic fauna from invasive plants treatment, 

which may require wading or boating in waterways, resulting in overlap with OHV use.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 130

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 increases (as compared to Alternative 2) the proposed OHV roads/trails on the Forest by adding 

additional motorized recreation opportunities within the McCubbins Gulch, Rock Creek, Bear Creek, and LaDee 

Flats proposed OHV locations. The proposed roads/trails within Gibson Prairie are changed to allow for access to 

the Hood River County motorized system on private and county lands. Proposed roads/trails within Peavine have 

been altered by dropping roads/trails to the south and adding roads/trails to the west to address concerns identified 

during tribal consultation. In addition, this alternative adds two new locations: Graham Pass and Mt. Defiance. The 

proposed roads/trails within the Mt. Defiance location allow access to the Hood River County motorized system.

Alternative 3 proposes to decommission 1.53 miles of road within 100 feet of streams (Table 3-80). This alternative 

would use or convert 13.84 miles of existing roads or trails and construct 1.11 miles of new trail within 100 feet of 

streams (Table 3-85). The majority of new trail construction within 100 feet of streams is proposed in the Bear Creek, 

Peavine and Rock Creek OHV locations. The Bear Creek trail segments are mostly over tributaries to Tony Creek 

while the Peavine roads/trails cross tributaries to the Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River. The Rock Creek roads/trails 

cross Souva Creek, Gate Creek and a number of other tributary streams. 

Fine Sediment

Indirect and direct sediment effects are similar to those described for Alternative 2 but they differ in location and 

magnitude. Alternative 3 proposes more OHV roads/trails near surface water and in riparian areas than Alternatives 

2 and 4, but the disturbance is still greatly reduced from Alternative 1 (Table 3-85). Most of the additional crossings 

are existing roads (which already experience both OHV and other vehicle traffic) whereas the total number of 

trail crossings actually is less than Alternative 2 (Tables 3-86 and 3-87). Important factors relating to erosion and 

sedimentation have already been discussed in the Soils and Water Quality Sections. The greatest difference is the 

addition of the proposed Graham Pass OHV location. Most of the additional stream crossings are associated with 

Graham Pass (most of which are existing mixed-use roads; relatively few trails), but there are increases in several 

other locations as well (Tables 3-86 and 3-87). The Soils Section describes the low erosion potential of existing roads 

in Graham Pass. There would be no new construction in the Graham Pass location. 

Table 3-85. OHV road/trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface water for each 

of the proposed OHV locations in Alternative 3. For each location the information is 

grouped by fish bearing or non-fish bearing water body.

OHV Location Fish Bearing Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek

Y 0.0 0.0

N 0.3 0.2 0.5

Gibson Prairie N 0.1 0.1

Graham Pass

Y 0.7 0.7

N 4.1 0.3 4.4

LaDee Flats

Y 0.1 0.1

N 1.1 1.1

McCubbins Gulch

Y 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.6

N 0.9 1.5 0.1 2.6

Mt. Defiance N 0.1 0.1

Peavine

Y 0.8 0.8

N 1.6 0.5 2.2

Rock Creek

Y 0.2 0.2

N 1.4 0.2 1.6

Total Fish Bearing 2.0 0.4 0.0 2.5

Total Non-fish 9.5 1.8 1.1 12.4

Grand Total 11.6 2.3 1.1 15.0
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 131

Table 3-86. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 3 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek Moderate 1 1 2

Graham Pass

Moderate 2 4 6

Non-native 70 70

LaDee Flats

Low 3 3

Non-native 9 9

McCubbins Gulch

High 9 1 10

Moderate 6 13 1 20

Non-native 5 1 6

Peavine

Moderate 7 4 11

Non-native 15 2 17

Rock Creek

High 1 1 2

Moderate 2 2

Non-native 14 14

Grand Total 135 26 11 172

Table 3-87. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 3 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams. (Total fish bearing 

crossings = 35)

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

Bear Creek

Low 1 1

Moderate 3 3

Non-native 3(1) 3

Graham Pass Non-native 20(15) 20

LaDee Flats

Low 2 2

Non-native 4(2) 4

McCubbins Gulch

High 1(1) 1(1) 2

Moderate 1 2(2) 3

Non-native 1(1) 1(1) 2

Mt. Defiance Moderate 2 2

Peavine

Moderate 3(3) 3

Non-native 4(3) 4

Rock Creek

Low 1 1

Moderate 1 1

Non-native 9(5) 9

Grand Total 51 4 5 60
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 132

Fine sediment effects to fish would be localized at stream crossings. In Graham Pass the probability of fine sediment 

affecting fish would be extremely low due to the quality of the roads. One road segment of the 4672 road crosses 

Berry Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Cub Creek. ESA listed Lower Columbia River 

steelhead and Chinook salmon occupy both Berry and Cub Creeks and both are designated critical habitat. Steelhead 

ascend Berry Creek past the 4672 road, Chinook do not. Other segments of the 4672 road are located in headwaters 

immediately above (within 0.25 miles) the upper extent of fish presence and critical habitat for Lower Columbia River 

steelhead in Hunter, Fawn, and Lowe Creeks. Steelhead presence and designated critical habitat in Rhododendron 

Creek ends over 1.5 miles downstream of the 4672 road. There is a low probability fine sediments generated at the 

4672 stream crossing would affect Lower Columbia River steelhead and Chinook salmon and their habitat, but the 

magnitude of the effect would be negligible, due to the low amount of fine sediment. 

Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount of road decommissioning: 1.5 miles within 100 feet of fish bearing 

streams (Table 3-80). As described in the Water Quality Section there would be short-term sedimentation (primarily 

in the Peavine location) with a long-term improvement in water quality associated with road decommissioning. As 

described in the Soils Section, the Peavine landform is gentle and rolling, and there is low risk of sediment transport 

from decommissioned roads to streams.

One of the 10 proposed staging areas is located within a riparian area at McCubbins Gulch. Implementation of 

PDC S-3, WR-2, WR-1, WR-6 and WR-7 should reduce the likelihood of erosion and resulting sedimentation 

during staging area construction and use by requiring design and construction measures that “minimize erosion, 

sedimentation, and hazardous materials from leaching into surface waters.” There is no hydrologic connection from 

any staging area to any stream. 

Pool Quality

There would be an improvement in pool quality across the Forest under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1, but 

not to the extent expected in Alternative 2. This is due to two additional locations in this alternative as well as more 

than twice the number of stream crossings. Many of the additional crossings are associated with roads which have 

established crossing structures (culverts or bridges) but some erosion could occur at these sites nonetheless. Most of 

the additional crossings are associated with the Graham Pass location (most of which are mixed-use roads) where 

there is low erosion potential. 

Water Chemistry

There are 10 staging areas in eight proposed OHV locations proposed in Alternative 3. Despite the increase in roads/

trails and staging areas compared to Alternative 2 there is still a very low risk of petrochemical and/or fecal coliform 

bacteria contamination to surface waters due to the same factors outlined above for Alternative 2. Comparatively, the 

risk of surface water contamination under Alternative 3 is extremely low, but slightly higher than Alternative 2 due to 

increased road/trail lengths within 100 feet of surface water, as well as more stream crossings. The addition of three 

more staging areas would have no effect on water quality, and thus aquatic fauna, as they are located outside riparian 

reserves.

Connectivity

There are three crossings proposed for removal in fish bearing streams on roads to be closed. Other roads/trails 

would be unchanged regarding connectivity. Therefore, this alternative improves connectivity slightly more than 

Alternative 2.

Direct Disturbance

Despite the overall increase in the number of stream crossings in this alternative the effects to aquatic fauna from 

a disturbance perspective are commensurate with those described for Alternative 2, perhaps slightly less. This is 

because most of the additional crossings are associated with roads and total trail crossings are actually less (39 vs. 

42 in Alternative 2). There are five fish bearing trail stream crossing proposed in this alternative compared to six in 

Alternative 2. Since these would not be fords in both alternatives the impacts to fish would be the same. Potential 

impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates could be slightly less because the number of perennial, non-fish bearing 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 133

stream crossings that would be fords is slightly less than in Alternative 2 (9 vs. 12). There is one stream crossing in the 

Graham Pass location that bisects Cub Creek on the 4672 road. This road is currently open to vehicle traffic. Increases 

in OHV use in the Graham Pass location under this alternative are expected to be low (Malcolm Hamilton, personal 

communication), and there is no predicted increase in disturbance to fish.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a large reduction in the amount of OHV use compared to Alternative 

1. OHV use would be confined to eight proposed OHV locations, seven of which currently contain some level of 

OHV use (Bear Creek is the exception). The amount of potential erosion and resulting sedimentation could increase 

in those eight locations if OHV use increases; however, the design criteria for OHV roads/trails and staging areas 

are expected to substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be 

realized by road decommissioning, after some initial potential for short-term sedimentation. Effects to fish and other 

aquatic species are expected to be insignificant and would be localized below stream crossings. Overall pool quality 

may be slightly decreased. 

The Forest received a comment letter from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on April 2, 2009 expressing 

concerns about the Graham Pass location and the potential impacts OHV use could cause on bull trout if they were 

reintroduced into nearby streams. Specifically, Cub Creek, Berry Creek, Hunter Creek, and Rhododendron Creek 

were all identified as high habitat quality streams that would be a high priority for bull trout reintroduction. All 

but Cub Creek are crossed by the 4672 road discussed above. Although small amounts of fine sediment could be 

introduced to these creeks via OHV use, the potential effects on bull trout would be the same as described above (and 

in Section 3.4.3) for other fish. Justification for this determination is as follows:

The 4672 road is a gravel surface road and thus the erosion potential is quite low.

The road is in good condition (Serena Helvey, Mt. Hood National Forest, Personal Communication).

Habitat conditions are of the highest quality in the afore mentioned streams (Shively et al. 2007) and given that this 

road has been open for years with mixed use it appears road related erosion has not been enough to greatly affect 

this habitat. There is little reason to assume keeping this road open to OHV and other traffic would greatly increase 

erosion.

Overall this alternative would decrease erosion potential and resultant sedimentation since no cross-country travel 

would be permitted and many spur roads in this location would be closed (there would be a large decrease in road/

trail mileage).

The crossings over Hunter and Berry creeks are bridges that would result in even less potential erosion and 

sedimentation than culverts. No new crossings are proposed.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3

A full description of cumulative effects for all alternatives is found in Table 3-79. Since the spatial area of OHV use is 

confined to eight proposed locations in Alternative 3, the potential for cumulative effects is much lower compared to 

Alternative 1. If these projects are spaced closely together in time (within three years of each other), there is a higher 

chance that there would be a measurable cumulative effect than if they are implemented over a longer period of time.

Disturbance 

There is a low probability of cumulative effects to aquatic fauna from treatment of invasive plants, which may require 

wading in waterways resulting in overlap with OHV use. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 decreases proposed OHV roads/trails on the Forest by adjusting motorized recreation opportunities 

within McCubbins Gulch, Rock Creek, and LaDee Flats compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. The following proposed 

OHV locations are not included in this alternative: Bear Creek, LaDee Flats, Gibson Prairie, Graham Pass, Peavine, 

and Mt. Defiance.

Fine Sediment
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 134

Potential effects from fine sediment are similar to those described for Alternative 2 but less of an impact is expected 

due to fewer roads/trails and stream crossings. Fewer OHV roads/trails near surface water and in riparian areas are 

proposed compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 3-88), and the disturbance area is greatly reduced from Alternative 

1. Important factors relating to potential erosion and sedimentation related to OHV use, and extensive discussions 

of probability of sediment production and transport have already been discussed above and in the Soils and Water 

Quality Sections. 

Alternative 4 has the lowest number of native surface road/trail crossings compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Tables 

3-89 and 3-90). Ten native surface stream crossings are located in high surface erosion potential soils, and 20 

crossings on moderate surface erosion potential soils. The majority of the erosive crossings are in the McCubbins 

Gulch location. Five staging areas are proposed in Alternative 4. 

There are no road/trail crossings proposed over streams with ESA fish or designated critical habitat present. The 

closest ESA listed fish bearing streams to any roads/trails in this alternative are located over one mile downstream of 

proposed roads/trails in the LaDee location. There is no effect from fine sediment input to ESA listed fish and critical 

habitat due to the distance from proposed OHV locations.

Almost 0.7 miles of road within 100 feet of streams and seven stream crossings are proposed to be decommissioned 

in Alternative 4. Decommissioning could cause short-term sedimentation to adjacent streams, but would provide 

a long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation once these crossings revegetate and stabilize. This alternative 

would use or convert 3.74 miles of existing roads or trails and construct 0.08 miles of new trail within 100 feet of 

streams. The majority of new trail construction within 100 feet of streams is proposed in the Rock Creek OHV 

location and includes one trail segment that is within 100 feet of an intermittent tributary to Gate Creek. 

Table 3-88. Road/trail lengths (in miles) within 100 feet of surface water for proposed 

OHV locations in Alternative 4. For each location the information is grouped by fish 

bearing or non-fish bearing water body.

OHV Location Fish Bearing Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

LaDee Flats

Y 0.1 0.1

N 0.2 0.2

McCubbins Gulch

Y 0.1 0.4 0.6

N 0.4 1.5 0.0 1.9

Rock Creek

Y 0.1 0.1

N 0.9 0.1 0.9

Total Fish Bearing 0.3 0.4 0.7

Total Non-fish 1.5 1.5 0.1 3.1

Grand Total 1.8 2.0 0.1 3.8

Table 3-89. Total number of intermittent stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 4 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

LaDee Flats Non-native 2 2

McCubbins Gulch

High 9 9

Moderate 3 13 16

Non-native 1 1

Rock Creek

Moderate 1 1

Non-native 10 10

Grand Total 17 22 39
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 135

Table 3-90. Total number of perennial stream crossings associated with roads/trails 

proposed in Alternative 4 for each OHV location. Non-native erosion risk refers to nonnative surface roads which are less prone to erosion than native surface roads and trails. 

Numbers in parentheses are crossings over fish bearing streams.

OHV Location Erosion Risk Roads Trails - Existing Trails - New Grand Total

LaDee Flats Non-native 2 2

McCubbins Gulch

High 1 1

Moderate 2 2

Non-native 1 1 2

Rock Creek

Moderate 1 1

Non-native 6 6

Grand Total 10 4 0 14

Pool Quality

This alternative would result in the least impact in pool quality compared to all other alternatives. There are far fewer 

miles of existing and proposed new roads/trails in this alternative, as well as fewer streams crossings. As such, the 

potential for increased sedimentation resulting in pool quality degradation is negligible. 

Water Chemistry

The risk of surface water contamination under Alternative 4 is the lowest for all alternatives. This alternative has the 

fewest OHV locations (3), fewest staging areas (5), and fewest road/trail miles. The factors minimizing risks from 

pollutants described for Alternative 2 above apply to this alternative as well. 

Connectivity

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 2: one fish bearing crossing removed in the McCubbins location.

Direct Disturbance

The potential for direct disturbance to aquatic organisms from OHV traffic is much less in this alternative compared 

to other alternatives. The primary reason is the closure of many current roads/trails and off road use across the 

Forest. This would greatly reduce the use of existing fords scattered across the Forest. Concentration of OHV use in 

the three locations, few fords, and new crossings over fish bearing streams associated with new construction would 

result in few locations where disturbance could occur. There are no crossings proposed over streams with ESA fish or 

designated critical habitat present. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 4

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in the largest reduction in OHV use of all action alternatives compared 

to Alternative 1. OHV use would be confined to three proposed OHV locations, all of which currently contain 

some level of OHV use. The amount of potential erosion and resulting sedimentation could increase in those 

three locations if OHV use increases; however, the design criteria for OHV roads/trails and staging areas would 

substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Benefits to water quality would be realized by road 

decommissioning, after some initial potential for short-term sedimentation. Overall pool quality may be slightly 

decreased below crossings. Effects to fish and other aquatic species are expected to be insignificant and would be 

localized below stream crossings. No ESA listed fish or designated critical habitat is located within the three proposed 

OHV locations.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 136

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4

A full description of cumulative effects for all alternatives is summarized in Table 3-79. Since the spatial area of 

OHV use is confined to three proposed locations in Alternative 4, the potential for cumulative effects is much lower 

compared to Alternative 1 and the other action alternatives. If projects are spaced closely together in time (within 

three years of each other), there is a higher chance that there would be a measurable cumulative effect than if they are 

implemented over a longer period of time. 

Disturbance

There is a low probability of cumulative effects to aquatic fauna from treatment of invasive plants, which may require 

wading in waterways resulting in overlap with OHV use. 

3.4.3. Comparison of Effects and Aquatic Fauna Effects Determinations

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects for All Alternatives

Fine Sediment

Erosion potential and subsequent sedimentation into streams would improve in all action alternatives compared 

to Alternative 1. Confining OHV use to between three to eight proposed locations with staging areas would reduce 

OHV use within riparian reserves and the number of stream crossings. Project design criteria would further 

minimize erosion at stream crossings in OHV locations compared to existing conditions. There could be short term 

localized increases in fine sediment in a small number of streams from road decommissioning. Overall, Alternative 4 

has the least risk of fine sediment input to streams, followed by Alternatives 2, 3, and 1.

Pool Quality

Pool quality, in terms of fine sediment reducing pool volume, could be slightly degraded below stream crossings in all 

action alternatives; however, conditions would be an improvement compared to Alternative 1. Confining OHV use to 

between three to eight proposed locations would reduce the number of stream crossings and project design criteria 

would minimize erosion risk at all crossings. There could be localized increases in fine sediment in some streams 

below stream crossings or decommissioned road segments that may slightly increase the amount of fine sediment 

deposited in pools. Overall, alternative 4 has the least risk of reducing pool quality, followed by Alternatives 2, 3, and 

1.

Water Chemistry

There is a low risk of chemical or bacteriological contamination of surface waters in each alternative, including 

Alternative 1. The low risk is due to a variety of factors including proximity of OHV use near water, relatively few 

areas of concentrated use (i.e., staging areas), very low risk of spills away from staging areas, presence of sanitary 

facilities, and fate of spilled material on the ground. Alternative 4 has the least risk of surface water contamination, 

followed by Alternatives 2, 3, and 1.

Connectivity

Connectivity would be slightly improved in all action alternatives compared to Alternative 1 due to the proposed 

removal of culverts on fish bearing streams. However, the improvement is slight as only three culverts would be 

removed from fish bearing streams in Alternative 3, and one culvert removed in both Alternatives 2 and 4. Aquatic 

fauna connectivity in streams at other crossings would remain the same as in Alternative 1.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 137

Direct Disturbance

Direct disturbance to aquatic fauna would be reduced in all action alternatives compared to Alternative 1. Confining 

OHV use to between three and eight proposed locations would reduce the number of stream crossings including 

known and suspected fords, resulting in reduced risk of direct disturbance to aquatic fauna. Although use would 

increase in the proposed OHV locations, overall impacts are reduced with no cross-country travel and unregulated 

stream crossings. Alternative 4 has the least risk of direct disturbance, followed by Alternatives 2, 3, and 1.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

Fine Sediment

Measurable cumulative effects are possible as a result of sediment introduction from this project. The risk depends 

on the timing of this project and other projects listed. If projects are spaced closely together in time (within three 

years of each other), there is a higher chance that there would be a measurable cumulative effect than if they are 

implemented over a longer period of time. This is due to the dispersal of sediment throughout the stream system as 

time goes on. The highest risk is associated with Alternative 2, a low risk in Alternative 3 and no risk in Alternative 4. 

Pool Quality

Measurable cumulative effects are possible as a result of sediment introduction from this project. This could result 

in localized reduction of pool quality, although this is expected to be very minor. The highest risk is associated with 

Alternative 3, a lower risk in Alternative 2 and lowest risk in Alternative 4. 

Water Chemistry 

There would be little to no chance for cumulative effects related to OHV derived chemicals due to the 

implementation of PDC that minimize the chance of introducing these chemicals to surface water.

Connectivity

There would be no predicted overlap in time and space related to connectivity and designating OHV locations.

Disturbance

Cumulative effects from disturbance would be limited to invasive plant treatments and overlap with OHV use at 

stream crossings. It is expected to be rare.

ESA Listed Fish and Regional Forester’s Special Status Species Effects/Impacts 

Determinations

The following discussion summarizes effects to ESA listed fish, their critical habitat, Regional Forester’s Species 

Status aquatic species, and Essential Fish Habitat for all alternatives (Table 3-91). A brief rationale is given for each 

alternative.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 138

Table 3-91. Effects determination summary for all alternatives for ESA listed fish and 

designated critical habitat, Regional Forester’s Special Status Species, and Essential 

Fish Habitat. 

Date of

Listing & 

Critical 

Habitat

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present

Species 

Present

Effects of Actions

Alternatives

Endangered Species Act Listing by ESU/DPS Threatened 1 2 3 4

Lower Columbia River steelhead & CH 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

1/06

9/05 Y Y LAA NE NLAA NE

Lower Columbia River chinook & CH (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha)

6/05

9/05 Y Y LAA NE NE NE

Columbia River Bull Trout* (Salvelinus 

confluentus) 6/98 Y Y LAA NE NE NE

Middle Columbia River steelhead & CH 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

1/06

9/05 Y Y LAA NLAA NE NE

Upper Willamette River chinook & CH 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

6/05

9/05 Y Y LAA NE NE NE

Lower Columbia River coho* (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 6/05 Y Y LAA NE NE NE

Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List

Interior Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.) 7/04 Y Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia duskysnail (Colligyrus sp. nov. 1) 1/08 Y Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Barren Juga (Juga hemphilli hemphilli) 1/08 Y Unk MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Purple-lipped Juga (Juga hemphilli maupinensis)** 1/08 Y MIIH NI NI NI

Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly (Allomyia scotti) 1/08 Y Unk MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Essential Fish Habitat

Y N/A AE NAA NAA NAA

*Critical habitat is not designated for these species on Federal lands

**This species is not believed to inhabit streams near proposed OHV locations but may be present in larger streams near the Forest boundary.

Endangered Species Act Abbreviations/ Acronyms: Essential Fish Habitat Abbreviations/ Acronyms:

NE No Effect NAA Not Adversely Affected

NLAA May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect AE Adverse Effects

LAA May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List Abbreviations/ Acronyms:

Unk Species presence unknown but suspected

NI No Impact 

MIIH May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the 

population or species

Alternative 1

The adoption of the No Action Alternative would have the greatest impact on ESA listed and Regional Forester’s 

Special Status fish and other aquatic species. This is due to continued OHV use across most of the Forest, including 

overland travel on over 350,000 acres. This widespread use, including well over 2,500 stream crossings (some of 

which are known and suspected fords), and no adoption of PDC would result in more erosion and subsequent 

sedimentation into surface waters compared to other alternatives. Although the amount of erosion at any given 

location may be relatively small the combined effect of use across the forest would result in the introduction of 

enough fine sediment to adversely effect aquatic fauna and habitat at least in heavily used areas. The chance for direct 

disturbance is also highest in this alternative given the presence of known and suspected fords across the Forest.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 139

Alternative 2

The six proposed OHV locations in Alternative 2 would greatly reduce OHV use across the Forest with potential 

effects confined to those locations and up to one half mile downstream of stream crossings. The chance for direct 

disturbance to aquatic fauna and habitat would be negligible because all but one known ford (an intermittent, nonfish bearing stream in the McCubbins Gulch location) would be eliminated. The potential for erosion and subsequent 

sedimentation would be less compared to Alternative 1 but not eliminated entirely. There is only one proposed 

stream crossing in all six proposed locations located within one half mile of ESA listed fish species and designated 

critical habitat: the 1711630 road that crosses North Fork Mill Creek in the Gibson Prairie location. Middle Columbia 

steelhead trout are known to reside in this stream up to and above this crossing. None of the locations are within one 

half mile of essential fish habitat.

Although erosion from this road at the crossing is expected the amount of fine sediment generated would be small 

and would not result in biologically relevant (i.e. deter spawning success or survival) effects to steelhead individuals. 

Some slight filling of pools immediately below the crossing is possible thus there could be minor effects to critical 

habitat. As such the effects determination is a may affect, not likely to adversely affect for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead trout and critical habitat. There could be impacts to Regional Forester’s Special Status aquatic species and 

habitat for reasons outlined above and in Section 3.4.2. 

Alternative 3

The eight proposed OHV locations in Alternative 3 reduce OHV use across the Forest (but not to the extent that 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would) with potential effects limited to one half mile below road/trail crossings. Potential direct 

effects (disturbance) are the same as described for Alternative 2. There is only one OHV location where potential 

effects to ESA listed fish and critical habitat could occur: Graham Pass. Note that the one crossing in the Gibson 

Prairie OHV location discussed in Alternative 2 is not included in this alternative. 

The 4672 road is a proposed OHV route within the Graham Pass OHV location that crosses four streams within 

one half mile of known Lower Columbia River steelhead distribution and designated critical habitat. These streams 

are Lowe Creek, Fawn Creek, Hunter Creek, and Berry Creek. Steelhead also reside in Cub Creek within one half 

mile below the 4672 road. This road is a gravel road already open to OHV and licensed vehicle traffic. The proposed 

designation of this location and road could increase overall OHV traffic but the resultant erosion should not 

significantly increase. Although erosion from this road at the four crossings is expected the amount of fine sediment 

generated would be small and would not result in biologically relevant (i.e. deter spawning success or survival) effects 

to steelhead individuals. Some slight filling of pools immediately below the crossings is possible thus there could be 

negligible effects to critical habitat. As such the effects determination is a may affect, not likely to adversely affect 

for Lower Columbia River steelhead trout and critical habitat. There could be impacts to Regional Forester’s Special 

Status aquatic species and habitat for reasons outlined above and in Section 3.4.2. Essential fish habitat is not located 

within one half mile of any road/trail crossing thus there would be no adverse affects to essential fish habitat.

Alternative 4

This alternative would result in the least impact to aquatic fauna and habitat compared to other alternatives. Two 

of the three proposed OHV locations are within watersheds that do not harbor ESA listed fish, designated critical 

habitat, or essential fish habitat. The other proposed OHV location (LaDee Flats) is located over one mile upstream 

of ESA listed fish distribution and habitat. There would be no effect from direct disturbance to ESA fish and critical 

habitat due to the distance from the proposed LaDee OHV location. Only one ford may remain in McCubbins Gulch 

and this is located across an intermittent stream that is not believed to harbor any Special Status aquatic species. Any 

sediment introduced from OHV use at LaDee would not extend far enough downstream to affect ESA listed fish or 

habitat, as well as essential fish habitat. Special Status aquatic species may be present within a half mile of road/trail 

crossings in all three proposed OHV locations thus fine sediment impacts to these species or habitat are possible. 

Effects to Lamprey, Cutthroat Trout, and the Basalt Juga

Potential impacts to Pacific lamprey and cutthroat trout individuals and habitat could occur in any alternative. As 

described above for other aquatic species the potential impacts would primarily be related to fine sediment and for 

cutthroat at least are similar to effects described above and in Section 3.4.2. Cutthroat are widespread throughout the 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 140

Forest (exceptions are the Rock Creek, McCubbins Gulch, and Mt. Defiance OHV locations) and could be impacted 

by all alternatives. Lamprey are more tolerant of fine sediment (the young live in sand beds) thus impacts would likely 

be negligible. 

The Basalt Juga has been found near the Forest boundary in North Fork Mill Creek and may be present within one 

half mile of the Gibson Prairie OHV location. As such eroded fine sediment from this location could impact Basalt 

Juga individuals or habitat; however, the overall survival and distribution of this rare and uncommon species would 

not be at risk given the localized nature of potential effects.

3.4.4. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Total current OHV use is not well documented. It is suspected that many user created trails have not been 

inventoried. Impacts from unregulated stream crossings are not well documented. 

3.5. Wildlife

This analysis is based on the information found in the Wildlife Specialist Report for this project, which is in the 

project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.5.1. Affected Environment

The action area for this project is spaced across the Forest and encompasses westside lowland conifer-hardwood 

forest, eastside mixed conifer forest, montane mixed conifer forest, ponderosa pine/Douglas fir conifer forest, and 

lodgepole pine forest and woodland habitat types. The proposed project is located in both deer and elk winter range 

and calving areas. Most areas are in dispersal spotted owl habitat, but there are pockets of suitable habitat scattered in 

proposed locations on the eastside of the Forest. A couple of the proposed locations have nesting spotted owls. There 

are no bald eagles or peregrine falcon nest sites near the proposed OHV systems. 

Currently, OHVs are not prohibited on 2,463 miles of roads, 49 miles of trails, and 394,000 acres. The action 

alternatives analyzed would restrict any cross-country travel, restrict the roads and trails to at maximum of 326 

miles, and place seasonal restrictions on when OHVs can operate. The proposed alternatives all have major benefits 

to wildlife, when compared to the No Action Alternative, by reducing both habitat impacts and disturbance related 

impacts by focusing OHVs to specific times and places as well as requiring OHVs to use designated roads, trails, and 

one small area. At the same time, these alternatives could have major impacts to hunting opportunities for those who 

have enjoyed using ATVs for both hunting and game retrieval. There would be a substantial reduction in hunting 

opportunities for this those individuals who prefer to hunt from ATVs. This fact is somewhat of a contradiction 

to the Executive Order 13443 of August 16, 2007, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. The 

purpose of the executive order is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable 

effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the 

Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities 

and the management of game species and their habitat. The action alternatives would reduce hunting opportunity, 

but would also improve the management of game species and their habitat. 

Based on field observations, the some of the proposed new route construction sites have existing user created OHV 

trail use, although they are not part of the current trail system (see Table 3-92). Alternative 3 has the highest amount 

of non-user created new construction. The impacts of accepting and utilizing these existing sites has the affect of 

reducing any future potential impacts to small and less mobile species, such as salamanders and mollusk because 

their habitat has already been altered. Most of the trails proposed for new construction for Alternative 2 were 

surveyed for sensitive species. No target species were found. Presence was assumed for the additional trails proposed 

for new construction for Alternative 3 that were not surveyed. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 141

Table 3-92. Comparison of user created trails vs. new trail construction (i.e., constructing 

trails where there has been no previous ground disturbance).

Proposed System

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

User Created 

Trails

New 

Trails

User Created 

Trails

New 

Trails

User Created

Trails

New 

Trails

Bear Creek 0.0 39.1 0.6 28.2 0.0 0.0

Gibson Prairie 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Graham Pass 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

La Dee Flats 0.2 1.4 0.2 5.1 0.2 4.9

McCubbins Gulch 2.7 2.4 3.1 11.0 0.0 0.7

Mt. Defiance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peavine 1.1 1.9 0.1 8.8 0.0 0.0

Rock Creek 3.3 2.9 0.8 5.8 0.2 3.0

Totals 7.3 52.0 4.8 59.2 0.4 8.6

Alternative Totals 59.3 64.0 9.0

Many of the sites have a good amount of snags in the area. For safety reasons, there may be some reduction of danger 

trees along the trails. This may reduce the snags adjacent to the trail, but would also function to increasing down 

wood that serves as habitat for the small, low mobility species such as salamanders and mollusk. 

The following is a brief description of the vegetation type at each of the proposed OHV systems:

•	 McCubbins Gulch: Ponderosa pine/Douglas fir and Eastside mixed conifer forest types are found in this 

proposed OHV system. Deer and elk summer range are located in the analysis area. 

•	 Rock Creek: Ponderosa pine/Douglas fir and Eastside mixed conifer forest types are found in this proposed 

OHV system. Elk and deer winter range are located in the analysis area. 

•	 Gibson Prairie: This proposed OHV system contains eastside mixed conifer habitat type. There is also suitable 

spotted owl habitat. Deer and elk summer range and calving and fawning area (as documented by Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife telemetry studies over multiple years) is located in this analysis area.

•	 Bear Creek: This proposed OHV system contains montane mixed conifer habitat type. There is no spotted owl 

habitat, but there is deer and elk summer range. 

•	 Peavine: Westside lowland conifer and montane mixed conifer habitat types are found in this proposed OHV 

system. There is marginal spotted owl habitat type. There are deer and elk calving areas. 

•	 LaDee Flats: This proposed OHV systems contains westside lowland conifer mostly plantation and commercially 

thinned. This analysis area has had extensive OHV use in the past that has left large ponded areas. There is 

dispersal habitat extensively throughout the analysis area. There is deer and elk summer and winter range, but 

the use is marginal here. 

•	 Mt. Defiance: Montane mixed conifer can be found in this proposed OHV system. There is mostly summer 

range and no winter range. 

•	 Graham Pass: Westside lowland conifer and montane mixed confier habitat types are found in this proposed 

OHV system. The analysis area historically had a fair amount of big game utilization, but has lost its capacity to 

provide a lot of forage for large ungulates.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 142

3.5.2. Effects Analysis

Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened)

Habitat Characteristics 

Habitat for the owl is defined as either suitable or dispersal habitat. Suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl 

consists of habitat used by owls for nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF). Generally suitable habitat is 80 years of 

age or older, canopy cover exceeds 60 percent, is multi-storied and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide 

opportunities for nesting, roosting and foraging. Dispersal habitat for the owl usually consists of mid-seral stage 

stands between 40 and 80 years of age of age with a canopy closure of 40 percent or greater and an average diameter 

of 11”. Spotted owls use dispersal habitat to move between blocks of suitable habitat; juveniles use it to disperse from 

natal territories. Dispersal habitat may have roosting and foraging components, enabling spotted owls to survive, but 

lack structure suitable for nesting. Owls can also disperse through suitable (NRF) habitat. 

Analysis Areas

The project proposal involves no removal of suitable habitat for spotted owls. The removal of individual trees within 

suitable habitat would occur. Individual trees may need to be removed during new construction of trails or for hazard 

tree removal. The loss of individual trees would not affect spotted owls by either causing them to abandon their 

current site due to loss of habitat or causing them to have less foraging opportunities thereby reducing their ability to 

reproduce. There would not be any effects to spotted owl habitat by any of the proposed proposed OHV routes that 

would change the use or function of the habitat. The effects are not important to spotted owls since there is no change 

in the function of the habitat from any new construction or hazard tree removal. The loss of trees as hazard trees or 

for new construction would mimic natural situations where trees fall on the ground and become down wood. 

Late-Successional Reserve (LSR)

There are five proposed OHV route systems where an OHV route may travel through or on the boundary of an LSR 

or LSR-100. LSRs are contiguous stands of forest that have been allocated to grow mature and old growth habitat 

for late successional obligate species. LSRs may still be young stands but the goal is to provide older habitat in the 

future. LSR-100s are mostly mature habitat in the proximity of known spotted owl activity centers. LSR-100s were 

allocated to provide habitat for owl pairs until LSRs had matured to the extent that they would provide spotted owls 

with suitable habitat for nesting. Table 3-95 shows the extent of the trails and routes that may impact LSR. There 

are a couple trails in the Peavine OHV system that are located in and adjacent to LSR. The majority of roads in this 

location are being decommissioned. One mixed-use route goes through approximately 14 miles of LSR in the LaDee 

Flats proposed OHV system. There is approximately 7-8 miles of route in the McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV 

system. In Alternative 3, there is a small amount of road going into Badger Lake that is on the boundary of LSR in 

the Rock Creek OHV system. Also, less than a quarter mile of road in the Mt Defiance OHV system is in LSR. All of 

these routes are existing routes and no changes from the current situation are expected. 

Critical Habitat Units (CHU)

There is only one OHV route proposed that travels through approximately 14 miles of a Critical Habitat Unit. The 

4610 road goes through LSR and CHU. It is an existing road now and no change in status is expected to affect spotted 

owls. This road is only considered part of the mixed-use road system in Alternatives 2 and 3. No effects to Critical 

Habitat or the spotted owl are anticipated from converting this to a mixed-use route. The effects determination for 

the effects of habitat modification of Critical Habitat is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to some need 

to fell hazard trees or trees removed for new construction of trails.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 143

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat Modification

Alternative 1 – No Action

Currently, there are about 2,463 miles of road that can be used by OHVs. There are no direct habitat affects to spotted 

owls from this alternative since there is no habitat removal. There could be trees felled as hazards, however this 

would not modify the function of the habitat. Therefore, there are no effects to spotted owls or their habitat from this 

alternative.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Table 3-95 displays the analysis for spotted owls and their habitat. The assumption of this analysis is that very little 

habitat (vegetation) manipulation would occur. The forest opening for routes is narrow enough that there is no loss 

of habitat function. There are natural gaps in the forest that owls have always been able to cope with. Alternative 3 

has the most new trail construction (Table 3-92). Any tree that needs to be removed for new construction would be 

left on site and provide down wood habitat for small mammals, which could improve spotted owl prey populations. 

There would be times that hazard trees would need to be removed but they would be left on site. Thus, there would be 

no change in the function of habitat from any of these alternatives. 

Table 3-95 shows the potential for effects based on the amount of routes and trails in each proposed OHV location 

by alternative. The amount of habitat modification is below the level that effect any change in habitat function. The 

changes that result from OHV trail construction would not influence spotted owl habitat utilization. The effects 

determination for the effects of habitat modification is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect due to no changes 

in habitat function. 

The action alternatives include decommissioning 13, 35, or 12 miles of roads (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, respectively). 

This action has both positive and negative effects on the spotted owl and its habitat. The positive effect is that in the 

long term the road would once again become a part of the forest habitat and provide more forested land and could 

potentially produce more prey than the roaded habitat. On the negative side, decommissioning roads may reduce the 

ability to stop or slow down large catastrophic fires. 

There would be no decline of the spotted owl that has been linked to the removal and degradation of available 

suitable habitat. Because the loss of habitat from a large fire is only hypothetical there is no adverse affects to the 

spotted owl or its habitat from habitat alteration or removal. Therefore, the effects determination for this project is 

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect.

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl due to Noise Disturbance

Disturbance to owls appears to be negatively related to stimulus distance and positively related to noise level. 

Substantial noise, smoke and human presence can result in disruption of breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior 

of the spotted owl such that it creates the potential for injury to the individuals (i.e., incidental take in the form of 

harassment). For a significant disruption of spotted owl behavior to occur as a result of disturbance caused by the 

proposed actions, the disturbance and owl(s) must be in close proximity to one another. A spotted owl that may be 

disturbed at a roost site is presumably capable of moving away from a disturbance without a substantial disruption 

of its behavior. The potential for affects is mainly associated with breeding behavior at active nest sites. There are no 

studies of disturbance to spotted owls that have demonstrated any loss of reproduction, death, or harm. Anecdotal 

evidence from working with spotted owls to locate nest and determine owl presence would indicate that spotted owls 

are very tolerant of noise and human presence, unlike other raptors such as bald eagles or peregrine falcons. Effects 

determinations for disruption are conservative and probably overstate the effect. 

Table 3-93 shows the number of known sites within the disturbance and disruption distances of the routes for each 

alternative. Research has shown that activity centers that have been utilized in the past are likely to continue to be 

utilized in the future. This is less accurate on the eastside of the Cascades where spotted owls often nest in platform 

nests often created by tree deformities caused by disease and parasite, such as dwarf mistletoe. Owls on the eastside 

of the Cascades have a tendency to move their nest more frequently since they are not tied to cavities and have more 

abundant nest possibilities.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 144

Effects to spotted owls from noise and human presence are based on the distances that the Willamette Province Level 

One Team has determined are important from an effects determination standpoint. Disturbance is the distance where 

an owl may detect a noise and may choose to react to that noise but would not be adversely affected. The disruption

distance is the distance where noise levels could disrupt an owl’s breeding and feeding habits, as well as reduce its 

reproductive potential. This noise threshold has been determined by the Level One Team (USFWS 2006) to be greater 

than 92 decibels. The reduction would meet the Endangered Species Act definition of harm or harassment and could 

lead to incidental take. The disruption distance for chainsaws or OHVs is 65 yards.

The following table displays the number of historic nest sites that are within the disturbance distance (0.25 miles) and 

the disruption distance (65 yards) of a potential OHV route or trail. 

3-93. Number of known owls sites within the disturbance and disruption distances for each action 

alternative.

OHV System

Disturbance < 0.25 miles

Disruption < 65 yards

Spotted Owl Sites

Alternative 2

Spotted Owl Sites

Alternative 3

Spotted Owl Sites

Alternative 4

Rock Creek Disturbance 2 2 2

Disruption 2 1 1

Peavine Disturbance 4 5 0

Disruption 0 0 0

Mt. Defiance Disturbance 0 0 0

Disruption 0

McCubbins Gulch Disturbance 1 3 1

Disruption 1 1 1

LaDee Flats Disturbance 4 4 2

Disruption 0 0 0

Graham Pass Disturbance 6

Disruption 0

Gibson Prairie Disturbance 1 0

Disruption 0 0

Bear Creek Disturbance 0 0 0

Disruption 0 0 0

Totals Disturbance 10 20 5

Disruption 3 2 2

Alternative 2 has two routes where there is a potential for disruption of three nest sites due to the proximity of 

the known spotted owl sites to the OHV routes. Alternatives 3 and 4 have two known sites within the disruption 

distance of the routes. There are several seasonal restrictions proposed that would reduce the potential for spotted 

owl disturbance and disruption, but these restrictions do not cover the entire critical breeding period. The critical 

breeding season for spotted owls in the northern Cascades of Oregon is March 1 to July 15. Our seasonal restrictions 

do not extend beyond June 15. Nest abandonment is reduced exponentially as the parents invest time into the young 

and their fidelity increases.

Road decommissioning activities included in the alternatives that generate noise above the local ambient levels 

are heavy equipment and chainsaw use. Disruption distances of 35 yards for heavy equipment use and 65 yards 

for chainsaw use have had concurrence by the Willamette Province Level One Team and the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service. If project implementation occurred during the critical breeding period for the spotted owl (March 1 – July 

15th) within this distance of one of the historic owl nest sites near the project site, disturbances would be generated 

that may adversely affect the breeding of the spotted owl. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 145

Alternative 1

There is potential for spotted owl disruption from OHV use throughout the areas where OHV use is unrestricted. 

The effects determination from disturbance for this alternative is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Effect. This means 

that at any time there is the potential for a spotted owl to experience nest disruption.

Alternative 2

There are three known spotted owl nest sites in this alternative, two at the Rock Creek OHV system and one at the 

McCubbins Gulch OHV system that could experience disruption. The effects determination from disturbance for 

OHV use and road decommissioning for this alternative is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Effect. 

Alternative 3

There are two known spotted owl nest sites in this alternative, one at the Rock Creek OHV system and one at the 

McCubbins Gulch OHV system that could experience disruption. The effects determination from disturbance for 

OHV use and road decommissioning for this alternative is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Effect. 

Alternative 4

There are two known spotted owl nest sites in this alternative, one at the Rock Creek OHV system and one at the 

McCubbins Gulch OHV system that could experience disruption. The effects determination from disturbance for 

OHV use and road decommissioning for this alternative is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Effect. 

Cumulative Effects for the Northern Spotted Owl due to Habitat and Noise Disturbance

No cumulative effects are anticipated for spotted owls from OHVs. The nature of the habitat modification is too 

minor to be a factor even in an additive context. Disturbance to spotted owls is not a cumulative issue because unlike 

some other birds or mammals they are not easily disturbed and tend to tolerate people and noise. There are not other 

projects or activities that would be additive for disturbance for the owls.

Endangered Species Act Compliance

Formal consultation is required for disturbance for this decision. Consultation with the USFWS for disturbance will 

be completed prior to this decision. The effects determination from disturbance for several of the known sites is May 

Affect and are Likely to Adversely Affect northern spotted owls due to the proximity of the roads and trails to the 

known spotted owl nest sites. Effects to Critical Habitat are May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to the 

potential loss of snags from danger tree removal. Snags are a primary constituent element but the amount of loss 

would be extremely low from a habitat standpoint. The effects call for habitat modification for this project is May 

Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect the northern spotted owl or its habitat.

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service signed the “Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl” (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) on May 13, 2008. The Plan outlined goals, objectives, recovery actions, and criteria for delisting the northern 

spotted owl. Emphasis for the recovery is protection and maintenance of suitable spotted owl habitat and older high 

quality habitat. The Recovery Plan also indicates possible threats from other natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. The only factors that were indicated were barred owls and climate change. Disturbance and use 

of OHVs was not considered a significant threat. 

The Recovery Plan was reviewed prior to the analysis of spotted owls for this document. There were no factors that 

would alter any effects determination made during this analysis. This EIS is consistent with the intent, goals, and 

objectives of the Recovery Plan. There is no removal of suitable habitat, so there are no conflicts with Recovery 

Action 32 that request that land management agencies protect the high quality spotted owl habitat. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 146

Special Status Species 

The following table summarizes effects to Sensitive Species and rare and uncommon species from the Biological 

Evaluation that is incorporated by reference and found in the project record. Sensitive species are species listed 

under the R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (January 2008). Sensitive species are species that are restricted 

in range, have sensitive habitat, have been on the decline but do not warrant be listed as federally threatened or 

endangered. The intention of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive List is to consider these species in land management 

decisions to ensure that their numbers do not decline to a point where they would become federally threatened or 

endangered.

Table 3-94. Summary of effects to sensitive, rare and uncommon species.

Species Suitable Habitat 

Presence

Impact of Action 

Alternative*

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) No No Impact

Oregon Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps wrightii) Yes No Impact

Larch Mountain Salamander (Plethodon larselli) Yes No Impact

Cope’s Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon copei) No No Impact

Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) No No Impact

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) No No Impact

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) No No Impact

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) No No Impact

White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Yes MII-NLFL

Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes Lewis) Yes MII-NLFL

Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Yes MII-NLFL

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Yes MII-NLFL

California Wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) No No Impact

Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophrys Johnsoni) Yes MII-NLFL

Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon) No No Impact

Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia)** Yes No Impact

Columbia Oregonian (Cryptomastix hendersoni)** Yes No Impact

Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium)** Yes No Impact

Dalles Sideband (Monadenia fidelis minor)** Yes MII-NLFL

Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) ** Yes MII-NLFL

Crowned Tightcoil (Pristiloma Pilsbryi) Yes No Impact

White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Yes MII-NLFL

“MII-NLFL” = May Impact Individuals, but not likely to Cause a Trend to Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Species

Effects to the species listed above include changes to habitat as well as potential harm to individuals caused by 

physical impacts of trail construction, repair, maintenance, OHV use both during night and day, staging area 

construction and maintenance, road decommissioning and staging area use. 

The following sensitive species have habitat in the proposed OHV systems and are documented in more detail below. 

Further information can be found in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation found in the project record. 

White-headed and Lewis’ woodpecker

The roads and trails selected for OHV use have very little habitat for these two woodpeckers. Both woodpeckers do 

require snags and snags may be affected in a small way. Some hazard tree removal or if any new construction requires 

some removal of snags or ponderosa pine it could have a minor affect on these woodpeckers. The affect however 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 147

would be below any threshold that would affect the feeding, breeding or behavior of these birds. No white-headed 

or Lewis’ woodpeckers were observed during surveys of potential new construction. The loss of snags as danger trees 

however may cause a minor impact therefore the effect determination is May Impact Individuals, but not Likely to 

Cause a Trend to Federal Listing or Viability to the Species.

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

This butterfly is present in areas of dwarf mistletoe and utilizes nearby openings. There is no proposal to remove 

stands of trees with dwarf mistletoe or alter meadows or openings that may be used by this butterfly so there are no 

anticipated effects to the butterfly. Mistletoe can kill trees and these trees may be considered a danger to riders and 

need to be removed, so the effect determination is May Impact Individuals, but not Likely to Cause a Trend to 

Federal Listing or Viability to the Species.

Terrestrial Mollusks 

Due to the diversity of the locations and habitats that are crossed by trails in the OHV systems, at least one species 

may be found in the proposed OHV locations. Surveys were conducted in the spring of 2007 in areas of new 

construction. In most cases, there is already existing trail use by OHVs that has already altered habitat where 

potential mollusk could be found. Many of areas where there was no existing use (Peavine, LaDee, and Bear Creek) 

were surveyed and no rare mollusks were found. Several areas were identified for new alternatives after surveys 

were completed for the routes. There were no surveys for the western portions of the Rock Creek proposed OHV 

roads and trails and some of the McCubbins proposed OHV roads and trails. It is assumed, based on habitat, that 

there could be Dalles sideband and potentially Crater Lake tight coil snails in the unsurveyed locations (for new 

construction). Because these routes are narrow compared to the amount of habitat that exist adjacent to the trails 

it is possible that some individual Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tight coil mollusk could be affected by the new 

construction of these trails. That would make the effects determination for the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tight 

coil mollusk May Impact Individuals, but not likely to Cause a Trend to Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the 

Species.

In areas were there are existing trails, no surveys were required for these species due to lack of habitat. The following 

species were considered for surveys for this analysis due to habitat type: Crater Lake tightcoil, Puget Oregonian, 

Evening fieldslug, Dalles sideband, crowned tightcoil, and Columbia Oregonian. 

Larch Mountain Salamander 

The Bear Creek OHV system has potential habitat for Larch Mountain Salamander. Potential habitat for this 

salamander is areas near talus or rocky and porous soils. The areas of proposed new trail construction for the Bear 

Creek were surveyed in the spring of 2007. No salamanders were located during the surveys. There was one area 

found that had potential for Larch Mountain Salamanders. However, upon discussion with the Interdisciplinary 

Team, it was found that this site had other resource concerns; therefore, this trail was re-routed away from the 

potential habitat. 

Oregon Slender Salamander

Oregon Slender Salamander occurs throughout the proposed OHV roads and trails. They are found under down 

logs, limbs, rocks, and bark. There is no change in the microclimate of the area where the trails occur from either the 

OHV use or any proposed trail construction. Most new trails construction would not remove any large woody debris 

or alter the micro climate because there is existing use currently at the locations. The exception is at the Bear Creek 

trails, but no Oregon Slender Salamanders were found in these proposed locations. If snags or trees are dropped for 

trail construction the down logs would remain in place and serve as habitat for these salamanders.

Fringed Bat and Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

No substantial bat habitat would be altered by these OHV roads and trails. No effects are expected for Fringed or 

Townsend’s big-eared bats from OHV trail use. There is a small possibility that a fringed bat could be under the bark 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 148

of a snag that is a hazard tree along the trail and its roost location could be removed for safety reasons. Because the 

risk is very slight that this would happen, there are potentially minor effects to bats. The effect determination for bats 

is: May Impact Individuals, but not Likely to Cause a Trend to Federal Listing or Viability to the Species. 

Effects of Other Rare or Uncommon Species

Rare or uncommon species are species that although are rare in a general locality they may or may not be listed 

as sensitive species. Red-tree voles have viable populations in much of their range but have a substantially lower 

population on the Forest. Therefore, they are listed as rare or uncommon.

Red-tree vole

Habitat for this species consists of conifer forests containing Douglas-fir, grand fir, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, 

and white fir. Optimal habitat for the species occurs in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Large, live old-growth trees 

appear to be the most important habitat component. Red-tree voles are relatively uncommon in the North Cascades 

Region, with most records of species located at the lower elevations along the Columbia River and the western 

foothills of the Cascades. The species appears to be uncommon at elevations above 2,500 feet and extremely rare 

above 4,260 feet in the Cascades. It is believed that red tree voles are rare in high elevation true fir forests because 

their arboreal nests do not provide adequate insulation against cold winter temperatures. It is also thought that tree 

voles find it difficult to forage in high elevation forests during winter, when tree branches are frequently covered with 

snow and ice for extended periods (Forsman et al. 2004). There also have not been any records of red tree voles found 

from the east slope of the Cascades. 

There are three proposed OHV systems that may have red-tree voles because these locations contain mature and 

old-growth stands. LaDee Flats, Peavine, and Bear Creek were considered areas where potential red-tree voles may 

be found. The OHV system where new construction is proposed was surveyed for red-tree voles in the spring of 

2007. No red-tree voles, their nest, or Douglas fir resin ducts were discovered during the surveys, so there are no 

anticipated impacts to red-tree voles from the OHV trail construction or use, including road decommissioning.

Northwest Forest Plan Wildlife Requirements 

The white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pigmy nuthatch, flammulated and great gray owls, and 

bats are species with standards and guidelines within the Northwest Forest Plan. There are no effects anticipated from 

OHV use or road decommissioning to any of these species. 

• White-headed woodpecker, pigmy nuthatch, and flammulated owl: These three species are found generally in 

mature ponderosa pine habitat on the eastside of the Cascades. The project area does contain a small amount 

of ponderosa pine trees. No removal of ponderosa pine in the project area is anticipated, therefore there are no 

expected adverse affects to these species. 

• Black-backed woodpecker: Habitat for this species is found in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine stands in the 

higher elevations of the Cascade Range. The project area has potential habitat for the species. A standard and 

guideline exists for this species that requires an adequate number of large snags and green-tree replacements for 

future snags be maintained in sufficient numbers to maintain 100 percent potential population levels. The 100 

percent population potential for black-backed woodpeckers is 0.12 acres conifer snags per acre in the hard decay 

stage. These snags must be at least 17 inches dbh or largest available if 17 inches dbh snags are not available. The 

black-backed woodpecker also requires beetle infested trees for foraging.

There would be a few snags removed periodically in the proposed OHV systems to reduce the hazards of snags 

falling on OHV riders. This would be a very small impact on the overall abundance and distribution of snags 

available for black-backed woodpecker use. The current rate of recruitment of snags from fire, insects, and 

disease on the eastside of the Forest where these species occur would far outweigh the amount of snags removed 

for hazard tree removal. Therefore, there is minimal adverse affects from OHV management to black-backed 

woodpeckers.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 149

• Great gray owl: There is no potential habitat for the great gray owl in the proposed OHV route systems. Therefore, there are no anticipated adverse affects to great gray owls. 

• Bats: The Northwest Forest Plan provides additional protection for caves, mines, abandoned wooden bridges 

and buildings that are being used as roost sites for bats. No caves, mines, abandoned wooden bridges or buildings are present within the OHV areas; therefore, these standards and guidelines and management recommendations do not apply. 

Effects to Species and Focal Groups

It is not possible to quantify the actual impacts in terms of reproductive loss or harm to an individual or a population. 

An alternative approach for analysis is to compare the amount of exposure or risk to the species. More specifically, 

the analysis method is to compare the miles of roads and trails from one alternative to the others or to review the 

amount of exposure due to timing during critical breeding or survival periods. So the assessment of risk is used 

rather than the actual effect to identify which alternative has more or less impact than the other alternatives that are 

being analyzed. It is also not practical to attempt to analyze the effects of the alternatives to every species that might 

occur at the location but it is practical to look at representatives of these species that would characterize the effect to a 

whole group of species or a particular habitat designation, in the case of Late Successional Reserves. Table 3-93 shows 

the summary of analysis based on these criteria. Figures in the table are based on tables generated from GIS analysis 

done for these groups. 

The table provides the best way of displaying the quantification of the potential impacts. Additional written analysis 

is provided to help clarify or add to the understanding of the impacts. The table shows a summary of the ranking for 

each alternative for each species group by OHV system. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 150 Table 3-95. Summary of the effects of the alternatives to wildlife and LSR habitat. OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives General Forest Area 

(including the current OHV routes)

Northern Spotted Owl

There is a potential for disruption of nesting owls throughout the Forest since OHVs can travel anywhere (1749 miles where cross-country OHV use is permitted 714 miles where OHV use is permitted on designated roads and trails 2463 miles of roads where OHV use is permitted) and there are no seasonal restrictions.There is no new construction; therefore, there are no impacts to spotted owl habitat.

There would be a substantial reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 2 (221 miles) than in Alternatives 1 (714 & 2463 miles) or 3 (326 miles), but more than Alternative 4 (96 miles). There would be 13 miles of road decommissioning included in this Alternative.There are 59 miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal.

There would be a substantial reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 3 (326 miles) than in Alternatives 1 (714 & 2463 miles) and 2 (221 miles), but more than Alternative 4 (96 miles). There would be 35 miles of road decommissioning in this Alternative.There are 69 miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal. This alternative has the greatest impact to spotted owl habitat.

There would be the greatest reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 4 (96 miles) compared to all other alternatives. There would be 12 miles of road decommissioning in this Alternative.There are nine miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal. This alternative has the least impact to spotted owl habitat.

The following ranks the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

5.This ranking is based on least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Because OHV use is scattered across the Forest, there are more opportunities for vehicle disturbance of both individuals and their habitat. This is especially true because, in addition to the roads and trails, the vehicles can go crosscountry. The most likely impacts are from the small less mobile species, such as salamanders and mollusk. In this Alternative there could also be impacts to bald eagles and peregrine falcons as they expand their nesting distribution on the Forest to previously unoccupied areas.

The existing trails have already had impacts that removed habitat. This has reduced the impact to the small less mobile sensitive species. The main impacts would be on the 52 miles of trails that require new construction. Some of the new construction already has existing use. The Bear Creek OHV system has the most actual new construction. This is a major reduction in potential impacts to this group of species.New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat, the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction.

The effect of this Alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that it has 59 miles of potential new construction impacts. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat, the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction.

The effect of this Alternative is similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 with the exception that it has only nine miles of potential new construction impacts. This Alternative has the least impacts to this group of species. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 151

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

OHVs have very little impact on pileated woodpeckers and martens. There is however a large effect on deer and elk. Vehicle traffic would cause deer and elk to avoid an area, thereby reducing their habitat utilization. This can also stress the animals at critical points since there are no major restrictions for OHV use and they can operate during winter and calving time frames. With OHV use across the Forest, hunting pressure is increased further than the road prism that gets the majority of hunting pressure. Nesting turkeys are subject to harassment by OHVs and some nests are probably lost each year from OHV use. This Alternative would have the highest loss potential. 

Alternative 2 reduces the overall impact of OHVs on deer and elk substantially. It also increases the concentration of the effect to smaller areas and would make the trails and roads in this Alternative have a much greater impact to the local animals. Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 has a slightly higher impact to deer and elk use in the areas by having a higher amount of roads and constructing more trails than Alternative 2. However, this has a great deal less impact than Alternative 1. Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.

Alternative 4 has the least impact to deer and elk due to the greatly reduced miles of roads and trails and less new construction.Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use.Because they are arboreal species that are not directly impacted by OHV use.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal, which would be greatest in this Alternative.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal, but would be least in this Alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 1

2.

Alternative 4

3.

Alternative 2

4.

Alternative 3

This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 152 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Land Birds Some ground nesting and low nesting birds would abandon nest when a large amount of OHV use happens in close proximity. 

This Alternative has the greatest impact because a large degree of habitats are affected over a large land mass. There is no habitat removal however that would directly take out a nest.

This Alternative would have much less impact from disturbance than Alternative 1, but would have more impact from new construction and maintenance.

This Alternative would have much less impact from disturbance than Alternative 1, but more than Alternatives 2 and 4. This Alternative would have the greatest impact from new construction and maintenance.

This Alternative would have the least impact from disturbance than Alternative 1 and would have the least impact from new construction and maintenance.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:

1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

Peavine Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 9.4 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be 1.9 miles of newly constructed trails that could impact spotted owl habitat.

There would be 18.7 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be 8.8 miles of newly constructed trails that could impact spotted owl habitat.

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be no new construction in spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

There is some potential mollusk and Oregon Slender salamander habitat in the Peavine system. There is not much impact to these species on the existing trails. No impacts would occur to Red-tree voles from OHV use.

Surveys in areas of new construction did not detect any sensitive, rare, or uncommon species. There would be fewer impacts (1.0 miles of new construction) in this location than Alternative 1 because the OHV roads and trails would be confined to a smaller number of trails.

There would be 6.8 miles more new construction in this Alternative and may have more potential to affect sensitive, rare, or uncommon species habitat. 

This alternative protects habitat from OHV use in this location. Although the impacts from other Alternatives would have minor effects on this group of species this Alternative is best for minimizing impacts.There are no newly created routes or trails in this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 153

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

Alternative 1 creates impacts to MIS species across the Forest at all times of the year. The impacts are mostly in the form of harassment or disturbance.Road Density= 3.50 mi. road/mi2 

Alternative 2 has three miles of new construction that could impact snag resources to a small extent. It would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and wild turkeys by eliminating harassment during 75-80 percent of the fawning period and all of the elk calving period as well as turkey nesting season. This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.There would be 34.5 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 41 miles in summer range.Road Density= 3.20 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 3 has six miles more new construction than Alternative 2, so there would be more potential snags lost by this Alternative. The seasonal restriction has the same impact as Alternative 2 for deer, elk and turkeys.The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.There would be 1.8 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 48.8 miles in summer range. Road Density= 3.46 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 4 would protect habitat for woodpeckers, martens, and removes the impacts of OHVs during the calving, fawning, and turkey nesting season. This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest.There would be no OHV routes in winter and summer range. Road Density= 3.20 mi. road/mi2

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

There are insignificant effects to this group of species from OHVs. Snags are rarely affected in this Alternative. 

The three miles of new construction may have minor effects on snags for these eastside species. 

There are three times the potential for snag removal from this Alternative that could have minor effects for this group of snag using species.

There would be no effects to this group of species from this Alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1.

Alternative 4

2.

Alternative 2

3.

Alternative 3

4.

Alternative 1

This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 154 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Land Birds Alternative 1 has some effect on land birds. OHVs cause nest disturbance and nest abandonment in some 

situations. 

Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of OHV routes from Alternative 1, so there would be a reduction in nest abandonment due to the smaller area of impact. New construction (1.9 mi) however may cause some nesting losses during the construction year. 

Alternative 3 would increase the amount of potential nest abandonment by increasing the miles of trail by 12 miles and increasing new construction disruption of nesting by an additional 6.8 miles of routes.

Alternative 4 would eliminate land bird losses from nest abandonment from OHV use.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

This Alternative would have no OHV trails in LSR. There would be about 0.52 miles of OHV trails in LSR-100s.

Alternative 3 would have 1.75 miles of OHV trails in LSR and 2 miles in LSR-100s.

Alternative 4 would have no miles of OHV trails in LSR and LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

LaDee Flats Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs.This area is primarily dispersal habitat for spotted owls. OHVs currently use this area illegally and extensively. There is no major effect to spotted owls in this or any alternative due to no nesting owls in the areas of use.

There would be 5.7 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.New construction is in dispersal habitat and would not impact owls.

There would be 7.4 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.New construction is in dispersal habitat and would not impact owls.

There would be 0.5 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.New construction is in dispersal habitat and would not impact owls.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 155

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat.

No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat.

No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat.

No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat.

No impacts.

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

Marginal habitat for all MIS species. Current illegal use may cause some disturbance to deer and elk. Illegal use is actually high in this area. Road Density= 2.27 mi. road/mi2

There would be fewer disturbances to deer and elk from OHV use than Alternatives 1 and 4.There would be 38.9 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 17.1 miles in summer range. Road Density= 2.25 mi. road/mi2No turkeys present.

Alternative 3 would have the highest amount of disturbance to deer and elk in this marginal habitat.There would be 30 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 16.9 miles in summer range. Road Density= 2.33 mi. road/mi2No turkeys present.

Alternative 4 would have the least disturbance to deer and elk in this marginal habitat.There would be 30 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 0.3 miles in summer range. Road Density= 2.31 mi. road/mi2Not turkeys present.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No impacts.

Land Birds Alternative 1 current use 

(illegal) causes disruption of nesting and nesting loss in the areas used by OHVs. 

Alternative 2 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 39 miles of trails.

Alternative 3 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 42 miles of trails. There would be three more miles where disturbance could occur.

Alternative 4 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 25 miles of trails. There would be 14 miles less where disturbance could occur than the Alternative 2.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 156 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives LSR Alternative one would have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional 

species through disruption and traffic.

Alternative 2 would have 14.2 miles of OHV trails in LSR and no miles in LSR100s. 

Alternative 3 would have 14.4 miles of OHV trails in LSR and no miles in LSR100s.

Alternative 4 would have 0.2 miles of trails in LSR and no miles in LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 3 4. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

Bear Creek Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.There are 39 miles of newly constructed trails with this alternative that may impact some suitable habitat. 

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.There are 28 miles of newly constructed trails with this alternative that may impact some suitable habitat.

There would be no miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.There are no newly created trails that would impact spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Alternative 1 has some potential to impact wolverine, Larch Mountain Salamander, and mollusk because of unrestricted OHV use both spatially and temporally. 

Impacts from Alternative 2 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions and moving trails to avoid habitat impacts. No target species would be affected by new construction as observed during surveys. 

Impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions and moving trails to avoid habitat impacts. No target species would be affected by new construction as observed during surveys. Less construction impacts than Alt 2. 

The least impact from OHV due to elimination of routes at this site. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 157

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

Alternative 1 has some potential to impact deer, and elk because of unrestricted OHV use both spatially and temporally. The area is used as deer and elk summer range and production area. Road Density= 1.70 mi. road/mi2

Impacts from Alt 2 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions. The new construction would increase impacts to this area from harassment and lower production. It may also increase the vehicle/animal collisions from current condition in this area. There would be no miles of OHV routes in winter range and 39 miles in summer range.Road Density= 1.90 mi. road/mi2No turkeys present.

Impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions. The new construction would increase impacts to this area from harassment and lower production. It may also increase the vehicle/animal collisions from current condition in this area.There would be no miles of OHV routes in winter range and 40 miles in summer range.Road Density= 1.89 mi. road/mi2No turkeys present.

Alternative 4 would eliminate impacts to MIS species. There would be no OHV routes in winter and summer range. Road Density= 1.69 mi. road/mi2No turkeys present.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

No impacts.

Land Birds The unrestricted season for 

OHV use in this Alternative creates impacts to nesting land birds. It may be a minor effect because use in this area appears lower than other areas, based on visual evidence. 

The seasonal restriction for OHV use would reduce nest abandonment be moving use outside of much of the breeding season and allowing nest to be well established where adults are less likely to abandon the nest. More construction than Alt 3 means that there is a slight increase in construction nest losses but a lower amount of overall trails would reduce the long term effects by one mile.

The seasonal restriction for OHV use would reduce nest abandonment be moving use outside of much of the breeding season and allowing nest to be well established where adults are less likely to abandon the nest. Less construction than Alt 2 means that there is a slight decrease in construction nest losses but a higher amount of overall trails would increase the long term effects by one mile.

Alternative 4 would eliminate impacts to land birds.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.58 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.58 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

No impacts.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 158 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Gibson Prairie Northern Spotted Owl Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause 

disruption.

There would be 3.4 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.There are 4.3 miles of newly constructed trails that could impact spotted owl habitat. 

There would be 0.7 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.There are 0.3 miles of newly created trails being by this alternative.

There would be no miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There are no newly created trails being created by this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Alternative 1 allows unrestricted use of OHVs in this area both spatially and temporally. No target species were found during surveys in this area but OHVs may travel outside of currently used trails in this Alternative so some minor impacts could occur.

No target species were located during surveys in areas of new construction. No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative. 

No target species were located during surveys in areas of new construction. No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative.

No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1No impacts expected but a rare incident could occur. This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 159

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

No anticipated impacts to pileated woodpeckers or marten. Ongoing impacts to deer, elk, and turkey in this area of known production area especially for deer. Some breeding impacts due to no restrictions spatially or temporally.Road Density= 0.13 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and turkey by limiting routes to 15 miles and restricting use during 75-80 percent of the fawning season for deer and 100 percent for elk and turkey.There would be 9 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 15 miles in summer range.Road Density= 0.11 mi. road/mi2This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and turkey by limiting routes to 5 miles and restricting use during 75-80 percent of the fawning season for deer and 100 percent for elk and turkey.There would be 1 mile of OHV routes in winter range and 5 miles in summer range. Road Density= 0.13 mi. road/mi2The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.

Alterative 4 would eliminate OHV harassment to deer and elk.There would be no OHV routes in summer and winter range. Road Density= 0.11 mi. road/mi2This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

Some protection buffer species occur in this area but are not affected by OHV use.

Some protection buffer species occur in this location but are not affected by OHV use. New construction may reduce snags used by protection buffer species. Four miles of potential impact for Alt 2.

Some protection buffer species occur in this location but are not affected by OHV use. New construction may reduce snags used by protection buffer species. One mile of potential impact for Alt 3.

No impacts. The following list 

depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 160 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Land Birds OHV use is unrestricted spatially and temporally so there would be some nest abandonment from disruption. Alternative 2 restricts OHV use to 15 miles of trails and restricts the timing of use to allow for many birds to fledge. The four miles of new 

construction could impact some nesting birds.

Alternative 3 restricts OHV use to 5 miles of trails and restricts the timing of use to allow for many birds to fledge. The <1 miles of new construction could impact some nesting birds. 

No impacts. The following list 

depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Entire area is open to 

OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

No impacts.

McCubbins Gulch

Northern Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 8.7 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.There are 2.4 miles of newly created trails in this alternative these may cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat.

There would be 10 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.There are 11 miles of newly created trails in this alternative these may cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat.

There would be 6.6 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.There are 0.7 miles of newly created trails in this alternative these may cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 161

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

This relatively flat area lends itself to OHV use that is unrestricted in this alternative. There are some impacts to low mobility target species from off trail travel, although minor.

Alternative 2 restricts the OHV use to 51 miles of routes. No target species were found during surveys. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. There is 2.4 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative.

Alternative 3 restricts the OHV use to 60 miles. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. There is 11 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative.

Alternative 4 restricts the OHV use to 34 miles of routes. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. There is 0.7 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

This area has a fair amount of deer, elk, and turkeys and a high amount of current OHV use that impacts wildlife utilization of that due to the unrestricted area of OHV use. Most wildlife use is summer range with a small amount of winter range. Road Density= 3.81 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 2 would reduce the area of use to 51 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without designated trails.This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.There would be 31 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 50 miles in summer range.Road Density= 3.76 mi. road/mi2

Alt 3 would reduce the area of use to 60 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without designated trails. This Alt has 9 miles more harassment issues than Alt 2.The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.There would be 28 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 56 miles in summer range. Road Density= 3.82 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 4 would reduce the area of use to 34 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without designated trails. This Alternative has 17 miles less harassment issues than Alternative 2. This is the least impact to this group of all of the Alternatives.This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest.There would be 15 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 33 miles in summer range.Road Density= 3.71 mi. road/mi2

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 162 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Protection Buffer Species This area has potential habitat for all of our protection buffer species. There is very little impact to this group of species 

from OHV use by itself. The occasional loss of snags for safety is the only impact to this group.

The 5 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 14 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 1 mile of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.

Land Birds The unrestricted use of 

OHVs in this area creates nest disruptions occasionally from OHVs flushing ground nesting birds as they pass by the nest. 

Alternative 2 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 51 miles of trails. 

Alterative 3 would restricts\ the OHV nest disruption to 60 miles of trails. 

Alternative 4 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 34 miles of trails. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be 7.8 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 2.1 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be 7.9 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 1.1 miles in LSR-100s.

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV routes in LSR and one mile in LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 163

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Rock Creek Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 10 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be two known sites within disruption distance. There are 2.9 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative that could impact spotted owl habitat.

There would be 25.6 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.There are 5.8 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative that could impact spotted owl habitat.

There would be 13.9 miles of OHV roads and trails in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance. There are 3.0 miles of newly constructed trails in this alternative that could impact spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 22. Alternative 43. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes, road decommissioning, and nest disruption distances.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Slight potential impacts to rare mollusk and Oregon Slender Salamander from unrestricted cross-country OHV travel. Minor impacts to individuals.

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to this group to 2.9 miles of newly constructed trails. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to this group to 5.8miles of newly constructed trails. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to this group to 3 of newly constructed trails. New construction can impact mollusk. Based on habitat the Dalles sideband and Crater Lake tightcoil are most susceptible to new construction. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on least to most amount of new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 164 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Management Indicator Species (Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, 

gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

This area is Deer and Elk winter range. The unrestricted use of the area can impacts deer, elk, and turkey during critical times. Harassment during the winter can lower survival and reproduction. Road Density= 2.50 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 40 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.There would be 36 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 30 miles in summer range. Road Density= 2.55 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 60 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.There would be 21 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 50 miles in summer range. Density= 2.44 mi. road/mi2

Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 37 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest.There would be 1.3 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 39 miles in summer range. Density= 2.38 mi. road/mi2

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1The seasonal restriction reduces the importance of harassment in winter range.This ranking is based on least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

This area has potential habitat for all of our protection buffer species. There is very little impact to this group of species from OHV use by itself. The occasional loss of snags for safety is the only impact to this group.

The 6 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 7 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 3 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 165

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Land Birds The unrestricted use of 

OHVs in this area creates nest disruptions occasionally from OHVs flushing ground nesting birds as they pass by the nest. 

Alternative 2 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 40 miles of trails.

Alternative 3 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 61 miles of trails.

Alternative 4 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 37 miles of trails.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 1.7 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be 0.8 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 1.4 miles in LSR-100s.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.7 miles in LSR-100s. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

Graham Pass Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

There would be 18.6 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- Based on least to most disturbance from miles of routes. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 166 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species Some occasional off road use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for 

game retrieval.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

No impacts

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

Some occasional off road use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for game retrieval. No Turkeys in this areaDensity= 3.50 mi. road/mi2.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.No Turkeys in this areaThere would be no OHV routes in winter and summer range. Density= 3.20 mi. road/mi2

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.No Turkeys in this areaThere would be no OHV routes in winter range and 64 miles in summer range. Density= 3.46 mi. road/mi2

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.No Turkeys in this areaThere would no OHV routes in winter and summer range. Density= 3.20 mi. road/mi2

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- Based on least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes)and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need. 

Protection Buffer Species

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No impacts

Land Birds Some occasional off road 

use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for game retrieval.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- Based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 167

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 1.7 miles in LSR-100s.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- The least amount of routes in LSR and LSR-100s to the greatest.

Mt Defiance Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

There would be 2 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- Based on least to most disturbance from miles of routes.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 168 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species Some occasional off road use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for 

game retrieval.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.

No impacts

Management Indicator Species(Deer, elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, gray squirrel, and wild turkey)

Some occasional off road use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for game retrieval.No Turkeys in this areaRoad Density= 1.00 mi. road/mi2

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here.No Turkeys in this areaThere would be no OHV routes in summer and winter range. Road Density= 0.93 mi. road/mi2

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.No Turkeys in this areaThere would be no OHV routes in winter range and 5.5 miles in summer range. Road Density= 1.00 mi. road/mi2

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here. No Turkeys in this areaRoad Density= 0.93 mi. road/mi2

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1Rational- Based on least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes)and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need. 

Protection Buffer Species

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No protection buffer species use this area.

No impacts

Land Birds Some occasional off road 

use can occur currently so there is some low level of potential impact. Most use in this area is probably for game retrieval.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here

Use is confined existing gravel roads. No impacts to this group of species is expected.

No use of roads for OHVs can occur. No impacts to this group of species is expected. Less impacts than Alt 1 since no OHVs can be used here

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1Rational- Based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 169

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be 0.2 miles of OHV routes in LSR and no OHV routes in LSR-100s.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 Rational- The least amount of routes in LSR and LSR-100s to the greatest.

General Forest Area

Northern Spotted Owl

There is a potential for disruption of nesting owls throughout the Forest since OHVs can travel anywhere (2,463 miles of roads available) and there are no seasonal restrictions.There is no new construction; therefore, there are no impacts to spotted owl habitat.

There would be a substantial reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 2 (221 miles) than in Alternatives 1 (2,463 miles) or 3 (326 miles), but more than Alternative 4 (96 miles). There would be 13 miles of road decommissioning included in this Alternative.There are 59 miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal.

There would be a substantial reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 3 (326 miles) than in Alternatives 1 (2,463 miles) and 2 (221 miles), but more than Alternative 4 (96 miles). There would be 35 miles of road decommissioning in this Alternative.There are 69 miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal. This alternative has the greatest impact to spotted owl habitat.

There would be the greatest reduction in locations affected by disturbance in Alternative 4 (96 miles) compared to all other alternatives. There would be 12 miles of road decommissioning in this Alternative.There are nine miles of new OHV trail construction, which could cause some minor impacts to spotted owl habitat from individual tree removal. This alternative has the least impact to spotted owl habitat.

The following ranks the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 170 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species Because OHV use is scattered across the Forest, there are more opportunities for vehicle disturbance of both individuals and their 

habitat. This is especially true because, in addition to the roads and trails, the vehicles can go crosscountry. The most likely impacts are from the small less mobile species, such as salamanders, Baird’s shrew and mollusk. In this Alternative there could also be impacts to bald eagles and peregrine falcons as they expand their nesting distribution on the Forest to previously unoccupied areas.

The existing trails have already had impacts that removed habitat. This has reduced the impact to the small less mobile sensitive species. The main impacts would be on the 59 miles of trails that require new construction. Some of the new construction already has existing use. The Bear Creek OHV system has the most actual new construction. This is a major reduction in potential impacts to this group of species.

The effect of this Alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that it has 69 miles of potential new construction impacts. 

The effect of this Alternative is similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 with the exception that it has only nine miles of potential new construction impacts. This Alternative has the least impacts to this group of species. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.

Management Indicator Species

OHVs have very little impact on pileated woodpeckers and martens. There is however a large effect on deer and elk. Vehicle traffic would cause deer and elk to avoid an area, thereby reducing their habitat utilization. This can also stress the animals at critical points since there are no major restrictions for OHV use and they can operate during winter and calving time frames. With OHV use across the Forest, hunting pressure is increased further than the road prism that gets the majority of hunting pressure. Nesting turkeys are subject to harassment by OHVs and some nests are probably lost each year from OHV use. This Alternative would have the highest loss potential. 

Alternative 2 reduces the overall impact of OHVs on deer and elk substantially. It also increases the concentration of the effect to smaller areas and would make the trails and roads in this Alternative have a much greater impact to the local animals. Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.This Alternative would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 has a slightly higher impact to deer and elk use in the areas by having a higher amount of roads and constructing more trails than Alternative 2. However, this has a great deal less impact than Alternative 1. Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.The Alternative 3 would have the substantially less potential loss of turkey nest than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 4.

Alternative 4 has the least impact to deer and elk due to the greatly reduced miles of roads and trails and less new construction.Seasonal restrictions on these trails reduce the impacts to wintering calving and fawning.This Alternative would have the least potential loss of turkey nest. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 171

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Protection Buffer Species

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use.Because they are arboreal species that are not directly impacted by OHV use.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal, which would be greatest in this Alternative.

The protection buffer species are not greatly affected by OHV use. Some snag loss may occur in areas of new construction or hazard tree removal, but would be least in this Alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 12. Alternative 43. Alternative 24. Alternative 3This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.

Land Birds Some ground nesting and 

low nesting birds would abandon nest when a large amount of OHV use happens in close proximity. This Alternative has the greatest impact because a large degree of habitats are affected over a large land mass. There is no habitat removal however that would directly take out a nest.

This Alternative would have much less impact from disturbance than Alternative 1, but would have more impact from new construction and maintenance.

This Alternative would have much less impact from disturbance than Alternative 1, but more than Alternatives 2 and 4. This Alternative would have the greatest impact from new construction and maintenance.

This Alternative would have the least impact from disturbance than Alternative 1 and would have the least impact from new construction and maintenance.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

Peavine Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 9.4 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be 18.7 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be no OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 172 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species There is some potential mollusk and Oregon Slender salamander habitat in the Peavine system. There is not much impact to these 

species on the existing trails. No impacts would occur to Red-tree voles from OHV use.

Surveys in areas of new construction did not detect any sensitive, rare, or uncommon species. There would be fewer impacts in this location than Alternative 1 because the OHV routes would be confined to a smaller number of trails. 

There would be six miles more new construction in this Alternative and may have more potential to affect sensitive, rare, or uncommon species habitat. 

This alternative protects habitat from OHV use in this location. Although the impacts from other Alternatives would have minor effects on this group of species this Alternative is best for minimizing impacts.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.

Management Indicator Species

Alternative 1 creates impacts to MIS species across the Forest at all times of the year. The impacts are mostly in the form of harassment or disturbance.

Alternative 2 has three miles of new construction that could impact snag resources to a small extent. It would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and wild turkeys by eliminating harassment during 75-80 percent of the fawning period and all of the elk calving period as well as turkey nesting season. There would be 34.5 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 41 miles in summer range.

Alternative 3 has six miles more new construction than Alternative 2, so there would be more potential snags lost by this Alternative. The seasonal restriction has the same impact as Alternative 2 for deer, elk and turkeys.There would be 1.8 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 48.8 miles in summer range.

Alternative 4 would protect habitat for woodpeckers, martens, and removes the impacts of OHVs during the calving, fawning, and turkey nesting season.There would be no OHV routes in winter and summer range.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

There are insignificant effects to this group of species from OHVs. Snags are rarely affected in this Alternative. 

The three miles of new construction may have minor effects on snags for these eastside species. 

There are three times the potential for snag removal from this Alternative that could have minor effects for this group of snag using species.

There would be no effects to this group of species from this Alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 173

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Land Birds Alternative 1 has some 

effect on land birds. OHVs cause nest disturbance and nest abandonment in some situations. 

Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of OHV routes from Alternative 1, so there would be a reduction in nest abandonment due to the smaller area of impact. New construction however may cause some nesting losses during the construction year. 

Alternative 3 would increase the amount of potential nest abandonment by increasing the miles of trail by 12 miles and increasing new construction disruption of nesting by an additional 6 miles of routes.

Alternative 4 would eliminate land bird losses from nest abandonment from OHV use.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

This Alternative would have no OHV trails in LSR. There would be about 0.52 miles of OHV trails in LSR-100s.

Alternative 3 would have 1.75 miles of OHV trails in LSR and 2 miles in LSR-100s.

Alternative 4 would have no miles of OHV trails in LSR and LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternatives 4 and 22. Alternative 33. Alternative 1 This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

LaDee Flats Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs.This area is primarily dispersal habitat for spotted owls. OHVs currently use this area illegally and extensively. There is no major effect to spotted owls in this or any alternative due to no nesting owls in the areas of use.

There would be 5.7 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.

There would be 7.4 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.

There would be 0.5 miles of OHV trails in suitable spotted owl habitat.Only minor impacts to dispersing spotted owls would occur from this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 174 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat. No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat. No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat. No habitat for sensitive, rare, or uncommon species is in this area. Surveys did not find any species or suitable habitat. No impacts.

Management Indicator Species

Marginal habitat for all MIS species. Current illegal use may cause some disturbance to deer and elk. Illegal use is actually high in this area.

There would be fewer disturbances to deer and elk from OHV use than Alternatives 1 and 4.There would be 38.9 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 17.1 miles in summer range. 

Alternative 3 would have the highest amount of disturbance to deer and elk in this marginal habitat.There would be 30 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 16.9 miles in summer range.

Alternative 4 would have the least disturbance to deer and elk in this marginal habitat.There would be 30 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 0.3 miles in summer range. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No protection buffer species in this location.

No impacts.

Land Birds Alternative 1 current use 

(illegal) causes disruption of nesting and nesting loss in the areas used by OHVs. 

Alternative 2 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 39 miles of trails.

Alternative 3 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 42 miles of trails. There would be three more miles where disturbance could occur.

Alternative 4 would authorize use in this location, so the loss of nesting would increase over the 25 miles of trails. There would be 14 miles less where disturbance could occur than the Alternative 2.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 175

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

Alternative 2 would have 14.2 miles of OHV trails in LSR and no miles in LSR100s. 

Alternative 3 would have 14.4 miles of OHV trails in LSR and no miles in LSR100s.

Alternative 4 would have 0.2 miles of trails in LSR and no miles in LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 3 4. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

Bear Creek Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be no miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Alternative 1 has some potential to impact wolverine, Larch Mountain Salamander, and mollusk because of unrestricted OHV use both spatially and temporally. 

Impacts from Alternative 2 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions and moving trails to avoid habitat impacts. No target species would be affected by new construction as observed during surveys. 

Impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions and moving trails to avoid habitat impacts. No target species would be affected by new construction as observed during surveys. Less construction impacts than Alt 2. 

The least impact from OHV due to elimination of routes at this site. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 176 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Management Indicator Species Alternative 1 has some potential to impact deer, and elk because of unrestricted OHV use both spatially and temporally. 

The area is used as deer and elk summer range and production area. 

Impacts from Alt 2 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions. The new construction would increase impacts to this area from harassment and lower production. It may also increase the vehicle/animal collisions from current condition in this area. There would be no miles of OHV routes in winter range and 39 miles in summer range.

Impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced by seasonal restrictions. The new construction would increase impacts to this area from harassment and lower production. It may also increase the vehicle/animal collisions from current condition in this area.There would be no miles of OHV routes in winter range and 40 miles in summer range.

Alternative 4 would eliminate impacts to MIS species. There would be no OHV routes in winter and summer range.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

This area is outside the normal range for protection buffer species.

No impacts.

Land Birds The unrestricted season for 

OHV use in this Alternative creates impacts to nesting land birds. It may be a minor effect because use in this area appears lower than other areas, based on visual evidence. 

The seasonal restriction for OHV use would reduce nest abandonment be moving use outside of much of the breeding season and allowing nest to be well established where adults are less likely to abandon the nest. More construction than Alt 3 means that there is a slight increase in construction nest losses but a lower amount of overall trails would reduce the long term effects by one mile.

The seasonal restriction for OHV use would reduce nest abandonment be moving use outside of much of the breeding season and allowing nest to be well established where adults are less likely to abandon the nest. Less construction than Alt 2 means that there is a slight decrease in construction nest losses but a higher amount of overall trails would increase the long term effects by one mile.

Alternative 4 would eliminate impacts to land birds.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.58 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.58 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

No impacts.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 177

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Gibson Prairie Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 3.4 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be 0.7 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

There would be no miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Alternative 1 allows unrestricted use of OHVs in this area both spatially and temporally. No target species were found during surveys in this area but OHVs may travel outside of currently used trails in this Alternative so some minor impacts could occur.

No target species were located during surveys in areas of new construction. No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative.

No target species were located during surveys in areas of new construction. No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative.

No impacts to this group of species is expected from this alternative.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1No impacts expected but a rare incident could occur. This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 178 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Management Indicator Species No anticipated impacts to pileated woodpeckers or marten. Ongoing impacts to deer, elk, and turkey in this area of known production 

area especially for deer. Some breeding impacts due to no restrictions spatially or temporally.

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and turkey by limiting routes to 15 miles and restricting use during 75-80 percent of the fawning season for deer and 100 percent for elk and turkey.There would be 9 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 15 miles in summer range.

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to deer, elk, and turkey by limiting routes to 5 miles and restricting use during 75-80 percent of the fawning season for deer and 100 percent for elk and turkey.There would be 1 mile of OHV routes in winter range and 5 miles in summer range.

Alterative 4 would eliminate OHV harassment to deer and elk.There would be no OHV routes in summer and winter range.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

Some protection buffer species occur in this area but are not affected by OHV use.

Some protection buffer species occur in this location but are not affected by OHV use. New construction may reduce snags used by protection buffer species. Four miles of potential impact for Alt 2.

Some protection buffer species occur in this location but are not affected by OHV use. New construction may reduce snags used by protection buffer species. One mile of potential impact for Alt 3.

No impacts. The following list 

depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.

Land Birds OHV use is unrestricted 

spatially and temporally so there would be some nest abandonment from disruption. 

Alternative 2 restricts OHV use to 15 miles of trails and restricts the timing of use to allow for many birds to fledge. The four miles of new construction could impact some nesting birds.

Alternative 3 restricts OHV use to 5 miles of trails and restricts the timing of use to allow for many birds to fledge. The <1 miles of new construction could impact some nesting birds. 

No impacts. The following list 

depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 179

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

LSR Entire area is open to 

OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and LSR-100s. 

No impacts.

McCubbins Gulch

Northern Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 8.7 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.

There would be 10 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.

There would be 6.6 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes and road decommissioning.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

This relatively flat area lends itself to OHV use that is unrestricted in this alternative. There are some impacts to low mobility target species from off trail travel, although minor.

Alternative 2 restricts the OHV use to 51 miles of routes and 5 miles of new construction. However, most new construction has existing use. No target species were found during surveys. 

Alternative 3 restricts the OHV use to 60 miles of routes and 14 miles of new construction. However, most new construction has existing use. The impact although minor is greater than Alt 2 and Alt 4.

Alternative 4 restricts the OHV use to 34 miles of routes and 1 mile of new construction. However, new construction has existing use. The impacts although minor are less than Alt 2 and Alt 3.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most amount of new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 180 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Management Indicator Species This area has a fair amount of deer, elk, and turkeys and a high amount of current OHV use that impacts wildlife utilization of that 

due to the unrestricted area of OHV use. Most wildlife use is summer range with a small amount of winter range.

Alternative 2 would reduce the area of use to 51 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without proposed trails.There would be 31 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 50 miles in summer range.

Alt 3 would reduce the area of use to 60 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without proposed trails. This Alt has 9 miles more harassment issues than Alt 2.There would be 28 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 56 miles in summer range.

Alternative 4 would reduce the area of use to 34 miles of trail. The concentrated use would put higher pressure on a smaller area but would reduce current harassment in the areas without proposed trails. This Alternative has 17 miles less harassment issues than Alternative 2. This is the least impact to this group of all of the Alternatives.There would be 15 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 33 miles in summer range.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

This area has potential habitat for all of our protection buffer species. There is very little impact to this group of species from OHV use by itself. The occasional loss of snags for safety is the only impact to this group.

The 5 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 14 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 1 mile of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.

Land Birds The unrestricted use of 

OHVs in this area creates nest disruptions occasionally from OHVs flushing ground nesting birds as they pass by the nest. 

Alternative 2 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 51 miles of trails. 

Alterative 3 would restricts\ the OHV nest disruption to 60 miles of trails. 

Alternative 4 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 34 miles of trails. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 181

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be 7.8 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 2.1 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be 7.9 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 1.1 miles in LSR-100s.

There would be 6.4 miles of OHV routes in LSR and one mile in LSR-100s.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 33. Alternative 24. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.

Rock Creek Northern 

Spotted Owl

Entire area is open to OHVs. This provides more opportunity for close contact with nesting spotted owls and may cause disruption.

There would be 10 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be two known sites within disruption distance.

There would be 25.6 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.

There would be 13.9 miles of OHV routes in suitable spotted owl habitat. There would be one known site within disruption distance.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 22. Alternative 43. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least to most disturbance from miles of routes, road decommissioning, and nest disruption distances.

Sensitive, Rare and Uncommon Species

Slight potential impacts to rare mollusk and Oregon Slender Salamander from unrestricted cross-country OHV travel. Minor impacts to individuals.

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to this group to 6 miles of new construction most of which is actually existing user created trails. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to this group to 7 miles of new construction most of which is actually existing user created trails. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to this group to 3 miles of new construction most of which is actually existing user created trails. It would reduce off trail use that can happen in Alt 1.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on least to most amount of new construction.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 182 OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives Management Indicator Species This area is Deer and Elk winter Range. The unrestricted use of the area can impacts deer, elk, and turkey during critical times. 

Harassment during the winter can lower survival and reproduction.

Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 40 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.There would be 36 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 30 miles in summer range. 

Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 60 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.There would be 21 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 50 miles in summer range.

Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to MIS species by reducing OHV use to 37 miles of trails and restricting the season of use to outside of the critical wintering period.There would be 1.3 miles of OHV routes in winter range and 39 miles in summer range.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 22. Alternative 43. Alternative 34. Alternative 1The seasonal restriction reduces the importance of harassment in winter range.This ranking is based on least to most wildlife harassment (less miles of routes) and reduction in snags from danger tree removal need.

Protection Buffer Species

This area has potential habitat for all of our protection buffer species. There is very little impact to this group of species from OHV use by itself. The occasional loss of snags for safety is the only impact to this group.

The 6 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 7 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The 3 miles of new construction may remove some snags but a lot of the new construction areas are in areas of current user created trails and so no trees would actually be removed.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of potential hazard tree (snags) removal.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 183

OHV System Species or Species Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Summary of Impacts from Alternatives

Land Birds The unrestricted use of 

OHVs in this area creates nest disruptions occasionally from OHVs flushing ground nesting birds as they pass by the nest. 

Alternative 2 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 40 miles of trails.

Alternative 3 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 61 miles of trails.

Alternative 4 would restrict the OHV nest disruption to 37 miles of trails.

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the amount of nest disruption (miles of routes) and new construction.

LSR Alternative one would 

have potential OHV use throughout the system of LSRs. This could disturb and affect late successional species through disruption and traffic.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 1.7 miles in LSR-100s. 

There would be 0.8 miles of OHV routes in LSR and 1.4 miles in LSR-100s.

There would be no OHV routes in LSR and 0.7 miles in LSR-100s. 

The following list depicts the impacts to this resource from the least impact to the greatest impact:1. Alternative 42. Alternative 23. Alternative 34. Alternative 1This ranking is based on the least amount of routes in LSR and LSR100s to the greatest.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 184

Snags and Down Wood

The implementation of this project would have little impact on snags or down wood. There are both existing trails 

and some new trail construction. Because the trails are narrow, the impact of the OHV trail construction is narrow 

and would not impact many snags. In some cases a snag may be removed, but the resulting down log would remain 

on site. Down logs still provide foraging habitat for many woodpeckers and provide habitat for salamanders, mollusk, 

small mammals, including bats. Snags around staging areas would periodically be removed for public safety as would 

some located along OHV trails during maintenance. However, this overall effect is below the level that DecAid 

analysis would be useful and in this situation snags could not be retained in areas of high traffic where public safety 

would be a concern. 

Because there has been a reduction in harvest over the past 16 years, since the Northwest Forest Plan was 

implemented, the amount of snags being recruited on the landscape has been increasing. Jeff Reis, Area Forest 

Inventory Specialist, (via personal communication) indicated that according to Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) 

data, snag recruitment was on the rise. 

DecAid Analysis

The loss of snags from designating OVH systems would be minimal and below the level that can be evaluated using 

the DecAid analysis tool. The use of DecAid for the analysis of this action is not appropriate and is outside of the 

intended scope of DecAid. Snags would only be removed if they pose a threat to human life (e.g., if a snag could fall on 

a rider while on a road, trail, or in the staging area). These trees cannot be retained without putting someone at risk. 

When hazard trees are removed, they are left on site and used for down wood habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Snags and Downed Wood 

The following actions have the potential to affect snags and down logs. Since snags may be hazardous, some of them 

may be felled adjacent to trails and staging areas. Project design criteria would leave hazard trees that are felled on 

site as down wood.

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no new trail construction so there would be no need to remove snags from trails unless there was an 

immediate threat to the OHV public. Periodically trail maintenance would remove trees that were hazardous to the 

public. This would be a very low number of trees per year. It is expected that recruitment would keep up or surpass 

removal. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

A few snags would be felled in areas of new construction, especially in the Bear Creek proposed OHV system. 

However, the trees that are felled would remain on the ground and provide habitat. Hazard trees would be removed 

if they appear that they would fall into the trail or around a staging area during maintenance. This alternative would 

have the greatest impact to snag resources because there are more miles of proposed new construction. The impacts 

to snags would be greater than Alternative 1 because of the new construction. No effect to snags expected for road 

decommissioning.

Alternative 3

This alternative may have the second highest potential for snag loss due to more roads and trails that would require 

maintenance and possible hazard tree removal. The assumption is that because these routes are now dedicated to 

OHV travel that more maintenance would be required than in Alternative 1 where routes are not designated and 

therefore maintenance is not planned for this activity. No effect to snags expected for road decommissioning.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 185

Alternative 4

This alternative has the lowest potential for snag loss due to the least amount of roads and trails that would require 

maintenance and possible hazard tree removal. No effect to snags expected for road decommissioning.

Cumulative Effects for Snag and Downed Wood

Snags and down wood are affected by many Forest projects. Timber sales, thinning, road and campground 

maintenance, salvage, and power line safety, all contribute to snag loss. Fire wood cutting, campground and road 

maintenance, and timber sales can all reduce down wood. The current known projects are listed in Table 3-95. 

There are many past projects that have already reduced snag and down wood levels. Current Land and Resource 

Management Plans have made efforts to maintain a minimum amount of snags and down wood. The use of DecAid 

as a tool for planning has increased the amount of snags and down wood that is being maintained in vegetation 

management planning. The reduced rate of harvest on the Forest has increased the snag and down wood recruitment 

from fires, insects, and disease. Currently, snag levels are increasing more rapidly than snags or down wood is being 

removed from vegetation management activities (Jeff Reis, personal communication).

Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species that are listed in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management 

Plan in order to simplify management for a guild of species that have similar needs or requirements. The 

conservation strategy at the time of the Forest Plan was to select wildlife species that could be monitored and 

managed that would indicate the health of the habitat that is shared by other wildlife in this particular group. For 

example, the pileated woodpecker is the largest woodpecker on the Forest and has the most need for large diameter 

snags; therefore, the pileated woodpecker was selected to indicate the health of snag dependant species, such as other 

cavity nesters. Other MIS are deer and elk for early successional habitat and marten for Mustelids. Gray squirrels 

represent the needs of oak dependant species and turkeys are included as MIS because of their economic importance 

as a hunted species.

 

Deer and Elk Habitat (Management Indicator Species)

The Forest Plan defines winter range as areas where at least 80 percent of the deer and elk are found at least 80 percent 

of the time during the winter months. These areas are generally below 2,800 feet on the westside and 3,000 feet on the 

eastside. Human activity should be reduced between December 1 to April 1 to reduce human interaction with wintering 

deer and elk. 

The Forest Plan sets road density standards as follows: “Within the roaded portions of the Forest, by year 2000, roads 

open to motorized vehicle traffic should be reduced to 2.0 miles per square mile within the inventoried deer and elk 

winter range and 2.5 miles per square mile within inventoried deer and elk summer range. Open road densities for 

wintering and summer range areas should not exceed 1.5 miles per square mile during the critical periods for these 

areas.” 

Elk Habitat Relationships: Elk herds on the Forest exhibit a close association with riparian habitat in areas of gentle 

terrain and low road density. A study within the Clackamas River Ranger District from 1987 to 1992 recorded 

location and habitat type being utilized by radio-collared elk (Fiedler 1994). Seventy percent of all observations of 

these elk occurred within 100 meters of a stream or wetland. Shrub/seedling stage clear cuts received more than twice 

as much use than they were proportionally available to elk as a habitat type. Also, elk were observed to browse on a 

wide range of native shrubs, trees, forbs and grasses as well as utilizing non-native grasses (Fiedler 1994). 

High road densities lead to harassment of elk herds. Harassed elk move more often than elk left alone and use of 

habitat decreases as road density increases (Witmer, G. W. and D.S. deCalesta. 1985). The study mentioned above also 

reported that elk within or moving through areas of high open-road densities moved longer distances; several miles 

per day was not uncommon. 

Pedersen stated that, “Elk use out to 804.6 m declined 154 percent for main roads, 108 percent for secondary roads, 

and 33 percent for primitive roads (Pedersen, R.J. 1981 file copy).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 186

Naylor et al. discuss the different behavioral responses of North American elk to All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), 

hiking, mountain biking, and horse back riding (2009). The following excerpts from the publication demonstrate the 

difference in behavioral responses to OHVs and other forms of recreation. They also discuss the possible physical 

affects of those responses although the physical affects were not a part of the study. This publication also suggests that 

there may be some acclimation to continued use by these vehicles in an area. For example, Naylor et al. state: 

“The highest travel response by elk was during ATV exposure and was followed by increased resting time. This 

type of recreational activity may have forced elk to forgo foraging in favor of hiding until the disturbance ended. 

In contrast to this any disturbance during the mountain biking and hiking treatments resulted in feeding activity 

increasing. It is possible that, being quieter than the ATVs, mountain biking and hiking did not disturb elk once they 

moved away from the routes; elk were, therefore, able to make up any energy lost by resuming foraging activity.”

“Hypothesis 4, which postulated that continued exposure to disturbance leads to conditioning of elk to 

the disturbance and results in unaltered or reduced behavioral responses (i.e., habituation), was partially 

supported by our findings. A complicating factor in our evaluation of potential habituation of elk to recreation 

treatments is that we did not simultaneously evaluate changes in elk distributions. However, as part of the 

radiotelemetry monitoring of the same elk we studied, Preisler et al. (2006) found that elk moved away 

from travel routes during ATV riding with repeated ATV treatments. These movements allowed elk to 

resume activities similar to those of controls, while avoiding recreation routes. Such avoidance would not be 

considered habituation, but rather a different type of negative response to recreation.” 

Winter range and forage in winter range are the limiting factors for elk on the Forest. Calving and fawning areas 

are also important, but on a lower scale than winter range. In general, winter range includes areas that are typically 

below 2,500 feet on the Forest. Calving and fawning areas are higher elevations that have gentle slopes and flat areas. 

Harassment in either of these areas is detrimental to healthy deer and elk populations. Harassment causes animals 

to move at times when energy expenditure is detrimental to survival or healthy reproductive process. Disturbances 

during the winter, birthing, or early rearing can lead to poor survival and reduce populations. 

Existing Situation: Rock Creek, McCubbins Gulch, and the LaDee Flats proposed OHV systems all have some 

portion of the roads and trails in winter range. LaDee Flats has never been identified as an area that was important 

for winter range, although it is in the correct elevation and topography. Peavine, Bear Creek, and the Gibson Prairie 

proposed OHV route systems are identified as having important summer range and calving areas. Telemetry data for 

both Peavine and Gibson Prairie have documented the use of these areas by deer and elk for fawning and calving. 

Unpublished research by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) at Starky Wildlife Research Area in 

eastern Oregon indicated that 90% of elk give birth prior to June 16. This data was used in developing seasonal 

restrictions for deer and elk.

Telemetry studies have been conducted by ODFW in cooperation with the Mt. Hood National Forest to determine 

the summer range and fawning areas for deer. These studies indicate that deer spend their winter in the valley to the 

northeast of Gibson Prairie and return to the Gibson Prairie area in the spring, annually. One concern for this travel 

pattern is plans by Hood River County to increase OHV use in the transition area between Gibson Prairie and the 

winter range. 

The elk herds that reside in the summer in the vicinity of the Peavine and Graham Pass proposed OHV route systems 

usually winter in areas off of the Mt. Hood National Forest. The elk closer to the southern part of the project area 

likely move further south in the Willamette National Forest, while those near the eastern part of the project area 

move into the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Historically, studies along the Cascade Crest (Calvin et al. 1991) 

show that adult and calf elk mortality outside the hunting season is relatively high in the Sisi/Lemiti/Olallie area. The 

cause of mortality is unknown. 

Some of the largest elk herds in the watershed are located in the Lemiti and northeast Sisi areas, although these 

areas seem to have a shortage of optimal and thermal cover. One reason for this is that these areas are still relatively 

isolated and still roaded more lightly than many other areas on the Clackamas River Ranger District. These areas may 

represent “security areas” for elk despite the low proportion of optimal and thermal cover. “Effective” thermal cover 

may be less critical to deer and elk in summering areas than in wintering areas, since deer tend to forage at night 

when temperatures tend to be much cooler. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 187

Elk are known to congregate in the Lemiti and Hawk mountain areas during the fall. 

In discussing deer and elk utilization with Clackamas Ranger District personnel, they have indicated that there is a 

low amount of utilization in the LaDee Flats area (Personal communication Hernandez, S. Malone, M. and Roden, J. 

2008 and 2009). Indications are that deer and elk prefer to utilize the private lands to the north and west of the area 

due to more early seral habitat.

Deer have not been studied intensively within the Clackamas watershed, but are generally considered to be wider 

ranging, more tolerant of human disturbance, and less dependent on riparian areas. 

Forage is widely available within the analysis area, but is generally of low quality. The low quality of the forage, 

especially in winter range, and the lack of wetlands and permanent low-gradient streams within winter range on the 

Clackamas River Ranger District are considered the limiting factors for elk and possibly deer within the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Deer and Elk Habitat

A comprehensive summary of the effects of each alternative in relation to the areas where the roads and trails would 

be proposed for OHV use is detailed in Table 3-93. The effect to deer and elk from OHV trails and use is from 

disturbance or harassment. The areas with the greatest amount of roads and trails and/or no restriction on when 

trails can be used would have the most impact to these ungulates.

Seasonal closures would be in effect for routes in the following proposed OHV systems: Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, 

McCubbins Gulch, Mt. Defiance and Peavine. Seasonal closures are in place at the times that are most critical for that 

area. By implementing seasonal closures, the impact to deer and elk from harassment is almost eliminated or reduced 

to the extent that it reduces any mortality or health and fitness issues. 

The proposed decommissioning of roads would reduce the road density and improve utilization of deer and elk 

habitat due to the reduced harassment. If a large wildfire grew in size due to the reduced ability to control the wildfire 

there would be an increase in forage and a resulting expansion in the elk population. 

Table 3-96. OHV roads, trails and area that would occur in summer and winter range by 

alternative.

OHV System

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Winter 

Range

Summer

Range

Winter 

Range

Summer

Range

Winter

Range

Summer 

Range

Winter

Range

Summer

Range

Peavine1 n/a n/a 34.47 41.04 1.8 48.76 0 0

LaDee Flats n/a n/a 38.86 17.09 30 16.86 29.96 0.30

Bear Creek1 n/a n/a 0 39.09 0 39.63 0 0

Gibson Prairie1 n/a n/a 8.96 15.06 0.95 4.85 0 0

McCubbins Gulch2 n/a n/a 30.54 50.16 28.05 55.71 15.46 32.5

Rock Creek2 n/a n/a 35.07 29.29 20.5 49.89 1.27 39.09

Graham Pass n/a n/a 0 0 0 63.91 0 0

Mt. Defiance 1 n/a n/a 0 0 0 5.46 0 0

Winter or Summer 

Range

(WR or SR)

WR SR WR SR WR SR WR SR

Totals 632.03 1864.44 150.9 191.73 81.3 285.07 46.69 71.59

1 Seasonal restriction during both winter and summer periods

2 Seasonal restriction during winter only.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 188

The Forest Plan standard for road density is 2.0 miles per square mile in winter range, and 2.5 miles per square mile 

in summer range. The small changes in the amount of roads and trails do not make a substantial difference in the 

density of the roads on the Forest by alternative. Table 3-97 shows the road densities by 6th field watershed for each 

alternative. If a portion of the OHV roads and trails fall between two watersheds, then the watershed with the greatest 

portion of the road or trail was used to estimate the road density. 

Table 3-97. Road densities by alternative and proposed OHV system.

Proposed Route System

(6th field Watershed) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Peavine

(MiddleUpper Clackamas) 3.50 3.20 3.46 3.20

LaDee Flats

(Lower Clackamas tribs) 2.27 2.25 2.33 2.31

Bear Creek

(Upper Westfork Hood R) 1.70 1.90 1.89 1.69

Gibson Prarie

(Mill Creek) 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.11

McCubbins

(Clear-Frog Creek) 3.81 3.76 3.82 3.71

Rock Creek

(Rock Creek) 2.50 2.55 2.44 2.38

Graham Pass

(Middle Upper Clackamas) 3.50 3.20 3.46 3.20

Mt. Defiance

(Lower Westfork Hood River) 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.93

Alternative 1 – No Action

The current situation allows unrestricted use of deer and elk habitat across the Forest, except for areas designated as 

being closed to off-highway use, with no seasonal restriction on use. GIS analysis indicates that there are 3282 miles 

of roads and trails that could be used by OHVs on the Forest. This allows for a great amount of disturbance of elk 

populations often at times when it is critical for deer or elk fitness, reproduction, or survival. This reduces the amount 

of forage available to them because they avoid the area where there is vehicle traffic. 

Table 3-95 shows the breakdown for the amount of roads and trails that would occur in winter and summer range for 

the alternatives. There are no figures shown in Alternative 1 for the roads and trails by OHV system since the routes 

extend beyond the areas used for the action alternatives. There are 632 miles of OHV capable area in winter range, 

which is four times greater than Alternative 2. There are 1,864 miles of routes in winter range for Alternative 1, which 

is 6.5 times more roads than in Alternative 3. 

Table 3-97 shows the road densities for each of the proposed route system by alternative. Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, 

and Mt. Defiance proposed OHV roads and trails meet the Forest Plan standards for alternative 1. The other routes 

are currently above the plan standards.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

Table 3-95 shows the amount of routes located in winter and summer range for deer and elk. It also indicates if there 

is a seasonal closure for the critical periods for these ungulates to reduce disturbance during critical periods. Table 

3-95 shows the analysis and ranks the alternatives based on the amount of routes in each habitat. Seasonal restrictions 

would reduce most of this impact. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 189

Table 3-97 shows the road densities for each of the proposed route system by alternative. Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, 

and Mt. Defiance proposed OHV roads and trails meet the Forest Plan standards under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. All 

of the other proposed OHV roads and trails do not meet the Forest Plan standards and there is very little difference 

the density of the routes by alternative. There is not any great increase in density from the current situation and there 

are no substantial reductions in road densities by any of the proposed alternatives. Based on the road densities, the 

alternatives can be ranked from best to worst for impacts to deer and elk as follows: Alternative 4, Alternative 2, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 3. The higher the road density, then the lower its rating is for deer, elk, and wildlife in 

general.

Cumulative Effects for Deer and Elk Habitat

Cumulative effects are summarized in Table 3-98. Roads, recreation trails, hunting, campgrounds, logging 

operations, recreation facilities such as ski areas, special use permits, mushroom picking, hunting, wilderness users, 

administrative use, energy corridors, and OHVs all have an impact on deer and elk use of habitat and the health of 

individual animals that are forced to move from forage and birthing areas at critical times. Good forage is limited on 

the Forest so human harassment is a factor in deer and elk productivity on this Forest.

Harassment that disrupts travel from winter range and birthing areas could influence individual animal health and 

herd health in general. One of the cumulative effects that could influence this pattern is plans by Hood River County 

to increase OHV use in the transition area between Gibson Prairie and the winter range. 

American Marten & Pileated Woodpecker (Management Indicator Species)

The status and condition of management indicator species (MIS) are presumed to represent the status and condition 

of many other species. This EIS focuses on certain key species and does not specifically address common species 

except to the extent that they are represented by management indicator species. 

The pileated woodpecker was chosen as an MIS because of its need for large snags, large amounts of down woody 

material, and large defective trees for nesting, roosting and foraging. The American marten is an indicator species 

to mature or older forests with dead and defective standing and down woody material. It has a feeding area that 

utilizes several stand conditions that range from poles to old growth (USDA 1990). Both pileated woodpeckers and 

American Marten are not as highly affected by human presence as some species. They can tolerate a high amount of 

human presence and are often found in areas with high human occupation. Both marten and pileated woodpeckers 

can often be found in recreation areas, ski area, near homes, and buildings. So disturbance factors are low impacts to 

these species. Maybe one of the greatest risks to marten is being run over by vehicles. Because of their tolerance of 

humans and even scavenging food left by people, they may be involved in more vehicle/animal collisions because of 

their proximity.

The pileated woodpecker is associated with forest habitats that have large trees, especially snags for nesting and 

foraging. It will use both coniferous and deciduous trees, but tends to be most common in old-growth Douglas-fir 

forests in western Oregon (Csuti 1997). Pileated woodpeckers are present in all of the areas proposed to have OHV 

trails and roads. 

American martens are associated with forested habitats at higher elevation, but will wander through openings and 

even up into alpine areas. They prefer mature forests with closed canopies, but sometimes use openings in forests 

if there are sufficient downed logs to provide cover (Csuti 1997). Martens are affected to some degree from forest 

fragmentation and tend to remain in forested habitat and prefer to cross small openings. Martens are good climbers 

and most often utilize hollow trees for dens. Based on elevation and habitat it is expected that martens can be 

found in or around the trails at Bear Creek, Gibson Prairie, Peavine, Mt. Defiance, and Graham Pass. Although not 

impossible they would not be expected to be found as often at LaDee Flats, Rock Creek or McCubbins Gulch because 

of their lower elevation.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 190

Direct and Indirect Effects for Pileated Woodpeckers and American Marten

Table 3-95 does not address the effects to pileated woodpeckers and marten in the MIS species summary. It is not 

possible to quantify the actual impacts in terms of reproductive loss or harm to an individual or a population, so 

the alternative is to compare the amount of exposure or risk to the species. Therefore, the analysis method is to 

compare the miles of roads and trails from one alternative to the others. Based on the amount of trails and new trail 

construction, which could impact snags or the amount of disturbance to martens, there is a general order of potential 

impacts that repeats for most alternatives. The order of impact from least to greatest for pileated woodpeckers and 

martens is Alternative 4, 2, 3, and 1. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative allows disturbance across the Forest with no seasonal restrictions and could occur in a greater 

number of areas suitable for OHV use. There are 2,463 miles of roads and 49 miles of trails available for OHV use. 

It also increases the area where hazard trees may need to be removed to reduce hazards to riders and drivers. The 

ranking of alternatives in terms of potential impacts is based on new construction and the possibility of some loss of 

snags and parallels the ranking for American marten.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The proposed action includes seasonal restrictions in several areas where American marten occur, but is in the 

middle of the alternatives in terms of the amount of trails and roads. There are 221 miles of roads and trails in this 

alternative. So the size of the impact would be lower than the current situation in Alternative 1, but the intensity of 

the impact would increase in this area. 

No short-term effects to the pine marten or pileated woodpecker from road decommissioning would be predicted 

with this alternative. No direct effects from road decommissioning would occur to pine marten or pileated 

woodpecker population or their habitats. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative includes seasonal restrictions in several areas where American marten occur, but is on the high end 

of the action alternatives in terms of the amount of trails and roads. There are 326 miles of roads and trails in this 

alternative. So the size of the impact would be lower than the current situation in Alternative 1, but the intensity of 

the impact would increase in this area. 

No short-term effects to the pine marten or pileated woodpecker from road decommissioning would be predicted 

with this alternative. No direct effects from road decommissioning would occur to pine marten or pileated 

woodpecker population or their habitats. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative includes seasonal restrictions in several areas where American marten occur, but is on the low end 

of the action alternatives in terms of the amount of trails and roads. There are 96 miles of roads and trails in this 

alternative. So the size of the impact would be lower than the current situation in Alternative 1, but the intensity of 

the impact would increase in this area. 

No short-term effects to the pine marten or pileated woodpecker from road decommissioning would be predicted 

with this alternative. No direct effects from road decommissioning would occur to pine marten or pileated 

woodpecker population or their habitats. 

Cumulative Effects for Pileated Woodpecker and American Marten

Cumulative effects are summarized in Table 3-98. The table indicates impacts to snags and down wood resources that 

would affect Pileated woodpeckers and American marten.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 191

Direct and Indirect Effects for Gray squirrel and Wild Turkey

Gray squirrels and wild turkeys are primarily an eastside species where oak and open savanna is present. There is no 

proposal to remove any oak habitats that both gray squirrels and wild turkeys depend on for a food source. These 

two species are highly dependant on mast production from oaks and population levels for these species will fluctuate 

based on mast crop years to some degree. 

Roads and trails open up avenues for hunters for these species. The greater the density of roads the more hunting 

pressure they will receive. By closing roads to OHV traffic this may reduce the ingress into some locations by 

hunters and may reduce both hunting opportunities and hunting success. This would have little overall effect on the 

populations; however, a large segment of the populations will be lost through natural mortality, such as predation, 

disease, starvation, and vehicle collisions. There could be some loss of nest success for turkeys if they choose to nest 

near a trail prior to the commencement of the off-road season where no seasonal closures are proposed.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 has the greatest impact on these species because it allows unrestricted access to OHVs across the habitat 

where these two Management Indicator Species occur. There would be more nest disruption, more hunting access, 

and more vehicle collisions. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The effects of these alternatives are minor for these species. No oak habitat is removed by any alternative. The effects 

of these alternative are ranked on the miles of roads and trails open to OHVs that could create vehicle collisions, 

hunting pressure, and nest disruption. Seasonal closures for some areas limit the amount of nest disruption that 

would occur. The effects are summarized in Table 3-95. If there are no anticipated effects then there is no mention in 

the table. 

Cumulative Effects for Gray Squirrel and Wild Turkey

There is no oak habitat removal planned that would affect gray squirrels or turkeys. Nest disruption and vehicle collisions 

can occur anywhere a road or trail exist. The effects would be minor when considered at a population level.

Avian Resources (Migratory birds or Land Birds)

There are approximately 175 species of birds that occur within the boundary of the Forest, some of which are likely 

present within the immediate proximity of the OHV roads and trails during the breeding season. Some species favor 

habitat with late-successional characteristics while others favor early-successional habitat with large trees. Some of 

the species that might nest in close proximity to roads and trails are as follows: Hermit/Townsend’s warbler complex, 

hermit and varied thrush, Pacific-slope flycatcher, rufous hummingbird, olive-sided flycatcher, song sparrow, 

chipping sparrow, junco, blue and ruffed grouse, Mountain Quail, common poorwill, MacGillivray’s Warbler, 

Nashville warbler, and Wilson’s warbler. 

Species of Regional Concern listed in the Partner’s in Flight- Species Assessment Database that may occur in the 

vicinity of the OHV roads, trails and one small OHV area are as follows: Blue grouse, olive-sided flycatcher, willow 

flycatcher, ruffed grouse, Cooper’s hawk, red-breasted sapsucker, dusky flycatcher, Cassin’s vireo, golden crowned 

kinglet, Bullock’s oriole, purple finch, and red crossbill. The entire assessment may be found at: http://www.rmbo.

org/pif/scores/scores.html.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Avian Resources

The species from the Partner’s in Flight- Species Assessment Database that may be affected by the use of the proposed 

OHV systems are: Blue grouse, ruffed grouse, and Cooper’s hawk. These birds could be disturbed by passing vehicles 

when they nest in the vicinity of an OHV road or trail. The grouse are ground nesting birds and may experience nest 

disruption if they are nesting near an OHV road or trail. These birds are often hit in the road by vehicles. Cooper’s 

hawks are sensitive to human presence and may abandon nest when people are present. Red-breasted sapsuckers may 

be affected by the removal of trees that are a danger to riders. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 192

See Table 3-95 see a comparison summary of effects. Effects are directly related to the amount of roads and trails that 

would be open to OHV use and therefore would potentially allow for nest disruption and possible failure. The effects 

can be offset by seasonal closures to OHV use. Seasonal restrictions that benefit nesting birds would be in effect for 

Peavine, Bear Creek, and Gibson Prairie roads and trails.

Decommissioning of roads would not alter the habitat for migratory birds. There would be no negative effects to 

species that prefer late-seral habitats. There may be a reduction in areas for birds to gather grit from the road surface 

but this is minor. The effect would mostly be to grouse, quail, doves and pigeons, but there are many places for these 

species to find grit so it is not a limiting factor.

Increased risk from large fires by reducing road densities would have a short-term, negative effect on the production 

of some species in the year of the fire. However, in the long term some species that require early-seral habitats would 

increase, while late-seral species would decline. Some species would benefit from the increase in snag numbers from 

the fire. 

Decommissioning of roads would allow for this habitat to eventually fill in the gap and decrease the edge effect. This 

may decrease species richness and foraging opportunity for some species but it would reduce nest parasitism and 

predation that comes with the edge effect.

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative has the greatest potential to impact nesting birds because there are very few restrictions on where 

OHVs can travel, or on the time of year that this would affect nesting birds. The most severe impact would be nest 

abandonment and loss of reproduction due to heavy traffic following a relatively quiet period when a bird would have 

a chance to establish a nest and lay eggs and then be frightened from its nest while incubating eggs.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative has lower impacts to birds than Alternatives 1 and 3, but more impacts than Alternative 4. This is 

directly related to the amount of roads and trails available to OHV users which could cause nest disruption. The 

effects are reduced in some of the identified areas due to seasonal restrictions that would allow birds to complete 

nesting prior to allowing the vehicles into the area. 

Alternative 3

This alternative has more impacts to birds than Alternative 2 and 4, but less than Alternative 1. The effects are related 

to the amount of roads and trails in the alternatives.

Alternative 4

This alternative has the least impacts to birds due to the lower amount of roads and trails in the alternative.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 193

Cumulative Effects for All Species and All Focal Groups 

There are many past, present and future projects that would have similar effects to OHV roads and trails on both 

snags and wildlife harassment. The identified projects are listed below in Table 3-98. Snags are a small part of the 

impact from maintaining roads and trails for OHVs. There is a small amount of loss from new construction, such as 

proposed for the Bear Creek trails or from routine maintenance removal of hazard trees near staging areas and along 

trails. However, the loss of snags is extremely low compared to vegetation management projects. The influx of new 

snags from insects and disease is currently off setting the loss of snags in the OHV locations.

The loss of snags from the OHVs roads and trails is minor but harassment from OHV use is substantial. The 

combination of the cumulative effects listed projects below and the OHV impacts would reduce the capacity of 

these areas to produce wildlife. It is not something that can be easily quantified in terms of the number of animals 

lost from nest abandonment, abandonment of young, loss of foraging opportunities, or avoidance of habitat due to 

harassment. Yet there is a considerable loss of wildlife individuals due to harassment. The cumulative effects table 

only demonstrates the easily foreseeable projects that would be additive to this loss and it does not quantify this loss. 

The impact from human presence and OHVs is a loss of utilization of habitat for either a short amount of time if the 

use is infrequent to a great loss in utilization of habitat if the human use is frequent. The effects to deer, elk, pileated 

woodpeckers, and American marten are the same as those discussed in Table 3-95 for disturbance and snags and 

down wood. 

Prior to the designation of specific roads and trails for OHV use, the utilization of areas would be more dispersed 

so the impact to any given area would be less and the cumulative effects of disturbance would be reduced for that 

area. By designating in OHV routes the impacts would be more concentrated. Areas where OHVs are no longer legal 

would benefit from less harassment. Areas with concentrated OHV use would have less wildlife use as animals move 

away from human disturbance. This could result in animals moving as far as 250 m to 4 km from the disturbance 

(Pedersen 1981).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 194 Table 3-98. Past, present and foreseeable future projects and actions. Project Name Extent, Size, Type, & Distance Overlap In Time Or Space Alteration of snag or down log Effect Meaningful Effect Rationale For Inclusion Or Exclusion From Analysis Below General

Past-timber harvest Throughout Analysis Area Yes, after affects are still ongoing yes Snag removal yes Include. A loss of snags, mainly in the small to moderate size classes has occurred.

Road building Throughout Analysis Area Yes, after affects are still ongoing yes Harassment and Snag removal yes Include. Harassment from vehicles. Loss of snags.

Pre-commercial 

thinning Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed yes Harassment yes Include. Harassment from vehicles.

Special forest 

products Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.

Ongoing incidental 

road maintenance Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from vehicles.

Stream restoration 

projects Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.

Future activities –All routes

Hazard tree removal 

along roads Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Invasive plants EIS Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from vehicles and people.

Aquatic Restoration Throughout Analysis Area Yes, ongoing and interspersed no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from vehicles and people.

Gibson Prairie OHV Routes

Private land 

harvesting activities 

on SDS lands

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

City of The Dalles 

Logging in The Dalles 

Watershed

Various timbersales/fuels 

reduction that is adjacent 

to the G. Prairie OHV

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Culvert replacement 

on N.Fork Mill 

Creek-1711630

Isolated locations, short 

time frame, small impact No overlap in time no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from noise is very limited.

N. Fork Mill 

restoration project

Large footprint, similar 

impacts from trails, 

some impact to snags, 

overlapping

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 195

Project Name Extent, Size, Type, & Distance Overlap In Time Or Space Alteration of snag or down log Effect Meaningful Effect Rationale For Inclusion Or Exclusion From Analysis Below

Hood River County 

OHV trails to North

Adjacent to proposed 

trails, harassment issues 

for migrating deer, directly 

related project type.

Yes, there are 

connected trails yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

Long Prairie Grazing 

Allotment

Dispersed impacts from 

cattle, soil and veg 

impacts, harassment from 

people, interspersed.

Yes, short duration 

impacts scattered 

across the area.

no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.

The Dalles Watershed 

Fuelbreak

Medium impact, adjacent 

to proposed trails, 

harassment from logging, 

loss of snags

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

BPA maintenance, 

and herbicide 

treatment

Narrow corridor, 

harassment from workers, 

intersects trails, additional 

herbicide impacts if 

invasive treatment is 

necessary on trails.

Yes, ongoing and 

overlapping yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. 

Loss of snags. Additional herbicide 

impacts are possible.

Warming huts on 

Surveyor’s Ridge

Small footprint, small 

amount of harassment, 

close proximity

Yes, there is a small 

footprint no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.

Surveyor’s Ridge Trail 

grant proposal for 

reconstruction

Small footprint, similar 

impact, small amount 

of harassment, close 

proximity

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Geothermal lease 

(BLM)

Undetermined locations, 

unknown size, harassment 

might occur.

Yes no Harassment yes

Exclude. No site specificity. Can 

not be modeled at this time. The 

appropriate time to conduct a 

cumulative effects analysis would be 

in a future EA after a firm proposal is 

developed.

FS agreement for 

management of OHV 

trails in Bald Butte 

area.

Small area, same impacts 

as proposal, short distance. Yes no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from noise.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 196 Project Name Extent, Size, Type, & Distance Overlap In Time Or Space Alteration of snag or down log Effect Meaningful Effect Rationale For Inclusion Or Exclusion From Analysis Below Bear Creek OHV Routes

Geothermal lease 

(BLM)

Undetermined locations, 

unknown size, harassment 

might occur.

Yes, unknown no Harassment yes

Exclude. No site specificity. Can 

not be modeled at this time. The 

appropriate time to conduct a 

cumulative effects analysis would be 

in a future EA after a firm proposal is 

developed.

Flood Control Berm 

at Red Hill Bridge

Very small, insignificant 

impact

Yes, very small 

footprint no Harassment no Exclude. To small to consider.

Red Hill Bridge 

Replacement

Very small, insignificant 

impact

Yes, very small 

footprint no Harassment no Exclude. To small to consider.

Road closures No wildlife impacts Yes, short limited time frames no None no Exclude. No impacts.

Yaka planning area

Medium impact, timber 

removal, harassment and 

snags, overlapping

Yes yes Harassment yes Include. Harassment from noise.

Rock Creek OHV Routes

Sportsman’s Park 

fuels reduction 

project

Medium size, reduction 

of snags and harassment 

from logging, overlapping

Yes yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Maintenance 

Burning for Gobbler 

Underburn

Medium size, controlled 

fire, harassment and loss of 

snags, nearby

Yes, short time frame yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Grasshopper Grazing 

Allotment

Dispersed impacts from 

cattle, soil and veg 

impacts, harassment from 

people, interspersed.

Yes, short spurts of 

people influence 

throughout area

no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.

ANPO Ceremonies

Small ceremony, short time 

frame, minor harassment 

issues

Yes no Harassment no Exclude. Time frame is too short to consider meaningful.

McCubbins Gulch OHV Routes

Palomar Pipeline

Extensive pipeline, 

adjacent to trails, similar 

imapacts, short duration

Yes, permanent but 

major impact is short 

term

yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

White River Grazing 

Allotment

Dispersed impacts from 

cattle, soil and veg 

impacts, harassment from 

people, interspersed.

Yes, permanent but 

short-term impacts no Harassment yes Include. Harassment from people.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 197

Project Name Extent, Size, Type, & Distance Overlap In Time Or Space Alteration of snag or down log Effect Meaningful Effect Rationale For Inclusion Or Exclusion From Analysis Below

Clear Creek Ditch 

Maintenance

Very small, insignificant 

impact, short duration

Yes, permanent 

maintenance no Harassment yes Exclude. Time frame is too short to consider meaningful.

Path Timber Sale

Large timbersale, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

overlapping

Yes, several years for 

completion yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

Road Closures Very small, insignificant impact, short duration Yes, small time frames no Harassment yes Exclude. Time frame is too short to consider meaningful.

Hilynx EA (HiThin)

Large timbersale, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

short distance

Yes, several years for 

completion yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

LaDee Flats OHV Routes

No Whiskey 

Plantation Thinning

Large timbersale, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

adjacent and interspersed

Yes, several years for 

completion yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

Dry Stewardship OHV 

Restoration

Overlapping, throughout 

LaDee area, filling in water 

holes with rocks

Yes yes

Harassment 

and water 

source loss

yes

Include. Harassment from noise. 

Loss of open water sources for bats, 

amphibians, and other wildlife.

Rethin Plantation 

thinning

Large timbersale, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

overlapping

Yes, several years for 

completion yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

Peavine OHV Routes

Upper Clack 

Plantation Thinning

Large timbersale, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

within 2 miles.

Yes several years for 

completion yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

BPA power line 

maintenance

Narrow corridor, 

harassment from workers, 

intersects trails, additional 

herbicide impacts if 

invasive treatment is 

necessary on trails.

Yes permanent 

maintenance impacts yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.

Cascade Crest Fuel 

Break

Medium fuels reduction, 

reduction of snags and 

harassment from logging, 

overlapping OHV area.

Yes permanent 

maintenance impacts yes

Harassment 

and Snags yes

Include. Harassment from noise. Loss 

of snags.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 198 Project Name Extent, Size, Type, & Distance Overlap In Time Or Space Alteration of snag or down log Effect Meaningful Effect Rationale For Inclusion Or Exclusion From Analysis Below Palomar Gas Pipleline Extensive pipeline, adjacent to trails, similar imapacts, short duration Yes permanent but major impact is short term. yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Summit Huckleberry 

Enhancement

Medium vegetation 

management, reduction 

of snags and harassment 

from logging, northeast 

corner of the Peavine trails, 

overlapping.

Yes periodically yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.

Tribal Activities

Medium footprint, 

short time frame, minor 

harassment issues, some 

snag loss, some vegetation 

management

Yes periodically yes Harassment and Snags yes Include. Harassment from noise. Loss of snags.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 199

3.5.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

There is very little information on the true affects of disturbance or disruption on most species of wildlife. Each 

species is unique in the way they react to human presence, noise, and vehicles. There is some information on the 

effect to deer and elk based on scientific studies, but each study has shown that there is a wide variation in the 

reaction of both individual animals and populations because of hunting pressure or lack of hunting. 

Species like spotted owls who have up until recent times been species of the deep forest where there has been little 

interaction with humans have never developed a reason to fear human presence. There as been a great deal of 

speculation in the wildlife science community over the question of whether spotted owls are affected by noise or 

human presence. Yet there has been very little scientific study to provide conclusive proof of nest disruption or lack 

of. What studies have been accomplished (on Mexican spotted owls) concluded that there were no reproductive 

failures. 

It is not known how many trees or danger trees would be removed to provide new routes or for maintenance of 

routes. 

3.6. Botany

This section discusses federally listed Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive plants species (PETS species). 

This includes vascular and non-vascular plants, lichens fungi, and invasive plants. The sensitive plants are from the 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Plant List (2007). This project does not propose to treat or monitor invasive plants. 

This analysis is based on the information found in the Botany Biological Evaluation and the Botany and Invasive 

Plant Report for this project, which is in the project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, 

Oregon.

3.6.1. Affected Environment

General Forest

Currently OHVs are permitted to operate off of roads and trails where not restricted. Most of the Forest is open to 

off-road travel with risk to some sensitive plant sites as a result. The majority of the Forest’s lands is too steep and/or 

densely vegetated for off-road or trail OHV travel. Also, many of the sensitive plant sites are in Wilderness, Resource 

Natural Areas, or Bull Run Watershed, which prohibit OHV use. There are some areas on the Forest that have 

resource damage, such as the LaDee Flats area, Camas Prairie, and dry open areas on the Barlow Ranger District near 

the Rock Creek Reservoir. 

The proposed LaDee Flats OHV system has some sensitive plants, but the resource damage is mostly on old roads 

and skid roads that are already disturbed and, therefore, do not affect sensitive plants. The other proposed OHV 

locations, while they contain interesting and fragile plants, do not have any sensitive plant sites. No documentation 

of damage to sensitive plants by OHVs has been found up to this time. The only sensitive plant site found that seems 

particularly vulnerable is just north of the proposed Gibson Prairie OHV system. This location is rather open and 

supports the sensitive plant Lomatium martindellii. However, a site visit in September 2008 found OHV tracks on 

existing trails, but no sign of damage to the plants. 

The proposed Forest Plan amendments would vastly reduce the total area where OHVs are permitted to operate, 

restricting them to the proposed routes and prohibiting off route travel. This would eliminate almost all risk to 

sensitive plants and greatly reduce the spread of invasive species by legal OHV use across the entire Forest. 

No fragile or sensitive plant communities would be affected by any of the action alternatives. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 200

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

Due to its easy access, gentle terrain, and close proximity to Estacada and Portland this entire area is heavily used by 

OHVs. The forest in this proposed OHV location is around seventy years old and the plant association is Western 

Hemlock/Dwarf Oregon Grape/Swordfern. Surveys were conducted and found the following species:

• Trees: Pseudotsuga menziessii, Tsuga heterophylla, Thuja plicata, Acer macrophyllum, and Alnus rubra. 

• Shrubs: Berberis nervosa, Rubus ursinus, Acer circinatum, Gaultheria shalon, Vaccinium parviflora, Symphoricarpos alba, and Vaccinium ovalifolium. 

• Forbs: Polystichum munitum, Lactuca muralis Pteridum aquifolium, Viola sempervirens, Linnea borealis, 

Galium aperine, Montia siberica, Frageria vesca, and Smilacina stellata.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

The McCubbins proposed OHV location is already established with numerous trails for motorcycles and threeand four-wheeled OHVs. The forest here falls in the Grand fir series. Several plant associations are represented 

here including Grand fir/Chinkapin, Grand fir/Oceanspray, Grand fir/Snowberry, and Grand fir/Twinflower. The 

following plant species were found here were: 

• Trees: Abies grandis, Tsuga heterophylla, Pseudotsuga menziessii, Pinus contorta and Pinus ponderosa.

• Shrubs: Acer circinatum, Rosa gymnocarpa, Rubus ursinus, Symphoricarpos albus, astanopsis chrysophylla, 

Berberis nervosa, Chimaphila umbellate, Ceanothus velutinus, Holodiscus discolor and Ribes sp.

• Forbs: Linnaea borealis, Hieracium albiflorum, Fragaria vesca, Achlys triphylla, Clintonia uniflora, Pteridium 

aquifolium, Fragaria virginiana, Epilobium angustifolium and Trientalis latifolia.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

This location consists primarily of converting pre-existing Forest Service roads to OHV trails. The forest in this 

proposed OHV location is dominated by Grand fir, Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine and western Larch. The primary 

plant association is Grand fir/Snowberry. The following plant species exist in this location:

• Trees: Abies grandis, Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziessii, Larix occidentalis, Prunus emarginata and

Populus trichocarpa. 

• Shrubs: Rubus parviflorus, Holodiscus disclor, Castenopsis chrysophylla, Pachystima myrsinites, Berberis 

nervosa, Acer glabrum var. douglasii, Ceanothus velutinus, Chimophila umbellate, Symphoricarpos alba, Rosa 

gymnocarpa, Rubus ursinus, and Acer circinatum. 

• Forbs: Pteridium aquilinum, Achlys triphylla, Trientalis latifolia, Hieraceum albiflorum, Fragaria vesca, Arenaria macrophylla and Anemone oregana. Bryoria, Nodobryoria and Letharia are the dominant lichens.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

The majority of this proposed OHV location is Silver fir except for the land directly around Summit Lake where the 

thin soil supports primarily Pinus contorta. Silver fir/big huckleberry/beargrass is the primary plant association with 

lesser amounts of Mountain hemlock/grouse huckleberry in the higher elevations. The following plant species exist in 

this location:

• Trees: Abies amabilis, Tsuga heterophylla, Tsuga mertensiana, Pseudotsuga menziessii, Larix occidentalis, 

Pinus contorta and Populus trichocarpa.

• Shrubs: Acer circinatum, Rhododendron macrophyllum, Vaccinium membranacea, Vaccinium scoparium, Castanopsis chrysophylla, Chimophila umbellate, Gaultheria ovalifolia, Berberis nervosa, Pachystima myrsinites, 

Vaccinium alaskaense, Rosa gymnocarpa, Chimophila menziessii and Rubus ursinus.

• Forbs: Xerophyllum tenax, Linnaea borealis, Viola sempervirons, Pteridium aquilinum, Pyrola secunda, Pyrola 

picta, Clintonia uniflora, Osmorhiza chilensis, Trillium ovatum, Goodyera oblongata, and Cornus canadensis.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

Many Forest Service roads, OHV trails, horse trails, and “native roads” presently run throughout this proposed OHV 

location. OHV use is currently illegal, as the area is closed by Forest Order; however, there continues to be OHV 

use and illegal OHV trail construction. Grand fir and Douglas fir dominate the sparse forests. Plant associations 

encountered include Grand fir/Oceanspray, Grand fir/Snowberry and Douglas fir/Snowberry. The following plant 

species exist in this location:
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 201

• Trees: Abies grandis, Larix occidentalis, Pinus contorta, Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziessii, and Populus 

trichocarpa.

• Shrubs: Acer circinatum, Symphoricarpos alba, Symphoricarpos mollis, Holodiscus discolor, Castenopsis 

chrysophylla, Pachystima myrsinites, Sambucus cerulea, Rubus parviflora, Rosa gymnocarpa, Gaultheria ovatifolium and Berberis aquifolium.

• Forbs: Fragaria vesca, Solidago candensis, Epilobium angustifolium, Achillea millefolium, Achlys triphylla, 

Trientalis latifolia, Campanula scouleri and Anaphilis margaretaceae.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

The forest series in this proposed OHV location include both Abies amabilis and Tsuga mertensiana. Vaccinium 

membranaceum is the dominant shrub throughout the proposed system and Xerophyllum tenax is the dominant forb. 

Overall there is very little species diversity.

ABAM/VAME/XETE and TSME/VAME/XETE were the only two plant associations encountered. Species present in 

this location include:

• Trees: Abies amabilis, Abies lasiocarpa, Pseudotsuga menziessii, Tsuga heterophylla, Tsuga mertensiana and

Pinus contorta.

• Shrubs: Vaccinium membranaceum, Rubas lasiococcus, Berberis nervosa, Rhododendron macrophyllum and

Acer circinatum.

• Forbs: Xerophyllum tenax, Pteridium aquifolium and Linnaea borealis.

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

The Rho Ridge trail passes through a sensitve plant site for Eucephalous gormannii on the far north end of this 

proposed OHV location. This is an existing use and there would be no change in impacts. The plants in general are in 

rocky open spaces and are not at risk. 

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

In all alternatives, the system would remain open to street legal vehicles. From a botany and invasive plant 

perspective, there is not a significant difference between alternatives. 

3.6.2. Effects Analysis

General Forest

All the action alternatives would reduce the risk of cumulative adverse impacts to PETS plants and other rare 

or uncommon species relative to the no action alternative across the entire Forest. Travel would be restricted to 

designated routes and OHVs would not impact sensitive plant sites or habitat. All the action alternatives, based on 

the Analysis Framework (Section 3.1), would prevent further resource damage to fragile areas, such as Camas Prairie 

and the Frying Pan Lake area. There would be a beneficial cumulative effect to all botany resources when combined 

with continued road closures and restoration projects under all the action alternatives. 

Under all the action alternatives, OHVs would not be transporting new or existing weeds outside the designated 

OHV roads, trails, area, and staging areas on the Forest. Invasive plants could still be transported by street legal 

vehicles transporting the OHVs and weeds could still be transported off the Forest to homes or other OHV locations. 

There would be little difference between action alternatives for the general Forest area, but there would be much 

less risk of spreading noxious weeds by OHVs compared to the no action alternative. There would be a beneficial 

combined effect to the noxious weed program when combined with the existing noxious weed program under all 

action alternatives.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 202

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Plant Species

No PETS species were found along the proposed OHV roads, trails and area at time of survey. The following Region 

6 Sensitive Species were documented previously within the proposed location or vicinity: Usnea longissima beard 

lichen, Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis Rainier pseudocyphellaria lichen, Peltigera pacifica Pacific felt lichen, Corydalis 

aquae-gelidae cold water corydalis, and Cimicifuga elata tall bugbane. Only Peltigera pacifica was documented near 

a road and on the ground. The other two lichens are arboreal and not at risk from OHV activities. Corydalis aquaegelidae is found in gravel associated with running water. It is not at risk. Cimicifuga elata is documented outside the 

proposed location and is not at risk. None of the sensitive plant sites would be affected by trail construction. The 

existing roads, trails, area, and staging areas would not affect any sensitive plant or other rare or uncommon plants. 

There are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to botany sensitive plants under the action alternatives, but there is 

in indefinable continued risk from uncontrolled and unpredictable activities under current conditions which would 

remain under the no action alternative.

 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Invasive Plants

Roadside weeds include: Hypericum perferatum, Prunella vulgaris, Chrysanthemum leucanthemum and Cersium 

Canadensis. There is no notable weed problem in the LaDee Flats proposed OHV location. Since the proposed roads, 

trails and area are already heavily used, there is not likely to be much change in the weed population as a result of any 

of the alternatives. 

The staging areas should not pose a weed problem. Based on the Analysis Framework (Section 2.2) there should be a 

reduced risk of noxious weed problems under all the action alternatives. There are no direct, indirect or cumulative 

effects for invasive plants. 

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

No PETS species were located in this survey. Nephoroma occultum, kidney lichen, a Region 6 Sensitive Species, is 

documented on the far west end of the proposed OHV location on the bole of a tree. It is not near any proposed trail. 

It is also an unexpected species to find here as it is far from its normal habitat. 

Mountain lady slipper orchid is present on the eastern portions of the proposed OHV location. It is not a 

management species, but it is uncommon and is of concern to many members of the public. This orchid would 

be considered “charismatic mega-flora.” The existing and proposed trails do not affect any site under the action 

alternatives, but they would remain at risk under Alternative 1 (No Action). There are no anticipated effects from the 

staging areas. There are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive plants under any alternative.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

Notable weeds are hound’s tongue and knapweed. There is an ongoing treatment program here dealing mostly 

with roadsides for both species. Treatment of the trails is beyond both the financial and physical ability of current 

resources. Both weeds grow in open disturbed areas and are well established throughout the location. New trail 

construction would create new weed habitat along the edges of the trails and the OHVs would transport weed seeds. 

The hound’s tongue is a particular concern because it is widespread in the proposed OHV location and the seeds 

cling to clothing and animal fur. The weed is not currently found in any of the other proposed OHV locations, but 

could be spread. Based on the distribution of hound’s tongue over the last several years, the only other proposed 

OHV location with suitable or similar habitat is Rock Creek. 

There are no indirect effects. Direct effects would be weeds establishing in new disturbance from trail construction. 

Cumulative effects would be the combined disturbance from OHVs, past harvest activities and cattle grazing. Native 

animals may spread weeds, but they are not considered here. Cattle utilize the easiest travel routes, such as roads, 

trails and open areas. The hound’s tongue seed clings to their fur in large quantities and is transported by them. They 

also create bare areas where they congregate or travel frequently. There are no effects from the staging areas.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 203

Based on the assumptions, all the action alternatives would have fewer negative effects regarding noxious weed 

spread relative to Alternative 1 (No Action), which would not change the existing conditions and use. Among the 

action alternatives in ascending order based on total miles of trail and new construction, Alternative 4 would have 

the least negative effect followed by Alternative 2 and the greatest impact would be Alternative 3. 

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

No PETS species were found in the proposed OHV location at time of survey. A Region 6 sensitive plant, Botrychium 

minganense, Mingan moonwort, is documented in some seeps within this proposed OHV location. The sites are too 

densely vegetated to expect OHV impacts and are not close enough to any OHV roads and trails to pose a problem. 

Mountain lady slipper orchid is present on the eastern portions of the proposed OHV location, south of the 

campground. The proposed actions should not increase any risk to the population.

All proposed trails, roads, staging area, day use and new construction were considered. There would be no effects to 

sensitive plants under any alternative.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

The most notable weed here is diffuse knapweed which is currently being treated. The plant community and general 

environment are similar to McCubbins Gulch, which has a serious problem with hound’s tongue. There is a clear risk 

that seeds would or already have been transported to the activity location, but no hound’s tongue has been reported 

here. Since the proposed OHV location is already heavily used by OHVs, there does not seem to be much change 

in risk of the hound’s tongue becoming established. Wasco County treats the weeds here and they are familiar with 

hound’s tongue. The staging area is already disturbed and heavily used, so there would not be a significant difference 

in effects from existing condition. No effects are expected from the staging area.

There are no indirect effects for travel routes. There would be the direct effect of creating new weed habitat from 

trail construction. There would be a cumulative effect when the disturbance is combined with the disturbance from 

past timber harvest and fuels reduction activity. The direct and cumulative effects from the action alternatives are 

relatively minor with little difference between action alternatives relative to the total of all activities. 

The fuel reduction activities like underburns, fuel reduction projects, and thinning have created very open stands 

where OHV travel is not impeded by brush and dense trees. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), OHVs would be 

allowed to travel cross-country except where specifically restricted. Currently, there is a great deal of off-road use 

whether legal or not in the open areas in the Rock Creek OHV location and vicinity. Knapweed and many other 

weeds are transported by vehicles as seeds or plant fragments that spread the weeds. Under the no action alternative 

there would be a cumulative and direct effect from off-road travel continuing to increase as a result of the reduction 

in brush, down fuels, and dense trees that impede off-road travel. 

Based on the assumptions, all the action alternatives would reduce direct negative effects regarding noxious weed 

spread relative to the no action alternative, which would not change the existing conditions and use. Among the 

action alternatives based on total miles of trail and new construction, Alternative 4 would have the most positive 

effect followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Species.

No PETS species were found in the Peavine proposed OHV location at time of survey. The Region 6 Sensitive Species 

Nephroma occultum, kidney lichen, was documented in the southwest part of this proposed OHV location. It is not 

close to any route and is an arboreal species not likely to be effected. There are no effects to sensitive plants from 

staging areas or proposed roads and trails under any of the action alternatives. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 204

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

There are no notable weed issues in this proposed OHV location. There are no effects to invasive plants under any of 

the alternatives.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

No PETS species were found in this proposed OHV location at the time of survey. The following Region 6 Sensitive 

plant Botrychium minganense, Mingan moonwort, is documented in some seeps within the location. The sites are 

too dense to expect OHV impacts and are not close enough to any routes to pose a problem. Arabis sparsiflora var. 

atrorubens, sickle pod rockcress is present in several areas especially the ridge on the westside. It is adjacent to a 

couple of routes, but would not be affected. There are no effects to sensitive plants from either proposed roads and 

trails or staging areas.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

The predominate weeds here are diffuse knapweed and meadow knapweed. There is little or no treatment occurring 

at present. There would be no effects under Alternatives 1 and 4 because no OHV roads and trails would be 

designated and cross-country travel is prohibited. As such, there would be no legal OHV use. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be about four miles of new construction and about one mile under Alternative 

3, which would create some disturbance with potential spread of weeds along the roads and trails. The direct 

effects would be a minor increase in weed habitat and spread of knapweeds. There are no indirect effects. A minor 

cumulative effect would be an increase in disturbance in addition to the disturbance from grazing and harvest 

activities. 

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

No PETS species were found in the Bear Creek proposed OHV roads and trails or staging areas at time of survey. 

There are no known PETS species in the proposed location, staging area or vicinity. Since no sensitive plants are 

present, there is no effect to sensitive plants and no difference in effects between alternatives. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

There are no effects under Alternatives 1 and 4; therefore, this discussion refers only to Alternatives 2 and 3. Meadow 

knapweed is the most serious weed in the proposed OHV location and has a spotty distribution with most sites on 

the 16 and 1630 roads. There has been no treatment in the proposed OHV location and no treatment is proposed 

at present. The weeds are mostly restricted to sunny disturbed open areas along the road. The issue is that trail 

construction would create suitable habitat for meadow knapweed and OHVs would transport seeds along the trails. 

PDC IP-3 states, “No new trail construction would occur in the Bear Creek location until all existing invasive plant 

sites have been treated. Treatment would follow the Mt. Hood Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental 

Impact Statement Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2005).” This PDC would reduce 

the spread of noxious weeds into new or existing disturbance areas, such as new trails and staging areas. It would not 

guarantee that there would be no new invasive plant sites. 

Direct effects would be increasing the total area vulnerable to weed infestation and transporting weeds to those 

sites. There would also be an increased risk of infestation from increased traffic by OHV operators transporting in 

weeds from off site. This includes introduction of more of the same species that occur here now as well as possible 

other invasive species not currently documented here. There are no indirect effects. Cumulative effects would be an 

increase of disturbance area subject to weed infestation from this project added to the existing sites along roads. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 205

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

Rho Ridge trail passes a sensitive plant site for Eucephalous gormannii on the far north end. This is an existing use 

and there would be no change in impacts. The plants in general are in rocky open spaces and are not at risk. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the effects would be May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute 

to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, there 

could be a beneficial effect with the reduction of possible impact to the sensitive plant site. There are no indirect or 

cumulative effects.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

There are no inventoried weed sites along the proposed OHV roads and trails or any current weed issues here. There 

would be no effects to invasive plants under any alternative.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species

There are no known or suspected sensitive plants in the vicinity; therefore there is no effect to sensitive plants at this 

proposed OHV system.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Invasive Plants

The inventoried invasive plants along the roads here are tansy ragwort, Scotch broom, and knapweeds. Since there 

would not be any new disturbance and the only difference between alternatives would be the exclusion of non-street 

legal vehicles, there would no effect.

3.6.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Information about the current user create trails and illegal activity could have provided a better understanding of 

Alternative 1 (No Action) and would have facilitated a better analysis of cross-country travel by OHVs.

3.7. Aquatic Conservation Strategy

In order for a project to proceed, “a decision maker must find that the proposed management activity is consistent 

with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (NWFP ROD B-10). There are nine objectives, which are listed 

on page B-11 of the ROD. Key parameters or indicators that make up elements of the nine Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives help determine if a project would restore, maintain, or degrade the aquatic environment. Once 

this determination is made, the indicators are examined together to ascertain whether the project is consistent with 

the objectives. The following table displays the individual indicators and the effect the alternatives have on those 

indicators at the 5th, 6th and 7th field watershed scale. Fifth field watersheds are generally large in size (40,000 acres 

to 250,000 acres), while 6th and 7th field watersheds are smaller (5,000 acres to 40,000 acres and 2,000 acres to 5,000 

acres, respectively).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 206

Table 3-99. ACS indicators and alternative effects.

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Indicators Restore Maintain Degrade Restore Maintain Degrade

Water Quality

Temperature X X

Sediment X

X

(Improvement 

might be detected 

at the 5th field 

scale while shortterm degradation 

might be detected 

at the 7th field 

watershed scale)

Chemical contamination X X

Habitat Access

Physical barriers X

X

(slight 

improvement*)

Habitat Elements

Substrate X X

Large woody debris X X

Pool frequency X X

Pool quality X

X

(degrade in the 

short-term*)

Off-channel habitat X X

Refugia X X

Channel Conditions and Dynamics

Width/depth ratio X X

Streambank condition X X

Floodplain connectivity X

X

(slight 

improvement*)

Flow/Hydrology

Peak/base flows X X

Drainage network increase X

X

(slight 

improvement*)

Watershed Conditions

Riparian reserves X

X

(slight 

improvement*)

“Restore” means the action(s) would result in acceleration of the recovery rate of that indicator. “Maintain” means that the function of an indicator does not 

change by implementing the action(s) or recovery would continue at its current rate. “Degrade” means changing the function of an indicator for the worse. 

*These changes are very localized and might be detected at the 7th field watershed scale, but not in 5th or 6th fields. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 207

The following summarizes Table 3-99:

• Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose to decommission roads which would restore areas to a more natural sediment 

regime that is less chronic and more episodic in nature, as well as provide some benefits to floodplain connectivity, Riparian Reserves and decreasing the drainage network associated with the roads (see Range of Natural 

Variability in Appendix H). Removing stream crossings and associated road fill would open up more connectivity while installation of waterbars and other drainage features would hydrologically “disconnect” roads from 

streams. Benefits may be noticeable at the 7th field sub-watershed scale but unlikely detectable at the 5th and 6th

field scale. These alternatives may cause some minor short-term sediment introduction during implementation 

leading to loss of some pool quality, but would provide long-term benefits as areas revegetate and sediment is 

moved through the system. 

• Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 eliminate potential cross-country OHV travel on approximately 394,886 acres of National 

Forest land. It is expected that eliminating cross-country travel will restore a more natural sediment regime in 

areas that have this use around stream channels, wetlands and lakes. Benefits would likely be noticeable at the 5th

field watershed scale. 

• Indicators other than those described in the bullet above would be maintained as outlined in the effects analysis 

above.

The following table displays specific Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and the indicators from the previous 

table that comprise each objective. All of the indicators that are checked for a particular objective should be evaluated 

together to determine whether the action maintains or enhances the specific Aquatic Conservation Strategy objective.

Table 3-100. ACS objectives and indicators that comprise each objective.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Indicators #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

Temperature X X X X

Sediment X X X X X

Chemical Contamination X X X

Physical Barriers X X X X

Substrate X X X X

Large Woody Debris X X X

Pool Frequency X X

Pool Quality X X

Off-Channel Habitat X X X X

Refugia X X X X

Width/Depth Ratio X X X

Streambank Condition X X X X

Floodplain Connectivity X X X X X X

Peak/Base Flows X X X

Drainage Network Increase X X X

Riparian Reserves X X X X X X X X
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 208

The following is a summary the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (NWFP ROD B-10) and how the action 

alternatives would influence them at the 5th field watershed scale:

1. Maintain The Distribution, Diversity And Complexity Of Watershed And Landscape-Scale Features. 

Implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which includes designating Riparian Reserves, is 

intended to maintain or enhance the development of a diverse, healthy riparian area while protecting it with a 

variety of mitigation measures and design criteria. No new road crossings of perennial streams or wetlands are 

proposed and several existing crossings would be removed, which would decrease the current level of aquatic 

habitat fragmentation. Up to sixteen new trail crossings are proposed but the crossings would be constructed to 

minimize aquatic habitat fragmentation by utilizing bridges and properly sized culverts where appropriate. These 

crossings would not result in any long-term aquatic habitat fragmentation. 

2. Maintain Spatial And Temporal Connectivity Within And Between Watersheds. The project would 

increase the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds due to culvert removal and road 

decommissioning. New major stream crossings associated with the trail construction would be bridges or other 

crossing types that would be designed to allow unimpeded passage of water and sediment. This would maintain 

spatial and temporal connectivity.

3. Maintain The Physical Integrity Of The Aquatic System, Including Streambanks, Side channels (Refugia), 

And Channel Bottom Configurations. This project would meet this objective through mitigation measures, 

design criteria and the protection provided by Riparian Reserves. Mitigation measures and design criteria 

aimed at reducing soil compaction and erosion, trail and staging area location and construction that would 

minimize erosion and sedimentation and proper design of stream crossings would greatly reduce risks of 

sedimentation and resulting bank erosion and channel bed scour. These measures are discussed in detail in the 

Soil Productivity, Water Quality, and Fisheries sections.

4. Maintain Water Quality Necessary To Support Healthy Ecosystems. This project would meet this objective 

through mitigation measures, design criteria and protection provided by Riparian Reserves. Design criteria 

aimed at reducing erosion would maintain the reduce sediment levels in the long-term. Other PDC guiding the 

placement and design of staging areas would substantially reduce the likelihood of chemicals entering adjacent 

waterways. These measures are discussed in detail in the Soil Productivity, Water Quality, and Fisheries sections.

5. Maintain Sediment Regimes. This project would enhance this objective in the long run through culvert 

removal, road decommissioning and elimination of cross-country OHV travel. In addition, design criteria 

discussed in detail in the Soil Productivity, Water Quality, and Fisheries sections in Chapter 3 would minimize 

sediment introduction in the short and long-term. 

6. Maintain In-Stream Flows That Are Closer To Natural Regimes. This project would meet this objective 

through mitigation measures, design criteria and protection provided by Riparian Reserves. Road 

decommissioning would “disconnect” the road system from streams which should move runoff toward a more 

natural rate.

7. Maintain The Timing, Variability, And Duration Of Floodplain Inundation. This project would meet this 

objective through mitigation measures, design criteria and protection provided by Riparian Reserves. Road 

decommissioning would “disconnect” the road system from streams which should move runoff toward a more 

natural rate. Floodplains are extremely limited in this area due to the steep nature of the landscape. 

8. Maintain The Species Composition And Structural Diversity Of Plant Communities In Riparian Areas 

And Wetlands. This project would meet this objective through protection provided by Riparian Reserves and 

elimination of cross-country OHV travel. 

9. Maintain And Restore Habitat To Support Well-Distributed Populations Of Native Plant And Riparian 

Dependent Species. The project would meet this objective with design criteria, protection provided by Riparian 

Reserves, road decommissioning and elimination of cross-country OHV travel.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 209

3.8. Heritage Resources

This analysis is based on the information found in the Heritage Resources Report for this project, which is in the 

project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.8.1. Affected Environment

Archaeological research indicates initial human use and occupation of the Forest during the Early Archaic period 

ca. 8,500-5,000 BP (Oetting 2004:17, Oetting 2006:69). Cultural/historical models proposed for the area suggest 

a shift from a broad-spectrum foraging adaptation in the Early Archaic to an intensive semisedentary foraging 

adaptation by the Late Archaic period, ca. 2,500 BP (Burtchard 1990, Burtchard et al. 1993). Hundreds of pre-contact 

archaeological sites are found throughout the Forest. These sites are associated with a variety of landform types 

between 1,000 and 6,500 feet abmsl. Over 50% of the recorded pre-contact sites are found at elevations over 3,500 feet 

absml (Burtchard and Keeler 1991:112). 

In the early 19th century, at the time of contact with Europeans and Americans, a number of different indigenous 

groups utilized the area. To the north and northwest were various Chinookan or Kiksht-speaking groups such as 

the Clackamas, Multnomah, and Cascades people. To the southwest were the Northern Molala, a group of Penutian 

speakers, and to the east the various bands often grouped together as the Tenino, who spoke the Northern Sahaptin 

language. Descendent families today are affiliated with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Confederated 

Tribes of the Grand Ronde, and the Siletz Tribe. 

Non-native use of the area accelerated following the opening of the Barlow Road, an emigrant wagon road to the 

Willamette Valley on the south side of Mt. Hood. The road was completed in 1845, ultimately bringing settlement 

closer to the flanks of the Cascades during subsequent decades. Federal land management had its beginnings with the 

creation of the Cascade Range Forest Reserve in 1893. Initially managed by the Department of the Interior, the lands 

were transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1905, and administered by the U.S. Forest Service as the Oregon 

National Forest by 1908. The name was changed to Mt. Hood National Forest in 1924. 

 

Past human use of the landscapes within Forest was shaped to a large extent by resources, topography, landuse patterns, economy, and transportation systems specific to a particular area. The patterns of historic use are 

significantly different from area to area. These differences have led other researchers to consider the significance 

of heritage resources from the perspective of well-defined historic/geographic areas, each with distinctive 

developmental histories (Burtchard and Keeler 1991). Given the spatial distribution of the proposed OHV locations, 

a separate cultural context was developed for each of the areas. Expanded context statements are incorporated 

in individual Heritage Resource Survey Reports for specific areas. They are important for developing survey 

expectations and for the evaluations of heritage site significance. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

The majority of OHV roads, trails, and one area considered within this analysis area are located on LaDee Flat, a 

plateau separating the North Fork Clackamas and Clackamas Rivers just above their confluence, and approximately 

10 miles southeast of the city of Estacada, in Clackamas County. Elevations range from approximately 1,600 feet to 

2,400 feet abmsl. This OHV location also includes Forest Road 4610 as a linear extension to the east, from LaDee Flat 

to the divide separating the Salmon River watershed from the Roaring River watershed. Much of this route follows a 

ridgeline where elevations exceed 4,000 feet abmsl.

Archaeological sites along the nearby Clackamas River include a number of seasonal use locations and residential 

base camps occupied throughout the pre-contact period. Several pre-contact archaeological sites have been identified 

on LaDee Flat and along the ridge system associated with the eastern leg of Forest Road 4610. 

Information concerning specific Native American use of the area in the early historic period is generally lacking. 

Ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources indicate that the area was within the traditional use territory of the 

Clackamas and Northern Molala peoples. Clackamas villages were reportedly located along the river as far upstream 

as Estacada, and possibly further (French et al. 1995). Available data are less specific for the Northern Molala, who 

frequented the uplands of the Clackamas watershed during the summer months. Nineteenth century maps depict 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 210

an Indian trail traversing LaDee Flat. The trail extended from the Willamette Valley to the Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation (Burtchard and Keeler 1991:139, Paullin 2007:64). 

The earliest non-native historic use of the LaDee Flats OHV location was likely by prospectors and hunters during 

the late nineteenth century. Several families established homesteads in the Clackamas River valley near present-day 

Estacada in the 1850s and 1860s, and there were settlers on the North Fork Clackamas River and LaDee Flats by 

1890, before the Cascade Range Forest Reserve was established (McClure 2006:11-12; Oetting 2006:27). General 

Land Office records show multiple land claims on LaDee Flats by 1891, and several homestead cabins in the area, 

with access by way of the old Indian trail. Much of the area also consisted of Oregon and California Railroad (OCRR) 

land grant parcels. A 1916 Forest Service map indicates that virtually all of LaDee Flats was alienated land within the 

Oregon National Forest. 

By 1921, the majority of OCRR lands and other private lands on LaDee Flats had been purchased by the Union 

Lumber Company. Over the next decade most of the area was logged by the Porter Logging Company and LaDee 

Logging Company under contract to the Union Lumber Company (Paullin 2007). Two logging camps and a system 

of railroad lines were established in the area. After a major fire led to the failure of the Union Lumber Company 

in 1931, their lands were conveyed to the federal government and they became part of the Forest. Numerous 

archaeological sites and features associated with the historic logging operations are found in the LaDee Flats area. 

Much of the existing road system was initially constructed as part of the logging railroad system. Between 1934 and 

1936 the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) graded and improved some of the roads in the area and constructed the 

eastern leg of Forest Road 4610, also known as the Abbott Road. 

Table 3-101. Summary of heritage resources for the LaDee Flats proposed OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

665EA13 Historic logging camp 4611 « « «

665NA91 Precontact lithic scatter 4610115 « « «

665EA134A Historic logging railroad multiple « « «

665NA135 Precontact lithic scatter new construction « « «

665NA145 Precontact lithic scatter 4610 « «

665NA146 Precontact lithic scatter 4610 « «

665NA169 Precontact lithic artifact 4610015 « « «

665NA175 Precontact lithic artifact 4611130 « « «

665EA226 Historic road 4610 « «

Peavine Proposed OHV System

The proposed Peavine OHV roads and trails are located on the crest of the Cascades near the headwaters of the 

Clackamas River and the Warm Springs River, approximately 21 miles northeast of Detroit, Oregon, in Clackamas 

and Wasco Counties. Elevations within the analysis area range from approximately 3,777 to 5,577 feet abmsl. The area 

takes its name from Peavine Mountain (4,812 feet), a prominent landform in the northwest corner of the proposed 

OHV location. The Pinhead Buttes, a group of higher mountains, are located at the southern end of the project area. 

Several pre-contact archaeological sites have been previously documented in the project area, but the age of the 

sites is undetermined. Most are low-density lithic scatters associated with hunting activities, food gathering and 

processing, and tool maintenance (Burtchard and Keeler 1991:84). Excavations at the nearby Posy Ridge sites, across 

the Collawash River, to the west, have provided evidence of similar upland use of the general area between ca. 4,000 

and 1,000 years BP (Burtchard 1994:169). 

Ethnographic data and historic sources indicate that during the early post-contact period the project area was within 

the traditional territory of the Northern Molala people. Winter settlements were in sheltered locations at lower 

elevations, and consisted of one or more extended family households. The closest settlements to the project area were 

along the North Fork Molalla River. In the late summer Molala families would travel to higher mountain elevations to 

collect and process huckleberries (Zenk and Rigsby 1998:444). 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 211

Use of the area by non-native Euroamerican people began in the 1880s, when sheep ranchers from the eastern 

slope of the Cascades began using the high country along the crest as summer range for sheep herds. Forest Service 

management in the early years of the agency was oriented toward grazing administration and fire protection. The 

project area was remote with access limited initially to a trail that followed the crest of the Cascade Range south from 

Clackamas Meadows and known as the Skyline Trail. A ranger station was established at Clackamas Meadows in 1907 

and another on Lemiti Creek, south of the present project area, in 1910. The Skyline Trail became an important link 

for administrative access and patrols by horseback rangers and forest guards. 

While the earliest non-native use of the area was primarily associated with administration of the Forest Reserve and 

National Forest, grazing became important early in the 20th century. Most of the Peavine analysis area was at some 

time part of the Conroy, or Peavine sheep allotment, under permit to the Forest Service from 1909 to 1943. Tygh 

Valley stockman John J. Conroy and his employees annually brought herds of sheep to summer range by way of 

the Skyline Trail. By the 1920s, public recreational use of the area was gaining popularity, and the Skyline Trail was 

replaced by the Skyline Road. With increased emphasis on timber management in the post World War II period, the 

road system within this area was expanded to provide access to harvest areas.

Table 3-102. Summary of heritages resources for the Peavine proposed OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

663EA23 Historic fire lookout site 4661205 « «

663NA215 Precontact lithic scatter 4200032 « «

663EA220 Historic fire lookout site 4230120 «

663EA222 Historic trail 4230000 «

663NA319 Precontact lithic scatter new construction «

663EA313 Historic road 4240 «

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

This proposed OHV location is at the southern end of the Forest, along Rhododendron Ridge, which separates the 

Collawash River watershed from the upper Clackamas River watershed. The location is 12 miles northeast of the 

town of Detroit, in Clackamas and Marion Counties. Elevations range from 4,360 to 5,200 feet abmsl. 

The pattern of archaeological site distribution in this area suggests a pattern of pre-contact use of Rhododendron 

Ridge as a travel route between the upper Clackamas River basin and the upper Santiam River basin. Archaeological 

sites are typically associated with ridgeline saddles and meadow areas. Artifact types include projectile points typical 

of the Early and Middle Archaic periods. 

During the early 19th century the area was within the traditional territory of the Northern Molala, or possibly shared 

territory of the Northern Molala and the Upper Santiam Molala subgroup (Zenk and Rigsby 1998:440, 445). A 

General Land Office (GLO) survey from 1894 indicates an Indian trail ascending Rhododendron Ridge from the 

west. Another Indian trail traversed the divide in the vicinity of Collawash Mountain, which appears on early maps as 

Huckleberry Mountain (French et al. 1995). 

Non-native use in the early 20th century was primarily for stock grazing under permit to the Forest Service. Sheep 

were trailed from Wasco County ranches east of the Cascades to summer range in the Rhododendron Ridge Sheep 

Range. Fire protection was an important management emphasis. Fire lookouts were built on Hawk Mountain and 

Mt. Lowe in the 1930s, and linked by telephone line. Forest Service land management shifted to intensive timber 

extraction in the period following World War II. The first road was built to Graham Pass in the late 1950s. Most of the 

road system within the analysis area was constructed between 1960 and 1966 for Forest Service timber sales. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 212

Table 3-103. Summary of heritage resources for the Graham Pass proposed OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

663EA20 Historic fire lookout site Trail 564 «

663NA58 Precontact rock feature Trail 564 «

663NA93 Precontact lithic scatter Trail 564 «

663NA94 Precontact lithic scatter 6350 «

663NA104 Precontact lithic scatter Trail 564 «

663NA223 Precontact lithic scatter Trail 564 «

663NA224 Precontact lithic scatter Trail 564 «

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

Adjacent to the north boundary of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, the proposed McCubbins Gulch OHV 

location is situated on the watershed divide between the White River and Beaver Creek, a major tributary of the 

Warm Springs River. The analysis area is approximately 10 miles west of the community of Wapinitia, in Wasco 

County. Elevations range from 3,000 feet to 3,559 feet abmsl. 

Based on proximity, the pre-contact history of the McCubbins Gulch analysis area is undoubtedly linked to that 

of the lower Deschutes River basin, including adjacent portions of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. The 

distribution of archaeological resources suggests relatively low intensity transient use of the general area throughout 

the pre-contact period. Artifacts recovered at site 662NA93, within the project area, provide evidence of use during 

the Early Archaic period. 

At the time of Euroamerican contact the general area appears to have been jointly utilized by Northern Molala 

people, with villages west of the Cascades, and the tayxłáma, a Sahaptin-speaking group who had a winter village in 

Tygh Valley (Hunn and French 1998:393, Zenk and Rigsby 1998:440). Neighboring groups, such as the tiłxniłáma at 

Sherar’s Bridge and the mliłáma at Simnasho may also have used the area. A trail from Tygh Valley passing through 

the McCubbins Gulch area provided access to huckleberry fields at the crest of the Cascades. A camp used by people 

enroute to the berry fields was located in the Camas Prairie vicinity (Abbot 1857). 

In 1855, U.S. Army Lt. Henry L. Abbot led a survey party on a reconnaissance trip from Tygh Valley across the 

Cascades to Oregon City, following an Indian trail through the project area. By the 1860s non-native settlers had 

established ranches in the Tygh Valley area. To improve access and transportation, the Oak Grove Wagon Road was 

opened in 1869 from Wapinitia to Oregon City. Portions of Forest Roads 2130, 2640, 4130, Oregon State Highway 

26, and Oregon State Route 216 follow or occupy the historic route. Settlement within the McCubbins Gulch 

analysis area was limited to a single homestead at Camas Prairie in the 1880s. Logging and lumber production began 

in the 1880s, when a sawmill was in operation west of Camas Prairie. The Clear Creek Ditch system was developed 

between 1885 and 1920 to divert water from Clear Lake to Juniper Flat for agriculture (Musser 1984).

The Camas Prairie Ranger Station was established in 1908 at the junction of the Oak Grove Wagon Road and the 

trail to Clackamas Lake. Early federal land management included timber sales and grazing permit administration. 

The entire area was used for open range cattle grazing in the early 20th century. Records indicate 30 separate 

permittees and 1033 head of cattle used the area in the spring (U.S. Forest Service 1924). Cattle were driven from 

the permittees home ranches, scattered between Tygh Valley, Maupin and Wapinitia. 

Post-contact, historic period archaeological resources in the general area are largely associated with grazing, timber 

extraction, lumber production, and water control activities (Burtchard and Keeler 1991:146). 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 213

Table 3-104. Summary of heritage resources for the McCubbins Gulch proposed 

OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

662EA13 Historic wagon road 4310 «

662NA93 Precontact lithic scatter existing trail « « «

661EA259 Historic irrigation ditch existing trail « « «

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The proposed Rock Creek OHV roads and trails are located in the White River watershed, Wasco County, 

approximately 12 miles west of the town of Wamic. In addition to the system of roads and trails located west of 

Rock Creek Reservoir, the study area includes the Badger Lake road. Elevations in the study area range from 2,320 

feet on Gate Creek to 4,472 feet abmsl at Badger Lake. 

Archaeological investigations at site 661NA131, within the proposed OHV day use location, provide evidence for 

occupation of the Rock Creek area during the Early Archaic period (Smith 2001). Site size, artifact density and tool 

classes suggest possible residential use. Archaeological site 661NA195 at Badger Lake provides evidence of more 

transient use of higher elevation areas during the Early Archaic. Artifact material from site 661NA100 on Gate 

Creek indicates possible contact period use of the area by local native people.

As with nearby McCubbins Gulch, this proposed OHV location may have been jointly utilized by the Northern 

Molala and the tayxłáma, a Sahaptin-speaking group who had a winter village in Tygh Valley (Hunn and French 

1998:393, Zenk and Rigsby 1998:440). A neighboring group, the tiłxniłáma at Sherar’s Bridge, may also have used 

the analysis area. 

Non-native use of the general area followed completion of the Barlow Road, an emigrant route to the Willamette 

Valley. Samuel Barlow operated a toll station on the wagon road at Gate Creek from 1846 to 1852. By the early 

1860s several ranchers had settled in Tygh Valley and at Wamic, and by 1872 on Gate Creek. Logging and lumber 

production began in the area by the 1890s and several small sawmills were established within the project area to cut 

ponderosa pine (Horn 1987:24-26). Forest Service land management after 1905 included timber sale administration 

as well as grazing permit administration. During the early 1900s most of the area was a part of the Wamic Horse and 

Cattle Range. Other historic developments within the project area include the construction of irrigation ditches by 

the Rock Creek and Gate Creek Ditch Company ditch in the early 1920s and the construction of Rock Creek Dam 

and Reservoir by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1939-1940. 

Table 3-105. Summary of heritage resources for the Rock Creek proposed OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

661IS39 Precontact artifact (isolate) 4860130 « « «

661NA131 Precontact residential site Day Use Area « «

661EA149 Historic telephone line multiple « « «

661EA334 Historic irrigation ditch Proposed bridge «

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

Gibson Prairie, at the center of this proposed OHV location, is approximately four miles southeast of Parkdale, in 

Hood River County. Elevations range from 3,200 feet to 4,200 feet abmsl.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 214

Pre-contact use of the general area is indicated by lithic scatters of indeterminate age. Culturally modified cedar 

trees provide evidence of use by native people in the contact period and historic period. The peeled cedar trees are 

associated with resource collection and basketry manufacture for huckleberry gathering. Both the Surveyors Ridge 

Trail (#688) and the North Section Line Trail (#451) probably followed earlier Native American trails. 

Historic tribal groups using this area likely included Chinookan (Kiksht) speaking people from the lower Hood 

River Valley and Columbia River villages near the modern community of Hood River. They are usually referred to 

as the Hood River (gigwálat) or Dog River Indians (French and French 1998:375), and are frequently grouped with 

the Wasco.

Grazing was an important activity in this area at the time the Forest was established (Burtchard and Keeler 

1991:145). Attempts at homesteading followed the Forest Homestead Act of 1906. Cut hay was transported to 

markets in Mosier and The Dalles from Long Prairie. A Forest Service ranger station was established at Long Prairie 

for general administration of the area. A fire lookout was later constructed at Rim Rock, overlooking the Upper 

Hood River Valley.

Table 3-106. Summary of heritage resources for the Gibson Prairie proposed 

OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

661EA340 Historic Trail « «

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

The proposed Bear Creek OHV roads and trails are located north of Mt. Hood at the upper reaches of the Middle 

Fork Hood River watershed. The analysis area is approximately six miles southwest of Parkdale, in Hood River 

County. Elevations range from 3,280 feet to 4,800 feet absml.

Several pre-contact archaeological sites occur in the general area, including low density lithic scatters and ridgetop 

rock feature sites. The character and content of the lithic scatters suggests transient seasonal use, but dating of these 

sites has been inclusive. The Blue Ridge-Red Hill area is noteworthy for its concentration of rock feature sites, 

including constructed talus pit, trench, cairn, and mound complexes. The majority of these sites share characteristics 

that suggest ritual/spiritual use as a plausible function (Winthrop et al. 1995:92). 

This area was likely used in the early historic period by Chinookan (Kiksht) speaking people from the lower Hood 

River Valley. Trails from the Columbia River ascended both the West Fork Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River 

near the project area (French et al. 1995). There are no specific references to traditional native uses for this area. 

Following non-native settlement in the upper Hood River Valley, several homesteads were established along the 

northern and eastern boundaries of the project area in the period 1906-1914 under the authority of the Forest 

Homestead Act. Sheep grazing in the area began by 1911 (Burtchard and Keeler 1991:144). Early administration of 

the national forest included the development of a trail system, phone lines, and guard stations. Clear Creek Ranger 

Station was the primary Forest Service administrative site in the area. A guard station was also constructed on Tony 

Creek. A network of trails and phone lines connected these stations, and by the late 1930s a road was built into the 

upper Bear Creek watershed. 

Table 3-107. Summary of heritage resources for the Bear Creek proposed OHV system.

Site No. Type OHV Road/Trail Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

666EA30 Historic trail new construction « «

666EA40 Historic USFS guard station 1631 « «
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 215

Mt Defiance Proposed OHV System

This small OHV location is approximately eight miles west of Hood River in Hood River County, on the eastern 

slopes of Mt. Defiance. Elevations range from 3,520 feet to 4,960 feet abmsl at the summit of Mt. Defiance.

Pre-contact archaeological resources in the general area include rock feature sites of undetermined age. These 

sites are characterized by constructed pits and cairns. Function is probably associated with ritual/spiritual use of 

Mt. Defiance. During the early historic period, this area was in close proximity to settlements of the Hood River 

(gigwálat) or Dog River Indians, particularly the village of ninułdidix, located west of present-day Hood River 

(French and French 1998:362-363). 

Except for Mt. Defiance, much of the analysis area was alienated land within the Forest until the 1930s. The summit 

of Mt. Defiance was used as a fire lookout station as early as the 1920s, and has been the site of at least three fire 

lookout structures (Kresek 1984:33). 

3.8.2. Effects Analysis

The analysis of alternatives provides a summary of the heritage resources identified in each of the proposed OHV

systems, with a consideration of site significance and potential project affects. Site significance is based on the 

criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). Potential project affects were assessed using the 

criteria set forth in 36 CFR 800. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

The analysis of potential effects for Alternative 1 was based on cumulative heritage resource inventory data 

generated from individual project field surveys totaling 695,141 acres within Forest. The area comprises about 

65% of the Forest, and approximately 85% of those areas currently open to motorized recreation use. A total of 

1,322 archaeological and historic above-ground resources have been identified within the surveyed areas. A review 

of the existing site records indicates that 154 of these resource locations are currently accessible to OHV use and 

vulnerable to the direct impacts of motorized recreational use. The majority are pre-contact surface scatters of lithic 

artifact material, exposed following removal of surface vegetation through timber harvest, road construction, and 

the establishment of user-created dispersed camping areas. Several historic-period linear resources, including intact 

segments of the Barlow Road, railroad logging features, and at least one irrigation ditch are included. 

Criteria used to assess site vulnerability were based on accessibility. All of the 154 resource locations identified as 

potentially vulnerable are within old skid trails, undeveloped camping areas, decommissioned native surface roads, 

or openings that are adjacent to or visible from Forest Service system roads. Of this number, 22 are pre-contact 

archaeological sites where OHV use damage has been documented and is, in some cases, ongoing. Adverse effects 

documented as a result of OHV use include denuding of vegetation, soil exposure, rutting, and erosion, horizontal 

displacement of artifact material, and artifact breakage. 

Extensive damage has been documented at several sites, severely compromising the integrity of subsurface 

archaeological deposits. At site 665NA135, located in the LaDee Flats area, detailed mapping indicated that nearly 

40% of the site shows disturbance from “four-wheeler enthusiasts” who have created a mud bog and ruts up to 70 

centimeters deep within the site boundaries. Site 661NA131, a significant Early Archaic period residential site near 

Rock Creek Reservoir, “mud-bogging and dirtbiking” has expanded areas of soil exposure and increased erosion 

(Smith 2001). In the McCubbins Gulch location, an “extensive network of motorcycle trails” has caused severe 

erosion problems at site 662NA93, another pre-contact occupation with evidence of Early Archaic use. At Clear 

Lake, off-road motorized recreation has created ruts and general ground disturbance within six different resource 

locations. Annual monitoring of these sites has shown an increase in OHV use since 1991. 

Under Alternative 1, OHV use would be allowed to continue in all of the areas where damage to archaeological 

resources has been documented. Continued use would result in adverse effects to a minimum of 22 archaeological 

sites, and leave a minimum of 127 known resources (archaeological sites and historic linear features) vulnerable to 

potential damage. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 216

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the No Whisky Plantation Thinning project (fall 2008) included installation of boulder barriers 

to restrict OHV use in the proposed LaDee Flats OHV location. This action may halt the ongoing OHV impacts 

previously documented at three pre-contact archaeological sites. Under Alternative 1, however, unrestricted OHV 

use and adverse effects would likely continue within 19 other archaeological sites where existing damage has been 

documented. Many other sites would remain vulnerable. Given the increasing OHV use in some areas of the Forest, 

it is likely that previously undamaged sites adjacent to system roads would be subject to impacts of new user-created 

tracks and trails. Over time, the condition of many heritage resources would degrade as a result of motorized 

recreation. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Inventory data, based on the results of archaeological surveys, indicate 22 heritage resource sites within the project 

Area of Potential Effects (APE)5, which includes all OHV decision roads, trails, and staging areas proposed under 

Alternative 2. The impacts to heritage resources for each proposed OHV system are discussed below. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

Archaeological site 665NA135, a severely damaged pre-contact site, was previously evaluated and determined not 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) due to integrity loss. 

Sites 663EA164A, 665NA169 and 665NA175 also appear to lack sufficient integrity to meet the NRHP significance 

criteria, but have not been formally evaluated. Protective measures would not be applied to these sites.

Archaeological site 665EA13 is the location of an historic period logging camp that is likely eligible to the NRHP. 

While adjacent to a proposed OHV route, relatively dense vegetation provides protective screening of surface features 

and artifacts. Because the dense vegetation protects this site, no additional protective measures would be necessary. 

Archaeological sites 665NA91, 665NA145 and 665NA146 are immediately adjacent to proposed OHV routes. None 

have been formally evaluated, but these sites may have the potential to meet the NRHP criteria. Field investigations 

at each site found that subsurface archaeological deposits did not extend into roadbeds proposed for OHV use. 

Archaeological values would not be impacted provided that OHV use is confined to designated routes. 

Site 665EA226, the Abbot Road, is a historic truck trail road built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). 

Although the road is unimproved for much of its length, retaining historic integrity, native surfacing is very compact. 

The road has not been formally evaluated, but is likely eligible to the NRHP because of its association with the New 

Deal work programs of the Roosevelt Administration. Motorized recreational use would likely have little to no effect 

to the historic values or integrity of the road, given the compact surfacing evident over most of the route. 

Peavine Proposed OHV System

Archaeological sites 663EA23 and 663EA220 are the locations of former fire lookouts and do not appear to be eligible 

to the NRHP due to loss of integrity. No protective measures would be necessary. 

Pre-contact site 663NA215 has not been formally evaluated, but may meet the NRHP significance criteria depending 

on the character and content of subsurface deposits. A proposed OHV route truncates the site, but field investigations 

indicate that crushed rock surfacing is of sufficient depth to protect the site deposits. 

Site 663EA222 is an historic trail, previously truncated by Forest Service system roads now proposed as OHV routes 

under Alternative 2. As a historic resource, it has not been formally evaluated for NRHP significance. Motorized 

recreational use of the adjacent roads would not affect adjacent intact segments of the historic trail, currently 

obscured by dense roadside vegetation. 

5 Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800.2, defines APE as “...the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the 

character or use of historic properties...”
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 217

Segments of the historic Skyline Road, linear site 663EA313, would be utilized as portions of proposed OHV routes. 

These portions of the historic road have not been formally evaluated for NRHP significance, but have likely lost 

historic integrity due to realignment and modification in the 1960s. Because of the alterations, motorized recreational 

use has little to no potential to affect historic values or integrity. 

Archaeological site 663NA319 is a large pre-contact site with intact subsurface cultural deposits and evidence of 

multiple episodes of use through time. Proposed new trail construction under Alternative 2 would result in an 

adverse effect to the site, primarily from cut and fill necessary to achieve grade from Forest Service Road 48. To 

mitigate potential adverse effects, archaeological data recovery investigations are proposed for the area of probable 

direct impacts. Data recovery methods would follow an approved plan developed in consultation with the State 

Archaeologist and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

Two heritage resource sites were identified within proposed OHV trails in this analysis area. Both have incurred 

damage as a result of soil disturbance and erosion from existing OHV use. Pre-contact site 662NA93 is a 3-acre lithic 

scatter with intact, low density subsurface cultural deposits, located within McCubbins Campground. The site has not 

been formally evaluated for NRHP significance. Recovered artifacts indicate use in the Early Archaic period. Under 

the Alternative 2 proposal, a proposed OHV route crosses the site. This is an existing road, but OHV use off the 

roadway and through the archaeological site has caused severe erosion problems (Caulk 1994). Further assessment 

of the site is necessary to determine NRHP eligibility status and appropriate application of project design criteria. If 

determined not eligible to the NRHP, no protective measures would be necessary. 

Linear site 661EA259 is the historic Clear Creek irrigation ditch system, associated with post-contact settlement 

and agricultural development. A previous assessment indicated that the ditch system is likely eligible to the NRHP, 

but had suffered localized impacts from OHV use (Rampp et al. 1997). Other inspections of the ditch have revealed 

that the ditch continues to be utilized and maintained, and may not possess any characteristics or features making 

it eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Under the Alternative 2 proposal, proposed OHV trails would cross the Clear 

Creek Ditch in two locations. These are existing OHV trails, not previously assessed for potential effects to the 

historic resource. Further assessment of the site is necessary to determine NRHP eligibility status and appropriate 

application of project design criteria. If determined not eligible to the NRHP, no protective measures would be 

necessary. 

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

Three heritage resource sites were identified within proposed OHV trails, and one, 661NA131, a large Early Archaic 

site, is within the Day Use Area. The latter has been determined eligible to the NRHP. Much of the site has been 

damaged by quarrying activity and subsequent recreational OHV use. Intact portions of the site were fenced 

in 2008 to protect archaeological resources from OHV damage, but site boundaries remain indefinite. Prior to 

project implementation, additional archaeological sampling would be necessary to establish the boundaries for site 

661NA131 and determine if there is a need for additional protective fencing.

None of the other three appear to be eligible to the NRHP, but formal evaluations have not been done. Site 661IS39 

is an isolated pre-contact lithic artifact found within a native surface road. Field investigations found no evidence of 

additional artifacts or cultural deposits at the location. Linear site 661EA149 is an historic Forest Service telephone 

line that has been truncated multiple times by several Forest Service roads to be proposed as OHV routes. The site 

is likely not eligible to the NRHP. Motorized recreational use of the existing roads would have no effect to historic 

values. The third site identified in the analysis area is the historic Gate Creek Irrigation Ditch. Proposed trail bridge 

construction under Alternative 2 has the potential to adversely affect historic values. However, the ditch system, 

including headgate features, was substantially modified in the 1950s, resulting in loss of historic integrity. Formal 

evaluation is needed to clarify significance status. If determined not eligible to the NRHP, no protective measures 

would be necessary. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 218

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

The historic North Section Line Trail, linear site 661EA340, is the only heritage resource site identified within 

the APE for the proposed Gibson Prairie OHV location. The trail has not been formally evaluated for historic 

significance. Proposed widening of the trail for use by Class III OHVs would affect historic values. Research suggests 

that historic associative values are lacking, and the trail probably does not meet the NRHP eligibility criteria. If 

demonstrated through formal evaluation, then no protective measures would be necessary. 

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

One post-contact heritage resource was identified within proposed OHV trails under Alternative 2. Linear Forest 

Service trail site 666EA30 is not likely eligible to the NRHP because historic associative values are lacking. The 

historic trail has not been formally evaluated. If formally determined not eligible, no protective measures would be 

necessary. Proposed OHV trails would truncate the trail in only a few locations, affecting only a small portion of the 

overall length. 

Summary of Indirect and Direct Effects for Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve a Forest Plan Amendment closing all of the Forest to OHV use except 

the proposed routes, significantly reducing ongoing effects to heritage resources. Under Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action, formal NRHP eligibility determinations are required for five sites: 662NA93, 661EA259, the Gate Creek 

Irrigation Ditch (no site number), 661EA340, and 666EA30. With the exception of site 662NA93, it is likely that the 

remaining sites would be found ineligible for the NRHP, and no protective measures would be required. Additional 

investigation of site 662NA93 may also prove this site is also ineligible. 

Site 661NA131 has been found to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and would be protected with an exclusion 

fence (FW-615). Additional archaeological sampling is necessary to establish boundaries and assess the need for 

additional fencing. Data recovery would be required for site 663NA319 (FW-618, FW-619, FW-620, and FW-621).

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 2

Implementation of the No Whisky Plantation Thinning project included fall 2008 installation of boulder barriers 

to restrict OHV use in the LaDee OHV System area. This action may halt the ongoing OHV impacts that were 

previously documented at archaeological site 665NA135. Illegal trail construction in the Bear Creek OHV System 

area, documented in 2007, has the potential to affect pre-contact archaeological sites outside proposed routes. Other 

than these situations, there would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources, other than the natural processes that 

are already occurring. 

Alternative 3

Inventory data, based on the results of archaeological surveys, indicate 25 heritage resource sites within OHV roads, 

trails, and staging areas proposed under Alternative 3. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided for Alternative 2, above, applies to Alternative 3.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

Two of the sites described under Alternative 2, are within the APE of the Alternative 3 proposal. These include 

pre-contact site 663NA215 and the post-contact fire lookout site, 663EA23. The pre-contact site is protected from 

possible disturbance by a sufficient layer of crushed rock surfacing. The fire lookout site does not appear to meet the 

NRHP significance criteria, and would not require protection once formal evaluation is complete.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 219

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

A total of seven heritage resource sites were identified within the APE for the proposed Graham Pass OHV location. 

Six are pre-contact archaeological sites and one is the location of a former Forest Service fire lookout. None of the 

sites have been formally evaluated for NRHP significance and eligibility. Site 663EA23, the former fire lookout 

location, is likely not eligible to the NRHP due to overall integrity loss (the structure has been destroyed). Once the 

site has been formally evaluated, protective measures would not be necessary. The pre-contact sites, however, may be 

eligible. Additional field investigations are necessary to determine the boundaries of these sites prior to determining 

the appropriate application of design criteria. The preferred treatment is protection in place using site hardening or 

armoring methods to prevent further disturbance and erosion of archaeological deposits. 

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided under Alternative 2, above, applies under Alternative 3, with the addition of postcontact linear resource 662EA13, the Oak Grove Wagon Road. Forest Road 4310 has been built over a portion of the 

historic wagon road, and would be utilized for motorized recreation as a proposed route. The historic integrity of this 

portion of the wagon road has been lost, and no protective measures would be necessary. A proposed bridge crossing 

over the historic Clear Creek ditch 661EA259 would prevent further damage to the ditch, and would not adversely 

impact the site.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided under Alternative 2, above, applies under Alternative 3, with the exception of the 

possible effects to the Gate Creek Ditch. No bridge crossing of the historic ditch is proposed under Alternative 3.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided for Alternative 2, above, applies to Alternative 3.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided for Alternative 2, above, applies to Alternative 3.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

No heritage resources were identified within the APE for this proposed OHV location. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would involve a Forest Plan Amendment closing all of the Forest to OHV use except 

the proposed routes, significantly reducing ongoing effects to heritage resources. Under Alternative 3, formal NRHP 

eligibility determinations are required for sites 663EA23, six pre-contact sites within the Graham Pass OHV area, 

662NA93, 661EA259, the Gate Creek Irrigation Ditch (no site number), 661EA340, and 666EA30. With the exception 

of the six pre-contact sites and site 662NA93, it is likely that the remaining sites would be found ineligible for the 

NRHP, and no protective measures would be required. Also, additional investigation of site 662NA93 may prove this 

site to be ineligible. The six pre-contact sites within the Graham Pass OHV area may be found eligible and protective 

measures would be required (FW-615, FW-616, and FW-617). 

Site 661NA131 has been found to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and has been protected by exclosure fencing. 

Additional archaeological sampling would be necessary to establish boundaries and assess the need for additional 

fencing.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3

Implementation of the No Whisky Plantation Thinning project included fall 2008 installation of boulder barriers 

to restrict OHV use in the LaDee OHV System area. This action may halt the ongoing OHV impacts that were 

previously documented at archaeological site 665NA135. As was noted under Alternative 2, illegal trail construction 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 220

was documented in the Bear Creek OHV System area and has the potential to affect pre-contact archaeological sites 

outside proposed routes. Aside from these situations, there would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources, 

other than the natural processes that are already occurring. 

Alternative 4

Inventory data, based on the results of archaeological surveys, indicate 10 heritage resource sites within OHV 

decision roads, trails, and staging areas proposed under Alternative 4. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

Six of the nine heritage resources described under Alternative 2 are within the APE for proposed OHV roads and 

trails under Alternative 4. These include 665EA13, the historic logging camp, 663EA164A, the historic logging 

railroad system, and pre-contact archaeological sites 665NA91, 665NA135, 665NA169, and 665NA175. The same 

assessment provided for these sites under Alternative 2, above, applies to Alternative 4.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided under Alternative 2, above, applies under Alternative 4.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The same assessment provided under Alternative 3, above, applies under Alternative 4. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 4

Implementation of Alternative 4 would involve a Forest Plan Amendment closing all of the Forest to OHV use 

except the designated routes, significantly reducing ongoing effects to heritage resources. Under Alternative 4, 

formal NRHP eligibility determinations are required for sites 662NA93, 661EA259, the Gate Creek Irrigation Ditch 

(no site number), and 666EA30. With the exception of site 662NA93, it is likely that the remaining sites would be 

found ineligible for the NRHP, and no protective measures would be required. Also, additional investigation of site 

662NA93 may prove this site to be ineligible. Site 661NA131 has been found to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, 

and has been protected by exclosure fencing. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4

Implementation of the No Whisky Plantation Thinning project included fall 2008 installation of boulder barriers 

to restrict OHV use in the LaDee OHV System area. This action may halt the ongoing OHV impacts that were 

previously documented at archaeological site 665NA135. Aside from this case, there would be no cumulative effects 

to heritage resources, other than the natural processes that are already occurring.

3.8.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Heritage Resource Surveys (inventories) were not completed for the previously unsurveyed lands that would remain 

open to OHV use under Alternative 1. This includes an estimated 30-40,000 acres likely containing many as yet 

unidentified pre-contact and historic period resources. A survey of this scale would require several years of planning 

and execution and a very large budget – one well beyond the allocations for the present project. Field surveys for 

each of the OHV Systems considered under Alternatives 2-4 were largely complete by December 2008. Surveys for 

some proposed OHV routes in the Rock Creek OHV System are lacking. These consist mainly of short segments 

connecting existing roads. Analysis relied on previous survey data for several overlapping projects, but there are 

a few segments proposed under Alternative 3 that will require archaeological survey during 2009. Additionally, 

subsurface sampling and site boundary definition will be necessary for six pre-contact archaeological sites in the 

Graham Pass OHV System area. Fieldwork to collect additional data is scheduled for the summer of 2009. Data will 

be applied to the development of specific protection measures, as indicated by the project design criteria. Heritage 

Resource Survey Reports for each proposed OHV System will be completed by July 2009 for submission to Tribes 

and SHPO. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 221

3.9. Law Enforcement

3.9.1. Existing Condition

The Forest Service has the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States including Titles 16, 18 and 21 

United States Code (USC) as well as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) promulgated under the authority 

granted in16 USC §551. Those regulations can be found in CFR, Title 36, Part 261, Subpart A, B and C. Subpart A 

regulations apply to all National Forest System Lands. Subpart B is Special Orders that apply to specific National 

Forest System lands such as Regions, Forests or Grasslands or specific Ranger Districts. Subpart C regulations apply 

to specific Regions and have gone through the rulemaking process. The CFRs are implemented to address violations 

that affect National Forest System lands. Violations that affect NFS lands include, but are not limited to, interference 

with Forest Officers, disorderly conduct, fire, timber, forest products, livestock, fish and wildlife, property, occupancy 

and use, Forest roads and trails, OHV use, wilderness, and primitive areas.

There are several methods to gain compliance of National Forest System rules and regulations. The primary method 

to gain voluntary visitor compliance is through proper area engineering coupled with an effective education 

component. Easily understandable signs, substantial public education and well engineered barriers to prevent trail 

proliferation are essential components for success. With these components in place it allows law enforcement to focus 

on a smaller number of “willful violators”. 

The first line of enforcement is all Forest Service employees. All Forest Service employees are considered Forest 

Officers and serve as the eyes and ears for the agency. These employees are required to document and report any 

incidents they observe involving the violation of the laws of the United States including the CFRs. 

The second line of enforcement is Forest Protection Officers (FPOs). FPOs have authority to issue citations for CFR 

violations committed on National Forest System lands. These violations typically involve littering, resource damage, 

OHV violations and area closures. FPOs also gain compliance through public education during field contacts. Most 

FPOs work seasonally, but there are also many who work under a full-time status for the Forest Service.

The third line of enforcement is Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). LEOs patrol for and respond to 

calls for service for CFR violations, state law violations and other federal crimes and investigations that are more 

serious in nature. LEOs also gain compliance from offenders through warnings and education. Mt. Hood National 

Forest LEOs can also assert their federal and state arrest authority for those violations that warrant it. Along with 

protecting the National Forest natural resources, LEOs also provide for the safety of forest visitors, Forest Service 

employees, Forest Service volunteers and other government agents. 

As of calendar year 2008, the Forest had nine FPOs and six LEOs. All but one FPO on the Forest has no direct duties 

in recreation. They fall under other fields, such as timber, forest products, engineering and fire. Due to the small 

number of LEOs and recreation technicians with FPO status on the Forest, compliance and enforcement is limited. 

Out of the six LEOs on the Forest, one is a reserve LEO that has primary duties with regard to fee compliance. In 

2009, the number of LEOs would decrease by two, but the Law Enforcement and Investigations (LE&I) staff on the 

Forest is planning to fill those positions pending budget allocations. The start up time for LEOs hired to fill the two 

positions would depend on whether the LEOs are experienced natural resource officers or less experienced officers 

making their initial entry into natural resource law enforcement. Experienced natural resource officers can hit the 

ground running with minimal training time whereas less experienced officers would require a substantial amount of 

training, which in turn would delay their start up time. 

Although the FPO and LEO presence on the Forest is limited, the Forest does receive help from four surrounding 

counties which have jurisdictional boundaries within the Forest. Three of the four counties provide one deputy to 

work on the Forest starting Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend each year. One county provides 

one full-time deputy and one part-time deputy during the same time frame. Although the counties help augment law 

enforcement presence on the Forest, they mainly provide response for those violations involving people crimes and 

personal property crimes. LEOs in turn provide response for those crimes committed against the government. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 222

Currently, both counties on the eastside of the Forest receive state OHV grant funding. These counties now provide 

OHV patrol resources on the eastside of the Forest. A third county is looking at the same type of funding to provide 

OHV patrol on the westside of the Forest. This grant funding provides an opportunity for collaboration between the 

Forest’s LE&I staff and the county Sheriff ’s Offices. 

3.9.2. Effects Analysis

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

Currently, the Forest has an “Open Unless Posted Closed” implied policy for motor vehicle use on the Forest. This 

makes approximately 2,463 miles of gravel Forest Service collector, native surface and improved native surface roads 

available for OHV travel by State law. It also allows for more access to other areas on the Forest for cross-country 

travel. Because of the many miles and areas for OHVs to travel, the end result is typically resource damage, OHV 

rider safety concerns and unauthorized OHV trail building and maintenance. The effects also include the damage to 

government property with regard to road and area signs prohibiting OHV use. 

Under the No Action Alternative, LEOs and FPOs are reliant on signs prohibiting off-road use. Because most of 

the closure areas are written under a Subpart B Forest Order (see Section 1.6 and Table 1.3), they must meet certain 

posting guidelines and requirements so that they can be readily available for the public to read in the affected areas. 

It is in these areas that signs are torn down by Forest visitors who do not want to comply with the prohibitions. 

This in turn leaves LEOs and FPOs unable to enforce closures when they observe someone in a closure area and the 

prohibition signs have been torn down.

The No Action Alternative also allows for Class I, II and III OHVs to travel cross-country, which incurs collateral 

damage to the natural resources and the commission of crimes associated with that type of activity. These crimes 

involve the cutting down of trees, clearing of ground vegetation, and soil disturbance for unauthorized trail building. 

Because cross-country travel is allowed throughout much of the Forest, this type of activity is increasingly difficult for 

LEOs and FPOs to address due to the vastness of the affected area and understaffing. 

The No Action Alternative would continue to allow for the continued OHV activity known as mudding or mud 

bogging. Mudding/mud bogging takes place in areas where rain has collected or snow has melted over the winter. 

Mud holes are then created by OHVs mudding or mud bogging within those holes. Mudding/mud bogging creates 

a resource concern due to the degradation of soil, wildlife habitat concerns and prevention of new plant growth. 

The No Action Alternative would continue to allow Class I, II and III OHVs access to those areas of the Forest that 

cannot rehabilitate due to resource damage caused by OHVs. This again affects the LEO and FPO enforcement and 

education efforts due the vastness of the affected area that currently lack enforcement presence due to understaffing.

The No Action Alternative would continue to allow access to Class I, II and III OHVs on 2,463 miles of gravel Forest 

Service collector, native surface and improved native surface roads that are shared with passenger and commercial 

vehicles Forestwide. This condition would continue to place OHV enthusiasts at risk for collision with passenger and 

commercial vehicles, which are commonplace on gravel and native surface roads throughout the Forest. 

No Action Alternative Summary 

The No Action Alternative would continue to propagate the existing OHV related issues facing the Forest today. This 

alternative could potentially continue to be a compliance and enforcement hardship for LE&I staff and FPOs due to 

understaffing. Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest would continue to address the current OHV issues that 

involve resource damage, illegal trail building and conflicts between passenger/commercial vehicles versus Class I, II 

and III OHVs on a Forestwide basis. 

Potential for these issues to increase could also be attributed to an increase in OHV recreation due to the urban 

growth boundary that grows closer to the Forest. The growth of large cities in neighboring states such as Vancouver, 

Washington could also increase our OHV visitor use on the Forest. LEOs on the Forest have first-hand knowledge of 

this based on field contacts with OHV enthusiasts from Washington state. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 223

Ultimately, the No Action Alternative would burden law enforcement compliance efforts Forestwide. At this time the 

Forest is not fully staffed to address the activity that currently takes place under the No Action Alternative and the 

management of enforcement would continue to be hindered. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Action Alternatives

Note: The Action Alternatives mentioned in the Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects include the Proposed 

Action and its alternatives pending whatever selection is made by the Forest Supervisor. Also, those Action 

Alternatives that are not specifically addressed in this section are not by oversight, but due to the lesser degree of 

enforcement effects on the Forest. 

The All Action Alternatives include the following: Graham Pass Alternative 3, Bear Creek Alternatives 2 and 

3, Gibson Prairie Alternatives 2 and 3, McCubbins Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, Peavine Alternatives 2 and 3, LaDee 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, Mt. Defiance Alternative 3, and Rock Creek Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

The Action Alternatives would offer proposed OHV roads and trails and one small OHV area throughout the Forest. 

These alternatives would amend the Forest Plan and change the current “Open unless Posted Closed” implied policy 

to “Closed unless Posted Open”. The Action Alternatives would allow for a better enforcement management program 

since the Motor Vehicle Use Map would ensure the public’s awareness as to what is open to OHV recreation and what 

is closed. It would also make the public aware that anything outside the proposed roads, trails, and area are closed 

to OHV use without the need of posting area closures. This in itself helps address the current property damage that 

the Forest incurs when posting area closures. The fact that only open roads, trails, and area would be posted could 

potentially make Forest visitors less inclined to tear down signs. 

Under the Action Alternatives the majority of 2,463 miles of gravel Forest Service collector, native surface and 

improved native surface roads would be closed outside of the proposed OHV roads, trails, and area. This change 

would dramatically lessen the potential for accidents between passenger/commercial vehicles versus Class I, II and 

III OHVs (see the Transportation section for more discussion on motor vehicle mixed-use). The open areas that are 

currently affected by OHV cross-country travel should also lessen. There could be a drop in resource damage, soil 

disturbance, and unauthorized trail building in the foreseeable future due to the prohibited access opportunities. 

The Action Alternatives would also allow for less complicated enforcement efforts by LEOs and FPOs when they 

encounter OHVs outside the proposed roads, trails, and area. Anyone outside the proposed OHV roads, trails, and 

area would be in clear violation with regard to possessing a vehicle off the road. The Action Alternatives would make 

it more difficult for those willing to build unauthorized trails outside the proposed OHV roads, trails, and area. This 

is due to the fact that they typically use OHVs to carry equipment out to areas where unauthorized trail building is 

taking place. This in turn makes it easier to track anyone conducting this type of unauthorized activity.

Although the Action Alternatives would create several proposed OHV systems, it is still more manageable for 

enforcement purposes as opposed to currently providing Forestwide law enforcement presence under the No Action 

Alternative. This idea relies heavily on the public taking advantage of the diverse OHV opportunities that would be 

afforded to them under the Action Alternatives. It would also rely on the public having some time to become aware 

and accustomed to a “Closed unless Posted Open” policy. The public would also gain knowledge of the new OHV 

rules and opportunities through information provided to them by LEOs, FPOs, Cooperating Sheriff ’s Office Deputies 

and OHV volunteers during field contacts. 

Bear Creek Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide single track riding experience for those OHV enthusiasts that operate 

Class III OHVs. Currently, LE&I on the Forest do not possess Class III OHVs to provide any trail patrol presence 

for a single track OHV trail. Additionally, Forest Service policy requires employees to possess a state motorcycle 

endorsement in order to operate Class III OHVs for work purposes. The lack of Class III OHVs can be resolved 

by requesting the needed patrol equipment through the budget allocation process or OHV grant programs. This 

equipment can then be used by LEOs and FPOs to provide patrol presence on trails. This would allow more field 

presence for LEOs and FPOs to address violations such as shortcuts on trail switchbacks, helmet law violations and 

other related Class III OHV enforcement and safety concerns. The required state motorcycle endorsement would be 

addressed by each department that has a need for employees to perform that type of patrol work. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 224

Rock Creek Alternative 3 provides for a mixed-use road that allows Class I and III OHVs into Badger Lake, which 

is surrounded by the Badger Creek Wilderness area. A portion of Forest Road 4860 runs along the westside of the 

Badger Creek Wilderness boundary and Forest Road 4860-140 spur is a keyhole road within the Badger Creek 

Wilderness leading into Badger Lake. Currently, there are signs of OHV use into the Badger Creek Wilderness 

boundary from both roads. Designating these roads for OHV use could continue OHV trespass into the wilderness 

area. FPOs cannot follow or pursue those trespassing beyond the wilderness boundary in their patrol vehicle or 

patrol OHV without prior approval from the Forest Supervisor. Following or pursuing OHVs beyond the wilderness 

boundary would have to be done on foot by FPOs, which in turn creates safety concerns. LEOs would pursue those 

individuals utilizing their Federal Officer Arrest Authority granted by the State of Oregon which FPOs do not have. 

The same action would be taken on any proposed OHV roads and trails that border other wilderness areas. These 

areas include Mt. Defiance Alternative 3 and LaDee Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Rock Creek Alternative 3 does not provide access to Class II OHVs on mixed-use roads identified in the alternative 

as gravel Forest Service collector roads and native surface roads. These roads are considered wide enough that the 

effect a Class II OHV would cause on road degeneration is no more than the passenger vehicles currently allowed. 

The exclusion of Class II OHVs on gravel Forest Service collector roads and native surface roads in this alternative 

would make it hard for LEOs and FPOs to explain the prohibition considering that they would have minimal affect 

on the road. Unless there is a legitimate reason for excluding Class II OHVs from this alternative, management 

through enforcement and compliance would be difficult to implement.

Staging Area Impacts for Law Enforcement

The staging areas for those Action Alternatives that afford this service could pose a compliance issue as they are only 

for day use and exclude overnight use. Since staging areas are first come first serve, OHV systems that offer staging 

could experience visitors roping off sections of the staging area to reserve a spot. The Forest currently experiences 

this activity in and around the dispersed areas of the McCubbins Gulch and Rock Creek OHV areas. Reserving spots 

like this have taken place days prior to popular holiday weekends. This type of behavior would undoubtedly create 

a compliance issue that usually involves large groups of visitors that are frustrated and angry. Dealing with large 

groups, especially angered groups, is the type of contact that would be deemed unsafe for an FPO to handle and 

would require the assistance of an LEO. 

Staging areas have the potential to create party spots due to their remoteness and amenities such as tables, trash 

cans and restroom facilities that may be offered. Historically, popular party spots in other parts of the Forest have 

experienced litter and vandalism. Existing popular party spots are typically located in gravel pits. The proposed list 

of staging areas includes gravel pits, log landings, quarries and gravel storage areas. This may create attention to a 

staging area as a new party spot depending on what facilities are proposed for implementation. Although any new 

recreation facility has a potential for misuse, this potential should not discourage the Forest from developing a facility 

that would help manage and facilitate the OHV program. The probability of party spots is only mentioned here to 

bring to light the potential for problems in these areas. 

Staging areas could also offer a centralized area for LEOs and Forest FPOs to provide enforcement and compliance 

emphasis with regard to CFRs and state laws. They also provide a centralized area where equipment checks could be 

conducted during events. 

Action Alternatives Summary

Depending on what Action Alternative is chosen, the Action Alternatives afford a more sustainable OHV program, 

which allows for a better managed OHV law enforcement program on the Forest. Engineering, education and 

enforcement is more manageable with the Action Alternatives since it does not allow for Forestwide OHV travel. 

It also addresses the Class I, II and III OHVs versus passenger/commercial vehicle conflicts on current mixed-use 

roads. 

The development of sustainable OHV roads and trails that are designed for the particular use of an OHV should help 

reduce the impacts of resource damage and illegal trail building. The OHV systems would concentrate OHV use in 

locations that are developed for that purpose and theoretically make patrol operations more focused in those areas. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 225

Although the potential for continued OHV proliferation outside the proposed OHV roads, trails, and area would still 

be an enforcement issue, the detection and enforcement of the violation would be easier and clearer. This is because 

all areas outside the proposed OHV roads, trails, and area would be closed to OHV travel. Overall, the Action 

Alternatives offer law enforcement the opportunity to make better cases against willful perpetrators operating OHVs 

in closed areas and building/maintaining illegal OHV trails as stated in paragraph three of the “Direct, Indirect and 

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives”. 

3.10. Fire Suppression

This analysis is based on the information found in the Fuels Specialist Report for this project, which is in the project 

record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.10.1. Affected Environment

Currently, the Mt. Hood National Forest is using the past 28 years of collected data as the historical basis for its 

current fire management planning. This process, known as Fire Planning Analysis (FPA), uses weather and fire starts 

(location, cause, and size) to determine the best funding and utilization of resources. The FPA program uses Fire 

Management Units (FMU) to designate specific types of fires, fuels, and conditions for the fire planning process. For 

this analysis, the Forest Service used the FMUs rather than the traditional district boundaries; this also matches the 

current Forest fire dispatch blocks, currently in use for Initial Attack (IA) resource allocation. The proposed OHV 

systems have been further defined to analyze the fire starts within the smaller areas of the OHV roads and trails.

The primary issue for fire suppression operations is the closure of roads, or the change of road sizes to create trails. 

The suppression modules (Engines) used for IA, over the years, has become larger to accommodate larger crews, 

equipment, or both. As such, closing of roads or smaller access trails limits the ability of the IA resources to respond 

efficiently. The Forest does not have the use of mechanized equipment (e.g., dozers, skidders, and excavators) on a 

day to day basis for IA, and would have to order up this equipment to open roads or widen access to a fire start. As 

can be seen from the Fire Behavior table below (Table 3-108), most of the 97th percentile weather conditions (and 

part of the 90th percentile), preclude the use of handcrews in making direct attack on an established fire. Direct attack 

by handcrews is a suppression tactic used when flame lengths are less than four feet, as greater than this height, 

the radiant heat increases the distance that crews have to work away from the flames to be safe. Typically, only a 

mechanized, direct attack occurs between flame lengths of four to eight feet, and only indirect attack strategies are 

employed when flame lengths exceed eight feet. The only exception to this is in the treated areas of the eastside FMU, 

in the fuel model 9 areas, which are typical of the Ponderosa Pine/White Oak vegetation types (especially those areas 

either previously treated, currently being treated, or will be treated in the near future by various hazardous fuels 

treatment projects).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 226

Table 3-108. Fire behavior for each representative weather station and OHV system. 

Fuel Model 10 was used for all the OHV systems; included Fuel Model 9 for lower Pine/

Oak locations of the Rock Creek and McCubbins Gulch proposed OHV Systems for 

comparison. Information in bold font denotes Flame Length significantly exceeding 4 ft 

in height; only the Fuel Model 9 keeps Flame Length at or below 4 ft, even in the worse 

case scenario. 

Station Name 

(Number)

Redbox 

(350718)

Wanderer’s 

Peak 

(350726)

Blue Ridge 

(350811)

Wamic Mill 

(350913)

Wamic Mill 

(350913)

Pollywog 

(350912)

OHV System Peavine LaDee Flats Bear Creek

McCubbins 

Gulch and 

Rock Creek

McCubbins 

Gulch and 

Rock Creek

Gibson 

Prairie

Percentile 

Range 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th

                       

Windspeed, 

20’ 8 9 8 14 20 24 9 12 9 12 13 18

Eye Level 

wind, 

Adjusted by 

.3

2.4 2.7 2.4 4.2 6 7.2 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.6 3.9 5.4

Ave. Slope 

used 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%

Outputs

Effective 

Windspeed, 

Eyelevel

3.4 3.7 3.4 5 6.7 7.9 4.7 6.1 4.6 5.9 3.7 4.5

Rate of 

Spread, Ch/

Hr.

5.6 7.2 5.4 11.0 14.4 20.7 11.5 17.9 9.2 15.6 8.1 11.8

Flame 

Length, Feet 4.4 5.1 4.2 6.2 6.7 8.1 6.2 7.9 3.2 4.2 5.3 6.5

Size in Acres

Size after 1 

hour 1.6 2.5 1.5 4.7 6.5 12.0 5.3 10.8 3.6 8.4 3.1 5.9

Size after 2 

hours 6.3 10.0 5.9 18.7 26.1 48.0 21.2 43.2 14.1 33.5 12.4 23.4

Size after 3 

hours 14.3 22.5 13.3 42.0 58.8 108.0 47.7 97.2 31.6 75.3 27.9 52.7

Size after 4 

hours 25.4 40.0 23.6 74.4 104.5 192.0 84.7 172.7 56.3 133.9 49.7 93.6

Fuel Model 

Used - NFFL 10 10 10 10 9 10

Delays in suppression operations increase fire size, which has a corresponding increase in fire cost. Small fires in 

remote locations, or logistically difficult areas to support, have increased fire costs when access is limited. A recent 

example is the Badger Fire (2008) on the Barlow Ranger District. Final size was only 29 acres, but the entire fire was 

within the Badger Creek Wilderness (southern arm), with a nearby Wildland Urban Interface (as defined in the 

Wasco County Wildfire Protection Plan). There was no option to manage for resource benefit (limited suppression, 

monitoring, confine strategy), due to the proximity of the Sportsman’s Park WUI within a half mile of the fire. In the 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 227

small area of wilderness the fire could be contained within, the possible escape from the wilderness boundary could 

threaten managed areas of the Forest (such as big game winter range and calving habitat and recreation sites) and 

state protected lands to the east. Suppression costs were approximately $182,000 (or $6,275/acre). Larger fires (over 

100 acres), can cost up to $1,000,000 in the first four plus hours depending on location, resources requested, and 

values at risk. 

If an Incident Management Team is requested, these costs significantly increase (depending on team type) to 

anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per day. Recent examples are the Blister Fire (2006) which cost $5.5 million 

for 790 acres, Blue Grass Fire (part of the Mt. Hood Complex, 2006) at over $10 million for 1850 acres, and the Ball 

Point Fire (2007) at $2.8 million for 1237 acres. All three fires were either in wilderness or areas where road systems 

had been decommissioned and or removed.

Fire History on Mt. Hood National Forest – 1980 through 2007

The Forest averages about 57 fires per year, of which 17 (30%) are lightning caused and 40 (70%) are human caused. 

The total acres from these starts are almost the opposite, with lightning fires accounting for 4952 (62%) acres, and the 

human caused fires accounting for 2979 (38%) acres. Since 2006, there have been several large fires on the Forest that 

were managed by Incident Management Teams, and most of these fires have been in either wilderness or areas where 

road access has been limited. All of these Class E or larger fires (see Table 3-106 for the acres of Fire Size Class), such 

as the Mt. Hood Complex (2006), Blister (2006), Ball Point (2007), Lake Lenore (2008), and Gnarl (2008) Fires, have 

been lightning caused. The most recent large human caused fire was the 25 acre Clackamas Lake Fire (2006). The 

2008 fires have not been added into the fire occurrence data base at this time, and thus are not accounted for in this 

fire history analysis.

Table 3-109. Fire size class and corresponding acres. 

Fire Size Class Size Class Acres

A > .25 acres

B .26 to 9.9 acres

C 10 to 99.9 acres

 D 100 to 299.9 acres

E 300 to 999.9 acres

F 1000 to 4999.9 acres

G 5000+ acres

There is no specific category for OHV as a fire occurrence category. Most of the human caused fires fall into two main 

categories: smoking and campfire. There is another category that makes up about 12% of the human caused starts, 

but they are undetermined as to a specific cause. These are listed under the miscellaneous category, and are generally 

listed in this category when no specific cause can be determined (but are definitely of human origin) from an 

investigation of the fire origin area. The equipment category typically refers to fire starts from mechanical operations 

of some form (e.g., vegetation removal or treatment, and road construction). This category does not include OHV 

starts; currently there are no recorded fire starts in the FireStat Database specifically related to an OHV caused 

ignition. There are no statistical categories for OHVs in the Forest Service Handbook 5109.14, Individual Wildland 

Fire Report, filed for each statistical fire start on the Forest, which is the official document used to report each start. 

Table 3-110 shows the ignition and statistical causes of fires on the Forest for the past 28 years.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 228

Table 3-110. Ignition and statistical causes on the Mt. Hood NF from 1980 to 2007. 

FMU ID

Lightning

Equipment

Smoking

Campfire

Debris Burn

Railroad

Incendiary

Children

Miscellaneous

Grand Total

Eastside 115

(27%)

12

(3%)

70

(16%)

145

(34%)

14

(3%)

0

(0%)

11

(3%)

4

(1%)

57

(13%) 428

Clackamas River 223

(30%)

15

(2%)

98

(13%)

268

(36%)

16

(2%)

0

(0%)

30

(4%)

5

(1%)

85

(12%) 740

Hwy 26 20

(15%)

1

(1%)

15

(11%)

52

(38%)

2

(2%)

1

(1%)

12

(9%)

0

(0%)

33

(24%) 136

Hood River 35

(26%)

5

(4%)

22

(16%)

51

(38%)

5

(4%)

0

(0%)

2

(2%)

0

(0%)

16

(12%) 136

Wilderness 83

(54%)

0

(0%)

10

(7%)

52

(34%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

1

(1%)

0

(0%)

8

(5%) 154

Total 476

(30%)

33

(2%)

215

(14%)

568

(36%)

37

(2%)

1

(0.1%)

56

(4%)

9

(0.6%)

199

(13%) 1594

Ignitions from OHVs

As per state regulations, all OHVs and other small engine powered vehicles or equipment are required to have and 

maintain spark arrestors, or they are in violation of State law, and the operator can be fined or held liable for damage 

caused by the OHV. As stated above, the Forest does not maintain a specific category of ignition starts from OHVs. 

From a recent study in Albert, Canada (2002), the three causes of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) (study was specific to 

ATVs only and not OHVs in general) caused fires were solenoids on winches, hot exhaust systems and parts, and 

sparks from the exhaust system. The first was usually right after operation of the winch, and the third cause was 

mitigated by properly installed and working spark arrestors. The study also had a similar issue with lack of specific 

causes, either from the solenoids, material combusting on the exhaust, or sparks from the exhaust (Advantage, Vol. 

3, No. 44, October 2002). A follow up study on fire ignition potential in 2004 concluded that the exhaust systems of 

ATVs had the potential to be susceptible to certain types of fuels accumulating on them (in the study this was grass 

and a muskeg “muck”), drying out the fuel, and igniting accumulated material. The potential then rested on whether 

the fuel bed was receptive to the ignition source (the dried, smoldering fine fuels) falling to the ground, and then 

igniting wildland surface fuels. Due to the variability in the areas of the study, and the conditions of the fuels, there 

were no definitive answers to the number of potential starts, just that they could occur (Advantage, Vol. 5, No. 8, 

February, 2004).

Clackamas FMU (Peavine, LaDee Flats, and Graham Pass Proposed OHV Systems)

The Clackamas FMU has a higher number of human caused starts than the other FMUs, but there is about an even 

split on the acres (46% lightning, 52% human). The land base of the FMU is about 39% of the Mt. Hood NF, and has 

some of the larger recreation draws during the normal fire season. In the past 28 years, there have been 223 lightning 

and 512 human caused fires; most of the human caused fires resulted from campfire and smoking cause class of fire 

start (almost 50% of the human caused fires are in these two categories). 

On a per acre basis, the Clackamas FMU has about 1.8 fires per every 1000 acres within the FMU over the past 28 

years. The proposed OHV routes and fire starts within each analysis area are described below.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 229

Peavine Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the Forest boundary with the Warm Springs Reservation (WSR) to 

the east, the bottom of Range 7S to the south; the west edge of Range 8E, and to the north in Township 6S, sections 

13-18, does not include the small area north of Township 7S and east into Range 8.5E. This is the only proposed 

OHV system under consideration that has higher lightning (62%) caused fires than human caused fires (38%). Of 

the human caused fires, the highest percentage is from campfires, with the second highest cause being smoking. 

Equipment only accounts for 2.9% of the human caused fires in the past 28 years. This also correlates with the fire 

sizes as well; 73% (161 acres) of the fire acres in the OHV analysis area are from lightning caused fires, and 27% (57 

acres) are from human caused ignitions. 

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the forest boundary to the west and northwest (range 5E), north 

to the township 4S line break with township 3S in range 6E, to the south at the bottom of township 4S with the 5S 

line break in range 6E, then east along the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in range 7E. The LaDee analysis area 

has had only five (11%) lightning fires in the past 28 years, compared to 42 (89%) human caused fires in the same 

period. The major source of the human caused fire starts is from campfires (16 starts, 34%), smoking (5 starts, 

11%), and incendiary (e.g., arson, fireworks, and shooting) (8 starts, 17%). There were also 11 starts (23%) that are 

undetermined, other than human caused. Equipment caused fires only account for 4.3% of the fires in the analysis 

area (twp starts in 28 years). Within this timeframe, the human caused fires also account for 99% of the acres (120 

acres), as compared to the 0.9 acres from lightning.

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the area in Townships 7S, 8S, and 9S, and Range 7E to the Forest 

boundary in Township 9S. The Graham Pass analysis area has had 27 (46%) lightning fires in the past 28 years, 

compared to 32 (54%) human caused fires in the same period. The major source of the human caused fire starts is 

from campfires (10 starts, 17%), smoking (6 starts, 10%), and equipment and incendiary tied at (4 starts each, or 

7% in each category). There were also five starts (9%) that are undetermined, other than human caused. Within this 

timeframe, the human caused fires also account for 53% of the acres (131 acres), as compared to the 47% of the acres 

(115 acres) from lightning. 

The Graham Pass location has many roads for access, but is typically inaccessible for a good portion of the year due 

to snow or other conditions. The large human caused fires have been all under 100 acres (in fact the four Class C fires 

account for 120 of the 130 acres), and they all occurred prior to 1991. The last human caused fire was in 2007 for 0.1 

acres. Lightning has occurred sporadically since 1980, with the last lightning caused fires in 2003. The largest is a 101 

acre fire in 1992, accounting for 88% of the acres caused by lightning fires. This analysis area has a higher moisture 

content than the other proposed locations, which has most likely contributed to the lower ignitions overall and a 

reduced acreage in both human and lightning caused fires.

Eastside FMU (McCubbins, Rock Creek, Gibson Prairie OHV Systems)

The Eastside FMU has three of the proposed OHV systems within the FMU designation, and one of the systems 

(McCubbins Gulch) already has designated OHV routes. The Eastside FMU is approximately 19% of the acres on 

the Forest, being the second largest FMU in acres. The FMU has a slightly higher fire occurrence per acre than the 

Clackamas FMU with almost half the acres. Within the Eastside FMU, the past 28 years have seen 115 lightning and 

313 human caused fires; most of the human caused fires are in the campfire and smoking cause class (215 of 313 

of the human caused fires fall into these two categories or almost 69% of the human caused fires are in these two 

categories). 

On a per acre basis, the Eastside FMU has about 2.1 fires per every 1000 acres within the FMU over the past 28 years. 

Below, the specific OHV analysis areas are analyzed for fire starts within the boundaries described below.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 230

McCubbins Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the boundary with the Warm Springs Indian Reservation to the 

south, private land to the east at the Forest boundary, west at Forest Service Road 43 to Oregon State Highway 26 

to the Warm Springs Reservation boundary, and north at the Township 4S-5S line, only to the White River (not 

including ignitions north of the White River in Ranges 10E and 11E, but does include Ranges 9E, 10E, and 11E south 

of the White River).

The McCubbins Gulch existing and proposed OHV system is already a heavily used OHV location (currently the 

only designated OHV site on the Forest), and as such, is a fairly good local example of fire starts from an OHV 

designated site. Other activities also occur in the area, such as camping, hunting, and other outdoor activities. Over 

the past 28 years, there have been 34 fires within the analysis area, of which only four (12%) have been from lightning 

and 30 (88%) from human caused ignitions. The major source of the human caused fires is from campfires (14 start, 

41%) and smoking (8 starts, 24%). There are also five miscellaneous caused fires (15%) that were determined to be 

human, but no specific cause of ignition could be identified. One fire in 2005, was most likely an OHV caused fire 

(point of origin was along a designated OHV route), but a fire investigation with Law Enforcement and Investigation 

personnel was unable to determine the exact cause so no specific link to an OHV was determined. Currently, 98% of 

the acres from fires are human caused (24.6 acres), compared to the 0.4 acres from lightning fires.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the Forest boundary to the east of the 48 Road, the Boulder Creek 

drainage to the west, and the Township 4S line, north at the 3S line break and 5S for the south line break. This 

analysis area includes the current OHV use area (not officially designated as an OHV area), the new proposed 

location to the west of the 4811 Road, and to the edge of the Badger Creek Wilderness. 

The Rock Creek site is already a heavily used OHV location and dispersed camping area, generally in the proposed 

day use only area. Many years of use in this location have created OHV trails, and there are older Forest Service 

roads that cross the day use area due to past and current harvest activities, fuels treatments (past and present), and 

various dispersed camping for recreation, hunting, or other forest uses. The day use area is within the Sportsman Park 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) as identified in the Wasco County Wildfire Protection Plan and collaboration with 

the Sportsman Park Homeowners association (and others) on the Sportsman Park Fuels Reduction Project (2005). 

The fire analysis (over a smaller area) for the fuels treatment projects in 2005 showed that there had only been 14 

fires over a 19 year period, within the proposed treatment area for the Sportsman Park Fuels Reduction (currently 

the proposed day use area), for less than 14 acres of damage to Forest Service managed lands (Sportsman Park Fuels 

Reduction, Categorical Exclusion, Fuels Report, 2005).

Over the past 28 years, there have been 60 fires, of which 28 (32%) have been lightning caused and 60 (68%) have 

been human caused. The major source of the human caused fires is from campfires (18 start, 21%), smoking (14 

starts, 16%), and miscellaneous (19 starts, 22%). Human caused fires account for 94% of the fire acres (over 115 

acres) within the analysis area, but most of those acres occurred prior to 2000, and in areas that have not been treated 

for fuels reduction. Many of the miscellaneous starts were recorded as such, as an exact determination of cause could 

not be established, either due to lack of investigation, private citizen help prior to arrival of initial attack resources, 

or local fire agencies suppression operations. One such incident occurred in 2006, a late evening discovery near the 

Rock Creek Campground; campers at the campsite attempted suppression operations, obliterating any fire cause 

evidence in the process before Forest Service initial attack resources arrived on scene. 

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the Forest boundary to the north at the Township 1N/1S line, 

east and west to the Forest boundary, and along The Dalles Watershed boundary to the south. The Gibson Prairie 

analysis area has had only two (14%) lightning fires in the past 28 years, compared to 14 (86%) human caused fires 

in the same period. The major source of the human caused fire starts is from incendiary (such as arson, fireworks, or 

shooting, (4 starts, 29%)), smoking (2 starts, 14%), and campfires (2 starts, 14%). There are also three starts (21%) 

that are undetermined, other than human caused. Equipment caused fires account for no fire starts in the analysis 

area. Over the past 28 years, human caused fires have accounted for almost 97% of the acres burned (almost 21 

acres), compared to lightning caused fires at 0.3 acres within the same time frame. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 231

Hood River FMU (Bear Creek and Mt Defiance Proposed OHV Systems)

The Hood River FMU has one of the proposed OHV systems within the FMU designation. The Hood River FMU 

is approximately 9% of the acres on the Forest, being the smallest FMU in acres. The FMU has a third highest fire 

occurrence per acre of the five FMUs with almost a quarter of the acres compared to the Clackamas FMU. Within the 

Hood River FMU, the past 28 years have seen 35 lightning and 101 human caused fires; most of the human caused 

fires are in the campfire and smoking cause class ( 73 of 101 (72%) of the human caused fires fall into these two 

categories). 

On a per acre basis, the Hood River FMU has about 1.44 fires per every 1000 acres within the FMU over the past 28 

years. Below, the specific OHV systems are analyzed for fire starts within the boundaries described below.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the boundary of Township 1S and Range 9E, excluding the private 

land the east and north, and the wilderness area south of the proposed OHV system. This analysis area includes 

Laurance Lake and the associated campground, where potential increased camping could occur due to public use of 

the proposed Bear Creek OHV system.

In the Bear Creek proposed OHV system there have been 60 fires within the analysis area, of which 15 (25%) have 

been from lightning and 45 (75%) from human caused ignitions. The major source of the human caused fires is from 

campfires (28 starts, 47%), smoking (6 starts, 10%), and miscellaneous (7 starts, 12%). This particular area, known 

as Red Hill, has the highest equipment caused starts (percentage wise) than any others, mainly due to more harvest 

activities in the past, as well as private land harvest operations interspersed adjacent to the area. 

Over the past 28 years, the human caused fires have accounted for 82% (9.8 acres) of the fire acres, while lightning 

accounts for 18% or 2.2 acres. The last fire within the analysis area was in 2005 (lightning caused), and the last human 

caused fire was in 2002. 

Mt Defiance Proposed OHV System

The area analyzed for fire ignitions is defined by the boundary of Township 2N and Range 9E, excluding the 

wilderness area to the west and north, and the lands outside the Forest boundary to the east and south of the 

proposed OHV system. 

In the Mt. Defiance analysis area, there have been ten fires, of which two (20%) have been from lightning, and eight 

(80%) from human caused ignitions. The major source of the human caused fires is from campfires (five starts, 50%), 

incendiary (one start, 10%), debris burn (one start, 10%) and miscellaneous (one start, 10%). 

Over the past 28 years, the human caused fires have accounted for 41% (1.1 acres) of the fire acres, while lightning 

accounts for 59% or 1.6 acres. The last lightning fire within the analysis area was in 2006 (one fire, for 0.6 acres), and 

the last human caused fire was in 2006 (two fires, for 0.4 acres total). 

Summary of Existing Conditions for the Proposed OHV Systems

Current conditions show a general higher human caused fire start for all FMUs and the specific proposed OHV 

routes. However, larger fire acreage is generally, across the Forest, caused by lightning ignited fires. Human caused 

fires have been smaller, as the ignition points are closer to accessible areas for initial attack resources, thereby 

catching the ignitions when smaller, and thus having general lower cost. Over 70 percent of fires on the Forest are 

human caused, but account for only 38% of the acres each, whereas the lightning caused fires are only 30% of the 

ignitions, but account for 62% of the acres (a number which seems to be increasing if the past few years are any 

indicator of potential future events) (Table 3-111).

Many of the proposed OHV systems follow the ignition percentages, but within these proposed systems, the human 

caused fires do account for more of the acres affected by fire, as well as a higher ignition percentage in the human 

caused fires. The only location not showing the same trend is the Peavine proposed OHV system, which has a higher 

lightning caused occurrence than human. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 232

Table 3-111. Total of Forestwide lightning and human caused fires from 1980 to 2007.

Percentage of 

starts

Number of 

starts Total Acres Percent of total Acres

Forestwide Total Lightning Fires 30% 476 4952 62%

Forestwide Total Human Caused Fires 70% 1118 2979 38%

100% 1594 7932 100%

Average Starts/Yr. Average Acres/Yr.

Lightning Caused 17 177

Human Caused 40 106

Total Starts 57 283

Table 3-112. Total of ignition causes and acres for each OHV system from 1980 to 2007.

Peavine OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 42 161 74% 63%

Total Human Caused Fires 26 57 26% 38%

Total Fires 68 218

LaDee Flats OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 5 1 0.7% 11%

Total Human Caused Fires 42 120 99% 89%

Total Fires 47 121

Graham Pass OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 27 115 47% 46%

Total Human Caused Fires 32 131 53% 54%

Total Fires 59 246

McCubbins Gulch OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 4 0.4 2% 12%

Total Human Caused Fires 30 25 98% 88%

Total Fires 34 25

Rock Creek OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 28 8 7% 32%

Total Human Caused Fires 60 116 94% 68%

Total Fires 88 124

Gibson Prairie OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 2 0.30 1% 14%

Total Human Caused Fires 12 21 99% 86%

Total Fires 14 21

Bear Creek OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 15 2 18% 25%

Total Human Caused Fires 45 10 82% 75%

Total Fires 60 12

Mt. Defiance OHV System Acres % Acres % Cause

Total Lightning Fires 2 2 59% 20%

Total Human Caused Fires 8 1 41% 80%

Total Fires 10 3
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 233

3.10.2. Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action

Since it is difficult to accurately determine fire ignition locations and fire size for any given year, Alternative 1 would 

not increase or decrease fire starts, sizes, or potentials based on the historical fire data. Percentages for each area 

would not drastically change unless there was an increase or decrease of human use in a given area, or a change in 

local weather patterns occurred to increase or decrease lightning occurrence. Potential fire growth would remain 

the same, based on ignition location, access, available initial attack resources, and weather conditions. Weather and 

fuel conditions change yearly, but whether an ignition occurs or not depends entirely on an available ignition source 

(lightning or human), available fuel bed, fuel moistures low enough to support combustion, weather conditions 

conducive to sustaining an ignition, and other fire behavior factors dependent on location of any potential ignition 

(e.g., slope, aspect, elevation, and fuel type).

Action Alternatives

The effects of each of the proposed OHV systems are discussed below.

Peavine Proposed OHV System

The Peavine analysis area is not as heavily used for recreation as some of the other proposed OHV systems. However, 

decommissioning some of the roads (mainly near the south end of the Snive Creek area) could impact suppression 

response times, thereby increasing acres involved in a fire and a corresponding increase in suppression costs. Most 

of the other locations within the Peavine analysis area have roads or trails as mixed-use for OHVs of Class I, II, and 

III, which would allow some smaller suppression modules to access these roads and trails for suppression operations. 

Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or trails for access, but this would also increase suppression 

resource response, increasing fire size and cost of suppression.

Places such as LaDee Flats and McCubbins Gulch OHV systems show a higher human caused fire occurrence over 

the past 28 years, mostly in the smoking and campfire cause categories. Thus, fire starts could increase in the Peavine 

proposed OHV system, as a result of any increased camping dispersed and organized locations) associated with OHV 

use.

LaDee Flats Proposed OHV System

The LaDee Flats analysis area is heavily used by the public currently for a variety of activities, including OHV use. 

Human caused fires already account for almost 90% of the starts in the analysis area, so any increase would arise from 

potential increased dispersed camping.

With the exception of a few short spur roads that would be decommissioned, access for fire suppression operation 

would not be significantly hindered. Most of the areas in the proposed LaDee Flats OHV system have the roads or 

trails as mixed-use for OHVs of Class I, II, and III, which would allow some smaller suppression modules to access 

these roads and trails for suppression operations. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or trails for 

access, but this would also increase suppression resource response, increasing fire size and cost of suppression. The 

one area in the LaDee analysis area that is currently a concern and would be during suppression operations is the 

4610 Road along the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness. If an ignition began along this corridor, either lightning or 

human caused, the condition of the road would limit access by suppression resources. If OHVs (in this case Class II) 

are encountered during initial attack, this could increase suppression response time, increasing cost and acres lost to 

an ignition (See the project records for Size and Cost Comparisons for suppression operations and time to IA).

Graham Pass Proposed OHV System

Access into the Graham Pass proposed OHV system, per the map is fairly good, but many roads have been washed 

out or reclaimed by vegetation due to reduced road maintenance funding, as was discovered by fire suppression 

resources in 2008 when responding to lightning caused fires in the area. There would most likely be an increase in 

human caused ignitions from increased dispersed camping, trail use, and other recreational activities associated with 

designating this OHV system. Sizes of fires may not increase overall, due to the limited time of access and the higher 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 234

moisture content of the fuels in this location, but suppression resources would still have increased response time due 

to distance and road conditions in the proposed location. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or trails 

for access, but this would also increase suppression resource response, increasing fire size and cost of suppression.

McCubbins Gulch Proposed OHV System

As almost 90% of the fires within the analysis area are currently human caused, and most of those are related to either 

camping or smoking. A general increase of fire occurrence would occur related to any increased camping activities 

(and the associated human activities). Thirty human caused fires over 28 years is 1.07 human caused fires per year, for 

less than an acre per year of fire damage. With the exception of a one short spur road that would be decommissioned, 

access for fire suppression operations would not be significantly hindered (although the Camas Fire in 2005 did 

increase some in size, as the spur road into the fire had been blocked for wildlife purposes, and there was a two hour 

delay in lining and mop-up of the fire until a dozer could arrive and open the road for suppression resources). 

Many of the routes in the McCubbins Gulch OHV system have roads or trails proposed as mixed-use for OHVs 

of Class I, II, and III, which would allow some smaller suppression modules to access these roads and trails for 

suppression operations. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or trails for access, but this would also 

increase suppression resource response, increasing fire size and cost of suppression. The 240 spur road is a current 

access road through the middle of the McCubbins Gulch analysis area that is slated to be converted to a trail, which 

may slow response time, but there are other roads surrounding this area, so the impact to suppression operations 

would be minimal. Increased OHV use could also impact suppression operations on the mixed-use roads, especially 

during Initial Attack.

Rock Creek Proposed OHV System

The proposed OHV system would extend trails from the existing use area near Sportsman Park, upslope to the 4811 – 

4860 road systems, converting one existing spur road (the 4820-150 road and spurs) into a connecting trail. The Rock 

Creek OHV System has roads or trail as mixed-use for OHVs of Class I, II, and III, which would allow some smaller 

suppression modules to access these roads and trails for suppression operations. Heavy equipment could be ordered 

to open roads or trails for access, but this would also increase suppression resource response, increasing fire size and 

cost of suppression. Near some of the proposed conversion of roads to trails along the 4811 and 4812 road systems 

is the point of origin for the 1973 Rocky Burn. This is a human caused fire, started by equipment used in timber 

harvesting, which consumed 7500 acres, and threatened the community of Sportsman Park and Wamic. A large fire 

in this area is a concern, as prevailing westerly winds could move any fire start originating from the proposed OHV 

location towards the WUI, and limiting access or delaying initial attack response due to heavy equipment needs to 

open up access could increase this potential.

The proposed Rock Creek OHV system in Alternative 3 proposes to use the road into Badger Lake as part of the 

route (Forest Service Road 4860-140), but as this route is located fairly far away from the main proposed OHV routes, 

there most likely would not be a significant increase in human caused fires beyond what currently occurs from the 

camping at the lake now (accessible by motorized vehicles). Most human caused ignitions in any of the wilderness’ 

account for a small number of the overall acres from fires.

Gibson Prairie Proposed OHV System

Human caused fire starts would likely increase as use from OHVs increases (mainly from increased dispersed 

camping), but the percentage is currently fairly high compared to lightning caused fires, so the increase would not 

be significant. There is also a concern with a major wildfire threatening the Mill Creek area and the city of The 

Dalles. This type of fire occurred in 2002 (Sheldon Ridge Fire, 12,600 acres), which started by lightning northeast of 

the Gibson Prairie location on Oregon Department of Forestry protected lands and was wind driven in an easterly 

direction.

The Gibson Prairie analysis area has been used locally by OHVs, but not to the same extent that McCubbins Gulch, 

Rock Creek, or LaDee have been. The Gibson Prairie analysis area has a horse camp and the Surveyors Ridge trail 

runs along the western edge, and as such has a higher non-motorized use. The Gibson Prairie proposed OHV 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 235

system has roads or trails as mixed-use for OHVs of Class I, II, and III, which would allow some smaller suppression 

modules to access these roads and trails for suppression operations. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads 

or trails for access, but this would also increase suppression resource response, thereby increasing fire size and cost of 

suppression. 

Most the proposed routes are on existing roads and trails, or are in areas that are currently being treated through 

fuels reduction projects (such as the North Fork Mill Creek Restoration EA and The Dalles Watershed Fuel Break 

EA). One major area of concern would be the North Section Line trail along the northern boundary of The Dalles 

Watershed. Increased activity along this trail could increase the potential for a fire that could threaten the municipal 

watershed of the city of The Dalles. Currently, this area is being treated to create a fuel break, which does follow 

the North Section Line trail, which should reduce the potential for a fire start to increase rapidly and threaten the 

watershed significantly. Other trails and routes within the proposed North Fork Mill Restoration project area would 

have various fuels treatments applied that would also minimize the impacts for an ignition.

Bear Creek Proposed OHV System

There could be an anticipated increase in human caused fires, as this proposed location has the lowest human caused 

fire starts of all the OHV systems being analyzed. Part of this reduction of fire occurrence could be from a lack of 

direct access to the area, from the loss of the bridge across the Middle Fork of the Hood River in 2006, on Forest 

Service Road 16. With a return of access to the area, as well as an emphasis to use as a designated OHV system, an 

increase of 10% in human caused fires could occur (based on the other locations that have a higher recreational use, 

such as McCubbins and Rock Creek). This is about five fires over the same time frame (28 years). 

The proposed OHV system would create new trails for Class III OHVs only, with no road to trails conversions. In 

the proposed Bear Creek OHV system, most of the roads would remain, which would still allow heavier suppression 

units to access the area for suppression operations. The trails would require hand crews or OHVs to access for 

suppression operations, although many of the trails are currently in or have access through closed roads from 

harvest activities. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or trails for access, but this would also increase 

suppression resource response, increasing fire size and cost of suppression.

Mt. Defiance Proposed OHV System

There could be an anticipated increase in human caused fires, as access would increase to Forest lands from the 

adjacent county roads. The area has been previously harvested, so acreage from fires caused by humans and lightning 

should stay similar in size.

In the proposed Mt Defiance OHV system, most of the roads would remain, which would still allow heavier 

suppression units to access the area for suppression operations. Heavy equipment could be ordered to open roads or 

trails for access as needed, but this would also increase suppression resource response, thereby increasing fire size and 

cost of suppression. 

Summary of Effects for Action Alternatives 

Across the OHV systems proposed, some roads are converted to trails, while other roads are blocked off/

removed from the Forest Service road system. While many of these trails and roads can be opened/widened to 

allow suppression resources access to an area with an ignition, delays while this operation is occurring can limit 

suppression capabilities, increase fire size, which increases cost, and exposes firefighters to greater safety concerns 

(see Table 3-113 below for fire size to cost based on elapsed time of an established fire). Current initial attack response 

on the Forest depends on access for heavy engine modules (3-5 personnel, 500-1000 gallons of water), and efficient 

initial attack by these modules relies on the use of water in conjunction with direct attack methods. Without the use 

of water in the suppression efforts, the line production capability of initial attack units is reduced.

Many of the proposed OHV systems already have a high human caused fire percentage due to their current uses for 

recreation, OHVs, hunting, camping, and other outdoor activities. The proposed Peavine system is in an area that has 

a higher lightning caused fire percentage than human. In this location, there would likely be an increase in human 

caused fires over time, as dispersed camping increases with use of the proposed system. As campfires are the leading 

cause of human ignitions across the Forest, followed by smoking, and the miscellaneous categories, this would be 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 236

a direction that fire occurrence would move towards (an increase of human caused ignitions), for all locations, 

as there would be an associated increase in the potential for more ignitions in these categories. As these types of 

ignitions tend to be in areas that are generally accessible for initial attack resources (e.g., campgrounds and dispersed 

campsites), it is likely that larger fires would still result from lightning caused ignitions.

Table 3-113. Suppression costs based on fire behavior and size of IA fires (through the 

first four hours).

Station 

Name

(Number)

Redbox 

(350718)

Wanderer’s 

Peak

(350726)

Blue Ridge

(350811)

Wamic Mill

(350913)

Wamic Mill 

(350913)

Pollywog

(350912)

OHV 

System

Peavine and 

Graham Pass LaDee Flats Bear Creek and Mt. Defiance

McCubbins 

Gulch and Rock 

Creek

McCubbins 

Gulch and Rock 

Creek

Gibson Prairie

Percentile 

Range 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th 90th 97th

Size in Acres; Cost in Dollars

Size - 1 hr 1.6 2.5 1.5 4.7 6.5 12.0 5.3 10.8 3.6 8.4 3.1 5.9

Cost 4,818 7,528 4,517 14,152 19,572 38,040 15,958 34,236 10,840 25,292 9,334 17,765

Size - 2 hrs 6.3 10.0 5.9 18.7 26.1 48.0 21.2 43.2 14.1 33.5 12.4 23.4

Cost 18,969 31,700 17,765 59,279 82,737 152,160 67,204 136,944 44,697 106,195 39,308 74,178

Size - 3 hrs 14.3 22.5 13.3 42.0 58.8 108.0 47.7 97.2 31.6 75.3 27.9 52.7

Cost 45,331 71,325 42,161 133,140 186,396 545,292 151,209 308,124 100,172 238,701 88,443 167,059

Size – 4 hrs 25.4 40.0 23.6 74.4 104.5 192.0 84.7 172.7 56.3 133.9 49.7 93.6

Cost 80,518 126,800 74,812 235,848 527,621 969,408 268,499 871,962 178,471 676,061 157,549 296,712

Fuel Model, 

NFFL 10 10 10 10 9 10

Note:

Costs are based on the average cost, per 2008 data, on the fire size class of a given fire. Costs for fires in difficult to reach 

locations generally have higher costs than those easily accessible by Initial Attack resources. Suppression costs assume 

that a fire is contained at the end of the four hours or earlier. Longer fire growth times would incur a much larger cost to 

attain a final suppression strategy.

3.10.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

As noted above, the current fire start/cause database does not include a specific category for human caused fires 

where ignition occurs specifically from an OHV.

3.11. Transportation and Safety

This analysis is based on the information found in the Transportation and Mixed-Use Analysis Reports for this 

project, which is in the project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.11.1. Existing Condition

The total miles of roads on the Mt. Hood National Forest peaked between 1988 and 1991 with approximately 3,850 

miles. Forest roads were primarily constructed to access timber production lands and were paid for largely through 

timber sale receipts. Road maintenance was funded largely by timber sales and congressional appropriations. 

However, since 1990, timber harvest has declined, which drastically has reduced road maintenance accomplished by 

timber purchasers and the deposits they made for road maintenance. In order to respond to the Forest’s deteriorating 

transportation system, a special emphasis program for road decommissioning began in the 1990s, which reduced the 

total miles to the current inventory of 3,383 miles. Currently, Oregon State Law allows OHVs to travel on single-lane, 

gravel and native-surfaced roads, which is approximately 2,463 miles of roads on the Forest. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 237

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance is defined as the upkeep of the entire forest transportation facility including surface and shoulders 

parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devises as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization. 

Road maintenance excludes activities that would increase its capacity or upgrading it to serve a different purpose 

from originally intended. Maintenance includes work needed to meet laws, regulations, codes and other legal policies 

as long as the original intent or purpose of the road is not changed. A road is considered to be fully maintained when 

the maintenance activities are completed that leaves the road in a condition that meets the criteria as stated by its 

Road Management Objectives (RMO).

All Forest system roads are assigned maintenance levels, which describe in general terms the type of traffic that 

uses each road and the level of maintenance intended for the road. Maintenance levels 1 through 5 are defined in 

the Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 chapter 62 (Transportation System Maintenance). Road maintenance costs 

associated with roads are grouped into four cost categories: 

1. Surfacing costs: All costs associated with repairing the road surface; 

2. Road prism costs: All costs associated with repairing damage such as slides, slumps and shoulder cracking; 

3. Safety costs: Items such as sign repair, brushing, improving turnouts and road widening. 

4. Drainage costs: Items such as repairing or adding culverts, cleaning plugged culverts and cleaning 

plugged ditches. 

These four categories help determine the type of maintenance needed for a specific road identified for maintenance. 

There are different costs involved in each category; one or all four categories may be used on any specific road 

identified for maintenance needs. The cost that should be performed on maintenance level 1 and 2 roads on the 

Forest is approximately $1,231,500 annually and the Forest only receives a portion of that amount each year for 

road maintenance. There is a cost to maintain closure devises on level 1 roads when the closure devise has been 

compromised. Currently, the average cost of brushing (opening the site distance of a road prism by trimming back 

the vegetation) roads is $1,000 per mile.

The OHV project may aid the Forest’s Roads and Engineering Department in decreasing the amount of miles of level 

1 and 2 Forest Service roads needing maintenance by converting the proposed roads to OHV trails. These roads 

would no longer be managed as level 1 and 2 roads. After the roads are converted to trail, they would be removed 

from the roads inventory and become the Recreation Department’s trail to manage for maintenance and safety. This 

would lower the total miles of level 1 and 2 roads Forestwide that are in need of maintenance, one of the management 

objectives stated in the Forest Plan. This plan includes all the standards and guidelines the Roads and Engineering 

Department uses to direct the management of the Forest’s transportation system within the Forest.

The eight locations proposed for this project were chosen because of their current attraction to OHV users. The 

proposed OHV locations have suffered road damage to the prism of the road, which includes the ditches, fill slopes 

and intersections of roads, due to OHV use. The current amount of funding the Roads and Engineering Department 

receives for repairing this type of damage is usually used on higher service level roads, such as maintenance level 3, 

4, 5 roads (these roads are maintained for two wheel drive, lower clearance vehicles). Funding is available for OHV 

repair if there are proposed OHV roads or areas established. The Forest Service would be able to maintain OHV 

damage more effectively once the OHV systems are established and the funding has become available to do so. Some 

of these funding sources could come from the State and County. 

Road Management

The objective of managing the Forest’s transportation system, as highlighted in the Mt. Hood Road Analysis (US 

Forest Service 2003), is to provide user safety, convenience, and efficiency of operations in an environmentally 

responsible manner and to achieve road related ecosystem restoration with the limits of current or likely funding 

levels. Responsible officials have been directed to use a roads analysis process to ensure that road management 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 238

decisions are based on identification and consideration of social and ecological effects (Forest Service Manual 7700). 

Therefore, the forest-wide Mt. Hood Roads Analysis addressed both the access benefits and ecological costs of roadassociated effects, gave priority to reconstructing and maintaining needed roads and decommissioning unneeded 

roads, or, where appropriate, converting them to less costly and more environmentally beneficial other uses. 

The Mt. Hood Roads Analysis assessed the arterial, collector and local routes that were part of the Forest 

transportation system at that time. The analysis did not analyze unauthorized roads. The arterial and collector roads 

were, for the most part, maintenance level 3, 4 and 5 roads. A list of decision roads was formed from this analysis 

most being maintenance level 1-2 roads. Decision roads are roads decided upon by forest leadership team and Forest 

Supervisor on their purpose and need on the Forest in the future. If the roads were not seen as needed, then they 

were put on the decision road list. For this OHV project, the level 1-2 roads chosen to become OHV trails were 

checked with the list of decision roads and 97% of them were on the decision list. These roads listed on the decision 

list also aides the Roads and Engineering Department in decreasing the amount of miles of roads Forestwide. Roads 

that were not identified on the roads decision list have been assessed as a “motorize mixed use” road. 

Mixed-Use Analysis

The Oregon Vehicle Code (OVC) defines a “highway” as “every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, 

including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use 

of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right” (OVC 801.305). The state term “highway” 

does not apply to Forest Service maintenance level 1 and 2 roads, nor does it apply to motorized trails. Under the 

OVC, un-licensed and unregistered OHVs may not be operated on “highways”. The Forest Service can pre-empt 

state law if it is found that the maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 road is designed and constructed so as to permit the use by 

regular vehicular traffic along with the operation of OHVs on that road. The process the Forest Service uses to make 

the determination that regular vehicular traffic and OHVs can be operated on the same road is called “Mixed Use 

Analysis”.

The process the Forest Service uses to make the determination that regular vehicular traffic and OHVs can be 

operated on the same road is called “Mixed-Use Analysis”. Motorized 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 (FSM 

Engineering 7700-30). The policy for the Forest Service is to conduct a motorized “Mixed-use Analysis” on all 

maintenance level 2 roads as well as any maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 road where mixed-use is proposed. All roads 

proposed for mixed-use in this project were reviewed in the field and have a report. 

Designating NFS roads for motorized mixed-use involves safety and engineering considerations. A qualified 

engineer6

 determines how detailed the analysis is to be and may choose to do an evaluation based on factors in the 

Forest Service Manual (Engineering) 7700-30, or other factors. The qualified engineer determines the factors to 

be considered for the specific road, road segment, or road system being analyzed in consultation with recreation 

managers or others familiar with operation of non-highway legal vehicles and with travel management cooperators. 

The level of analysis is based on personal knowledge, expertise, and experience. 

Based on the analysis conducted, the qualified engineer identifies risks and prepares recommendations for the 

appropriate responsible official. The recommendations may include mitigation measures that would reduce the risk 

associated with designating the road for motorized mixed-use. A summary of the probability and severity of crashes 

for each road or road segment proposed for mixed-use under the proposed alternatives is presented below. Please 

refer to the Mixed-Use Analysis Report found in the project file at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon 

for the entire report. 

6 A “qualified engineer” is defined as “An engineer who by experience, certification, education, or license is technically trained and experienced to perform 

the engineering tasks specified and is designated by the Director of Engineering, Regional Office” (FSM 7705)).
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 239

3.11.2. Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action

With Alternative 1, road maintenance costs would continue to cost $1,231,500 to maintain all level 1 and 2 roads. 

Also, these roads would continue to receive limited funding and therefore, maintenance needs may not be adequately 

met. 

With the exception of the existing OHV use in McCubbins Gulch, there are no signs alerting all operators of OHV 

use on a road. Currently, there are no signs to share available road width, especially on curves. Although the entire 

road system was not reviewed in the field, given the current amount of use by full-sized and OHV vehicles, the sight 

distance on the roads, the speeds which all vehicles are operated, and the behavior of many operators across the entire 

road system, it is estimated that there is a moderate to high probability of crashes. The speeds at which all vehicles are 

operated indicate moderate to high severity of crashes.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

With this alternative, approximately 48 miles of NFS roads would be converted to OHV trails and subsequently 

removed from the NFS roads inventory7. This would decrease the road mileage for level 1 and 2 roads from 2,463 

miles to 2,415 miles, which is approximately 1% of the Forest’s total mileage. Maintenance costs on level 1 and level 2 

roads would also decrease by $24,000 annually. 

With Alternative 2, approximately 4.6 miles of maintenance level 1 roads would be reopened and converted to 

maintenance level 2 OHV mixed use roads. This would cost the Engineering Department approximately $8,611 to 

reopen and convert the road prism to the standards of a level 2 mixed-use OHV road. Due to the conversion of 7.1 

miles of level 1 roads to OHV trails, there would still be 2.5 miles of level 1 roads removed from Engineering’s road 

logs and database resulting in less level 1 roads to maintain. Under this alternative, the brushing maintenance of the 

road prism on mixed-use portions of OHV roads would cost approximately $72,150 annually (traditionally brushing 

of NFS roads occurs on a three to five year rotation and does not occur on all maintenance level 2 roads). Currently, 

level 1 roads do not receive brushing maintenance because they are considered in ‘storage” (i.e., closed for use). Due 

to public safety, brushing may need to occur on a shorter rotation cycle on mixed-use portions of proposed OHV 

roads. 

Under Alternative 2, 13 miles of Forest roads are proposed to be decommissioned, which would reduce the overall 

maintenance costs for the Forest’s transportation system. 

Timber sale areas may coincide within proposed OHV roads. The Forest would restrict OHV access and/or 

commercial use on mixed-use routes to reduce risks during commercial haul, or special events.

Any staging areas that are proposed within quarries have been field verified and confirmed to exist on previously 

disturb soils and not impose upon the administrative use of the quarries proposed. Measures would be taken to 

prevent mixing administrative road use with OHV use at the same time in any proposed quarries staging areas.

Alternative 2 has approximately 72.7 miles proposed for mixed-use (see Table 3-114). Estimated probability and 

severity of crashes without PDC range from low to high. Estimated probability and severity of crashes with PDC 

range from low to medium.

7 The roads converted to trails would now become part of the Forest’s recreational trail system.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 240

Table 3-114. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 2.

OHV System Miles of Mixed-Use

Bear Creek 0.0

Gibson Prairie 5.4

Graham Pass 0.0

LaDee Flats 26.3

McCubbins Gulch 8.7

Mt. Defiance 0.0

Peavine 15.8

Rock Creek 16.5

Total 72.7

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 approximately 93.8 miles of NFS roads would be converted to OHV trail, and subsequently 

removed from the NFS roads inventory. This would decrease the road mileage of level 1 and 2 roads from 2,463 miles 

to 2,369 miles, which is approximately 1.03% of the Forest’s total mileage. Maintenance costs on level 1 and level 2 

roads would also decrease by $47,000 annually. 

Under this alternative the brushing maintenance of the road prism on mixed-use portions of roads would cost 

approximately $74,700 annually (traditionally brushing of NFS roads occurs on a three to five year rotation and does 

not occur on all maintenance level 2 roads). Currently, level 1 roads do not receive brushing maintenance since they 

are considered in ‘storage’. Due to public safety, brushing may need to occur on a shorter rotation cycle on mixed-use 

portions of proposed OHV roads. 

Under Alternative 3, 35 miles of Forest roads are proposed to be decommissioned, which would reduce the overall 

maintenance costs for the Forest’s transportation system.

There is no significant change to the maintenance level of mixed-use roads proposed in this alternative; therefore, 

there are no changes to the maintenance costs compared to the existing situation.

Timber sale areas may coincide within proposed OHV roads. The Forest would restrict OHV access and/or 

commercial use on mixed-use routes to reduce risks during commercial haul, or special events.

Any staging areas that are proposed within quarries have been field verified and confirmed to exist on previously 

disturb soils and not impose upon the administrative use of the quarries proposed. Measures would be taken to 

prevent mixing administrative road use with OHV use at the same time in any proposed quarries staging areas.

Alternative 3 has approximately133 miles proposed for mixed-use (see Table 3-115). Estimated probability and 

severity of crashes without PDC range from low to high. Estimated probability and severity of crashes with PDC 

range from low to medium.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 241

Table 3-115. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 3.

OHV System Miles of Mixed-Use

Bear Creek 7.6

Gibson Prairie 4.1

Graham Pass 53.5

LaDee Flats 18.4

McCubbins Gulch 3.2

Mt. Defiance 6.0

Peavine 11.7

Rock Creek 28.4

Total 132.9

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4 approximately 33.3 miles of NFS roads would be converted to OHV trail, and subsequently 

removed from the NFS roads inventory. This would decrease the road mileage of level 1 and 2 roads from 2,463 miles 

to 2,430 miles, which is approximately 1% of the Forest’s total mileage. Maintenance costs on level 1 and level 2 roads 

would also decrease by $16,500 annually. Under this alternative the brushing maintenance of the road prism on 

mixed-use portions of routes would cost approximately $26,060 annually (traditionally brushing of NFS occurs on a 

three to five year rotation and does not occur on all maintenance level 2 roads). Currently, level 1 roads do not receive 

brushing maintenance since they are considered in ‘storage’. Due to public safety, brushing may need to occur on a 

shorter rotation cycle on mixed-use portions of proposed OHV roads.

Under Alternative 4, 12 miles of NFS roads are proposed to be decommissioned, which would reduce the overall 

maintenance costs for the Forest’s transportation system. 

There is no significant change to the maintenance level of mixed-use roads proposed in this alternative; therefore, 

there are no changes to the maintenance costs compared to the existing situation.

Timber sale areas may coincide within proposed OHV roads. The Forest would restrict OHV access and/or 

commercial use on mixed-use routes to reduce risks during commercial haul, or special events.

Any staging areas that are proposed within quarries have been field verified and confirmed to exist on previously 

disturb soils and not impose upon the administrative use of the quarries proposed. Measures would be taken to 

prevent mixing administrative road use with OHV use at the same time in any proposed quarries designated as 

staging areas. 

Alternative 4 has approximately 26.9 miles proposed for mixed-use (see Table 3-116). Estimated probability and 

severity of crashes without PDC range from low to high. Estimated probability and severity of crashed with PDC 

range from low to medium.

Table 3-116. Miles of mixed-use by proposed OHV system for Alternative 4.

OHV System Miles of Mixed-Use

Bear Creek 0.0

Gibson Prairie 0.0

Graham Pass 0.0

LaDee Flats 9.5

McCubbins Gulch 0.0

Mt. Defiance 0.0

Peavine 0.0

Rock Creek 17.4

Total 26.9
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 242

Summary

Table 3-117 summarizes the miles of roads to be converted as an OHV trail by alternative. These roads would no 

longer be managed as part of the Forest’s transportation system, and therefore, would no longer require “road 

maintenance”.

Table 3-117. Miles of road to be converted to OHV trail by alternative.

ML 1 ML 2

Alternative 1 0.0 0.0

Alternative 2 4.56 43.44

Alternative 3 31.27 62.43

Alternative 4 11.67 21.59

The following table compares the total costs on a routine basis (approximately five year rotations) to maintain 

level 1 and level 2 roads for each alternative. For level 1 and 2 roads, maintenance costs are greatest in Alternative 

1 (No Action) and least in Alternative 3. Table 3-118 displays the costs associated with each alternative for both 

maintenance level 1 and 2 roads.

Table 3-118. Total costs to maintain ML 1 and 2 roads by alternative.

Alternative Total Miles Open Total Cost

Alternative 1 2,463 $1,231,500

Alternative 2 2,415 $1,207,500

Alternative 3 2,369 $1,184,500

Alternative 4 2,430 $1,215,000

The following table compares the total miles of mixed-use proposed by alternative. Using the number of miles of 

road open to mixed-use as an overall indicator of probability of crashes to compare alternatives, Alternative 1 has the 

highest probability of crashes. Alternatives 3 and 2 follow, and Alternative 4 has the least probability of crashes.

Table 3-119. Total miles of mixed-use proposed by alternative.

Alternative Miles of Mixed-Use

1 2,463

2 73

3 130

4 26

Alternative 1 does not include special signing to advise operators of all vehicles that there may be mixed-use on the 

road. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include PDC which are designed to reduce crash probability and severity.

Alternative 1 has the highest potential severity because there would be no brushing in specific areas other than 

the normal brushing cycle. Most maintenance level 2 roads would only be brushed when there is timber haul. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have specific routes that may receive concentrated maintenance. The potential for high severity 

is most influenced by speed and operator behavior, and therefore can occur on any road open to mixed use.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 243

3.11.3. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Road mileage and costs per mile data was gathered via the Forest Service I-Web database. The most updated 

information on road miles and costs within the database is September 2007. Maintenance costs may have increased 

and road mileages per service level may have change slightly. GIS data on road mileage may vary with I-Web 

information due to the process of collecting mileage through the creation of the GIS roads database file.

3.12. Air Quality and Climate Change

This analysis is based on the information found in the Air Quality Report for this project, which is in the project 

record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.12.1. Affected Environment – Air Quality

Fugitive dust (mostly composed of small soil particles) created by OHV traffic has the potential to contribute to air 

quality problems. Forman and others (2003) found that fugitive dust suspended in the air may impact more total area 

than any other impact from roads. Dust is created as OHVs disturb soil crusts and generate wind currents. Once soil 

surfaces are disturbed, wind erosion may increase the amount of material in the air (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). 

Additionally, emissions from OHVs, particularly two-stroke engines (engines that use a gas and oil mixture in 

the combustion chamber), can also contribute to decreased air quality. This is because two-stroke engines do not 

completely burn fuels resulting in increased emissions containing nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

carbon monoxide (NO), and ozone (O3). Research has shown that a small two-stroke engine (e.g., a chainsaw, which 

is considerably smaller than a standard two-stroke OHV engine) running for two hours emits the same amount of 

hydrocarbons as driving 10 fuel-efficient cars for 250 miles each (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sm_en_

fs.pdf). Pollutants emitted from exhaust can create a variety of impacts on vegetation.

In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for pollutants including lead 

(Pb), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Total Suspended Particulates 

(TSP), and particulates with aerodynamic diameters of less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5). State and federal air quality standards are shown in Table 3-122. Primary standards are designed to protect 

human health with a margin of safety while secondary standards are established to protect the public welfare from 

any known or anticipated adverse effects such as soiling, corrosion, or damage to vegetation. 

Table 3-120. State and Federal air quality standards.

Pollutant Federal Standards Oregon Standards Primary Secondary

Total Suspended Particulates

Annual Geometric Meana no standard no standard no standard

24-hour Average no standard no standard no standard

Lead (Pb) 

Quarterly Average 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Particulates 

PM10 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3

24-hour Average 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM2.5 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

24-hour Average 65 μg/m3 65 μg/m3 65 μg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Annual Average 0.03 ppm no standard 0.02 ppm
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 244

Pollutant Federal Standards Oregon Standards Primary Secondary

24-hour Average 0.14 ppm no standard 0.10 ppm

3-hour Average no standard 0.50 ppm 0.50 ppm

1-hour Average no standard no standard no standard

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

8-hour Average 35ppm 35ppm 35 ppm

1-hour Average 9ppm 9ppm 9 ppm

Ozone (O3) 

1-hour Averageb 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm

8-hour Average 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

Annual Average 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm

Source: ODEQ, 2002. 

Notes: Primary standards are listed in this table as they appear in the federal regulations; ambient concentrations are rounded using the next 

higher decimal place to determine whether a standard has been exceeded. The data in this report are shown with these unrounded numbers. 

 aAnnual standards never to be exceeded, short-term standards not to be exceeded more than once per year unless noted.

 bNot to be exceeded on more than 1.0 days per calendar year. ppm = parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 

The EPA retains oversight authority, but has delegated enforcement to the states. In this case, the State of Oregon is 

required to develop and administer air pollution prevention and control programs. In Oregon, the state has adopted 

most of the federal ambient air quality standards as reflected in the CAA. 

The Mt. Hood Wilderness is designated as a Class I Area under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977. National 

wilderness areas, national parks, and national wildlife refuges in existence at the time the amendment was passed 

are classified as Class I. This class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of 

additional human derived air pollution which can be added to these areas. All other areas are designated as Class 

II. Class II airsheds allow a greater amount of human derived air pollution added to the area compared to Class I 

airsheds.

Air quality monitoring is currently being conducted on the Mt. Hood National Forest and adjacent areas by the 

Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The Forest Service maintains an 

air quality station on Mt. Hood to monitor ozone and particulates and a station at Wishram, Washington which 

monitors visibility of Mt. Hood and adjacent areas. ODEQ also maintains an air quality monitoring site at the top of 

the Mt. Hood Ski Bowl chairlift on Multorpor Mountain. The purpose of the three stations is to monitor visibility in 

the Mt. Hood Wilderness’ Class I airshed. In general, visibility is good, with most impairment in the “perceptible” 

category. In the nine years of available data (1994 through 2002), the Mt. Hood Wilderness visibility typically has 

been better than at Crater Lake National Park and comparable to the central Cascades area—the two other visibility 

impairment monitoring sites in Oregon (ODEQ, 2002). 

3.12.2. Effects Analysis – Air Quality

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, both the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards would continue to be met. No 

changes to current use patterns are expected so this would not result in any changes to the current air quality 

situation. 

Table 3-120. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 245

Cumulative Effects

OHV use overlaps in space and time with other activities on the Forest. The primary potential cumulative effect 

would be mixing of fugitive dust on existing road systems with other vehicles and equipment. This is expected to be a 

fairly infrequent event and very localized in nature.

The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative air quality effects for Alternative 1. It shows 

existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with this OHV 

project, whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is 

expected. 

Table 3-121. Potential air quality cumulative effects for Alternative 1.

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Forest Service Vegetation 

Treatment Activities Planned or 

Underway (The Dalles Watershed 

Fuelbreak, North Fork Mill 

Restoration Project, Sportsman’s 

Park Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 

No Whisky Plantation Thinning, 

Upper Clackamas Plantation 

Thinning, Cascade Crest Fuel 

Break Project, Pre-commercial 

treatments)

Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of 

mixing with dust and emissions from 

equipment associated with vegetation 

treatments. The most likely effect 

is mixing of dust on existing road 

systems from equipment using these 

roads. The cumulative effect is not 

expected to be measurable. 

Ongoing road and trail 

maintenance Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of 

mixing with dust and emissions 

from road maintenance equipment. 

The most likely effect is mixing of 

dust on existing road systems. The 

cumulative effect is not expected to 

be measurable.

Clackamas Road 

Decommissioning Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of 

mixing with dust and emissions from 

road decommissioning equipment. 

The most likely effect is mixing of 

dust on existing road systems. The 

cumulative effect is not expected to 

be measurable.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under all action alternatives, short-term impacts to air quality would occur during construction. Impacts include 

fugitive dust, construction vehicle exhaust, and emissions from slash burning. Slash would be piled and then burned 

according to Oregon Smoke Management Plan Standards. These impacts would only occur during construction of 

the proposed project. No exceedences of Federal or State AAQS are expected from the operation of construction 

vehicles (including exhaust and fugitive dust generation) or slash burning due to compliance with state requirements 

and PDC. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 246

OHV use can also create fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions. Effects from dust and emissions are expected 

to be very small, localized and immeasureable at larger scales. This is due to a number of factors including the use of 

cleaner gasoline (lead-free), new EPA emission standards for OHVs and moderate expected use levels. On November 

8, 2002, EPA issued new emission standards for recreational vehicles beginning in model year 2006. These regulations 

will result in cleaner emissions from new OHVs which will improve air quality through time. http://www.epa.gov/

otaq/recveh.htm#regulations.

 

Cumulative Effects

OHV use overlaps in space and time with other activities on the Forest. The primary potential cumulative effect 

would be mixing of fugitive dust on existing road systems with other vehicles and equipment. This is expected to be a 

fairly infrequent event and very localized in nature.

The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative air quality effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4. It shows existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with this 

OHV project, whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is 

expected. 

Table 3-122. Potential air quality cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.

Project Potential

Effects

Overlap in Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Time Space Detectable?

Forest Service Vegetation 

Treatment Activities Planned or 

Underway (The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak, North Fork Mill 

Restoration Project, Sportsman’s 

Park Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 

No Whisky Plantation Thinning, 

Upper Clackamas Plantation 

Thinning, Cascade Crest Fuel 

Break Project, Pre-commercial 

treatments)

Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of mixing 

with dust and emissions from equipment associated with vegetation 

treatments. The most likely effect 

is mixing of dust on existing road 

systems from equipment using these 

roads. The cumulative effect is not 

expected to be measurable.

Ongoing road and trail maintenance Air Quality Yes Yes Not Measurable

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of mixing 

with dust and emissions from road 

maintenance equipment. The most 

likely effect is mixing of dust on existing road systems. The cumulative effect is not expected to be measurable.

Clackamas Road Decommissioning Air Quality Yes Yes No

Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

from OHV use have a chance of mixing 

with dust and emissions from road 

decommissioning equipment. The 

most likely effect is mixing of dust on 

existing road systems. The cumulative 

effect is not expected to be measurable.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 247

3.12.3. Background – Climate Change

On January 13, 2009, the Washington Office of the Forest Service released guidance to Forest Service units regarding 

the incorporation of climate change science into project-level NEPA documents. This guidance document provides 

that units should consider two kinds of climate change effects. First, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect 

of a proposed project on climate change. Second, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect of climate change 

on a proposed project. This latter category may include the effect of changed snowfall regimes on special use permit 

issuance for ski areas or the effect of rainfall changes on reforestation following a timber sale. Because potential 

changes in climate will have no effect on the designation of motorized routes, this second category of effects will not 

be considered further.

3.12.4. Effect of OHV Route Designation on Climate Change Effects Analysis

Agency direction defines the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) as the direct climate change effect of a project. 

Further, the interaction of emissions with atmospheric concentrations of GHG such that they impact the climate is 

defined as the potential indirect climate change effect. 

Under this definition, there would be no direct effect associated with any of the OHV action alternatives. The action 

alternatives do not authorize the emission of GHG; the action alternatives do not limit the emission of GHG; and, 

the action alternatives are unlikely to change the emission of GHG as compared to the no action alternative. In short, 

GHG emissions from OHV use on the Forest are not directly affected by the designation of routes.

On the other hand, route designation may have a slight beneficial effect on climate change by restricting OHVs to 

designated routes and protecting forest resources from damaging traffic. Forest Service direction on climate change 

consideration notes, “[i]t is possible, and in some projects likely, that proposals may meet the Agency’s mission 

while also enhancing the resilience or adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate change. For 

example, projects designed to restore the health, resilience, and productivity of forested ecosystems may also improve 

the capability of the stands or landscape to withstand climate change stresses” (USDA 2009). While this project is 

not specifically designed to reduce the emission of GHG, it may have a slight benefit associated with enhancing the 

resilience and productivity of forested ecosystems.

Regarding indirect effects, Agency direction states, “[b]ecause greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of 

greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple 

sources (projects). Also, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change 

effects based on individual projects” (USDA 2009). Again, designating OHV routes on the Forest would not have a 

measurable indirect effect as compared with the no action alternative. 

Because the designation of motorized routes has no quantifiable direct or indirect effect on climate change, it cannot 

have a cumulative effect.

3.12.5. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Total current OHV use is not complete and well documented. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 248

3.13. Congressionally Designated Areas

3.13.1. Existing Condition

Congressionally Designated Areas

When the Forest Plan was approved, there were five rivers in the Forest (encompassing 36,096 acres) that are part 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Clackamas, Roaring, Salmon, Sandy and White Rivers. The 1968 Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act calls for maintaining the free-flowing character of the designated rivers and protecting their 

“outstandingly remarkable values.” Outstandingly remarkable values are values or opportunities in a river corridor 

that are directly related to the river and which are rare, unique or exemplary from a regional or national perspective. 

Detailed descriptions of the rivers and their outstandingly remarkable values are documented in river management 

plans posted on the Forest website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/publications/).

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) added 81 miles to the Wild and Scenic 

River System, including portions of the South Fork Clackamas River, Eagle Creek, Middle Fork Hood River, South 

Fork Roaring River, Zigzag River, Fifteenmile Creek, East Fork Hood River, Collawash River and Fish Creek. The 

legal descriptions and acreage for each of these rivers that will be managed as part of the System have not yet been 

determined.

There are seven wilderness areas that are entirely within the Forest (Badger Creek, Bull of the Woods, Clackamas, 

Mark O. Hatfield, Mt. Hood, Roaring River, and Salmon-Huckleberry) and portions of two other wilderness area 

within the administrative boundary of the Forest (Lower White River and Mt. Jefferson). Although the entire Mark 

O. Hatfield Wilderness is within the proclaimed boundary of the Forest, the portion that is administered by the 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is not considered in this analysis. Table 3-123 shows the number of 

acres of each of the wilderness areas that are administered by the Forest. Since trails are the primary travel-way in 

wilderness, and a point of possible user conflict, the miles of trail (in the Forest) for each wilderness are also listed.

The 1964 Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness Preservation System to ensure that parts of the United 

States would be preserved and protected in their natural condition. A wilderness area is defined, in part, as an 

area that generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable. The Wilderness Act places responsibility upon the administering agency for preserving 

the wilderness character of the area. The Act specifically prohibits motor vehicles, motorized equipment and 

mechanical transport in all wilderness areas (Public Law 88-577, Sec. 4 (c) Prohibitions of Certain Uses).

The Mt. Hood and Mt. Jefferson Wildernesses was designated with the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act. The 

Badger Creek, Bull of the Woods, Mark O. Hatfield and Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness areas were designated with 

the passage of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-328). The Omnibus Public Land Management Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) created the Clackamas, Lower White River and Roaring River Wilderness areas, and 

it enlarged the Badger Creek, Bull of the Woods, Mark O. Hatfield, Mt. Hood and Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness 

areas. Both the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 preclude the 

management of lands adjacent to wilderness areas in the State of Oregon as buffer zone. Section 6 of the 1984 Act 

states:

“Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Oregon lead to the creation of 

protective perimeters or buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that non-wilderness activities or 

uses can be seen or heard from the areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or 

uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 249

Table 3-123. Land area and miles of trail in the nine wilderness areas that are entirely 

or partially in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Miles of trail are those that are within the 

boundaries of the wilderness in the Forest. Note: The entire Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness 

is within the proclaimed boundary of the Mt. Hood National Forest; however the portion 

of the wilderness managed by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is not 

considered in this analysis (and is not shown in this table). 

Wilderness Total Acres Forest Acres Miles of Trail

Badger Creek 28,140 28,140 64

Bull of the Woods 37,607 37,607 58

Clackamas 9,470 9,470 6

Lower White River 2,870 1,750 0

Mark O. Hatfield 64,960 39,000 90

Mt. Hood 65,610 65,610 138

Mt. Jefferson 107,008 5,021 3

Roaring River 36,550 36,550 35

Salmon-Huckleberry 61,220 61,220 74

Total 289,195 187,208 468

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) possess social and ecological values and characteristics that are becoming scarce 

in our nation’s increasingly developed landscape. Protecting air and water quality, biodiversity and opportunities for 

personal renewal are highly valued qualities of roadless areas. Conserving IRAs leaves a legacy of natural areas for 

future generations.

The Forest Plan directs the Forest to maintain the roadless character of approximately 52,170 acres of IRAs described 

as the Bull of the Woods, Lake, Mt. Hood Additions, Olallie, Roaring River, Salmon-Huckleberry, Twin Lakes, 

and Wind Creek areas. None of the Badger Creek IRA is included in the Forest Plan for long-term management as 

a roadless area (US Forest Service, FEIS, Appendix p. C-6). The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111-11) designated 124,240 acres as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and identified 

an additional 900 acres as potential wilderness with a process to become part of the system. Not all of the IRAs 

identified in the Forest Plan were designated as wilderness in 2009. Roughly 11,160 acres outside of wilderness will 

continue to be managed for their roadless character. Most of this acreage is in the Olallie Scenic Area. 

3.13.2. Effects Analysis

Congressionally Designated Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas

None of the proposed OHV routes in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are within designated wilderness areas or inventoried 

roadless areas. Approximately 0.4 miles of existing trail in the McCubbins Gulch OHV system are in Segment C 

(Scenic) of the White Wild and Scenic River. This trail segment is included in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Several routes coincide with boundaries of wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and inventoried roadless 

areas (Table 3-124). In Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, approximately 17.7, 25.3 and 1.0 miles of proposed OHV routes, 

respectively, coincide with a specially designated area boundary. 

The potential effect of OHV noise on non-motorized trails and wilderness areas is described in the “Noise Effects” 

section. Topography and vegetation would inhibit OHV trespass into the specially designated areas along most (but 

not all) of these routes.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 250

Table 3-124. Miles of proposed OHV route by alternative and proposed system that coincide with 

the boundary of a congressionally designated area or inventoried roadless area in the Mt. Hood 

National Forest. Route miles were estimated with a map measure.

Alternative Proposed OHV 

System Route Identifier

Area Name: Wilderness (W),

Wild & Scenic River (WSR),

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

Miles of Route Coincident with Area 

Boundary

2 Bear Creek New trail Mt. Hood (W) 2.2

2 LaDee Road 4610 Salmon-Huckleberry (W) 8.2*

2 LaDee Road 4610 Roaring River (W) 12.3*

2 LaDee Road 4610116 Clackamas (WSR) 0.5

2 McCubbins Road 2110260 Lower White River 0.5

2 Rock Creek Road 4812 Badger Creek (IRA) 1.2

2 Rock Creek Road 4860 Badger Creek (IRA) 0.2

2 Rock Creek Trail 475 Badger Creek (IRA) 0.5

2 Rock Creek New trail Badger Creek (IRA) 0.3

3 Bear Creek New trail Mt. Hood 2.2

3 LaDee Road 4610 Salmon-Huckleberry (W) 8.2*

3 LaDee Road 4610 Roaring River (W) 12.0*

3 LaDee Road 4610116 Clackamas (WSR) 0.5

3 McCubbins Road 2110260 Lower White River 0.5

3 McCubbins Road 2110270 Lower White River 0.3

3 Rock Creek Road 4860 Badger Creek (W) 1.2

3 Rock Creek Road 4860160 Badger Creek (W) 5.8

3 Rock Creek Road 4812 Badger Creek (IRA) 1.2

3 Rock Creek Road 4860 Badger Creek (IRA) 0.8

3 Rock Creek Trail 475 Badger Creek (IRA) 0.5

3 Rock Creek New Trail Badger Creek (IRA) 0.3

4 LaDee Road 4610116 Clackamas (WSR) 0.5

4 McCubbins Road 2110260 Lower White River 0.5

*Note: The 8.2 mile section of Road 4610 that is coincident with the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness is also coincident with the proposed Roaring River 

Wilderness.

3.14. Socio-Economic, Civil Rights, and Environmental Justice

This analysis is based on the information found in the Social and Economic Specialist Report for this project, which 

is in the project record located at the Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

3.14.1. Affected Environment

The primary impact area covers six counties: Clackamas, Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, Multnomah, and Wasco 

counties (Figure 3-12). Four of the six counties -- Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, and Wasco -- are primarily rural. 

The economies of all these counties are based on agriculture and timber among other sectors. Other sectors in the 

study area are: manufacturing, commerce, recreation, hydroelectric, food processing, education, and government. 

Only 5% of Clackamas County’s total area is urban, however, the urban area is home to 80% of the population and 

90% of the job base.8 The economy of Multnomah County is different than the other four counties because it is 

8 Clackamas County Economic Landscape (www.clackamas.us/docs/business/economiclandscape.pdf) p. 9. Accessed 6/30/2009.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 251

home to Portland, a city of half million people. Manufacturing, transportation, whole sale, retail, and tourism are 

all important sectors in Multnomah County. (The source for the following county profiles is the Oregon Blue Book 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/county/cpmultnomahhome.html). For more information on study area, including 

population and demographics, please refer to the Social and Economic Specialist Report in the project record.

Figure 3-12. Map of Clackamas, Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, Multnomah, and Wasco 

counties. See Appendix I.

Population Trends

Increases in population can increase user demands on existing travel routes, access and recreation opportunities 

(Cordell and Overdevest 2001). According the US Census 2006 estimate, the population of the six county study area 

is 1.4 million. From 1970 to 2005, the population grew by 496,715 people, a 54% increase in population. At an annual 

rate, this represents an increase of 1.2%. Over the last 35 years, population growth in the study area has been slower 

than the state, but it has been faster than the nation (see Figure 3-13).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 252

Figure 3-13. Population in the study area.

Age Distribution, Gender, Racial Composition and Poverty Levels

Components of population structure such as gender, age, and race are often predictors of attitudes, beliefs, and values 

about travel management, forest management, and forest use. For example, people in different age categories often 

belong to different generations. They often have different values that influence their attitudes and beliefs.

There is significant discussion in the literature about the aging population in the United States and the potential 

impacts that this change may have on patterns of forest use as well as attitudes, beliefs, and values toward forest use. 

Research indicates that areas that are popular retirement communities include natural amenities, such as scenic 

beauty and recreational opportunities, and are often in proximity to National Forests and National Parks (Cordell and 

Overdevest 2001). The impact of retirement aged people on their community is often complex; it includes bringing in 

other sources of income and the desire for different types of recreation and modes of access. An aging population also 

brings with it a change in the type of recreation activities.

Table 3-125 shows the age distribution for the study area. From 1990 to 2000, the number of Baby Boomers (aged 

40 to 54 years old) in the area increased by 47%. Baby Boomers shared of the total population increased from 18% 

to 23%. The number of people under age 20 increased by 17%, but their share of the total population remained the 

same. From 1990 to 2000, the population density for the study area increased by 18% per square mile.

Population Comparison

-

154

173

145

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Population (Index 1970=100)

6 County Aggregation for Mount Hood OHV State United States
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 253

Table 3-125. Age distribution for the study area in 1990 and 2000.

Total Under 20 years 40 - 54 (Baby 

Boom in 2000) 65 years and over Median Age

Density 

(Pop. per 

sq. mi.) Number Number Share Number Share Number Share

Total Population

2000 1,346,922 368,002 27% 309,530 23% 155,192 12% 35.4 165

1990 1,143,482 314,271 27% 210,891 18% 151,994 13% 34.3 140

10 Yr. Change 203,440 53,731 0% 98,639 5% 3,198 -2% 1.1 25

10 Yr. % Change 18% 17% 47% 2% 3% 18%

2000 Sex Breakout

Male 668,679 188,590 28% 154,730 23% 63,306 9% 34.3 n/a

Female 678,243 179,412 26% 154,800 23% 91,886 14% 36.6 n/a

Male/Female Split 50% / 50% 51% / 49% 50% / 50% 41% / 59% n/a n/a

Demographics of OHV Use by Race, Ethnicity, and Income in the Pacific Region

The information on the age, race, and ethnicity of OHV users in Oregon is drawn from an extensive 2008 report 

entitled, “Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: An Update National 

Report” The report comes from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), Internet Research 

Information Series (IRIS).

In the Pacific Region (i.e., California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska), the rate of OHV participation 

(18.7%) is nearly the same as the national rate. The 6.9 million OHV users living in the Pacific region are about 

16% of the national total. Similar to other regions, participation declines with age. People under age 30 are about 

three times more likely to participate as those over 50. Males are also significantly more likely to be OHV users 

than females. American Indians have the highest participation rate (31%) among racial and ethnic groups, just as 

they do in every other region. Thought the Hispanic rate (14%) is next to the lowest, the number of Pacific Hispanic 

OHV users (about 1.3 million) is second only to Whites. This is due to the large Hispanic population, especially in 

California. 

People with family incomes over $50,000 all participated at similar rates (23 to 27 percent). Only 12% of the lowest 

income class participated. Similar to every other region, the highest educated strata participated at the lowest rates. 

Just 13% of people with post-graduate degrees were OHV users compared with 21% of high school graduates and 

those attending some college or technical school. Also similar to every other region, the participation rate for nonmetropolitan residents (32%) was much higher than for metro-area dwellers (18%), however, since the population in 

the Pacific region is more than 90% metropolitan, this population group dominated the OHV users, accounting for 

about 89 percent of the 6.9 million participants. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 254

Table 3-126. Percent of population and number of people age 16 and older participating 

in off-highway vehicle recreation, by demographic category, 1999-2007, Pacific Region 

(Cordell et al.).

Demographic Strata Population

(1000s) Sample Size Percent participating Participants

All Groups All people age 

16+ 37,006.1 9,684 18.7 6909.2

Age

Under 30 9,742.9 2267 29.7 2898.1

30-50 14,736.9 3999 19.0 2805.1

51 & older 12,525.2 3230 9.7 1206.0

Gender Male 18,360.0 4461 23.5 4303.7

Female 18,646.0 5196 13.9 2605.6

Race/Ethnicity

White 19,901.1 6874 23.2 4613.6

Black 1,925.2 343 16.1 310.3

American Indian 324.8 187 30.6 99.5

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 4,598.0 602 11.2 515.1

Hispanic 9517.7 1334 13.9 1323.8

Annual Income

$25,000 or less 5,607.3 1132 12.0 673.5

$25,000 to 

$49,999 7,498.1 1778 19.4 1455.3

$50,000 to 

$74,999 5,932.0 1439 23.0 1364.4

$75,000 to 

$99,999 3,683.5 813 23.3 859.5

$100,000 to 

$149,999 3,232.6 686 24.1 779.3

$150,000 or 

more 2,052.0 446 27.2 557.6

Education

Less than high 

school 7,171.7 938 17.9 1286.6

High school 

graduate 7,396.1 1,974 20.9 1,545.7

Some college/

tech school 10,501.4 3,076 21.5 2,259.6

Bachelor’s 

degree 5,191.5 2,128 15.4 800.1

Post-graduate 

degree 2,704.6 1,404 12.5 338.2

Place of residence

Nonmetropolitan 2,357.1 1,874 32.0 753.9

Metropolitan 34,649.0 7,810 17.7 6,155.3
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 255

Table 3-127. Percent of population and number of people age 16 and older participating 

in off-highway vehicle recreation, by demographic category, 1999-2007, Oregon 

(Cordell et al.).

Demographic Strata

Population

(1000s) Sample Size

Percent 

participating Participants

All Groups All people age 

16+ 2,905.5 1,037 22.2 644.7

Age

Under 30 706.3 210 26.3 185.4

30-50 1,078.4 413 23.8 256.2

51 & older 1,120.8 397 18.1 203.1

Gender Male 1,433.6 478 26.4 378.0

Female 1,471.9 556 18.2 266.7

Race/Ethnicity

White 2424.0 925 23.1 559.7

Black 45.1 9 . .

American Indian 32.2 14 . .

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 109.4 17 . .

Hispanic 245.8 52 23.9 58.8

Annual Income

$25,000 or less 423.4 175 16.0 67.7

$25,000 to 

$49,999 671.6 215 25.6 171.8

$50,000 to 

$74,999 504.2 167 27.3 137.6

$75,000 to 

$99,999 257.4 80 36.0 92.7

$100,000 to 

$149,000 176.9 48 25.9 45.9

$150,000 or 

more

95.2 22 . .

Education

Less than high 

school 418.9 102 20.3 85.0

High school 

graduate 687.3 227 24.5 168.7

Some college/

tech school 883.7 329 26 234.3

Bachelor’s 

degree 390.3 218 19.5 76.2

Post-graduate 

degree 196.9 142 13.3 26.1

Place of residence

Nonmetropolitan 665.2 349 29.5 196.3

Metropolitan 2,240.4 688 20.0 448.4

The data show that Oregon has a slightly higher percentage of OHV users than the Pacific region as a whole.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 256

3.14.2. Effects Analysis

Estimated Economic Effects

Detailed information on the employment and labor income effects stemming from current recreational activities 

occurring on the Forest are estimated based on the expenditure of users engaged in the recreational activities on the 

Forest. The NVUM survey collected information regarding user spending within 50 miles of the National Forest 

boundary. Users reported expenditures for various activities such as groceries, restaurants, gas and lodging. The 

specific spending profiles and expenditures are documented in Stynes and White (2004). These expenditures are used 

to identify the contribution of recreation use on the Forest to the economy of the study area.

Response coefficients that identify employment and labor income effects per 1,000 recreation visits indicate the 

difference in various management options that could affect the amount of activity use. Therefore, the estimated 

employment and labor income response coefficients (employment and labor income per 1,000 party-trips) resulting 

from the IMPLAN input-output model for the project area was determined. The response coefficients indicate the 

number of full and part-time jobs and dollars of labor income per thousand visits by activity type. The response 

coefficients along with the visits are used to estimate the economic contribution for local and nonlocal use by activity 

type. 

Showing employment and income response coefficients per 1000 party trips indicate that employment and income 

from trips in which the primary purpose was OHV use are relatively low in comparison to other activities. All of the 

employment and labor response coefficients for all OHV use including local day, local overnight, non-local day, nonlocal overnight, and non-primary are low. Non-local overnight is slightly higher than the others because people who 

are not local to the area and who stay overnight tend to spend more money. These tables show that OHV use has only 

a small effect on employment and labor income in the study area.

The table below displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels reported by 

NVUM for the categories of nonmotorized, motorized, nature related and all other activities by local and non-local 

users. These broader categories are used instead of individual activities because at the individual activity level the 

estimates are not statistically reliable.

The estimated economic contributions are a function of the number of visits and the dollars spent by the visitors. 

Nonlocal users typically spend more money per visit than local users. Activities that draw a lot of users can be 

responsible for more economic activity in comparison to activities that draw few users even when less money is spent 

per trip.

Table 3-128. Economic contribution of Mt. Hood National Forest recreation use. Employment and 

labor income effects by activity type (NRIS HD-NVUM 1.2 Estimates): non-motorized, motorized, 

nature related, and all other.

Non-Motorized

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Total Secondary Total Direct Total Secondary Total

Non-Motorized

Local 136 60 196 3,312,076 2,561,598 5,688,156

Non-local 321 135 456 7,966,169 5,712,643 13,363,814

Total Non-Motorized 1/ 463 198 661 11,423,015 8,386,120 19,300,662

Motorized

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Total Secondary Total Direct Total Secondary Total

Motorized Local 14 6 19 333,633 252,759 570,008

Non-local 12 5 16 272,771 203,736 463,120

Total Motorized 1/ 26 11 38 638,519 480,896 1,088,079
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 257

Nature Related

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Total Secondary Total Direct Total Secondary Total

Nature Related

Local 49 21 71 1,200,197 918,766 2,054,980

Non-local 145 61 206 3,491,556 2,573,699 5,904,403

Total Nature Related 1/ 202 86 288 4,888,945 3,639,832 8,295,122

All Other

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Total Secondary Total Direct Total Secondary Total

All Other Local 309 135 444 7,426,775 5,783,688 12,775,783

Non-local 529 221 749 12,785,175 9,328,500 21,558,392

Total All Other 1/ 849 361 1,210 20,495,672 15,331,498 34,821,595

Grand Total: All Categories 1,541 656 2,197 37,446,151 27,838,345 63,505,458

1/ Percent calculations for Totals included Non-Primary, NP.

The total direct employment from motorized use is 26 full and part-time jobs. According to the data, 14 jobs are 

generated by local visitors and 12 jobs are generated by non-local visitors. The total number of 2008 dollars of labor 

income generated from motorized use is about $1.09 million.

Individual activity categories are not discussed in detail due to the low sample size, which render the estimates not 

statistically reliable. Even though the results are not statistically reliable, OHV use is broken out below to give an idea 

of the employment and labor effects of primary purpose OHV use in the study area. The table shows that few jobs 

are supported by primary purpose OHV use in the study area. Expenditures associated with other primary purpose 

activities such as hunting and developed camping that include participation in OHV use as secondary activities are 

not included in these estimates. It is not possible to estimate the percentage of those expenditures associated with 

OHV use.

Table 3-129. Motorized use broken into OHV and other motorized categories.

Motorized

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Direct Total Secondary Total Direct Total Secondary Total

OHV Use Local 1 0 1 18,403 14,680 31,909

Non-local 1 0 1 21,136 17,007 36,713

Motorized Local 13 6 18 315,230 238,079 538,098

Non-local 11 4 15 251,635 186,730 426,407

Total Motorized 1/ 26 11 38 638,519 480,896 1,088,079

1/ Percent calculations for Totals included Non-Primary, NP.

OHV Trip-Related Expenditures in Oregon

According to the Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, OHV trip-related expenditures in the state of 

Oregon during 1999 were estimated at $46.4 million. Oregonians made $29 million in trip expenditures, while nonresident visitors made $17.4 million in trip expenditures during the year. Nearly $27.8 million was spent in the South 

Coast Region. This is more than 6 times the amount of expenditures made in any other region (Oregon Trails 2005-

2014: Motorized Trails Plan, p. 47 and p. 49).

OHV trip-related expenditures include: gas and oil, restaurants and taverns, food and beverages from grocery stores, 

hotels/motels/bed and breakfasts, camping/RV, amusements, ATV rentals, Repairs/maintenance, first aid, and other 

retail. These OHV trip expenditures created an additional 831 jobs and $14.6 million in personal income in Oregon 

(Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, p. 48).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 258

In the Central Oregon region, which includes Multnomah, Clackamas, and Marion, OHV trip expenditures in 1999 

were almost $3.2 million. In the Willamette Valley region, OHV trip expenditures were $3.5 million. In the table 

below the expenditures are divided into In-State and Out-of-State expenditures (Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized 

Trails Plan, p. 23). 

Table 3-130. OHV expenditures for in-State and out-of-state visitor contributions.

Region In-State

Expenditures

Out-of-State

Expenditures

Combined

Expenditures

Central Oregon $2,537,294 $644,293 $3,181,588

Willamette Valley $2,803,597 $711,911 $3,515,508

For all regions, about 25% of trip expenditures went toward lodging (hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and 

camping). About 18% each was spent on gas and oil restaurants, and at grocery stores. See Table: Total OHV Trip 

Expenditures: By Type of Purchase (Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, p. 48).

Table 3-131. Total OHV trip expenditures by type of purchase.

Type of Purchase In-State Out-of-State Total

Gas and Oil $5,683,405 $2,959,925 $8,643,330

Restaurants and taverns $4,915,214 $3,446,160 $8,361,374

Food and beverages from 

grocery stores $5,235,247 $2,958,407 $8,193,654

Hotels/motels/bed & breakfasts $3,349,230 $2,046,545 $5,395,775

Camping/RV $3,572,311 $2,510,448 $6,082,759

Amusements $891,806 $630,858 $1,552,664

ATV rentals $383,119 $367,521 $750,640

Repairs/maintenance $2,481,558 $1,009,799 $3,491,357

First aid $182,937 $113,060 $295,997

Other retail $2,344,813 $1,330,000 $3,674,813

Total All Regions $29,039,640 $17,372,722 $46,412,363

Annual OHV-related Expenditures in Oregon 

The Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan reports that Oregonians made an estimated $74 million in 

annual expenditures related to OHV recreation during 1999. These expenditures include OHV vehicles, OHV 

trailers, insurance, storage, maintenance, high performance parts, accessories, and specialty clothing. Of these annual 

expenditures, nearly $42.4 million was spent in the Willamette Valley region, which includes three of the study area 

counties as well as other several other counties. The expenditures in the Willamette Valley region were more than 5 

times the amount of expenditures in any other region (Oregon Trails 2005-2014, p. 50).

Table 3-132. Total annual expenditures: by region in Oregon.

Region Expenditures

Central Oregon $4,231,087

Willamette Valley $42,438,022
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 259

For all the regions, about 48% of annual expenditures went toward purchasing vehicles. About 12% were spent on 

maintenance, high-performance parts and trailers. These annual expenditures created an additional 978 jobs and 

$23.9 million in personal income in Oregon. The Willamette Valley region accounts for most of this, with 586 jobs 

and $15.2 million in personal income. Eastern Oregon was the least affected with 8 jobs and $167,000 in personal 

income (Oregon Trails 2005-2014, p. 26).

Table 3-133. Annual expenditures: income and jobs by region in Oregon.

Region Income Jobs

Central Oregon $1,386,292 61

Willamette Valley $15,216,407 586

The Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan concludes that OHV recreation contributed an estimated 

$120.4 million and 1,809 jobs into Oregon’s economy in 1999. OHV recreation has economic significance in both 

the origin and destination areas. The South Coast region is by far the most impacted with 539 jobs generated by trip 

expenditures. The greater proportion of overnight and out-of-state visitors to the South Coast accounts for much 

of this impact. OHV recreation also has a substantial economic significance in the region where people live. The 

Willamette Valley is where the majority of OHV riders reside. Annual expenditures on items like vehicles, parts, and 

maintenance take place in OHV users’ home regions, accounting for 586 jobs in the Willamette Valley (Oregon Trails 

2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan p.26).

Estimated Non-Motorized Recreation Effects

Non-motorized recreational trails are stimulating tourism and recreation-related spending. Local trail users, 

vacationers and conference attendees provide direct economic benefits to hotels, restaurants and other businesses 

from increases in tourist activity and increased spending on durable goods, such as bikes, and soft goods such as 

gasoline, food, and drinks. This, in turn, attracts and revitalizes businesses, creates jobs, and increases public revenue 

(Oregon Trails 2005-2014: A Statewide Action Plan, p. 117).

Several studies have demonstrated the economic importance of non-motorized recreation on trails. For example, 

event associated with the Oregon Trail Sesquicentennial celebration in 1993 (coordinated by the nonprofit Oregon 

Trail Coordinating Council) including the “Official Oregon Trail Sesquicentennial Wagon Trail,” the “Oregon Trail 

Fest,” “Company’s Coming,” and “Trail’s End Finale.” In conjunction with these events, considerable commemorative 

merchandise was sold. The Council raised over 4.5 million in federal, state, and private funds estimated to have 

leveraged another $19.8 million in additional revenues in the form of contributions. Preliminary estimates of visitor 

spending generated by the Oregon Trail Center near Baker City OR recorded 672,555 visitors from May 23, 1992 

through July 1994 (Oregon Trails 2005-2014: A Statewide Action Plan, p. 117).

The NVUM/IMPLAN data also show the economic importance of non-motorized recreation in the area. According 

to the estimated employment and labor income effects for all current recreation use reported by NVUM, together 

local and non-local direct full and part-time employment represents at total of 661 jobs and more than $19 million in 

labor income.

Non-motorized trails are also important to many communities want to attract new, expanding, or relocating 

businesses to their area in order to increase their employment and tax bases. The importance of quality of life is 

increasingly cited a major factor in corporate and business location decisions. Non-motorized trails are becoming 

more and more attractive to businesses and their employees, because these trail amenities play roles in increasing a 

community’s quality of life. These improvements in quality of life may have additional employment and labor income 

benefits by attracting new businesses (Oregon Trails 2005-2014: A Statewide Action Plan, p. 106).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 260

Summary of Estimated Economic Effects of OHV Use and Non-Motorized Recreation on Local Economies

Due to the small sample size in NVUM, the jobs and income estimates for OHV use, separated from other motorized 

use, are not statistically reliable. Therefore, it is not possible to rank the alternatives in terms of their potential 

economic effects on jobs and income. The available data does show that the differences in the alternatives would 

probably be small. Not only is it difficult to quantify differences in jobs and income from greater or fewer miles 

of trails, a decrease in motorized forms of recreations would likely be balanced by a commensurate increase in 

non-motorized forms of recreation. However, decreases or increases in estimated economic contributions to local 

economies are difficult to predict.

Economic Impacts of Changes in Supply and Demand

Regardless of the above economic trends, the current use for OHV participation on the Forest is about 37,547 

per year. Supply outstrips current and projected participation in OHV activities for all of the action alternatives9

. 

Therefore, none of the alternatives (Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, 

Alternative 3, and Alternative 4) is likely to cause a decline in the number of yearly OHV visits. Because the number 

of visitors would not change, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative economic impacts caused by changes in 

supply for any of the alternatives. 

Budget Trends for Road and Trail Maintenance

The final budget allocation for CMRD (construction, maintenance, and roads) and CMTL (construction, 

maintenance, and trails) is shown in Table 3-134. The amounts shown do not include dedicated funds, which are 

designated for specific projects, or the amount of each allocation that covers common costs. The amount shown was 

actually available for use in construction and maintenance for roads and trails. 

Table 3-134. Final CMTL and CMRD budget.*

Year Final CMTL Budget Final CMRD

1995 Information not available $1,783,000

1996 Information not available $2,350,000

1997 Information not available $4,600,000

1998 Information not available $2,045,000

1999 Information not available $1,806,000

2000 Information not available $1,891,000

2001 Information not available $2,266,000

2002 Information not available $1,749,000

2003 $393,500 $3,169,000

2004 $289,000 $1,456,000

2005 $342,000 $1,938,000

2006 $323,000 $613,574

2007 $389,300 $1,449,500

2008 $469,900 $1,332,036

2009** $384,000 $1,153,000

*Historical data suggests that approximately 40% of road appropriations are available for road maintenance.

**2009 budget is initial projection.

As shown in Table 3-134 above, road funding has varied from year to year. The budget is inadequate for both routine 

and deferred road maintenance. The result of current funding levels is the slow deterioration of the road system. In 

some cases, pavements would deteriorate to the point that reconstruction or routine maintenance would be more 

expensive. Some roads may need to be reduced to lower maintenance levels including closed.

9 Please refer to the Recreation section for a more complete discussion on Supply and Demand.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 261

Table 3-134 does not take into account trail maintenance completed by volunteer organizations, such as the Mt. 

Scott Motorcycle Group, which maintains trails around McCubbins Gulch. Other volunteer groups are interested in 

assisting with trail maintenance if other designated locations are created. These groups include the Northern Oregon 

Motorcycle and ATV Club (NOMAC). Volunteer groups have the capacity to do work on trails that extends the reach 

of the Forest’s allocated trail funds. There are no volunteer groups who do road maintenance. The Forest Service 

does, however, have cooperative road maintenance agreements with various counties and local road agencies. Under 

these agreements, the Forest can do maintenance on cooperating agencies’ roads and the cooperating agencies may 

perform maintenance on the Forest Service road system. These trades allow the agencies to more efficiently complete 

their work, but they do not add miles of maintenance the way in which the volunteer trail maintenance organizations 

do. 

Costs of Building and Maintaining Roads and Trails

The cost of implementation of each alternative was calculated for both roads and for trails by multiplying the number 

of miles by the cost of maintenance or the cost of conversion to trails. The costs for roads and trails are conceptual 

estimates. They include: ditch lining, brushing, signing, grading, routing, and mobilization. These costs were 

determined by Forest Service Regional Recreation Managers and Engineering Specialists.

Table 3-135. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 1

Motorized 

Mixed Use

(miles)

Roads 

Converted to 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

Existing 

Motorized 

Trails

Motorized Trail 

Maintenance*

Miles 2,463 -- -- 49 49

$ per mile 500 235 1200 850 850

Total cost per road/

trail type 1,231,500 0 0 41,650 41,650

*This number represents the total cost of maintaining roads converted to trail, new trails, and existing trails.

The cost of OHV road and trail maintenance and construction costs under Alternative 1 would be the highest with a 

total of $1,273,150.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Table 3-136. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for 

Alternative 2.

Alternative 1

Motorized 

Mixed Use

(miles)

Roads Converted to 

Trails

New Trail ConstructionExisting Motorized TrailsMotorized Trail 

Maintenance*

Miles 73.2 50.5 59.3 38.1 147.9

$ per mile 500 235 1150 850 850

Total cost per road/

trail type 36,600 11,867.5 68,195 32,385 125,715

*This number represents the total cost of maintaining roads converted to trail, new trails, and existing trails.

The cost of OHV road and trail maintenance and construction costs under Alternative 2 would be the second lowest 

with a total of $242,378.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 262

Alternative 3

Table 3-137. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for 

Alternative 3.

Alternative 1

Motorized 

Mixed Use

(miles)

Roads 

Converted to 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

Existing 

Motorized 

Trails

Motorized Trail 

Maintenance*

Miles 130 94 64 38 196

$ per mile 500 235 1200 850 850

Total cost per road/

trail type 64,800 22,020 76,560 32,555 166,430

*This number represents the total cost of maintaining roads converted to trail, new trails, and existing trails.

The cost of OHV road and trail maintenance under Alternative 3 would be the second highest with a total of

$329,810.

Alternative 4

Table 3-138. Costs of maintaining roads and building and maintaining trails for 

Alternative 4.

Alternative 1

Motorized 

Mixed Use

(miles)

Roads 

Converted to 

Trails

New Trail 

Construction

Existing 

Motorized 

Trails

Motorized Trail 

Maintenance*

Miles 26 33 9 28 70

$ per mile 500 235 1200 850 850

Total cost per road/

trail type 13,050 7,826 10,680 23,545 59,415

*This number represents the total cost of maintaining roads converted to trail, new trails, and existing trails.

The cost of OHV road and trail construction and maintenance under Alternative 4 would be the lowest with a total of

$90,971.

Summary of the Costs of Building and Maintaining Roads and Trails for Alternatives

In terms of road and trail maintenance for all alternatives, the most expensive is Alternative 1 (No Action 

Alternative). Even with the costs of converting roads to trails and the costs of new trail construction associated with 

Alternatives 2,3, and 4, they all provide costs savings over Alternative 1. The second most expensive is Alternative 3, 

which provides a cost savings of $901,691. The second least expensive is Alternative 2, which provides a cost savings 

of $989,123 over the No Action Alternative. The least expensive is Alternative 4, which provides a cost savings of 

$1,140,530 over the No Action Alternative.

Balancing Motorized and Non-Motorized Uses

The Final Rule [Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216 (2005)] for OHV use states that we “must strike an appropriate 

balance in managing all types of recreational activities.” Achieving balance is an important goal of this project. The 

purpose of this section is to frame the concept of balance. Designating new OHV routes has the potential to alter 

the delicate balance between motorized and non-motorized recreation uses, thereby increasing user conflicts as 

designation of new OHV routes (Alternative 2-Proposed Action Alternative as well as Alternatives 3 and 4) has the 

potential to alter the balance between motorized and non-motorized recreation interests and uses. Motorized and 

non-motorized users both have concerns about their potential loss of access and loss of opportunities for desired 

experiences.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 263

All of the elements discussed below are important to balancing motorized and non-motorized uses. The elements 

discussed in Recreation section – Adequacy of Experience, System Layout, Loop Opportunities, Diversity in Trail 

Difficulty, Access to Rock Creek Routes, and Safety – are also important to balancing motorized and non-motorized 

uses. Balance is an amalgam of all of the above elements, however, it is more than the sum of it parts. The complexity 

in balancing motorized and non-motorized recreation uses is a reflection of the deeply held values that contribute to 

attitudes and beliefs related to motorized and non-motorized recreation.

Recreation researchers often define the verb “conflict” alongside its opposite, the verb “to share.” The verb “share” 

is generally defined as “to distribute parts of something among others, to retain part of something and give the rest 

or port of the rest to another or other; to take or to use a part of something with someone or something; to do or to 

experience something with others; to join with others; to join with others in doing or experiencing something.” On 

the other hand, the verb “conflict” is defined by the New Webster’s Dictionary as “to be at variance, clash, to struggle, 

or contend.” Conflict can cause serious impacts to recreational experiences, to the point of causing some users to end 

their use and be displaced by other preemptive users. For example, when trail users fail to achieve the experiences 

desired from the trip and determines that it is due to someone else’s behavior, conflict results, satisfaction suffers, and 

use patterns may change (Moore 1994).

According to recreation researchers, recreation-related conflict is asymmetrical. Many times feelings of conflict are 

one-way. For example, cross-country skiers dislike encountering snowmobiles, but snowmobiles are not as unhappy 

about encountering cross-country skiers. Likewise, hikers generally dislike encountering OHV users, but OHV users 

are not as unhappy about encountering hikers (Moore 1994). One OHV user comment makes this point, “There is 

no legitimate reason why the single-track trails in the multiple–use areas of the project should not be shared between 

motorized and non-motorized recreationists to a much greater extent (Comment 39.42).”

Another major source of conflict in recreation in general, and between motorized and non-motorized recreators in 

particular, is the difference in attitudes toward and perceptions of the environment. Users in conflict have been found 

to have different attitudes toward the environment (Moore 1994) and may perceive the environment differently. Some 

view the natural environment as an integral part of their experience. Others view the natural environment as just a 

setting for their activity. People who view the environment as an integral part of their recreation experience are more 

susceptible to conflict than those who see the environment as just a setting for their activity.

In other words, there are those OHV users who use their OHVs to enjoy the environment and there are others 

who use the environment to enjoy their motorized vehicles. Anecdotal evidence suggests that more OHV users 

fall into the latter category; they often use the environment to enjoy their OHVs. Most people who chose nonmotorized forms of recreations, recreate to enjoy the environment. For example, the hikers climb to enjoy the natural 

environment, therefore they are more susceptible to conflict than most OHV users. An example of the relative 

tolerance of motorized comes from the following comment on this OHV project. “I don’t see why people can’t have 

their cake and eat it too... This area is a great escape for my family and I, and it’s close enough that we don’t have to 

spend hundreds of dollars on fuel to get there and ride (Comment 97.1). 

The conflict between motorized users and non-motorized users relates to norms. Individuals and groups with 

different standards of behavior, social and individual norms that define what behavior is appropriate) often conflict 

with one another. Norms appear to be more useful than goals for predicting conflict. For example, a hiker and an 

OHV user may share the same goals of experiencing nature and escaping from the city but may cause conflict for 

one another due to different modes of acceptable behavior (Moore 1994). Many who favor non-motorized recreation 

voice comments similar to this one: “Motorized use is largely not compatible with traditional recreation activities, 

such as horse-back riding, hunting, backcountry hiking, and non-forest product collecting, and camping. People have 

enjoyed these traditional activities for many generations and these uses deserve respect (Comment 134.7).

There are several comments by proponents of non-motorized use about the incompatibility of motorized and nonmotorized uses. One respondent wrote about: “how opportunities for quiet recreationists are profoundly affected 

by agency efforts to designate off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes and areas” (Comment 40.1). Another respondent 

wrote about his or her belief that “Motorized use is very dangerous, not just to the riders, but to other forest users 

(Comment 134.9).”
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 264

Motorized and non-motorized users both have expressed concerns about their potential loss of access and loss of 

opportunities for desired experiences. Concerns about this OHV project, however, are more complex than just the 

potential loss of access and loss of opportunities for desired experiences. These concerns about potential loss of access 

and loss of opportunity are sources of conflict. They are also the factors that make achieving balance difficult. In 

order to understand the conflict and the solutions to it that would assist in achieving balance, it is important to know 

more about the attitudes, beliefs, and values discussed above.

Attitudes toward OHV use and the designation of specific OHV use trails on National Forests reflect people’s core 

values related to the natural environment. Understanding what values are and the differences in people’s attitudes, 

beliefs, and values, helps explain why people have such strong support or opposition for the alternatives.

The term value has different meanings in different contexts. In general, value refers to the equivalence or worth of a 

thing in terms of money or goods. Or a value refers to a belief about what ought to be. Values are relatively difficult 

to express in words, but getting a handle on a person’s values is important because it is frequently these values that 

influence long-term goals and decisions.

One definition of value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is socially preferable to an opposite 

mode of conduct. A value system is also defined as an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes 

of conduct or end states of existence along a continuum of relative importance. A third way of describing a value is a 

belief about what ought to be, what ought not to be, what is right, what is wrong. Values are relatively enduring traits 

that influence our thoughts (Chelladurai 2006).

Attitude is a term that is often used in conjunction with values. An attitude refers to an organization of several beliefs 

around a specific object or situation. A value on the other hand, refers to a single belief of a very specific kind. A value 

concerns a desirable mode of behavior or end-state that has transcendental quality to it, guiding actions, attitudes, 

judgments, and comparisons across specific objects and situations and beyond immediate goals to more ultimate goals.

There is also an important distinction between values and norms. A value refers to both end states and the means 

to them. And, a norm refers to only the means, which is the mode of behavior. A value is not limited to a specific 

situation, but a norm specifies a specific code of conduct in a specific situation. Moreover, a value is something 

personal and internal to the individual. A norm is a code of conduct reflecting a common understanding by the 

people involved in the situation (Chelladurai 2006).

In the public scoping comments, people made many comments supporting or opposing OHV use on National 

Forests. Some of these comments were statements reflective of deeply held values. One person wrote, “OHVs don’t 

belong on our national forest.” This person also expressed specific beliefs about OHVs. “OHVs scare wildlife, cause 

erosion, bring invasive weeds into native ecosystems, cause fire risk, and generally preclude the enjoyment of the 

forest by other users; hikers, bikers, anglers and hunters alike (Comment 90.1). This respondent believes that there 

should not be any OHV use on the national forests. He or she is unilaterally opposed it. 

On the other hand, a proponent of OHV use wrote in a public comment: “Closing travel on our forest [is] flat wrong! 

The forest belongs to all of us” (Comment 137.1). This comment, like the opposite one above, “OHVs don’t belong on 

our national forest,” is a statement of belief that is reflective of different values.

Another comment that reflects an underlying value refers to the “morality of sports.” The values of the person 

commenting are points in opposition to motorized recreation on national forests (Comment 101.1). Yet another 

comment refers to the belief that ATV use is “a destructive and dangerous hobby” (Comment 16.1). One respondent 

writes: “I find OHVs to be loud and obnoxious. They tear up the landscape and form deep scars in the land” 

(Comment 66.1). There are several comments expressing beliefs about the environmental effects of motorized 

recreation, such as, “The loss and damage of vegetation attributable to the direct and indirect impacts of OHVs, in 

turn, adversely affects the food and cover needs of wildlife resulting in decreasing populations” (Comment 347.46).

Another belief that is in opposition to OHV use on National Forests related to the benefits of quiet recreation 

supporting personal renewal and health. One proponent of non-motorized expresses the following: “People need 

the emotional, mental and spiritual restorative qualities of wild lands. It’s good medicine. The negative impacts of 

non-motorized activities are negligible compared to motorized recreation. Having experience on snow machines as a 

youth and orv’s for work as an adult I don’t believe these bring about the same kind of depth renewal and inspiration 

as non-motorized activities” (Comment #309.2).
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 265

Proponents of motorized recreation express support for the sport saying, “My family and I have experienced the 

privilege of motor-sport touring for many years now, and we would like to see as many opportunities remain available 

as possible” (Comment 23.1). Proponents of OHV use refer to it as a family sport. “There are already too little things 

for families to do together. If this happens, it will just have our future generations just sitting or worse yet getting 

into trouble because yet another right has been taken away from the people” (Comment 56.4). Another comment in 

support of OHV use: “please expand the OHV travel on all NF’s. Closing travel on our forests is flat wrong! The forest 

belongs to all of us, not just a few that have an agenda” (Comment 137.1). Others express concern over what they 

believe is “the continued loss of motorized recreational opportunities” (Comments 39.1 and 39.2).

This discussion of the conflicting attitudes, beliefs, values and norms related to motorized and non-motorized 

recreation use demonstrates the difficulty in achieving balance between motorized and non-motorized recreation 

activities. Both motorized and non-motorized users have concerns about their potential loss of access and loss of 

opportunities for desired experiences. The elements discussed in Recreation section – Adequacy of Experience, 

System Layout, Loop Opportunities, Diversity in Trail Difficulty, Access to Rock Creek Routes, and Safety – are all 

important to balancing motorized and non-motorized uses. In addition, the elements discussed below, including 

Supply and Demand, Noise, Irrigation Ditch Maintenance, and Emergency Services are important to balancing 

motorized and non-motorized uses. Achieving balance necessitates consideration of all the elements. Balance, 

however, it is more than the sum of these elements. The complexity in balancing motorized and non-motorized 

recreation uses is a reflection of the deeply held values that contribute to attitudes and beliefs about motorized and 

non-motorized recreation.

Effects of OHV Use Adjacent to Irrigation Ditch

The flat, open terrain adjacent to Gate Creek ditch, a quarter mile south of Sportsman’s Park, is a popular OHV 

riding area. Many OHV users ride along the maintenance road on the south side of the ditch. The only bridges across 

the ditch are on Roads 4820 and 4820140. Some OHV users drive through the ditch to access cross-country riding 

opportunities on the north side. The condition of the ditch at the intersection of Road 4800130 indicates that OHV 

users repeatedly use this point to cross. Wheel tracks lead to several other user-created trails crossing the ditch. These 

actions disturb the integrity of the ditch structure and accelerate the delivery of sediment into the ditch. The ditch 

company is concerned about increased ditch maintenance costs.

Alternative 1 – No Action

In Alternative 1, the roads and areas adjacent to Gate Creek ditch would continue to be popular OHV riding terrain. 

OHV use in the Forest is predicted to increase in Alternative 1, and the Gate Creek area would likely be an epicenter 

of increased use because of its accessibility (open pine forest with sparse understory vegetation), long riding season 

(relatively low elevation) and opportunities for dispersed camping near the ditch. Ditch crossing by OHVs would 

continue. Among the alternatives, Alternative 1 would have the highest negative effects on Gate Creek ditch.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes designating two miles of the road on the south side of Gate Creek Ditch as an OHV route. 

Two new bridge crossings are also proposed, one at the west end of Road 4820120 and one at the point where Road 

4800130 intersects the ditch. The road bridge on 4820140 is also a proposed designated route. These three bridges and 

the prohibition on cross-country riding in Alternative 2 would discourage most riders from creating their own fords. 

Because the ditch is still exposed to OHV use, however, potential negative effects to Gate Creek ditch in Alternative 2 

would be higher than in either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4, but lower than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3

In Alternative 3, the closest proposed route to Gate Creek ditch would be a third of a mile away, on the south side 

of Souva Creek. Cross-country riding would also be prohibited in this alternative, so OHV use would no longer be 

allowed in the flat, open pine stands adjacent to the ditch. These conditions would substantially reduce the risk of 

OHV-related damage to the ditch. Potential negative effects to Gate Creek ditch in Alternative 3 would be lower than 

in Alternatives 1 or 2, and similar to the effects in Alternative 4.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 266

Alternative 4

The closest proposed designated route to Gate Creek ditch in Alternative 4 would be three miles to the west. Crosscountry riding would also be prohibited in this alternative, so OHV use would no longer be allowed in the flat, open 

pine stands adjacent to the ditch. These conditions would substantially reduce the risk of OHV-related damage to the 

ditch. Potential negative effects to Gate Creek ditch in Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3, lower than the 

effects in Alternatives 1 or 2.

Summary of Effects of OHV Use Adjacent to Irrigation Ditch

Alternative 1 is likely to cause the most damage to the irrigation ditch at Gate Creek. Under Alternative 2 the 

ditch would be bridged and armored to protect its structural integrity. Under Alternatives 3, there may be some 

unintended damage to the ditch. There is likely to be little damage to the ditch under Alternative 4. 

Effects of OHV use on the Availability and Performance of Emergency Services

The public expressed concern about designating routes in the Rock Creek area and the use of emergency services. 

Specifically, it was stated that if routes were designated in the area and if the route designations increased the number 

of OHV users recreating in the area, then the volunteer service could be stretched beyond capacity. Also, concern was 

expressed about OHV users having accidents in areas that are difficult to reach by Type 3 ambulances, which are the 

only type of ambulances that the service has.10 

Alternative 1 – No Action

In Alternative 1, all routes in the vicinity of Sportsman’s Park and other private parcels near Rock Creek Reservoir 

would continue to be used by OHVs. Use of the Rock Creek area would likely increase under Alternative 1. Under 

this alternative, there may be an increase in accidents and a heavier burden on the emergency services in Wasco 

County.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

OHV use would include the lower elevation routes near Sportsman’s Park, but would not provide direct access from 

private property to designated OHV routes. With fewer designated route miles than currently exist (39.6 miles of 

designated roads and trails in Alternative 2), no off-road riding, no direct access from Sportsman’s Park, and no 

overnight use permitted around Gate Creek Ditch, OHV use of the area is predicted to decline slightly in the short 

term and grow less rapidly than in Alternative 1 or 3 in the long run. Therefore, there would likely be a lighter burden 

on the emergency services than in Alternatives 1 or 3.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not permit OHV use on most of the lower elevation routes near Sportsman’s Park that would 

be designated in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide direct access from Sportsman’s Park to proposed OHV 

routes. OHV owners (who reside in Sportsman’s Park) would be permitted to enter the route system from one 

designated trail constructed on the boundary of the subdivision.

With one-third more designated route miles (61.2 miles in Alternative 3; 39.6 miles in Alternative 2), and with direct 

access from Sportsman’s, Rock Creek routes would likely be more popular in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2. 

However, with no off-road riding, and no overnight use permitted around gate Creek Ditch, OHV use of the area is 

predicted to remain level in the short term and grow less rapidly than in Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 3 would 

put a greater burden on the Wasco County Emergency Services than Alternative 2.

10 Sherry, Southern Wasco County Volunteer Ambulance Service, personal communication with Kevin Slagle on 6/1/2005 and personal communication with 

Elisabeth Grinspoon on 11/24/2008.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 267

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would not designate any OHV routes in the lower elevation area. All designated routes would be more 

than 3 miles west of all private parcels in the Rock Creek Area. With roughly the same number of designated route 

miles (37.2 miles in Alternative 4; 39.6 miles in Alternative 2), but with no direct access from Sportsman’s park, no 

permitted use of lower elevation routes and no night riding allowed, Rock Creek routes would likely be less popular 

in Alternative 2 or 3. OHV use of the area is predicted to decline in the short term and grow less rapidly than the 

other alternatives. Therefore, this alternative would put the least burden on the Wasco County Emergency Services.

Summary of Effects of OHV use on the Availability and Performance of Emergency Services

Alternative 1 would put the greatest burden on the availability and performance of emergency services. Alternative 3 

would put a greater burden on the Wasco County Emergency Services than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would put the 

least burden on the Wasco County Emergency Services.

3.14.3. Environmental Justice Analysis and Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 requires that each federal agency “shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing... disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

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

In order to identify and address environmental justice concerns, the Executive Order states that each agency shall 

analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects of federal actions, including 

effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and native Americans as part of the NEPA process.

In the study area for this project, several of the counties have minority populations that are greater than the state of 

Oregon. In Oregon, 13.6% of the population is non-white. Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, and Multnomah counties 

all have rates that are higher than that of the state. Four of the counties also have higher percentages of Hispanic 

and Latino people than the overall percentage for Oregon, which is 8% Hispanic or Latino. These counties are Hood 

River, Jefferson, Marion, and Wasco.

Several of the counties also have poverty rates which are higher than 12%, which is the rate for Oregon. Hood River, 

Jefferson, Marion, Multnomah, and Wasco all have poverty rates higher than the state. In the study area, Clackamas is 

the only county which has a poverty rate lower than that of the state.

The study area’s disproportionately high numbers of minorities, Hispanic and Latino people, and people living 

in poverty, trigger an environmental justice analysis. A review of the alternatives, however, demonstrates that the 

economic effects are negligible for the entire population. There are no effects to jobs and income in the impact area 

studied and OHV use generates a small portion of the overall jobs and income, less than 1%. Therefore, the impacts 

are similar for the groups identified by the Environmental Justice Executive Order. In terms of social effects, none 

of the alternatives would have a disproportionate affect on any minority or low-income community as the travel 

management decisions are spread throughout the forest and do not cause any adverse environmental effect to any 

particular community. 

Potentially affected tribes have been consulted and effects considered on their rights and concerns within the analysis 

of alternatives. American Indian populations would not be disproportionately impacted under any alternative 

with avoidance of heritage resources, consideration of traditional values, and reasonable access allowed through 

agreements, permits and recognition of their sovereignty and legal rights.

Several of the public comments relate to environmental justice. One respondent writes, “We believe that federal 

environmental justice compliance requirements as initiated by the Executive Order 12898 should be applied 

immediately to correct the disproportionately significant and adverse impacts that the motorized recreationists 

have been subject to. In order to accomplish this we request that this proposed action comply with U.S. Forest 

service Departmental Regulation 5600-2 (http://www.usda.gov/da/5600-2.pdf) including the DEFINITION 

of environmental justice provided therein” (Comment 39.52). As explained above, this EIS does comply with 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 268

Executive Order 12898. The order specifically aims to protect women, minorities, and people living in poverty. The 

demographic research presented the Affected Environment section of this report demonstrates that OHV users as a 

group do not have disproportionately high percentages of women, minorities, and people living in poverty. Therefore, 

OHV users do not fall into the protected category. 

Civil Rights Impacts Analysis (CRIA)

The project alternatives, given the size of potential social and economic effects, are not likely to result in civil rights 

impacts to Forest Service employees or customers of its programs.

While at least one person, who is paralyzed, commented that an OHV is the only means for him to access the Forest, 

this does not constitute a CRIA issue. Also, opportunities for OHV use exist under all alternatives.

3.14.4. Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Explaining the discrepancy between the data from NVUM/IMPLAN and the data presented in the Oregon Trails 

2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan is important. According to the NVUM/IMPLAN data, the total direct employment 

from motorized use is 26 full and part-time jobs. Of that total, 14 jobs are generated by local visitors and 12 jobs are 

generated by non-local visitors. The total number of 2008 dollars of labor income generated from motorized use is 

about $1.09 million. As noted previously, individual categories are not used above due to the low reported activity 

levels, which render the estimates not statistically reliable. When OHV use is broken out, however, to give an idea 

of the employment and labor effects of OHV use in the study area, approximately two full and part-time jobs are 

supported by OHV use in the study area.

On the other hand, according to the Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, about 586 jobs in the 

Willamette Valley are supported by annual expenditures on items like vehicles, parts, and maintenance. There are 

several explanations for this large discrepancy between the NVUM/IMPLAN expenditure data and the data reported 

in the Oregon Trails 2005-2014. First, the Forest Service NVUM expenditure data does not include durable goods 

purchases. The expenditure data only identifies purchases made for the single trip associated with the interview.11 

Second, OHV expenditure data is identified only for trips where OHV use is identified as the primary purpose. 

Finally, the assessment areas and the sampling of visitors are not comparable.

In addition to the expenditure and use information collected by the NVUM survey, which are important elements in 

the economic analysis and the bridges to the appropriate industry within the IMPLAN model by the USDA Forest 

Service Planning Analysis Group, more information on the economic contribution of OHV use in Oregon comes 

from The Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan. Most of the economic information in the Oregon Trails 

2005-2014 comes from the “1999 Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle User Survey.” The data presented below from the 

survey present a picture of the contribution of OHV use to the Oregon economy that is quite different from the 

picture that comes from the Forest Service NVUM and IMPLAN data. The analysis from the survey estimates that 

OHV recreation contributed an estimated $120 million and 1,809 jobs to Oregon’s economy in 1999 (Oregon Trails 

2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, p.46). 

The Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan divides Oregon into eight regions. They are: South Coast, 

Central Oregon, North Coast, Willamette Valley, Eastern Oregon, Northeastern Oregon, Southern Oregon, and 

Central Coast. The six counties of the Mt. Hood study area fall into two different regions: Willamette Valley and 

Central Oregon. The Willamette Valley region includes Multnomah, Clackamas, and Marion, which are part of the 

study area. The Willamette Valley region also includes Linn, and parts of Lane and Douglas, which are not part of 

the study area. The other counties in the study area are located in the region that the Oregon Trails Report calls the 

Central Oregon region. It includes Hood River, Wasco, and Jefferson counties. There are five other counties that are 

not part of the study area that are also part of the Central Oregon region: Sherman, Gilliam, Wheeler, Deschutes, and 

Crook.

11 The Forest Service is careful not to include durable goods purchases, but only the annual costs or retail margins. Including the entire value of the 

machines and other durable good inflates the values, because the goods depreciate over time. In addition, the manufacturing process often takes place 

elsewhere. Only the retail sale takes place in the study area.
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 269

Because the two regions, Central Oregon and Willamette Valley, include counties that are in the study area, as well 

as counties that are outside of the study area, determining the exact value of the trip expenditures in the study area 

from the Oregon Trails Report is difficult. The Report does, however, give a general idea of the value of OHV related 

recreation in the study area (Oregon Trails 2005-2014: Motorized Trails Plan, p. 46).

3.15. Other Required Disclosures

3.15.1. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided

Implementation of any action alternative would cause some adverse environmental effects that cannot be effectively 

mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for one resource at the 

expense of the use or condition of other resources. Most adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated or avoided by 

limiting the extent or duration of effects. The application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management 

Practices, PDC, and monitoring are all intended to further limit the extent, severity, and duration of potential effects. 

Such measures are discussed throughout Chapter 3 and the purpose of this section is to fully disclose these effects. 

Table 3-139 below summarizes the unavoidable potential adverse effects to the environment associated with the 

action alternatives considered in this EIS.

Table 3-139. Adverse effects that cannot be avoided for proposed OHV systems for 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.

Unavoidable 

Adverse Effect Reference Descriptions of Effects Forest Service Intended Response and Rationale

Noise (also see 

disturbance to 

wildlife)

Section 3.1 and 

3.14

The sound of OHVs in a wildland setting 

is one of the most common and virulent 

complaints voiced by those who visit the 

forest for a “quiet” recreation experience. 

For some, the sound of motorized 

vehicles is an irreconcilable factor that 

makes sharing the same space with OHVs 

unacceptable. These conflicting attitudes 

are most acutely felt on trails constructed 

and maintained for non-motorized use, 

in developed recreation sites, and in 

wilderness areas.

Alternative design and PDC (Section 

2.3) aimed at focusing use to particular 

areas and eliminating cross-country 

travel would reduce the amount of 

noise from OHVs as well as reduce the 

conflict between non-motorized and 

motorized recreational users.

Sedimentation Section 3.3 Currently, there are some specific 

locations where sedimentation 

is occurring. These locations are 

substantially lower in any of the action 

alternatives compared to the No Action 

Alternative, even without the PDC in 

place. Although sedimentation is lower, 

it would continue to occur with OHV use 

on native surface roads and trails.

Alternative design and PDC (Section 

2.3) aimed at focusing use to particular 

areas and eliminating cross-country 

travel would reduce the amount of 

sedimentation.

Fugitive Dust Section 3.12 OHV use on native surface roads and 

trails will create dust during the dry 

months of the year (June – September).

Alternative design and PDC (Section 

2.3) aimed at focusing use to particular 

areas and eliminating cross-country 

travel would reduce the amount of dust 

and the widespread occurrence of the 

dust.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 270

Unavoidable 

Adverse Effect Reference Descriptions of Effects Forest Service Intended Response and Rationale

Disturbance to 

wildlife, including 

noise

Section 3.5 Wildlife, including deer, elk, and nesting 

birds, can be harassed by human 

presence and noise from vehicles. 

This can result in reduced survival and 

reproduction or loss of young when the 

adult animal flees the disturbance. The 

critical period for wintering animals is 

December 1 to March 31. The critical 

period for elk calving is May 15 to June 

21. The critical period for deer fawning is 

May 25 to July 15. There could be some 

loss of fawns, calves and fledgling birds 

from OHV use in the route vicinities.

The incorporation of seasonal closures 

for the different alternatives focuses 

on known key areas for wintering and 

rearing areas. The seasonal closures 

would protect 90% of the elk calving 

and 70% of the deer fawning in these 

areas. It would also protect areas 

where deer and elk are known to 

winter. These closures would benefit 

many nesting birds. Some losses from 

harassment would still occur. Seasonal 

closures offer a compromise between 

recreational opportunities and wildlife 

production. 

Effects to heritage 

resources

Section 3.8 Proposed new trail construction would 

require excavation and grading resulting 

in disturbance (adverse effect) to precontact archaeological site 663NA319.

PDC (Section 2.3) include 

archaeological data recovery as a 

mitigation measure to lessen adverse 

effect. Data recovery effort would be 

focused on area of construction impact. 

Increase in 

potential accident 

probability and 

severity due to 

mixed use.

Section 3.11 Crash probability and severity would be 

medium to high on most proposed OHV 

routes. Crash probability and severity 

are most affected by vehicle(s) speed, 

visibility, and operator behavior.

PDC (Section 2.3) are proposed to 

lower crash probability and severity. 

On most routes it is estimated that 

crash probability and severity may be 

lowered from high to medium or from 

medium to low, with implementation 

of PDC. PDC would not eliminate 

crashes, or reduce injuries to zero. 

Effects of OHV 

use on botanical 

species.

Section 3.6 There is some risk that native plants 

may be injured and/or killed by OHVs. 

OHVs may impact plants by crushing, 

trampling, or breaking vegetation. 

Additionally, some plants may be harmed 

by vehicle emissions. There is also some 

risk that native plants may be adversely 

impacted by invasive plant species. Any 

species along trails and roads would be 

threatened by not only the direct impacts 

of OHVs, but also by any invasive plants 

that are transported to the designated 

route systems. Adverse impacts would 

most likely be localized to the OHV 

system. 

The adverse effects would be 

minimized by planting native plants in 

areas impacted. Also, adverse effects 

would be minimized by managing 

routes and staging areas according 

to the Mt. Hood Site Specific Invasive 

Plant Treatment Record of Decision 

and Final Impact Statement (2005). 

PDC in Section 2.3 focuses on botany 

resources. 

Table 3-141. (continued)
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 271

3.15.2. Short-term Uses and Maintenance of Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this 

includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner 

calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature 

can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

The continued unmanaged and inappropriate OHV use on the Forest would result in long-term adverse effects on a 

broad range of resources, reducing the long-term productivity of the National Forest System lands. Unmanaged and 

inappropriate OHV use, particularly cross-country travel, threaten ecosystem sustainability, including: trampling 

native and species botanical species; harassing wildlife species and reducing the functionality of habitat and forage 

for wildlife and livestock; increasing soil erosion and reducing water quality; eliminating of long-term riparian 

area function; and, trampling heritage resources. Unmanaged and inappropriate OHV use also increases the risks 

associated with motorized mixed-use roads, which can lead to increased accidents between licensed vehicles and 

OHVs. Lastly, unmanaged and inappropriate OHV use can lead to increased user-conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized users. These problems would continue to increase as the popularity of OHV use grows and 

more users come to the Forest. The cost of implemented a managed OHV system on the Forest and mitigating 

previous damage would continue to increase as the damage associated with unmanaged and inappropriate OHV use 

continues.

The relationship between uses and long-term productivity as it relates to OHV use is described throughout this EIS, 

primarily in each of the resource areas discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 discusses the relationship between land 

management activities and OHV use, as well as describes the effects of the proposed OHV routes on the resources.

3.15.3. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of species or the 

removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time, such as the temporary 

loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

Implementation of any of the action alternatives would not produce irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. All of the alternatives propose OHV routes by class of vehicle and time of year as required by the Final 

Travel Management Rule. Also, all of the alternatives would be implemented within the constraints of the PDC 

described in Section 2.3, and other national and regional management direction (which incorporate applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies). Adverse effects of new trail construction described in Chapter 3 are likely to be localized 

and short-term. Adverse effects associated with OHV use described in Chapter 3 are likely to be long-term; however, 

the effects of implementing any action alternatives are substantially lower than continuing with the No Action 

Alternative.

3.15.4. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are addressed in each of the resource areas discussed in Chapter 3. Incremental impacts of the 

environment from multiple actions over time are assessed for each of the Forest resources.

3.15.5. Conflicts with Plans or Policies of Other Jurisdictions

NEPA at 40 CRF 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact 

statements concurrently with and integrated with . . . other environmental review lands and executive orders.”

Based on information received during scoping, informal consultation meetings, and analysis in the EIS, none of 

the alternative under consideration would conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including the 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. This project would not conflict with any other policies and regulations or 

laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Wilderness Act, and National Historic Preservation 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 272

Act. Refer to the following sections for discussions regarding these laws:

• Section 3.4 Water Quality – Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts;

• Section 3.5 Fisheries and 3.6 Wildlife – Endangered Species Act;

• Section 3.5 Fisheries – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;

• Section 3.14 Congressionally Designated Areas – Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Acts; and,

• Section 3.9 Heritage Resources – National Historic Preservation Act.

3.15.6. Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, Women and Environmental Justice

Executive Order #12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations, directs Federal agencies to address effects accruing in a disproportionate way to minority and low 

income populations. Section 3.14.3 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice discusses the impacts of this project on 

these groups.

Additionally, in accordance with Forest Service and BLM policy, contracting procedures would ensure that projects 

made available to contractors would be advertised and awarded in a manner that give proper consideration to 

minority and women-owned business groups.

3.15.7. Effects on American Indian Rights

No impacts on American Indian social, economic or subsistence rights are anticipated. No impacts are anticipated 

related to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Confederated 

Tribes of Grand Ronde and Confederated Tibes of Siletz have historic interests in this area and have been contacted 

in reference to this Proposed Action and environmental analysis, as discussed in Section 4.4 Consultation with Tribal 

Governments.

3.15.8. Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, Forestlands, or Parklands

No prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands or parklands exist within the project area. Since none of these lands exist, there would 

be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur.

3.15.9. Wetlands and Floodplains

Floodplains are areas within the riparian areas of Class 1, 2, and 3 streams, and vary from only a few feet, to the entire 

riparian area in width. Wetlands are areas that regularly are saturated by surface or ground water and subsequently 

are characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Proposed OHV 

routes within riparian areas are discussed in Sections 3.3 Water Quality and 3.4 Fisheries. 

The environmental effects are consistent with the standards and guidelines for the Mt. Hood National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (as amended) (see Appendix D). No adverse effects are anticipated to occur to 

wetlands and floodplains with any action alternative. 
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 — 273

3.16. Forest Plan Amendment

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 in this EIS propose an amendment to the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan Amendment #17 for all alternatives includes change to 20 of 

the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. The proposed changes are described in Table 2-13. In addition, 

Alternative 2 includes six additional changes to standards and guidelines for Research Natural Areas, Special Interest 

Area, Special Old Growth, Special Emphasis Watershed, and Key Site Riparian. Alternative 3 includes the two of 

these additional changes for the Special Interest Areas and Key Site Riparian. Alternative 4 does not include any 

of these additional changes. These proposed changes are described in Table 2-14 for Alternative 2 and Table 2-22 

for Alternative 3. Also, the Forest Plan Amendment replaces the Monitoring Plan for Off-Road Vehicles Use found 

on pages 5-69 to 5-70 in the Forest Plan with the Monitoring Framework presented in Chapter 2, Section 2.5. This 

Forest Plan Amendment, if approved, would be effective at the time of the decision and would apply to the respective 

management areas throughout the Forest.

The regulations for forest planning under the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR Part 219, as of July 1999) 

provide procedures for the Responsible Officials to amend a Forest Plan. The regulations state: “If the change 

resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for the purposes of the planning process, the Forest 

Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion 

of NEPA procedures” (36 CFR 219.10(f)). The proposal to amend the Forest Plan was described in a scoping notice 

mailed to the public in August 2007. Analysis of these proposed changes is included in this EIS.

Additional guidance on amending Forest Plans is provided in the Forest Service Manual 1900-Planning (January 31, 

2006). Section 1926.51 describes non significant amendments as:

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

management;

• Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting form further on-site 

analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for 

long-term land and resource management;

• Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and/or,

• Opportunities for additional management practices that would contribute to achievement of the management prescriptions.

The proposed amendment does not propose changes in management area boundaries or prescriptions, but does 

represent minor changes in standards and guidelines and provides for additional management practices that would 

bring the Forest Plan into compliance with the 2005 Final Travel Management Rule.

The proposed minor changes to the standards and guidelines A4-038, B1-077, B1-078, B1-079, B3-038, B11-037, 

C1-041, and C1-042 limits OHV use to designated routes and prohibits cross-country travel. Only designated routes 

would be available for OHV use; all other roads and trails in the Land Use Allocations would be closed to OHV use, 

unless additional NEPA analysis is completed. The proposed minor changes to the standards and guidelines A3-

006, A3-007, B1-082, B1-083, B5-001, and B5-002 replaces the enforcement tool to the Motor Vehicle Use Map and 

no longer requires areas or roads closed to OHV use to be posted. The proposed minor changes for standards and 

guidelines A4-039, A7-024, A9-039, B6-036 and B6-037 allow OHV to continue using existing roads and trails; no 

new OHV trail construction or cross-country travel would be permitted. All proposed changes are in accordance 

with the Final Travel Management Rule (Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; 

Final Rule [Federal Register, Vol. 70, pgs. 68264-68291]).

None of these changes would alter any of the multiple use goals or objectives and current management activities 

outlined in the Forest Plan for Research Natural Areas (A3), Special Interest Areas (A4), Special Old Growth (A7), 

Key Site Riparian (A9), Wild Scenic and Recreational Rivers (B1), Roaded Recreation (B3), Pileated Woodpecker/

Pine Martin Habitat Area (B5), Special Emphasis Watershed (B6) Deer and Elk Summer Range (B11), and Timber 

Emphasis (C1). To the extent that OHVs may adversely affect the multiple use goals of these management areas, 

however, limiting OHVs to the designated routes and prohibiting cross-country travel would contribute to achieving 

multiple use goals.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 3 — 274

The minor change to the Forestwide standard and guidelines (FW-447, FW-459, FW-465) would not change the 

overall intent of the standard, it just clarifies that OHV use would be limited to designated routes and cross-country 

travel would be prohibited. The minor change to the Forestwide standard and guidelines (FW-413, FW-483, FW-543) 

would not change the overall intent of the standard, it just replaces the enforcement tool to the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map and no longer requires areas or roads closed to OHV use to be posted. Therefore, there would be no change in 

the multiple use goals of protecting transportation, dispersed recreation, or wild and scenic rivers across the Forest. 

Lastly, the Monitoring Plan for Off-Road Vehicles is updated with the Monitoring Framework to reflect the intent 

of the Final Travel Management rule. Completing the EIS provides a Forestwide analysis of the OHV opportunities 

across the Forest as directed by two of the items in the Monitoring Plan. The remaining item focuses on balance 

which is included in the Monitoring Framework. As such, the new Monitoring Framework does not change the 

overall intent of the Monitoring Plan.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) requires that amendments to Forest Plans “be reviewed by the Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee [REIC] to assure consistency with the objectives of these standards and guidelines” 

(NWFP, page E-18). Forest Plan amendments that do not impact NWFP Standards and Guidelines do not require 

REIC review. Appendix D lists all of the applicable NWFP Standards and Guidelines for this project. All of these 

standards and guidelines are analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EIS, and none of standards and guidelines requires an 

amendment as part of this project. All the requirements for the riparian reserves are met through all the action 

alternatives, as required by the project design criteria and analyzed in Section 3.7 Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

Project design criteria W-6, W-7, and W-8 explicitly address trail construction, cross-country trail, and stream 

crossings within riparian reserves. As such, the Forest Plan Amendment only proposes changes to the Mt. Hood 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and does not propose any changes to any other plans, 

including the Northwest Forest Plan.
Chapter 4 — 1

Chapter 4 -

Consultation and Coordination
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 4 — 2
Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination

Chapter 4 — 3

4.0. Consultation and Coordination

4.1. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Formal consultation is required with FWS for disturbance of Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) for 

this project. Consultation with the FWS for disturbance will be completed prior to signing the Record of Decision. 

The effects determination from disturbance for several of the known sites is May Affect and are Likely to Adversely 

Affect northern spotted owls due to the proximity of the roads and trails to the known spotted owl nest sites. Effects 

to Critical Habitat are May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to the potential loss of snags from danger tree 

removal. Snags are a primary constituent element but the amount of loss would be extremely low from a habitat 

standpoint. The effects call for habitat modification for this project is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect the 

northern spotted owl or its habitat. Formal consultation on this project is expected to begin in July 2009.

In addition, early involvement with FWS was conducted in regard to listed bull trout and their habitat that occur 

within or near the proposed OHV routes. FWS provided input on the location of designated OHV routes in 

the Peavine and Graham Pass locations. The input was incorporated into the alternative development process. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have a no effect determination for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). As such, no consultation 

would be required for this project for bull trout.

4.2. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries)

Early involvement with NOAA fisheries was conducted in regard to listed anadromous fish species and their 

habitat that occur within or near the proposed OHV routes. Alternative 2 has an effects determination of may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and critical habitat 

due to sedimentation and OHV route stream crossing. Alternative 3 has an effects determination of may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect for Lower Columbia River coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Middle Columbia River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and critical habitat due to sedimentation and OHV route stream crossing. If either of these 

alternatives is selected, consultation will be required and must be completed prior to signing the Record of Decision. 

Consultation on this project is expected to begin in June 2009.

4.3. Consultation with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires consideration be given to the potential effect of federal 

undertakings on historic resources. This includes historic and prehistoric cultural resource sites. The guidelines for 

assessing effects and for consultation are provided in 36 CFR 800. To implement these guidelines, Heritage Resource 

Survey Reports will be completed for each OHV location where OHV routes are designated and submitted to the 

SHPO prior to the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Informal consultation was conducted with 

SHPO on defining Area of Potential Effects (APE), site armoring, and project design criteria.

4.4. Consultation with Tribal Governments

Government-to-government consultation was conducted with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS). A 

quarterly coordination meeting is held between tribal authorities of CTWS and line officers with Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management. Meetings were held in March, May and September 2008 as well as June 2009. The status 

of the OHV project was discussed between government officials at these meetings. In addition, the Forest Service 

coordinated with the CTWS, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, and Confederated Tribes of Siletz at the staff 

level, as summarized below. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 4 — 4

Interdisciplinary teams from the Forest and CTWS met to discuss the proposed action, alternatives, and project 

design features. The Tribe expressed concern about the routes designated in the Peavine under Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action). The Forest IDT incorporated their suggestions and re-routing trails in the development of 

Alternative 3 and 4 for the Peavine location. Tribal representatives also expressed concerns related to trespassing, law 

enforcement, wildlife (deer and elk habitat), water quality, and increased fire hazard. The two teams discussed these 

issues and incorporated the comments and suggestions from the CTWS into the alternative design and project design 

criteria. 

In addition to meetings with the two interdisciplinary teams, heritage and cultural resources specialists from the 

Forest and each of the three tribes met to discuss the proposed action, and the impacts this project would have on 

heritage resources. The Forest Archeologist has met on several other occasions with members of the CTWS and 

Grande Rhonde to discuss the project in more detail. Also, the Forest Archeologist shared the Heritage Resource 

Specialist Report and project design criteria with representatives from the CTWS and Grand Ronde. Government-togovernment consultation with all three tribes will continue throughout the planning process.

4.5. Consultation with Federal, State, and County Governments

Coordination has occurred with Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon 

Department of Fish & Wildlife, Oregon Department of Forestry, as well as Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah and 

Wasco counties.

The Forest coordinated with the Salem District of the Bureau of Land Management when considering whether or 

not to incorporate a designated Hillock Burn OHV route system into the proposed action. This proposed OHV route 

system is along the Forest Service Road 45 system on the Clackamas River Ranger District. Current OHV users travel 

between the National Forest System and BLM lands through interconnecting roads. BLM will be preparing to begin 

OHV planning on its lands in the near future. The Forest and BLM decided to postpone designating any OHV routes 

in this area until that time.

The Forest received a grant from Oregon Parks and Recreation Department in 2004 to develop a preliminary 

proposal for OHV routes on Mt. Hood National Forest and to conduct preliminary effects analysis. Also, the Forest 

received a grant in 2005 to conduct a feasibility study of the proposed OHV routes. This preliminary proposal was 

used to develop the proposed action analyzed in this EIS. Recreation specialists have continued to coordinate with 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department throughout the process, and their input has been incorporated into the 

alternative development process.

• When the Forest was developing the preliminary proposal, the Forest met with Oregon Department of Forestry 

to discuss the designated OHV route system at Tillamook State Forest. The Forest discussed the successes and 

challenges associated with designating OHV trails in Douglas-fir forest on the westside of the Cascades.

• The Forest Wildlife Biologist coordinated with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) to identify 

areas of concern where deer and elk winter and summer range overlapped proposed designated OHV systems. 

These areas of concerns were used to develop the proposed seasonal closures. In addition, the project design 

criteria were shared with ODF&W and their input was incorporated.

• Each District Ranger met with the Board of County Commissioners in their county to discuss the proposed 

action. This included Clackamas, Hood River, Wasco and Multnomah counties. In addition, the Barlow District 

Ranger met on numerous occasions with Wasco County Court to discuss the designated OHV system in the 

Rock Creek area. Alternative 3 analyzed in this EIS was a collaborative effort by Wasco County, Sportsman’s Park 

residents, and the Forest Service. Lastly, the Recreation Assistant at Hood River Ranger District discussed the 

proposed routes and potential connections with county OHV systems with Hood River County. These connections were incorporated into Alternative 3 for the Gibson Prairie and Mount Defiance locations.
Chapter 5 — 1

Chapter 5 -

List of Preparers
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 5 — 2
Chapter 5 - List of Preparers

Chapter 5 — 3

5.0. List of Preparers

The following is a list of contributors to this EIS. Numerous other Forest Service employees contributed to the 

completion of this document through their assistance in review and support functions, and/or by providing US 

Forest Service level data and other information needs. Their help was greatly appreciated and recognized. The 

members and roles of the interdisciplinary team are listed below and short biographies follow for each person.

Role IDT Member

Project Coordinator / Recreation Specialist Malcolm Hamilton

IDT Leader / NEPA Specialists Jennie O’Connor Card

Writer/Editor Michelle Lombardo

Soil Scientist John Dodd

Hydrologist / Air Quality Specialist Mark Kreiter

Fish Biologist Gary Asbridge / Tracii Hickman 

Wildlife Biologist Alan Dyck

Botanist / Invasive Species Lance Holmberg

Heritage Resource Specialist Rick McClure

Law Enforcement Officer Frank Aguilar

Fire Specialist Scott MacDonald

Roads Engineer Serena Helvey

Motorized Mixed Use Specialist Stewart Fletcher

Social Scientist Elisabeth Grinspoon

GIS Specialist Kim Vieira

Frank Aguilar. Law Enforcement Officer, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Zigzag Ranger District, 

Zigzag, Oregon. Experience: Law Enforcement Officer for eight years; worked as an OHV Manager and Assistant 

Recreation Planner with the Forest Service for seven years.

Gary Asbridge. Fisheries Biologist, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Hood River Ranger District, 

Parkdale, Oregon. Education: B.S. in Biology, Zoology emphasis; M.S. in Fishery Resources. Experience: Barlow 

Ranger District fisheries biologist for 4 years, Barlow and Hood River Ranger Districts fisheries program manager 

for 15 years. Fisheries technical support and analysis for a wide variety of Forest projects, including timber 

sales, silviculture, watershed restoration, road building/management, and recreation, as well as the design and 

implementation of watershed restoration projects and fish population/habitat surveys.

John Dodd. Soil Scientist, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Barlow Ranger District, Dufur, Oregon. 

Education: B.S. in Soil Science, Land Use Emphasis. Experience: Provide technical soils information to managers to 

assist in making informed decisions. Types of projects information has been provided for include timber sales, ski 

area management, other recreation-related, grazing allotments, engineering, on and off-Forest small and large scale 

restoration projects through local watershed councils, irrigation districts, local municipal watersheds, etc. Monitoring 

projects for implementation and effectiveness. Experience with the US Forest Service since June of 1988, 20 of those 

years on the Mt. Hood National Forest.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 5 — 4

Alan Dyck. Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Sandy, Oregon. Education: B.S. in 

Wildlife Management – Humboldt State University. Experience: Nine years as Forest Wildlife Biologist on the Mt. 

Hood National Forest; three years as a Wildlife Biologist with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service; 

nine years as Wildlife Administrator for the US Army at Fort Pickett; and an additional seven years as a biological 

technician for the Army, USDA Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. Worked in a variety of jobs dealing 

with fish and wildlife habitat and population management on public and private lands. Recent experience in 

analyzing the effects of Forest projects on wildlife habitat and management.

Stewart Fletcher. Civil Engineer, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood, Willamette and Siuslaw National Forests and 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Hood River Ranger District, Parkdale, Oregon. Education: B.S. in Forest 

Engineering 1981 – Michigan Technological University. Experience: 28 years working in various positions in road 

and bridge survey, design, construction, maintenance, inspection and program management in Alaska, Washington 

and Oregon. Designated: qualified engineer to perform engineering analysis of motorized mixed use proposals, 

9/10/2007.

Elisabeth Grinspoon. Social Scientist, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Education: 

B.A. in East Asian Studies; Master of Forestry; Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. Experience: 

Participatory Rural Appraisal Specialist with United Nations Volunteers, Consultant to Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Program Specialist and Social Scientist with the US Forest Service since 2002

Malcolm Hamilton. Recreation Program Manager, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Sandy, Oregon. 

Education: B.S. in Forest Resource Management, and graduate studies in silviculture and forest ecology. Experience: 

34 years in silviculture and recreation management with National Forests in Oregon, California, and Arizona.

Serena Helvey. Roads Engineer, Project Development, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Clackamas 

River Ranger District, Estacada, Oregon/Sub region Engineering Member(Mt. Hood/Siuslaw/Willamette N.F.). 

Education: A.A.S. in Civil Engineering, A.A.S. in Forestry, Certificate in Natural Resources. Experience: One season 

as a Wildlife Technician, Three season as a Timber Pre-sale Technician, Two years experience in the Engineering and 

Road Management Department. Road decommissioning projects, road maintenance design work.

Tracii Hickman. Fish Biologist and Willamette Fish Level 1 team representative, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Hood 

National Forest, Walla Walla, Washington (telecommuter). Education: B.A. in Biology – Lewis and Clark College 

with graduate work in Fisheries – Oregon State University. Experience: Project effects assessments, watershed 

restoration and ESA consultation with the USDA Forest Service since 1988; five years with the Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station in Juneau Alaska and Corvallis Oregon as a fisheries technician monitoring habitat use 

by anadromous fish. 

Lance Holmberg. Botanist, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Barlow Ranger District, Dufur, Oregon. 

Education: M.A. in Biology with botany emphasis from Humboldt State University (1969), B.S. in Natural 

Resources from Humboldt State University (1967), and an A.A. in Forestry from Fullerton Community College 

(1965). Experience: 17 years as botanist for the forest service on Bear Springs and Barlow Districts. Taxa expert on 

bryophytes. 

Mark Kreiter. Hydrologist, US Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and Mt. Hood National 

Forest, Hood River, Oregon. Education: B.S. and graduate work in Geology, A.A.S. in Water Resources. Experience: 

Project effects assessments, watershed restoration and monitoring with the US Forest Service since 1989.

Michelle Lombardo. Natural Resource Planner, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Sandy, Oregon. 

Education: B.S. in Natural Science, emphasis in Geology; M.S. in Geography, emphasis in Natural Resource 

Management. Experience: Forest Plan implementation and NEPA coordination and writing with the Forest Service 

since 2005.

Scott MacDonald. Assistant Fire Management Officer, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Barlow Ranger 

District, Dufur, Oregon. Education: Graduated in 2003 from the Technical Fire Management program, and is 

currently a qualified TFLD, STEN, RXB2, FALC, WHSP, and a trainee DIVS & ICT3 with the NW Oregon Type 2 

team. Experience: Began with the Forest Service in 1985, working in fire/fuels management on the Goosenest Ranger 

District, Klamath National Forest, and continued in fire suppression on engines and hand crews thru 1990. In 1991, 
Chapter 5 - List of Preparers

Chapter 5 — 5

moved to the Winema National Forest, Chiloquin Ranger District, as an Engine Boss, and spent 13 years as a Engine 

Supervisor and as a Crew Boss for type 2 crews; also worked as an Ignition specialist, Prescribed fire Burn Boss, 

and as a Fuels specialist for Interdisciplinary Teams. From 2000 thru 2003 used fire behavior skills for local Type 3 

incidents as a Type 3 Fire Behavior Specialist. In 2004, became the AFMO and has served as the Fire/Fuels specialist 

on three Wildlife Urban Interface Fuel Reduction Project teams in that time.

Rick McClure. Archaeologist/Heritage Program Manager, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood and Gifford Pinchot National 

Forests, Mt. Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, Washington. Education: B.A. with Anthropology specialty, The 

Evergreen State College; M.A. in Anthropology, Washington State University. Experience: Contract archaeologist, 

3 years; District Archaeologist, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10 years; Forest Archaeologist, Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest, 13 years; Forest Archaeologist, Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forest (combined) 5 years. 

Jennie O’Connor Card. Natural Resource Planner, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Hood River Ranger 

District, Parkdale, Oregon. Education: B.A. in Biological Basis of Behavior and Environmental Studies; Master of 

Environmental Management, emphasis in Resource Ecology; Master of Forestry, emphasis in Silviculture – Duke 

University. Experience: Forest Plan implementation, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) coordination and 

writing, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Forest Management with the Forest Service since 2001.

Kim Vieira. GIS Services Specialist, Data Resources Management, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, Oregon. Education: High School Diploma. Experience: Engineering Tech – Fremont NF 1980 to 1981. 

Engineering Tech: Mt. Hood National Forest 1981 to 1991. Engineering Tech: Umpqua NF 1991 to 1994. GIS and 

Computer Specialist: Umpqua National Forest 1994 to 2000. GIS Trainer: R6 Information Resource Management 

2000 to 2004. R6 Data Resource Management GIS Data Services Specialist: Located at the R6 Regional Office 2004 

to Present. Fully qualified GIS for incidents. Major Incidents: Tiller Complex Fire - 2002, Space Shuttle Columbia 

Recovery Incident - 2003, Florida Hurricanes – Charley, Francis, Ivan and Jean 2004.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 5 — 6
Chapter 6 — 1

Chapter 6 -

Distribution List of Draft EIS
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 6 — 2
Chapter 6 - Distribution List of Draft EIS

Chapter 6 — 3

6.0. Distribution List of Draft EIS

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be distributed to individuals and organizations that responded 

throughout this process, as well as Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and key 

partners. These organizations and agencies are listed below. Also, the mailing list includes over 500 individuals that 

are not listed here. The complete mailing list is maintained in the project record, available at the Mt. Hood National 

Forest Headquarters Office in Sandy, Oregon.

American Hiking Society

American Motorcycle Association

ANPO

ATV-Ride

Backcountry Horsemen

Bark

BlueRibbon Coalition

Bob Lamphere’s Beaverton/Honda

Bureau of Land Management

CAMBA

Center for Biological Diversity

Clackamas River Basin Council

Clackamas River Water

Columbia Gorge Off-Road Association

Columbia Gorge Power Sledding

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Discover Bicycles

Dodge Logging

Emerald Trail Riders Association, Inc.

Fir Mountain Timber LLC

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

Friends of Mount Hood

Fun County Power Sports

Gifford Pinchot Task Force

Gorge Free Riders Association

Grassvalley RV Park

Gresham’s Honda

Hood River County Board of Commissioners

Hood River County Forestry Department

Hood River County Planning Department

KB Trees, LLC

Longhaven II Joint Venture

Longview Fibre Company

Mazamas

METRO

Mid-Columbia Fire and Rescue

Middle Fork Irrigation District

Morrow County Grain Growers Kamasaki

Morrow County Public Works

Mt. Hood Chapter, Pacific Crest Trail Association

Mt. Hood Community College

Mt. Hood Polaris

Mt. Hood Snowmobile Club

Mt. Hood Study Group

Mt. Scott Motorcycle Club

Mt. View Cycles

Mule Deer Foundation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Chapter 6 — 4

Northern Oregon Motorcycle & ATV Club

Northwest Motorcycle Association

NW Quadriders

Oak Lodge Water District

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Equestrian Trails

Oregon Hunters Association

Oregon Motorcycle Riders Association, Inc.

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department

Oregon Wild

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Pacific Legal Foundation

Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Association

Port Blakely Tree Farms

Portland State University

Portland United Mountain Pedalers (PUMP)

REI

Rock Creek District Improvement Co.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Scott Water District

SDS Lumber Company

Sierra Club

South Fork Water Board

Sportsman Park Community Association

The City of Mosier

The City of The Dalles Watershed

The Dalles Watershed Council

The Wilderness Society

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Warren Industries

Wasco County Board of Commissioners

Wasco County Soil & Water Conservation District

West Side Fire District

Western Law Environmental Law Center
References — 1

References
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 2
References

References — 3

References

Abbot, Henry L. 1857. Report of Lieut. Henry L. Abbot Upon Explorations for a Railroad Route from Sacramento Valley to the 

Columbia River. Washington, D.C.

Albright, Del. 2008. What to Do in this Trying Economy. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/

article.php?id=1636. Accessed on: October 2008.

Aldridge, D. W., B. S. Payne, and A. C. Miller. 1987. The effects of intermittent exposure to suspended solids and turbulence 

on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental Pollution 45:17-28.

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. GTR-INT-122. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Asbridge, G. M., A. McKinney, and J. Schreck. 2001. Fish passage at road crossings assessment. Project Completion Report 

1999-2001, Mt. Hood National Forest, Sandy, Oregon.

Aukerman, R., and W. T. Springer. 1976. Effect of recreation on water quality in wildlands. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 

2. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Baxter, Greg. 2002. All Terrain Vehicles as a Cause of Fire Ignition in Alberta Forests, Advantage 3: 44. Wildland Fire 

Operations Research Centre.

Baxter, Greg. 2004. Evaluating the Fire Ignition Potential of all Terrain Vehicles in Alberta Forests. Advantage 5: 08. 

Wildland Fire Operations Research Group.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

Bergerson, Terry, et al. 2005. Oregon Trails 2005-2014: A Statewide Action Plan. [Web Page]. Located at: http://egov.oregon.

gov/ORPD/PLANS/trailsplanning.shtml. Accessed on: October 2008.

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19: 83-138.

Bjornn, T. C., and seven coauthors. 1974. Sediment in streams and its effects on aquatic life. University of Idaho, Water 

Resources Research Institute, Research Technical Completion Report Project B-025-IDA, Moscow.

Bjornn, T. C., and six coauthors. 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on insects and fish. 

University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Bulletin 17, Moscow.

Brodo, I.M., S.D. Sharnoff, and S. Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bursell, Neal. 2008. Personal communication. President, Northern Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club and Resident at 

Sportsman’s Park, Oregon. (10 October 2008). 

Burtchard, Greg C. 1994. The Posy Archaeological Project: Upland Use of the Central Cascades, Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Report submitted to Mt. Hood National Forest. Laboratory of Archaeology and Anthropology, Portland State University, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Burtchard, Greg and Robert Keeler. 1991. Mt. Hood Cultural Resource Reevaluation Project. Report prepared under contract 

to Mt. Hood National Forest. Laboratory of Archaeology and Anthropology, Portland State University.

Burtchard, Greg C., Dennis R. Werth, and Sandra L. Snyder. 1993. Clackamas Wild and Scenic River Cultural Resource 

Inventory Project, Mt. Hood National Forest. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 4

Bustard, D. R., and D. W. Narver. 1975. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout 

(Salmo clarki) relative to simulated alteration of winter habitat. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:681-687.

Calvin, D.; Luther, T.; Eden, M.; Herb, G.; Fiedler, P.; Zalunardo, D.; Holbrook, J. 1991. Cascade Crest Elk Telemetry Study. 

Unpublished report. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs.

Canfield, J.E.; Lyon, L.J.; Hillis, J.M.; Thompson, M.J. 1999. Ungulates. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coords. Effects of 

recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 6.1–6.25.

Carlton, Don. 2003. Crowning and Extreme Fire Behavior Beyond Rothermel 101. Technical Fire Management 18, Module 

III, Lesson Plan.

Cassier, E.F.; Freddy, D.J.; Ables, E.D. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross country skiers in Yellowstone National 

Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20(4): 375–381.

Castellano, M.A., J.E. Smith, T.O’Dell, E. Cazares, and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the 

Northwest Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General 

Technical Report, PNW-GTR-476.

Castellano, M.A., E. Cazares, B. Fondrick, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. Handbook to Additional Fungal Species of Special Concern 

in the Northwest Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General 

Technical Report, PNW-GTR-572.

Caulk, Grady. 1994. Cultural Resource Site Report, 662NA93, Hawke Eye Site. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

Chelladurai, Packianathan. Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation, Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 

2006.

Cline, L. D., R. A. Short, and J. V. Ward. 1982. The influence of highway construction on the macroinvertebrates and 

epilithic algae of a high mountain stream. Hydrobiologia 96: 149-159.

Coffin, B. 2009. Personal communication. Hydrologist. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, WA.

Cordell, H. Ken, Carter J. Betz, Gary T. Green, and Becky Stephens. 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United 

States and its Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 

[Web Page]. Located at: http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IrisReports.html. Accessed on: October 2008.

Cordell, H. Ken, Carter J. Betz, Gary T. Green, and Shela H. Mou. 2008. Outdoor Recreation Activity Trends: What’s 

Growing, What’s Slowing? [Web Page]. Located at: http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IrisReports.html. Accessed on: 

October 2008.

Crabtree, D. M. 2004. Effects of petroleum and various industrial and automotive organic compounds on fishes, with 

particular reference to salmonid fishes in fresh water and paved parking lot runoff. Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla, 

Washington. 15 pp.

Crimmins, Tom M. Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation. 2006. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.NOHVCC.

org/education/tools.asp. Accessed on: October 2008.

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: 

distribution, habitat and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 492 pp.

Culp, J. M., S. J. Walde, and R. W. Davies. 1983. Relative importance of substrate particle size and detritus of stream benthic 

macroinvertebrate microdistribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1568-1574.
References

References — 5

Currens, K.P., C.B. Schreck, and H.W. Li. 1990. Allozyme and morphological divergence of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) above and below waterfalls in the Deschutes River, Oregon. Copeia 3:730-746.

DeWalt, R. E., and J. H. Olive. 1988. Effects of eroding glacial silt on the benthic insects of Silver Creek, Portage County, 

Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 88:154-159.

Dietrich, P., and G. Mulamoottil. 1974. Does recreational use of reservoirs impair water quality? Water Pollution Control 

112:16-18.

Dodd, J. 2008. Personal communication. Soil Scientist. Mt. Hood National Forest. Dufur, Oregon.

Elliot, W. J., R. B. Foltz, and M. D. Remboldt. 1994. Predicting sedimentation from roads at stream crossings with the 

WEPP model. Paper No. 947511. Presented at the 1994 ASAE International Winter Meeting. St. Joseph, MI. 

Elliot, W. J., R. B. Foltz, and C. H. Luce. 1995. Validation of the water erosion prediction project (WEPP) model for lowvolume forest roads. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, pp. 178-186. Washington 

D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Everest, F. H., R. L. Beschta, J. C. Scrivener, K. V. Koski, J. R. Sedell, and C. J. Cederholm. 1987. Fine sediment and 

salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98-142 in Salo and Cundy (1987).

English, Donald B.K., Susan M. Kocis and Derek P. Hales. 2004. Off-Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume 

and Characteristics of Visitors. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Athens, GA.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, 

economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/PDF/. Accessed 2004 Jul.

Ferguson, M.A.D.; Keith, L.B. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk in Elk Island National 

Park, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 96(1): 69–78.

Forest Concepts L1910. Long-Strand Erosion Control Material from Forest and Urban Wood. Federal Way, Washington.

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Distribution and abundance of red tree voles in Oregon based on 

occurrence in pellets of northern spotted owls. Northwest Science. 78: 294-302.

Freddy, D.J.; Bronaugh, W.M.; Fowler, M.C. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and 

snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14(1): 63–68.

French, R. A. 2006. Personal communication. District Fish Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Dalles, 

Oregon.

French, Kathrine, Yvonne Hajda, Robert Moore, and David Ellis. 1995. An Ethnographic Study of Mt. Hood National Forest, 

Oregon. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Report No. 86.

French, David and Kathrine French. 1998. Wasco, Wishram, and Cascades. In Handbook of North American Indians, 

Volume 12, Plateau. Ed. Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 360-377. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Furnish, J.L., and R.W. Monthey. 1998. Draft management recommendations for ROD mollusk species associated with 

springs and spring runs: Fluminicola new species 2, 3, 11, 19; Vorticifex new species 1, Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini; Juga 

(Oreobasis) new species 2; and Lyogyrus new species 1 and 3. v. 2.0

Gaines, William L.; Singleton, Peter H.; Ross, Roger C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on 

wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 p.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 6

Gardner, John. 2007. ATV Market Share by DSM by County. Personal communication. (12 September 2007). Owner, 

Polaris Dealership, Boring, Oregon.

Gilbert, Barrie. 2007. Thrill Craft; The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. Foundation for Deep 

Ecology. Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Hall, T. J. 1986. A laboratory study of the effects of fine sediments on survival of three species of Pacific salmon from eyed 

egg to fry emergence. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Technical Bulletin 482, 

New York.

Hanes, Richard. 2008. Travel Management and the National Historic Preservation Act. Draft document dated 2/1/08, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Hernandez, Sharon K. 2009. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist. US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, 

Clackamas River Ranger District. Estacada, Oregon. (6 January 2009).

Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by juvenile chinook salmon in a 

highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:185-195.

Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1987. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Hood River Soil and Water Conservation District. 2004. Hood River Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power Planning Council, 

Portland, Oregon.

Hood River Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). 1999. Hood River Watershed Assessment. Hood River 

Watershed Group. Hood River. Oregon.

Horn, Jonathon C. 1987. Bingham’s Camp: Historical Archaeology of an 1890s Eastern Oregon Logging Camp. 

Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Idaho.

Howes, Steve. 1979. Soil Resource Inventory, Mt. Hood National Forest. Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

Hunn, Eugene and David S. French. 1998. Western Columbia River Sahaptins. In Handbook of North American Indians, 

Volume 12, Plateau. Ed. Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 439-445. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

ICBEMP. 2000. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Johnson, B.K.; Kern, J.W.; Wisdom, M.J. [et al.]. 2000. Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during 

spring. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 685–697.

Kocis, Susan M., Donald B.K. English, et al. 2004. National Visitor Monitoring Results: Mt. Hood National Forest. US 

Forest Service. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/. Accessed on: March 2009.

Kohl, Keith. 2007. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Dalles, 

Oregon. (30 October 2007).

Kresek, Ray. 1984. Fire Lookouts of the Northwest. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss flora of the Pacific Northwest. Nichinan, Japan: Hattori Botanical Laboratory.

Lee, R. D., J. M. Symons, and G. G. Robeck. 1970. Watershed – human use and water quality. Journal of the American 

Water Works Association 62:412-422.

Leslie, D.M.; Douglas, C.L. 1980. Human disturbance at water sources of desert bighorn sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

8(4): 284–290.
References

References — 7

MacArthur, R.A.; Geist, V.; Johnston, R.H. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human 

disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2): 351–358.

Malone, Mike. 2009. Personal Communication. Natural Resource Planner. US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, 

Zigzag Ranger District. Zigzag, Oregon. (5 January 2009).

McCain, C. and N. Diaz. 2002. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of the Westside Central Cascades of Northwest 

Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-02-02.

McClelland, W. T., and M. A. Brusven. 1980. Effects of sedimentation on the behavior and distribution of riffle insects in a 

laboratory stream. Aquatic Insects 2: 161-169.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

McLeay, D. J., A. J. Knox, J. G. Malick, I. K. Birtwell, G. Hartman, and G. L. Ennis. 1983. Effects on Arctic grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus) of short-term exposure to Yukon placer mining sediments: laboratory and field studies. Canadian 

Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1171.

McNeil, W. J., and W. H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size of spawning bed materials. U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report Fisheries 469.

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the practice, Report No. FHWAPD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.

Murdock, George Peter. 1938. Notes on the Tenino, Molala, and Paiute of Oregon. American Anthropologist 40:395-402.

Musser, Lloyd. 1984. Documented chronological History of the Clear Lake-Juniper Flat Irrigation Project. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Heritage Program, Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon. 

Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. 

Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. United 

States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 443.

Naylor, Leslie M., M. J. Wisdom, R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American Elk to Recreational 

Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3):328–338; 2009.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Biological and conference opinion for fish habitat restoration activities in 

Oregon and Washington, CY2007-CY2012. P/NWR/2006/06530. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

NMFS. 2008. Proposed middle Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment ESA recovery plan. NMFS, 

Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Heritage Information Center. 2007. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. [Webpage]. Located at: 

http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/. Accessed on: March 2007.

Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI). 2005. Dangerous Decibels Teachers Resource Guide. [Web Page]. 

Located at: http://www.dangerousdecibels.org. Accessed on: October 2008.

Oregon State Legislature. 2007. Oregon Revised Statute, Chapter 821. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.leg.state.or.us/

ors/821.html. Accessed on: October 2008.

Oregon State Parks. 2008. The Official Handbook of OHV Oregon Laws and Rules: What YOU Need to Know. [Web Page]. 

Located at: http://www.oregonOHV.org. Accessed on: October 2008.

Oetting, Albert C. 2004. Archaeological Investigations for the Portland General Electric Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project, 

Clackamas County, Oregon, Volume 1: Project Overview. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 263.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 8

Papouchis, C.M.; Singer, F.J.; Sloan, W.B. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 65(3): 573–582.

Paton, J.A. 1999. The liverwort flora of the British Isles. Essex, UK: Harley.

Paullin, Pamela K. 2007. Boring to the Core: The Archaeology, History, and Dendrochronology of a Railroad Logging 

Camp, LaDee Flat, Clackamas County, Oregon. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State 

University.

Pedersen, R.J. 1981? Management and Impacts of Roads in Relation to Elk Populations. Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife 

Society Proceedings. 169-173 (file copy from Westfornet).

Rampp, B., C. Dillian, D. Ball, D. Beard, and J. Liddle. 1997. Cultural Resources Site Report, 661EA259, Clear Creek 

Irrigation System Ditch. Report prepared for Mt. Hood National Forest, Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle.

Reese, Jeff. 2006. Personal Communication. Forester. US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon. 

(November 2006).

Reiser, D. W., and R. G. White.1988. Effects of two sediment size-classes on survival of steelhead and chinook salmon eggs. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:432-437.

Riedel, M. S. 2006. Quantifying trail erosion and sedimentation with sediment tracers. Second Interagency Conference on 

Research in the Watersheds, May 16-18, 2006. 9 pp.

Roden, Jim. 2008. Personal Communication. Timber Sale Planner. US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest, Clackamas 

River Ranger District. Estacada, Oregon. (12 December 2008).

Rothermel, Richard C. 1983 How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-143. Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 

Ogden, Utah.

Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J.; Johnson, B.K.; Kie, J.G. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 64(3): 672–684.

Rutherford, J. E., and R. J. Mackay. 1986. Patterns of pupal mortality in field populations of Hydropsyche and 

Cheumatopsyche (Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae). Freshwater Biology 16:337-350.

Salo, E. O., and T. W. Cundy, editors. 1987. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of 

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57, Seattle.

Schneider, Ingrid E. and Tony Schoenecker. 2006. All-terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic impact and consumer 

profile. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.tourism.umn.edu. Accessed on: October 2008.

Scott, Joe H. and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with 

Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-153. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Sengpielaudio. 2008. Sound Pressure Level and Sound Pressure. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/

calculator-distance.htm. Accessed on: October 2008.

Shepp, D. L. 1996. Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations observed in runoff from discrete, urbanized automotiveintensive land uses. www.epa.gov/owowwtrl/watershed/Proceed/sess1-20.pdf

Sheridan, W. L., and W. J. McNeil. 1968. Some effects of logging on two salmon streams in Alaska. Journal of Forestry 

66:128-133.
References

References — 9

Shively, D., C. Allen, T. Alsbury, B. Bergamini, B. Goehring, T. Horning, and B. Strobel. 2007. Clackamas River bull trout 

reintroduction feasibility assessment. Published by USDA Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon State Office; and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, North Willamette Region. December, 2007.

Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho 

salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150.

Slider, Terry. 2007. Recreation Facility Analysis: Supply, Current Use and Future Demand. Powerpoint Presentation. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

Smith, Patricia D. 2001. Archaeological Investigations at the Borrow Pit Site, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon. 

Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana.

State of Oregon. 2008. Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, Department of Transportation, Oregon Vehicle Laws, 801.305. 

Salem, Oregon.

State of Oregon. 2009. Oregon Blue Book County Profiles. [Webpage]. Located at: http://bluebook.state.or.us/local/

counties/counties.htm. Accessed on: January 2009.

Stokowski, Patricia A., and Christopher B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: An 

Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. Burlington VT: School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont.

Stynes, Daniel J and Eric M. White. 2004. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, 2002 Update, September 2004. 

[Webpage]. Located at: http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/imi_implan_center_Reading.htm. Accessed on: January 2009.

Switalski, T. Adam and Allison Jones. 2008. Best Management Practices for Off-road Vehicle Use on Forestlands, A Guide 

for Designating and Managing Off-Road Vehicle Routes. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.wildlandscpr.org. Accessed 

on: October 2008.

Tagart, J. V. 1984. Coho salmon survival from egg deposition to fry emergence. Pages 173-182 in J. M. Walton and D. B. 

Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish Conference. Peninsula College, Port Angeles, Washington.

Tsui, P. T. P., and P. J. McCart. 1981. Effects of stream-crossing by a pipeline on the benthic macroinvertebrate communities 

of a small mountain stream. Hydrobiologia 79:271-276.

Tysdal, L. M., W. J. Elliot, C. H. Luce, and T. A. Black. 1999. Modeling erosion from insloping low-volume roads with 

WEPP watershed model. Transportation Research Record. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National 

Research Council 2(1652):250-256. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1923. Mount Hood National Forest Range Appraisal 1923.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Pacific silver fir 

Zone – Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986a. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Western Hemlock 

Zone – Mt. Hood National Forest. R6-ECOL-232A-1986.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1986b. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Book.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest 

Region. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1990b. Land and Resource Management Plan: Mt. Hood National Forest. 

As amended. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 10

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1990c. Record of Decision: Land and Resource Management Plan. Mt. 

Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1994a. Fish Creek Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1994b. Mile Creeks Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995a. Collawash/Hot Springs Watershed Analysis. Revised 2003. Mt. Hood 

National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995b. Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995c. White River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995c. Salmon River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995d. Salmon River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995e. Upper Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National 

Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995f. White River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995g. Upper Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National 

Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1995h. Zigzag River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996a. Clackamas River – Oak Grove Fork Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood 

National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996a. East Fork Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River Watershed 

Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996b. Lower Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National 

Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996c. North Fork Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood 

National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996d. Roaring River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996d. Upper Sandy Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996e. Upper Sandy Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996f. West Fork of Hood River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National 

Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1997a. Bull Run River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.
References

References — 11

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1997b. Olallie Lake Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1997c. South Fork of Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood 

National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.1997d. Surveyor’s Ridge LSR Assessment. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. North 

Willamette LSR Assessment. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2000. Mill Creek Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Roads Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05, Vol.1. Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest 

and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16 Record of Decision and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Mt. Hood National Forest Strategic Stewardship Plan: Weaving 

Together the Environment, People and the Economy. Mt. Hood National Forest. As amended. Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Oregon.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. US Forest Service Handbook, Travel Planning handbook. 7709. 

Washington Office. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. US Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance 

in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Eldorado National 

Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management. Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, CA.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Engineering Manual, 7700-30. Washington Office. 

Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest 

Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. 

Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other 

Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. 

Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Oregon, 

Washington and Northern California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1999. Noxious, Invasive, and Alien Plant 

Species: A Challenge in Wetland Restoration & Enhancement. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/WLI/

wris1.htm. Accessed 27 April 2006.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

References — 12

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Endangered Species Act 

– Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential 

Fish Habitat Consultation. Control of Knotweed on Bureau of Land management-Administered Lands, Sandy River Basin, 

Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, Oregon. USDI BLM, Salem District. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region. August 18, 2003. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006-027, February 8, 2006. 

Expires 9/30/2007.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. Biological Opinion, Concurrence, and Conference 

Report on the Effects to 23 Species and 4 Critical Habitats from the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Invasive 

Plant Program. (USFWS Reference Number 1-7-05-7-0653).

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix 

occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. USFWS, Region 1, 

Portland, Oregon.

USFWS. 2007. Biological opinion and letter on concurrence for programmatic aquatic habitat restoration activities in 

Oregon and Washington that affect ESA-listed fish, wildlife, and plant species and their critical habitats. 8330.F0055(07), TS 

Number 07-516, TAILS Number 13420-2007-F-0055. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

Varness, K. J., R. E. Pacha, and R. F. Lapen. 1978. Effects of dispersed recreational activities on the microbiological quality 

of forest surface water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 36(1):95-104.

Wagenet, R. J., and C. H. Lawrence. 1974. Recreational effects on bacteriological quality of impounded water supply. 

Journal of Environmental Health 37:16-20.

Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). 2002. Mosier Watershed Assessment. The Dalles. Oregon.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Winthrop, Robert H., Kathryn R. Winthrop, and Dennis J. Gray. 1995. Rock Feature Sites on the Mt. Hood National Forest: 

An Inventory and Evaluation. Volume 1: Report. Cultural Solutions, Ashland.

Witmer, G. W. and D.S. deCalesta. 1985. Effect of Forest roads on habitat use by Roosevelt elk. Northwest Science 59 (2): 

122-125.

Wrightson, Jim. 2008. Personal Communications. Fire Planner. US Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, 

Oregon. 

Wydoski, R.S., and R.L. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. Second edition. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle, Washington.

Zenk, Henry B. and Bruce Rigsby. 1998. Molala. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau. Editor: 

Deward E.
Glossary — 1

Glossary
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 2
Glossary

Glossary — 3

GLOSSARY

Adaptive Management - A continuing process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and 

adjusting with the objective of improving implementation and achieving the goals of the standards and guidelines.

Administrative Unit - A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, Columbia 

River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Midewin National 

Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System.

Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWA) - Areas removed from the suitable timber base through agency direction 

and land management plans.

Air Quality – The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently in 

connection with standards of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. 

Affected Environment - Existing biological, physical, social, and economic conditions of an area subject to change, 

both directly and indirectly, as the result of a proposed human action.

Alluvial - Relating to clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar detrital material deposited by flowing water. Alluvial deposits 

may occur after a heavy rain storm.

All-terrain Vehicles (ATV) – All vehicles intended for off-highway use to be All-terrain Vehicles (ATVs). ATVs are 

broken into three classes as follows:

Class I ATV (quads, 3-wheelers)

• Vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and

• Dry weight of 800 pounds or less

• Has a saddle or seat

• Travels on 3 or more tires

Class II ATV (jeeps, sand rails, SUVs, etc)

• Vehicles wider than 50 inches and

• Dry weight more than 800 pounds

Class III ATV (motorcycles)

• Vehicles on two tires

• Dry weight less than 600 pounds

(See also Off-highway Vehicles and Off-road Vehicles.)

Ambient - Usual or surrounding conditions.

Amphibian - Any of a class of cold-blooded vertebrates (including frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in 

many characteristics between fishes and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults.

Anadromous - Fish that spend their adult life in the sea but swim upriver to fresh water spawning grounds to 

reproduce.

Analysis Area – The geographic area defining the scope of analysis for the project. Sometimes for a particular 

resource, the analysis area may have to be larger when effects have potential to extend beyond the boundaries of the 

proposal. 

Annual Maintenance – Road maintenance performed to maintain serviceability or repair failures during the year in 

which they occur. 

Aqueous - Describes a water-based solution or suspension.

Archaeological Site – Any site that is attributed to prehistoric American Indian cultures. A site is any location of use 

or occupation by human beings.

Arid - A terrestrial region lacking moisture, or a climate in which the rainfall is not sufficient to support the growth 

of most vegetation.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 4

Arterial Road – A forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other arterial roads 

or public highways (FSH 7709.54 – Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print). 

Best Management Practices (BMP) - A practice or combination of practices determined by a state or an agency to 

be the most effective and practical means (technological, economic, and institutional) of controlling point and nonpoint source pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality.

Big Game – Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource. 

Biodiversity or Biological Diversity - The diversity of living things (species) and of life patterns and processes 

(ecosystem structures and functions). Includes genetic diversity, ecosystem diversity, landscape and regional diversity, 

and biosphere diversity.

Candidate Species - Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, may qualify for listing as “endangered” or 

“threatened.” The FWS recognizes two categories of candidates. Category 1 candidates are taxa for which the FWS has 

on file sufficient information to support proposals for listing. Category 2 candidates are taxa for which information 

available to the FWS indicates that proposing to list is possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data are not 

currently available to support proposed rules.

Closed Roads - Roads closed for use by the public, but remain part of the national forest transportation system. 

These are typically Forest Roads, Maintenance Level 1 (see also maintenance levels.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) - Document that codifies all rules of the executive departments and agencies of 

the federal government. It is divided into fifty volumes, known as titles. Title 40 of the CFR (referenced as 40 CFR) 

lists all environmental regulations, including regulations for EPA pesticide programs (40 CFR Parts 150-189).

Collector Road – A forest road that serves smaller land areas than does an arterial road. Usually connects forest 

arterial roads to local forest roads (FSH – 7709.54 – Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in 

print). 

Community – A group of one or more populations of plants and/or animals in a common spatial arrangement; an 

ecological term used in a broad sense to include groups of various sizes and degrees of integration. 

Congressionally Reserved Areas (CRA) - Areas that require Congressional enactment for their establishment, 

such as National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments, and Wilderness. 

Also referred to as Congressional Reserves. Includes similar areas established by Executive Order, such as National 

Monuments.

Conifer - An order of the Gymnospermae, comprising a wide range of trees and a few shrubs, mostly evergreens that 

bear cones and have needle-shaped or scale-like leaves. Conifer timber is commercially identified as softwood.

Connected Actions - Exposure to other chemical and biological agents, in addition to exposure to a specific pesticide 

formulation in a field application to control pest organisms. 

Cover – The present vegetation and litter of an area. 

Cross-Country Travel – Traveling across the countryside (as fields and woods) rather than by roads or trails. Travel 

off of designated roads or trails. 

Cultural Resources – The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) 

having scientific, prehistoric, or social values. 

Cultural Site – Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use, or that has important 

sociocultural value. 

Cumulative Effect - The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions—regardless of what agency (federal or 

non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 
Glossary

Glossary — 5

Decision Roads – Roads defined in the 2003 Mt. Hood National Forest Roads Analysis as roads which are not 

needed to provide access to recreation opportunities or other management activities. They are labeled “decision 

roads” because a decision needs to be made on whether to close, decommission, or keep them open. The decision will 

be made through the NEPA process complete with public participation. 

Decommission – To deactivate or dismantle a road; the denial of use, elimination of travelway functionality, and 

removal of the road from the forest transportation atlas; and the return of the road corridor to resource production 

by natural or designed means. 

Decommissioned Roads – Roads that have been removed from the National Forest transportation atlas as a result of 

a formal decision involving participation by the public. 

Deferred Maintenance – Road maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was 

scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. 

Designated Road, Trail, or Area – A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area on 

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

map (36 CFR 212.1). 

Developed Recreation – Recreation that requires facilities and results in the concentrated use of an area (e.g., 

campgrounds or ski resorts). 

Direct Effects - Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the initial cause of action. 

Dispersed Campsite – Temporary undeveloped campsites that are typically created and maintained by forest users. 

Existing temporary campsites can be distinguished by evidence of rock fire rings, old tent sites, and tracks from 

earlier vehicle accesses. 

Dispersed Recreation – Recreation that occurs outside a developed setting (e.g., hunting, scenic driving, or 

backpacking). 

Disturbance - An effect of a planned human management activity, or unplanned native or exotic agent or event that 

changes the state of a landscape element, landscape pattern, or regional composition.

Ecosystem – A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of varied living and non-living interacting parts that are 

organized into biophysical and human dimension components. 

Effect - Adverse and/or beneficial direct effects occur at the same time and in the same general location as the activity 

causing the effects. Adverse and beneficial indirect effects are those that occur at a different time or location from the 

activity causing the effects. Both types of effects are described in terms of increase or decreases, intensity, duration, 

and timing.

Endangered Species - Any species listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction throughout all, or a 

significant portion, of its range.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - A law passed in 1973 to conserve species of wildlife and plants, determined by the 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries to be endangered or threatened with extinction 

in all or a significant portion of its range. Among other measures, ESA requires all federal agencies to conserve these 

species and consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries on federal actions that may affect these 

species or their designated critical habitat.

Endemic - A species or other taxonomic group that is restricted to a particular geographic region due to factors such 

as isolation or response to soil or climatic conditions. (Compare to “Indigenous” and “Native.”)

Environment – The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an area. 

Environmental Justice - Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 requires federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 6

and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its 

territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the commonwealth of 

the Mariana Islands.

Erosion – Detachment or movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. Accelerated erosion is 

much more rapid than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, primarily because of the influence of activities of people, 

animals, or natural catastrophes.. 

Essential Fish Habitat - waters and substrate necessary to fish (specifically chinook and coho salmon) for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.

Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) – a group of salmon or trout populations that is a distinct population segment. 

Scientists established two criteria for ESUs: 1) the population must show substantial reproductive isolation; and 2) 

there must be an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole.

Existing Route – A road or trail that currently exists on the ground but that may or may not be designated as open 

to motorized use. Includes constructed roads and trails maintained by the Forest Service or cooperating agencies. 

Constructed roads and trails are often characterized by a road or trail prism with cut and fill slopes or through-fills. 

An existing route may also be an evident two-track and single-track route with regular use that has resulted from 

continuous passage of motorized vehicles over a period of years where perennial vegetation is devoid or scarce.

Fauna - The animals of a specified region or time.

Federal Register – A daily publication that reports Presidential and Federal agency documents. 

Federally Listed Species - Formally listed as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Designations are made by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Floodplain – The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including, at a minimum, that 

area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

Flora - Plant life, especially all the plants found in a particular country, region, or time regarded as a group. Also, a 

systematic set of descriptions of all the plants of a particular place or time. 

Fluvial – Living in a stream or river.

Forage - Food for animals. In this document, term applies to both availability of plant material for wildlife and 

domestic livestock.

Forbs – Broadleaf ground vegetation with little or no woody material. 

Forest Highway – A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to public 

travel (23 USC Section 101 (a)). 

Forest Plan – Shortened name for a unit’s Land and Resource Management Plan. Provides strategic guidance to 

management activities on National Forest System lands. 

Forest Road or Trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System 

that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National 

Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) – The principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out 

the direction issued in the Forest Service Manual (FSM). Specialists and technicians are the primary audience of 

handbook direction. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) – Contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and 

guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than one unit to plan 

and execute assigned programs and activities. 
Glossary

Glossary — 7

Fry – Recently hatched fish.

Fungi - Molds, mildews, yeasts, mushrooms, and puffballs, a group of organisms that lack chlorophyll and therefore 

are not photosynthetic. They are usually non-mobile, filamentous, and multi-cellular. 

Game Fish - Species like trout, salmon, or bass, caught for sport. Many of them show more sensitivity to 

environmental change than non-game fish.

Game Species – Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have been prescribed, and that are 

normally harvested under state or federal laws, codes, or regulations. 

Grazing Animals - Treatment method which requires matching the invasive species with the appropriate grazer for 

best success. 

Ground Cover – The material covering the land surface. Ground cover can include live vegetation, standing dead 

vegetation, litter, cryptograms, and rock. 

Groundwater – The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth’s surface, usually in aquifers, which often supply 

wells and springs. 

Habitat – The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both 

living and non-living.

Historic – After the introduction of written records. 

Historical Site – Any site that is 50 years of age or older that is attributed to any historical cultures, including 

American Indian or European immigrant cultures. A site is any location of use or occupation by human beings. 

Hydrologic Unit Code – The U.S. is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units which 

are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units 

are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit 

is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of 

classification in the hydrologic unit system (http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html). 

Indian Tribe – Any American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community, rancheria, colony, 

or group meeting the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 25, Section 83.7 (25 FR 83.7), or those 

recognized in statutes or treaties with the United States. 

Indigenous – An indigenous species is any which were or are native or inherent to an area. (See also, native.)

Indirect Effects – Secondary effects that occur in locations other than the location of the initial action or significantly 

later in time. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) – A group of individuals with varying areas of specialty assembled to solve a problem 

or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad 

enough to adequately analyze the problem and propose action.

Invasive Plant Species – An alien plant species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). (Also known as exotic species, 

invasive plant species, introduced species, and noxious weed)

Inventoried Roadless Areas – Areas of undeveloped Federal land, greater than 5,000 acres in size, within which 

there are no improved roads maintained for travel by means of motorized vehicles intended for highway use. 

Exceptions are those areas less than 5,000 acres manageable in their natural condition, contiguous to existing 

wilderness, or are of issue to the public.

Irretrievable Impact or Commitment – The elimination of a resource, its productivity, and/or its utility for the life 

of the project. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 8

Irreversible Impact – The start of a chemical, biological, and/or physical process that could not be stopped. As a 

result, the resource or its productivity and/or its utility would be consumed, committed, or lost forever. 

Jurisdiction – The legal right to control or regulate use of a transportation facility. Jurisdiction requires authority, but 

not necessarily ownership. The authority to construct or maintain a road may be derived from fee title, an easement, 

or some other similar method (FSM 7705 – Transportation System). 

Key Issue – Significant issues identified by the public that are used to formulate alternatives, affect the design of 

alternative components, prescribe PDC, or describe environmental effects.

Land Allocation - Commitment of a given area of land or a resource to one or more specific uses (e.g. wilderness). 

In the Northwest Forest Plan, one of the seven allocations of Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Late-Successional 

Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, 

Riparian Reserves, or Matrix.

Landscape - An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, land form, soils, 

climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are generally of a size, shape, and pattern 

which are determined by interacting ecosystems. 

Landscape Character - Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it 

identifiable or unique.

Landscape Setting - The context and environment in which a landscape is set; a landscape backdrop. It is the 

combination of land use, landform, and vegetation patterns that distinguish an area in appearance and character from 

other areas.

Lichens - Complex thallophytic plants comprised of an alga and a fungus growing in symbiotic association on a solid 

surface (such as a rock.)

Local Road – A forest road that connects terminal facilities with forest collector, forest arterial, or public highways. 

Usually forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities (FSH 7709.54 – Forest Transportation 

Terminology Handbook, no longer in print). 

Macroinvertebrate – Animals without backbones such as insects, clams, snails, etc.

Macrophyte – Terrestrial or aquatic plant that is large enough to be seen without the aid of a microscope.

Maintenance – The upkeep of the entire forest development transportation facility including surface and shoulders, 

parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization 

(36 CFR 212.2 (i)). 

Maintenance Levels – Operational levels for road maintenance defined in Forest Service Handbook under 709.58- 

Transportation System Maintenance:

• Level 1 - Assigned to roads of intermittent service during the period that they are closed to vehicular traffic. 

Roads receiving level-1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.

• Level 2 - Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not considered. 

• Level 3 - Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. 

User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. 

• Level 4 - Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate 

travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and dust abated or paved. 

• Level 5 - Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are 

normally double lane, paved facilities. 

Management Indicator Species – A species of wildlife, fish, or plant whose health and vigor are believed to 

accurately reflect the health and vigor of other species having similar habitat and protection needs to those of the 

selected indicator species. 
Glossary

Glossary — 9

Manual Treatment Method/Control – The use of any non-mechanized approach to control or eliminate invasive 

plants (i.e. hand-pulling, grubbing.)

Microorganisms – A generic term for all organisms consisting only of a single cell, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa 

and some fungi.

Mitigation Measures – Modifications of actions taken to: 

1. avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

2. minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

3. rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

4. reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the 

action; or, 

5. compensate for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Mollusks – Invertebrate animals (such as slugs, snails, clams, or squids) that have a soft, un-segmented body, usually 

enclosed in a calcareous shell; representatives found on National Forest System land include snails, slugs, and clams.

Monitoring – A process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated or assumed results of a 

management plan are being realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned.

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

wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobilityimpaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) – A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or 

a Ranger District of the National Forest System.

Motorized Mixed Use – Designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles (FSM Engineering 7700-30).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - An Act passed in 1969 to declare a national policy that encourages 

productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, promotes efforts that prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, stimulates the health and welfare of humanity, enriches the 

understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation, and establishes a Council on 

Environmental Quality.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) - A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring preparation of Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide 

that development.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - The federal agency that is the listing authority for marine mammals 

and anadromous fish under the ESA.

National Forest System – All National Forest land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the U.S.; all 

National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the National Grasslands 

and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act; and other lands, 

waters, or interests therein that are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through 

the Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 212.1). 

National Forest System Road – A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority.

National Forest System Trail – A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority.

National Register of Historic Places – A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant 

in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. The register was established by the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 10

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) – A permanent, ongoing sampling system which measures national 

forest visitor demographics, experiences, preferences, and impressions. A stratified random sample is done for 25% of 

the National Forest system each year according to a national research protocol. NVUM responds to the need to better 

understand the use and importance of, and satisfaction with, national forest system recreation opportunities.

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) – The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the national 

Wilderness Preservation System to ensure that certain federally owned areas in the United States would be preserved 

and protected in their natural condition. The Act defines a wilderness area, in part, as an area which generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. 

Areas included in the system are administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as 

to leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

Native Species – With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99).

Non-Motorized Travel – Modes of travel that include hiking, equestrian, and mountain bikes and exclude all 

motorized use. 

Off-highway Vehicles (OHV) – Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately 

over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. (See also All-terrain Vehicles and Offroad Vehicles.)

Off-road Vehicles (ORV) – Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately 

over land, water, snow, ice, or other natural terrain. Non-motorized Mountain Bicycle is also considered an Offroad vehicle in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan. (See also All-terrain Vehicles and Off-highway 

Vehicles.)

Operation Permit – Sticker placed on an OHV that allows access to public lands in designated areas in the State of 

Oregon.

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) - A characteristic of rivers or sections of rivers in the national Wild and 

Scenic River System. In order for a river to be included in the system, it must possess at least one “outstandingly 

remarkable” value, such as scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar features. 

ORV’s are values or opportunities in a river corridor which are directly related to the river and which are rare, 

unique, or exemplary from a regional or national perspective.

Over-Snow Vehicle – A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a 

ski or skis, while in use over snow.

Perennial – A plant species having a life span of more than two years.

Periphyton – Microscopic plants and animals that are firmly attached to solid surfaces under water such as rocks, 

logs, pilings and other structures.

Phytoplankton – Free floating algae.

Population – A group of individuals of the same species in an area.

Porosity – Degree to which soil, gravel, sediment, or rock is permeated with pores or cavities through which water or 

air can move.

Potable Water – Water that is considered safe for drinking and cooking.

Prehistoric – Prior to written records being kept. 

Private Road – A road under private ownership authorized by easement to a private party or a road which provides 

access pursuant to a reserved or private right (FS 643 – Roads Analysis – Informing Decisions About Managing The 

National Forest Transportation System, August 1999). 
Glossary

Glossary — 11

Project Design Criteria (PDC) – A set of required, implementation design criteria applied to projects to ensure that 

the project is done according to environmental standards and adverse effects are within the scope of those predicted 

in this environmental impact statement.

Proposed Species – Any plant or animal species that is proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries 

in a Federal Register notice to be listed as threatened or endangered.

Ranger District – An administrative subdivision of a national forest, supervised by a district ranger who reports to 

the forest supervisor. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation 

based on environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for 

obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven classes: Primitive, SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, Rural, and Urban. 

Recreational Rivers – A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Recreational rivers are 

those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development 

along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Research Natural Area – “Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated 

in perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on National Forest System lands. 

Research Natural Areas are principally for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. They also may assist in 

implementing provisions of special acts, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the monitoring provisions 

of the National Forest Management Act of 1976” (FSM 4063). 

Reserved Rights – Rights tribes kept, or reserved, during treaty-making out of a greater number of rights they 

already owned.

Resolved Issue – Significant issues identified by the public that have been fully mitigated through the development of 

alternatives or project design criteria.

Restoration – Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity. 

Ecological integrity includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional 

and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices.

Revegetation – The re-establishment of plants on a site. The term does not imply native or nonnative; does not 

imply that the site can ever support any other types of plants or species and is not at all concerned with how the site 

‘functions’ as an ecosystem.

Right-of-Way – An accurately located strip of land with defined width, beginning of point, and point of ending. It is 

the area within which the user has the authority to conduct operations approved or granted by the landowner in an 

authorizing document, such as a permit, easement, lease, license, or Memorandum of Understanding. 

Riparian Area – A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that directly affect it.

Riparian Reserves – Areas along live and intermittent streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable and potentially 

unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. Riparian Reserves are important to the 

terrestrial ecosystem as well, serving as dispersal habitat for certain terrestrial species.

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.

Road Maintenance – Maintaining or keeping an existing constructed road in an acceptable condition so as to 

continue to provide acceptable service and achieve its expected life (FSM 7712.3).

Road Management Objective – Defines the intended purpose of an individual road based on management area 

direction and access management objectives. Road management objectives contain design criteria, operation criteria, 

and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.55 Sec 33 – Transportation Planning Handbook). 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 12

Route – A generic term that includes roads and trails as defined in this glossary.

Salmonid – Fish belonging to the family Salmonidae (salmon, trout, char).

Scenic – Of or relating to landscape scenery; pertaining to natural or natural-appearing scenery; constituting or 

affording pleasant views of natural landscape attributes or positive cultural elements.

Scenic Integrity – State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or 

alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a National Forest.

Scenic Quality – The essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people, elicit psychological and 

physiological benefits to individuals and to society in general.

Scenic Rivers – A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Scenic rivers are those rivers, or 

sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

Seasonal Closure – A route or area closed part of the year. The season of closure is defined by the reason for the 

closure (e.g., winter range, snow, etc.). 

Sediment – Any material carried in suspension by water that will ultimately settle to the bottom. Sediment has two 

main sources: from the channel area itself and from disturbed sites. 

Sensitive Species – Species identified by the Regional Forester for which population variability is a concern, as 

evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density; or significant 

current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Smolt – A young salmon or anadromous trout in the process of transforming to a saltwater dwelling fish

Snag – A standing dead tree. 

Special Status Species – Federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species; USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Region sensitive species and Survey and Manage species; Mt. Hood National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan management indicator species; and Sensitive Plan and Wildlife Species as defined in the 

Columbia River Gorge Management Plan.

Special Use Permit – A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual, organization, or 

company for occupancy or use of National Forest System lands for some special purpose. 

Species – “A group of organisms, all of which have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity, generally 

interbreed only among themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms” 

(Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99).

Spring – The point where ground water emerges onto the land surface.

Standards and Guidelines – The rules and limits governing actions, as well as the principles specifying the 

environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and maintained.

Summer Range – A range, usually at higher elevation, used by deer and elk during summer. A summer range is 

usually much more extensive than a winter range. 

Surface Water – All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams, impoundments, seas, 

estuaries, etc.) and all springs, wells, or other collectors which are directly influenced by surface water.

Take – “The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct” (Title 16, Chapter 35, Section 1532, Endangered Species Act of 1973).

Thallus – The vegetative body of a lichen.
Glossary

Glossary — 13

Threatened Species – Plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all, or a significant portion 

of, its range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 

Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register.

Traditional Cultural Property – A location or community that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s 

history, and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Properties can include 

buildings, structures, and sites; groups of buildings, structures or sites forming historic districts; landscapes; and 

individual objects (36 CFR 60.4). 

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail.

Trail Difficulty Level – The degree of challenge a trail presents to an average user’s physical ability and skill, based 

on trail condition and route location factors such as alignment, steepness of grades, gain and loss of elevation, and 

amount and kind of natural barriers that must be crossed, and which may temporarily change due to weather. 

a. Easiest: A trail requiring limited physical ability and skill to travel.

b. More Difficult: A trail requiring some physical ability and skill to travel.

c. Most Difficult: A trail requiring a high degree of physical ability and skill to travel.

Tracking Issue – Issues determined to be relevant, but are not used to formulate alternatives. These issues often 

describe minor or consistent consequences among alternatives considered in detail.

Travel Management Rule of 11/2/2005 (36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295) – Regulations that directs each 

national forest in the country to designate roads, trails and areas that would be open to motor vehicle use by 

vehicle class. The result of this process will be a standardized map which designates roads and trails that are open 

to motorized use. After the map is produced all other areas are closed to motorized use. The map would be updated 

annually. (Referred to as the Final Travel Management Rule.)

Tribe – Term used to designate a federally-recognized group of American Indians and their governing body. Tribes 

may be comprised of more than one Band. 

Tribal and Treaty Rights – Native American treaty and other rights or interests recognized by treaties, statutes, laws, 

executive orders, or other government action, or federal court decisions.

Treaty – A contract or compact between nations. It is an agreement that is binding upon the nations that sign the 

treaty.

Unauthorized Road or Trail – A road or trail that is not a Forest System road or trail or a temporary road or trail 

and that is not included in a Forest Transportation Atlas (36 CFR 212.1). The term “unclassified” was used in some of 

the earlier project file documentation that predated the Travel Rule. 

Undesignated Road or Trails – Roads and trails that have not yet gone through site-specific travel planning to 

determine if they should be open, closed, or restricted to motorized vehicle use, or roads and trails that have gone 

through travel planning and determined that motorized vehicle use is not appropriate and is not allowed. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – The federal agency that is the listing authority for species other than 

marine mammals and anadromous fish under the ESA.

U.S. Forest Service (USDA FS or USFS) – The federal agency responsible for management of the nation’s National 

Forest lands.

Viability – Ability of a wildlife or plant population to maintain sufficient size to persist over time in spite of normal 

fluctuations in numbers, usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population for a specified period.

Viable Population – A wildlife or plant population that contains an adequate number of reproductive individuals 

appropriately distributed on the planning area to ensure the long-term existence of the species.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Glossary — 14

Viewshed – Total visible area from a single observer position, or the total visible area from multiple observer 

position. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other viewer 

locations. Examples are corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds.

Visual Quality Objective – A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. 

Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape.

Watershed – A land area that contributes all its water to one drainage system, basin, stream, or river. Watersheds can 

be described at multiple scales. 

Wetland – An area that is regularly saturated by surface or ground water and subsequently is characterized by a 

prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include swamps, bogs, fens, 

marshes, and estuaries.

Wild and Scenic River System – The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a system of selected rivers 

in the United States, which possess outstandingly remarkable values, to be preserved in free-flowing condition. 

Within the national system of rivers, three classifications define the general character of designated rivers: Wild, 

Scenic, and Recreational. Classifications reflect levels of development and natural conditions along a stretch of river. 

Classifications are used to help develop management goals for the river.

Wilderness – Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is defined as 

undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human 

habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and managed to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable; 

have outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and confined type of recreation; include at least 5,000 

acres, or are of sufficient size to make practical their preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; 

and may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well as ecological and geologic 

interest.

Wild Rivers – A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Wild rivers are those rivers, or 

sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

Wildland Fire – Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. There are three types of wildland fire: wildfire, 

wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. 

Wildfire – An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire 

use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out. 

Winter Range – A range, usually at lower elevation, used by migratory deer and elk during the winter months; 

usually better defined and smaller than summer ranges.
Index — 1

Index

A 

Alternative Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

B 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55, Glossary -4, Appendix D-3

Big game retrieval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4, 1-5, 3-140, 3-166, 3-168

Big game winter range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 1-14, 1-19, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28, 2-34, 2-35, 3-140, 3-141, 3-153, 3-155, 3-157, 3-159, 3-161, 3-164, 3-166, 3-168, 3-172, 3-174, 3-176,

. . . . . . . . .3-178, 3-180, 3-182, 3-185, 3-186, 3-187, 3-188, 3-189, 3-227, Glossary-14, Appendix B-6, Appendix D-5, Appendix D-10

C 

Clackamas County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13, 2-23, 3-209, 3-250, 3-251, 3-256, 4-4

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-209, 3-272, 4-3, 4-4

Confederated Tribes of Siletz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-209, 3-272, 4-3

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13, 2-22, 3-94, 3-101, 3-186, 3-209, 3-210, 3-212, 3-217, 3-229

3-230, 3-271, 3-272, 4-3

Construction, new motorized trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7, 1-8, 1-15, 1-19, 1-21, 2-4, 2-5, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-14, 2-17, 2-20, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-25, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 2-32, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 

2-50, 2-51, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-67, 3-68, 3-70, 

3-75, 3-78, 3-81, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-107, 3-124, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-134, 3-135, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 

3-143, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-184, 3-190, 3-193, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-208, 3-210, 3-217, 3-245, 3-261, 

3-262, 3-270, 3-271, 3-273 

Convert to Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 2-14, 2-15, 2-23, 2-25, 2-32, 2-45

Cumulative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3, 3-16, 3-19, 3-22, 3-27, 3-32, 3-34, 3-41, 3-49, 3-64, 3-67, 3-87, 3-90, 3-118, 3-119,

 3-129, 3-133, 3-136, 3-137, 3-145, 3-185, 3-189, 3-190, 3-191, 3-193, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-216,

3-218, 3-219, 3-220, 3-222, 3-223, 3-245, 3-246, 3-271

D 

Design criteria. See project design criteria

Desired Future Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

E 

Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-250, 3-267, 3-272, Glossary-5

Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21, 2-17, 2-26, 2-27, 2-35, 2-38, 2-39, 2-54, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-52, 3-57, 3-58, 3-61,

3-63, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 3-75 – 81, 3-83 – 87, 3-109 – 15, 3-124, 3-125 – 136, 3-138, 3-139, 

3-208, 3-215, 3-217, 3-219, 3-243, 3-264, 3-271, Glossary-6

Executive Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9, 1-10, 3-140, 3-267, 3-268, 3-271, 3-272

F 

Final Travel Management Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-16, 1-17, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-11, 2-17,

2-19, 2-23, 2-29, 2-30, 3-35, 3-48, 2-52

Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9, 1-13, 1-15, 2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-33, 2-34, 2-42

Appendix B, Appendix D

Forest Plan Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 2-3, 2-5, 2-11, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-29, 2-30, 3-35, 3-273, Appendix D

Forest Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7

H 

Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-140, 3-186, 3-189, 3-191, 3-199, 3-210, 3-230, 3-235, 3-257, 3-263

Hood River County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11, 2-13, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 2-46, 3-15, 3-16, 3-19, 3-20, 3-22, 3-27, 3-30, 3-32, 

3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-130, 3-186, 3-189, 3-195, 3-213, 3-214, 3-215, 4-4 
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Index — 2

I

Illegal Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4, 3-44, 3-155, 3-174

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-271

Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18

J

Jefferson County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5, 2-19, 3-250, 3-251, 3-267, 3-268

L 

Land and Resource Management Plan. See Forest Plan 

Land Use Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 1-13, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-23, 2-27 – 30, 2-33, 2-34, 2-53, 3-273

M 

Management Indicator Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-91, 3-92, 3-103, 3-105, 3-151, 3-153, 3-155, 3-157, 3-159, 3-161, 

3-164, 3-166, 3-168, 3-170, 3-172, 3-174, 3-176, 3-178, 3-180, 3-182, 3-185, 3-189, 3-191, Glossary-8 

Mixed-use Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53, 3-236, 3-238, 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 1-4, 1-10, 1-11, 2-4, 2-20, 2-21, 2-43, 3-223, 3-273, 3-274, Glossary-5

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

Motorized Mixed Use Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14, 2-15, 2-23, 2-25, 2-30, 2-32, 2-36, 2-37, 2-44, 2-45, 2-47, 2-50, 3-14,

3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-36, 3-41, 3-238, 3-261, 3-262, 3-271 

Multnomah County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-250

N 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-41, Glossary-10 

Newly Designated Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 1-9, 2-53

Northwest Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9, 1-14, 2-8, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-33, 2-34, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 

3-62, 3-74, 3-75, 3-81, 3-86, 3-92, 3-101, 3-106, 3-148, 3-149, 3-184, 3-274

O 

Over-snow vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-16, 2-22, 2-30

P 

Project Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8, 2-4, 2-5, 2-35 – 42

Proposed action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7, 2-11

Public involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17, 2-3, 2-17, 2-52

R 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1, 3-4, 3-11, Glossary-11

Road maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20, 2-51, 3-114, 3-185, 3-194, 3-233, 3-236, 3-237, 3-239, 3-242, 3-260

Roads analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7, 1-9, 1-14, 3-107, 3-237

S 

Snowmobiles. See over-snow vehicles

Sportsman’s Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17, 1-19, 2-13, 2-16, 2-23, 2-26, 2-30, 2-47, 2-50, 3-21, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-39, 2-40, 3-52, 3-64, 3-87, 3-119, 3-196, 3-226, 3-265, 3-266, 3-267, 4-4

T 

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7, 1-9, 2-30, 2-42, 2-116, 3-236

Trail maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50, 3-118, 3-129, 3-184, 3-260, 3-261, 3-262

U

User-created routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14, 2-30, 2-47, 2-52, 3-41

W 

Wasco County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-26, 2-43, 3-10, 3-101, 3-203, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 

3-213, 3-214, 3-226, 3-230, 3-250, 3-251, 3-266, 3-267, 3-268, 4-4
Appendix A — 1

Appendices
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix A — 2
Appendix A — 3

Appendix A

Maps for all Alternatives
!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Hood

R.

M. F k. Hoo d R.

E. Fk. Hood

R.

Eightmile Cr.

Fiftee nmile Cr.

Larch Cr.

Little Badger Cr.

Badge r Cr.

White R.

S almon R.

Zigzag R.

Sandy R.

B ull Run R.

S.Fk.Bull Run R.

Eagle Cr.

O pal Cr.

White R.

Sandy

R.

N. F k Eagle Cr.

Eagle Cr.

S.Fk.Eagle C

N r.

.Fk.Cl ackam as R.

Roaring R.

S.Fk.Roaring R.

F is h C .r

Collawash R.

Clackamas

R.

N. Santiam R.

Breit enbush R.

Clackamas R.

Little N. Sa ntiam R.

Wildwood

Faubion

Estacada

Warm Springs

Simnasho

Pine Wapinitia Grove

Wamic

Friend

Rowena Mosier

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Dee

Winans

Odell

Van

Horn

Oak Grove

Rockford

Hood

River

Viento

Wyeth

Cascade Locks

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Idanha

Detroit

Niagra

Elkhorn

Eagle

Creek

Government Camp

Welches

Rhododendren

Wemme

Brightwood

Alder

Creek Cherryville

Sandy

Kelso

Cotrell

Orient

Springdale

C orbett

Latourell Falls

Bridal Veil

Multnomah

Falls

Bonneville

Zigzag

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Clackamas County

Multnomah

County

Clackamas

County

Marion

County

Wasco

County

Jefferson

County

£¤26

£¤26

£¤26

£¤26

£¤30

£¤30

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

!(35

!(224

!(22

!(142

!(140

!(14

!(14

!(35

!(141

!(211

!(216

Ý25

Ý43

Ý45

Ý15

Ý14

Ý48

Ý42

Ý20

Ý18

Ý57

Ý54

Ý17

Ý10

Ý27

Ý46

Ý16

Ý12

Ý58

Ý36

Ý63

Ý13

Ý44

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Alternative 1 OHV Use 

in the Mount Hood National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

CRG National Scenic Area

Alt. 1 OHV Use

X-Country OHV Use Allowed

OHV Only on Desg. Routes

OHV Use Prohibited

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

FS Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Water Bodies

Rivers

Creek

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

BLM Wilderness

Warm Springs Indian Res.

0 2.5 5

μ10 Other Ownership

Miles

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

T.

1

N.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

3

N.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

3

N.

T.

2

N.

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

Washington State

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability

or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data and product

accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources, including

modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or otherwise modified

without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8.5 E.
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

E. Fk. Hood R.

Eightmile Cr.

Fifteenmile Cr.

Larch Cr.

Little Badger Cr.

Badger Cr.

White R.

White R.

Middle Fk.

Hood River

Clear Lk.

Badger Lk.

Wapinitia

Wamic

Friend

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

£¤26

£¤26

!(35

!(35

!(216

Ý16

Ý43 Ý48

Ý42

Ý27

Ý58

Ý44

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Barlow RD in the Mount Hood National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

Barlow RD

Alt. 1 OHV Use

X-Country OHV Use Allowed

OHV Only on Desg. Routes

OHV Use Prohibited

Alt. 1 OHV Routes

Paved

Gravel

Improved Native Surface

Native Surface

Motorized Trails

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Water Bodies

Rivers

Creek

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

Warm Springs Indian Res.

Other Ownership

μ 0 2.5 5

Miles

R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

1

S.

R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

White R

S almon R.

Zigz ag R.

N. Fk E agle Cr.

Eagle Cr.

S.Fk.Eagle Cr.

N.Fk.Clackama s R.

Roaring R.

S.F k.Roaring R.

Fish

Cr.

Collawash

R.

Cla ckamas R.

N. Santiam R.

Breitenb ush R.

Clackamas R.

e N. Santiam R.

Clear Lk.

Timothy Lk.

Eagle Cr.

Faubion

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Idanha

Detroit

Niagra

Elkhorn

Government

Camp

Welches

Rhododendren

Clackamas

County

Marion

County

Wasco

County

Jefferson

County

Ý63

Ý57

Ý42

Ý58

Ý46

Ý45

Ý54

!(224

!(224

!(22

!(22

!(224

!(35

!(211

£¤26

£¤26

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Clackamas R. RD, Mount Hood National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

Clackamas R. RD

Alt. 1 OHV Use

X-Country OHV Use Allowed

OHV Only on Desg. Routes

OHV Use Prohibited

Highways and Roads

Other Paved Roads

Highways

FS Paved Roads

Alt. 1 OHV Routes

Paved

Gravel

Improved Native Surface

Native Surface

Motorized Trails

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Water Bodies

Rivers

Creek

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

 Warm Springs

Indian Reservation

Other Ownership

μ 0 2.5 5

Miles

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 8.5 E. R. 9 E.

T.

5

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

3

S.

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 8.5 E. R. 9 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Hood

R.

E. Fk. Hood R.

Eightmile Cr.

Fifteenmile Cr.

Larch Cr.

Little Badger Cr.

Badger Cr.

White

R.

S a lmon R.

Zigzag R.

San dy R.

Eagle Cr.

O p al Cr.

Middle Fk.

Hood River

Clear Lk.

Timothy Lk.

Bull Run R.

Faubion

Mosier

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Dee

Winans

Odell

Van

Horn

Rockford

Wyeth

Cascade Locks

Government Camp

Rhododendren

Bonneville

Zigzag

Welches

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Clackamas County

Multnomah

County

£¤26

£¤30 § ̈¦84

!(35

!(216

£¤26

!(35

!(35

!(14

Ý12

Ý43

Ý48

Ý42

Ý25

Ý18

Ý17

Ý10

Ý16

Ý58

Ý13

Ý44

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Alternative 1 OHV Use 

on the Hood River RD in the 

Mount Hood National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

CRG National Scenic Area

Hood R. RD

Alt. 1 OHV Use

X-Country OHV Use Allowed

OHV Only on Desg. Routes

OHV Use Prohibited

Alt. 1 OHV Routes

Paved

Gravel

Improved Native Surface

Native Surface

Motorized Trails

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Water Bodies

Rivers

Creek

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

Warm Springs Indian Res.

Other Ownership

0

Miles

2.5 5

μ

R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E.

T.

1

N.

T.

1

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

5

S.

R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 8.5 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

1

N.

T.

4

S.

T.

4

S.

R. 8 E.
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

Hood

R.

S a lmon R.

Zigzag R.

San dy R.

Bul l Run R.

S.Fk.Bull Run R.

O p al Cr.

N. Fk Ea gle Cr.

Eagle Cr. S.Fk.Eagle Cr.

Roaring R.

S.F k.Roaring R.

Clackamas R.

Clear Lk.

Timothy Lk.

Eagle Cr.

N. Fk. Clac kamas R.

Wildwood

Faubion

Government Camp

Welches Rhododendren

Wemme

Brightwood

Alder

Creek

Cherryville

Latourell Falls

Bridal Veil

Multnomah

Falls

Zigzag

Clackamas

County

Multnomah

County

Multnomah

County

Hood

River

County

£¤26

£¤26

§ ̈¦84

!(14

!(35

!(140

Ý25

Ý15

Ý14

Ý46

Ý42

Ý20

Ý18

Ý57

Ý45

Ý54

Ý48

Ý10 Ý16

Ý12

Ý58

Ý36

Ý13

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Alternative 1 OHV Use on the Zigzag. RD, Mount Hood National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

Zig Zag RD

Alt. 1 OHV Use

X-Country OHV Use Allowed

OHV Only on Desg. Routes

OHV Use Prohibited

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Alt. 1 OHV Routes

Paved

Gravel

Improved Native Surface

Native Surface

Motorized Trails

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Water Bodies

Rivers

Creek

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

 Warm Springs

Indian Reservation

Other Ownership

0

Miles

2.5 5

μ

R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

1

N. T.

1

N.

T.

2

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

2

N.

R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 8.5 E. R. 9 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

2

N.
óó

óóóóó

óóóóó

óó ó ó

óó

ó

óó

óóóóóó

óóóó

ó

óóó

ó óóó

ó

ó ó

ó

óóóóó

óó ó

ó

ó

óó

ó

óóó

ó ó

óó

ó

ó

ó

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Wildwood !(

Faubion

Warm 

Springs

Simnasho

Pine Wapinitia Grove

Wamic

Friend

Rowena Mosier

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Dee

Winans

Odell

Van

Horn

Oak Grove

Rockford

Viento

Wyeth

Cascade Locks

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Idanha

Detroit

Niagra

Elkhorn

Eagle

Creek

Government Camp

Welches

Rhododendren

Wemme

Brightwood

Alder

Creek Cherryville

Sandy

Kelso

Cotrell

C orbett

Latourell Falls

Bridal Veil

Multnomah

Falls

Bonneville

Zigzag

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Clackamas County

Multnomah

County

Clackamas

County

Marion

County

Wasco

County

Jefferson

County

£¤26

£¤26

!(35

!(224

!(140

Ý25

Ý43

Ý15

Ý45

Ý14

Ý48

Ý42

Ý20

Ý18

Ý57

Ý54

Ý17

Ý10

Ý27

Ý46

Ý16

Ý12

Ý58

Ý36

Ý63

Ý13

Ý44

£¤26

£¤26

£¤26

£¤97

£¤197

£¤197

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

!(224

!(22

!(14

!(35

!( !(142 14

!(211

!(216

Clackamas R.

White R.

White R.

White R.

Zigzag R.

N. Fk. Clackamas R.

BullRun R.

Little N. Santiam R.

Sandy R.

Salmon R.

N. Santiam R.

Sandy R.

S. Fk. Bull Run R.

S. Fk. Salmon R.

S. Fk. Roaring R.

Clackamas R.

2000

2000

2000

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Proposed OHV Decision Roads

Convert to OHV and Mixed Use Roads

óóóóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Gravel Rd - 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Improved Rd - 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Paved Rd. Mixed Use

Mixed Use Gravel Rd - 3, 4 Wheel ATVs

Gravel Rd. Mixed Use Road

Improved Rd. Mixed Use Road

Native Rd. Mixed Use Road

Existing and Proposed New OHV Routes

Existing Trail - 2 Wheel Only

Existing Trail - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

Existing Trail - 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

New Construction - 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2 Wheel Only

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

CRG National Scenic Area

Wilderness

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

FS Paved Roads

All Other FS Roads

Pacific Crest Trail

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Lakes and Columbia R.

Rivers

Creeks

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

Warm Springs Indian Res.

Other Ownership

0 2.5 5 10μ 15

Miles

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

Washington State

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or from other

suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of this information for a

particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various

sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or otherwise modified without notification.

For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mount Hood National Forest 

Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

Overview
ÜÑÜÑ

!(

Parkdale

Mount Hood Wilderness

31 32

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

1 5 6 4 3 2 1 6

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

32 33 34 35 36 31

Ý16

3512[\

[\1612

Middle Fk. Hood R.

Crystal Spring Creek

3511[\

020

[\1610

\[1611

Compass Creek

Doe Creek

[\2840

West Fork Evans Creek

1631

\[

Tilly Jane Creek

Evans Creek

Ladd Creek

620

660

Bear Creek

630

Camp Creek

Boomer Creek

018

670

Little Creek

621

630

012

651

630

630

012

McGee Creek

640

650

670

621

641

620

660

640

Tony Creek

620

631

0 1 3

720

Stump Creek 014

630

640

012

640

Marco Creek

671

630

1650

Pinnacle Creek

710

650

011

620

1650

011

622

Ash Creek

015

650

660

650

1650

014

650

670

620

671

016

620

660

0 1 5

011

670

650

6 30

0 1 1

Polallie Creek

Laurance

Lake

R. 9 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

1

N..

T.

2

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

1

S.

R. 9 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

Bear Creek

OHV Trails and Features

Proposed OR OHV Class III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks μ State, Local, Private

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

1

N.
ÑÜ

28

22

15

14

13 18

16 17

10

11

12 7 8 9

3

23 24 19 20 21

451

17

Ý

662

Alder Creek

1711630

193

1711621

1720

[\

196

190

660

210

1700661

120

670

\[1722

673

660

624

Nor ht Fork Mill Creek 191

620

013

Nor ht Fork F vi me i el Creek

197

013

170

192

26 0

[\1711

671

Mosier Creek

740

NA

o F uth oS C ill Mkr keer

720

Cat C er ke

1711620

R

mi rock Creek

121

663

76 2

140

0 4 6

keer Cl ae Nkro Ftse W Crow Creek 130

664

630

1700013

640

566

640

1700660

[\1710

013

014

780

1711623

146

056

R. 10 E.

T.1S.

T.1S.

R. 10 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.R. 11 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

Gibson Prairie

OHV Decision Roads

Convert to OR OHV Class I ATVsConvert to OR OHV Class I ATVsConvert to OR OHV Class I ATVsMixed-Use::OR OHV Class I ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Class I ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Class I ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Class I ATVsProposed OR OHV Class I ATVs

ÑÜ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestFS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

HighwaysOther Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

RiversNamed CreeksState, Local, Private

μ 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óóóóóóóó óó

óóó óó

óóóó óó

óóóó óóóóóóó

óóóóó óó

óóó

óóóó ÑÜ

!K

Salmon-Huckleberry

Wilderness

18 17 16 15 14 18 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

31 32 33 34

36 35 31 32 33 36 35 34 31 32 33 35 34 36 31 32

30 29 28 27 25 26 30 25 26 29 27 28 30 29 28 27 26 30 25 29

19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 20 19 22 23 19 24 20

18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17 16 15 14 13

7 8 9 10 11 12 7

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

36

32 31 33 34 33 35 32 31 36 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

25 30 28 29 27

28 29 26 27 30 25 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

24 19 22 21 20 20 23 19 24 22 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 2013 18 17 15 16

12 7 8 10 9 11 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 7

1 6 5 5 4 6 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 6 3 5 2 1

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8

8 9 10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8

1 6 5

7 8 9 10 11 7 12 8 9 10

17 18 16 15 14 13 18 17

17 18 13 14 15 16 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

224

!(

224

!(

46

Ý

57

Ý

58

Ý

[\4614

5420 [\

\[5410

[\5810

[\4610

[\5430

[\4610

[\5730

[\4540

[\4615

210

015

030

135

0 2 1

210

344

029

012

130

123

025

150

022

039

023

265

019

275

172

042

021

015

520

149

180

320

044

240

110

10 4

208

330

120

014

130

022

741

012

130

240

013

10 5

135

081

180

011

071

034

011

016

018

209

011

410

031

011

020

012

290

022

207

1 04

013

247

027

062

028

038

018

0 3 2

019

030

0 15

161

027

421

011

230 015

267

200

036

20 6

0 1 7

019

011

231

0 71

164

011

042

031 012

30 6

153

0 44

10 8

0 0 2

014

10 8

155

023

018

019

165

013

015

160

031

017

160

021

250

081

040

610

10 7

019

820

059

710

122

320

145

131

012

017

510 118

0 15

145

2 10

038

20 8

265

262

10 2

120

012

0 53

0 1 5

031

048

42 2

015

031

0 5

2

1

6 0

026

012

531

014

330

347

019

2 0 0

2 00

051

120

031

029

50 1

018

1 22

013

2 01

20 2

272

064

030

337

014

021

410

147

300

024

0 91

011

220

025

120

020

127

62 2

024

047

031

152

018

019

011

130

0 1 9

195

019

037

1 50

0 3 1

063

170

0 1 1

020

018

016

012

047 043

2 5 4

020

210

230

031

034

170

50 0

123

014

013

016

032

140

0 1 6

020

270

147

251

1 0 5

018

1 49

128

018

041

119

332

1 7 3

013

245

111

130

270

013

028

920

125

013

510

024

018 831

028

026

0 4 3

334

012

030

180

410

530

038

020

51 0

850

0 1 3

185

120

02 0

210

030

048

182

180

0 4 1

250

020

190

730

221

261

131

120

017

10 2

1 5 0

231

1 12

135

050

10 7

011

018

91 0

20 5

033

182

016

20 0

32 0

071

160

1 3 6

160

1 8 7

162

2 2 0

471

130

0

610 13

016

531

071

026

125

160

1 90

027

120

220

016

430

021

662

041

0 2 2

015

140

033

015

167

055

120

140

491

011

031

160

170

200 150

029

410

130

045

120

1 47

0 42

220

020

180

240

150 160

140

015

143

160

018

200

203

032

0 11

640

160

150

021

531

032

146

210

310

210

150

205

225

203

1 04

2 8 0

270

246

10 2

170

130

017

252

120

115

042

012

2 0 5

160

150

023

130

040

1 3 0

140

012

021

51 0

013

017

014

190

0 1 6

021

011

613

140

140

520

1 50

051

150

240

013

140

125

021

32

0

140

200

151

140

022

120

220

180

120 1 30

162

063

205

260

130

150

190

210

019

114

120

451

720 203

175

1 5 0

20

3

126

170

041

016

011

140

311

260

010

140

200

126

120

0 3 0 150

168

130

120

2 0 0

502

1 7 0

134

180

115

116

160

190

180

140 1 2 0

150

1 70

244

135

12

0

0

24 242 042

220

1 30

031

1 63

170

190

120

240

220

130

581

072

210

091

230

180

120

120

250

140

160

3 5 0

170

120

130

032

200

061

340

046

150

82 0

150

120

180

041

61 0

174

180

150

120

2 0 0

170

092

140

15 0

157

120

140

180

160

91 0

170

21 0

220

240

121

030

027

0 2 1

033

025

[\4612

[\5710

[\5820

[\5412

[\4630

[\5830

\[5850

[\

[\4622

4611

[\4550

.r Ce l ppir C

gi B roh Cn .r

Oasis Cr.

ukS .r Ck n

l e H oi n Cr.

Second Cr.

K ni ez .r Cl 

P ni Ct .r

D ni ner Cr.

Wanderers Cr.

Oscar Cr.

Splintercat Cr.

Half p- ni t Cr.

.r Ca z al P

Moore Cr.

Tag Cr.

Gingham Cr.

Kink Cr.

.r Ct o C

.r Ce l ga E

Whisky Cr.

o G t a Cr.

Ck corll ehS

.r

Butte Cr.

Calico Cr.

John Cr.

eK l el y Cr.

Buck Cr.

Sam C .r

Three Lynx Cr.

S. Fk. Cripple Cr.

Cp uP .r

Dry Cr.

Fall Cr.

Shining Cr.

h sa W r C .

l uC .r Cs ut

L gi h nt ni g Cr.

.r C w auqS

Third Cr.

Sands ot ne Cr.

h W a e l Cr.

sool a me M .r Ce 

.r Cr eppo C

.r Cl l a Hk ca M

S. Fk. Eagle Cr.

.r Cf ei hC

Winslow Cr.

Cn orI .r

Pick Cr.

.r Cr aguoC

Music Cr.

Grouse Cr. Peavine Cr.

B g i Cr. Bull Cr.

Boyer Cr.

Bee Cr.

Bedford Cr.

Linney Cr.

si F h r C .

Rimrock Cr.

.r Cg nirpSs li ve D

hS ovel Cr.

aC yn n o r C .

Button Cr. i H h g Rock Cr.

Ca Ct r.

Dog Cr.

. S k F C. al kc ma s a . R

Salmon R.

S. Fk. Roaring R.

Oak 

Grove Fk. Clackamas R.

Roaring R.

Clackamas R.

N. Fk. Clackamas R.

. k F. S . Rn o ml aS

54

Ý

45

Ý

45

Ý

54

Ý

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

T.4S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.4S.

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 7 E.

R. 7 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

LaDee Flat

OHV Decision Roads

óó óóóóóóóóClose to All Traffic

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Class II ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Class II ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Proposed Trail: Classes I, III ATVsProposed Trail: Classes I, II, III ATVs

Staging Areas

ÑÜ Staging Area

!K North Fork Quarry OHV Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestWilderness

Highways and Roads

Other Paved RoadsHighways

Existing FS Roads

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksState, Local, Private

μ 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.

T.6S.

T.5S.
óóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóó

óó

óóóóóó

ÑÜ

11 12 7 8 9

2 1 6 5 4 3 1 2 6 5 4

35 36 31 32 33 34 36 35 31 32 33

26 25

29 30 28 27 26 25 30 29 28

23 24 19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21

18 17 16

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4

11 12 7 8 9 10

12 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

14 13 17 18 16 15 14 13

43

Ý

[\4310

[\2310

ae B

keer Crev

Clear Creek

White R. e C ad r wS ma p r C ee k

Wilson Creek

Indian Cre

[\

ek

4850

Beaver But et Creek

Frog Creek

033

270

26£¤

270

120 2110250

Coyote Creek

230

[\4330

231

280

011

keer Credl uo B

2120320

012

220

2110240 015

eer Csa ma C k

221

Willow Creek

013

023

018

250

360

230

022

123

160 250

320

220

240

290

011

2110260

014

150

013

220

220

043

016

270

022

350

0 1 3

121

2120011

2120013

243

016

017

140

42 0

222

221

282

142

250

2110251

029

212 0370

0 17

014

271

160

291

2130016

110

020

372

2120011

271 2110021

225

282

260

622

410

281

341

2120371

022

012

015

016 022

017

2110017

12 10018

230 230

015

242

410

240

016

013

031

182

019

015

030

221

014

221

018

280

019

015

321

2110261

030

222

029

244

272

012

\[2120

017

012

032

024

222

120

250

221

332

011

22 4

151

331

310

220

241

031

035

[\2110

0 31

232

260

242

017

170

240

216

!(

142

223

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

T.5S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.5S.

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.R. 11 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

McCubbins Gulch

Proposed OHV Decision Roads

óó

óóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing Trail: Class I, III ATVsProposed Trail: Class III ATVs only

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestFS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

HighwaysOther Paved Roads

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksWarm Springs Indian Res.State, Local, Private

μ 0 1 2 0.5 Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

óóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

ó ó

óó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó ó

ó óóóóóóóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óóó

óó

óó óó

óóóóóó

óóóóó óó óóóóó

óóóóó ó óó óó

óó óóó óó

óóó

óó óóóó

óó óó óó óó

óóó

ÜÑ

32 35 33 34 36 35 36 31

29 28 27 26 26 25 25 30

8 9 11 10

5 4 3 2 1 2 1 6

32 33 34 35 36

35 36 31

29 28 27 26 25

26 25 30

20 21 22 23 24

23 24 19

17 16 15 14 13

14 13 18

17 16 14 15 14 13 13 18

8 9 10 11 12 11 12 7

11 12 12 7

20 21 23 22 23 24 24 19

Last Creek

[\4245

Peavine Creek

Ý42

Pinhead Creek

[\4661

[\4220

Dry Creek

4200520

013

Stone Creek

Snive Creek

150

140

350

4200032

S. Fk. Warm Springs R.

[\4660

570

[\5730

141

\[4240

4230000

320

4210350

4661180

4661026

[\4210

220

220

230

110

4200320

4661164

Dyke Creek

4200340

430

183

4661200

Poop Creek

[\4270

460

291

029

290

038

350

440

\[4250

220

473

180

4661205 4661140

4661150

4230370

480

130

4200330

028

264

230

350

380

4661160

240

450

360

260

4 7 0

390

380

210

145

4661141

216

4200340

016

5740

[\

400

340

020 322

181

293

2 6 0

230

032

370

4210044

4240120

0 2 4

101

442

500

360

050

231

4661190

390 4661162

250

324

182

280

432

360

4210041

[\4260

1 6 8

046

221

350

360

034

4230120

015

100

240

501

187

Cabin Creek

230

396

170

230

222

019

140

231

024

4661193

1 1 2

014

11

114

3

180

[\5732

4210043

025

3 9 2

039

027

034

170

031

036

019

292

017

217

023

035

040

032 4661143

0 4 7

054

116

399

025

057

170

019

389

4661029

022

284

220

280

040

044

027

042 314

026

170

1 6 0

475

035

027

4200341

032

3 9 1

394

4661018

101

4 9 7

4661166

459

045

035

451

0 5 3

03

0

7

33

530

036

0 18

033

048

0 26

035

049

190

4200331

017

018

056

445

362

398

495

4210042

4200332

045

182

037

051

023

170

172

504

022

Warm Springs R.

4200320

120

R. 8 1/2 E.

T.

7

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

7

S.

R. 8 1/2 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 9 E.

R. 9 E.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.

T.

6

S.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

Peavine

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

Warm Springs Indian Res.

0 0.5

Miles

1

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

2

μ

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 16 15 14 13

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

32 33 34 35 36 31

17 16 15 14 13

17

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

Badger Creek

Wilderness

[\4860

Ý48

White R.

Badger Creek

Boulder Creek

Threemile Creek

Gate Creek

[\4850

[\2710

!(216

Cedar Creek

Little Badger Creek

Souva Creek

4820[\

North Fork Gate Creek

4830[\

South Fork Gate Creek

4880

4840[\

120

Clear Creek

140

120

Pine Creek

Ý27

4812

[\

330

270

4820140

Tygh Creek

4811[\

Lost Creek 4814

[\

220

[\4881

Deep Creek

[\3550

120

4330[\

011

230

Beaver Creek

[\4860

£¤26

140

[\4810

122 Swamp Creek

220

140

160

2130[\

Drop Creek

220

2110 [\

231

023

120

220

140

013

120

Jalland Creek

121

2 6 0

263

015

021

015

160

[\2120

Camas Creek

150

120

130

250

013

018

018

123

141

141

132

4860016

262

200

360

4841

[\

4820152

230

032

019

Indian Creek

123

011

230

120

190

012

012

2 2 0

020

[\4891

180

4820120

160

221

011

014

130

120

052

013

016

4814120

4860[\ 012

222

250

170

320

281

012

220

150

240

2 90

011

053

020

014

190

Pup Creek

016

Tolo Creek

017

051

130

01 7

130

170

150

191

017

0 11

310

220

023

016

124

131

340

0 1 6

230

020

012

0 1 1

1 6 1

017

029

120

4812140

4890

012

272

018

026

240

Rock Creek

133

022

021

4860017

016

350

025

171

0 13

121

3530

[\

140

243

200

181

0 1 1

016

011

4814012

160 230

022

270

017

170

022

2 7 1

140

015

121

130

224

011

North Fork Rock Creek

1 3 1

054

4812160

012

017

4800241

2 2 1

180

0 2 5

241

1 4 0

265

191

140

029

015

017

014

[\4870

130

4813130

223

225

4860130

0 1 3

130

291

140

161

011

020

273

180

016

130

1 3 0

271

4820150

150

0 2 8

282

014

250

120

014

014

281

013

341

120

01

0

1

14

015

014

Wildcat Creek

012

036

1 7 0

160

015

016

022

017

264

021

011

230

154

4860150

120

170

142

023

012

015

1 40

180

242

\[2110

282

4814012

[\4813

025

014

270

014

261

013

028

150

180

0 1 4

232

027

013

031

015

030

221

014

142

122

220

4811230

0 2 4

014

4811230

018

0 1 9

280

4820120

019

190

015

150

2 8 0

321

024

013

260

015

233

0 30

222

0 2 4

160

190

0 12

029

244

013

130

4813170

030

272

1 7 0

012

020

\[2711

140

012

032

018

120

130

141

222

4800130

027

221

155

024

233

011

4820153

151

132

122

151

015

331

012

2 21

019

013

200

011

011

035

280

122

273

013

171

232

260

150

143

4812130

2 3 0

017

240

130

4800240

223

Rock Creek

Reservior

Little

Boulder Lk.

Boulder

Lk.

Badger

Lk.

T.

4

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.

R. 11 E.

T.

3

S.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 2 OHV Proposal

Rock Creek

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóó

Decommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Overnight Camping and

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

Warm Springs Indian Res.

0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

T.

5

S.

T.

5

S.

Target Shooting Prohibited

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

μ
ó óó óó

ó

ó ó

ó ó

óó

óóó óóó óó

ó

ó

ó

ó

ó

ó óóó

ó

óóóó

óóóóó

ó óó

ó

ó

ó

óó

ó ó

óóó

óóóó

ó

óóó

óó

óóóó

óó

óóóóó

óóóóó

ó ó

ó óó ó

óóóó

ó

ó

ó

óó ó

óóóóó

ó

óó ó

ó

ó ó

ó

ó

ó ó

óó

ó

ó

óó

óó

óó

ó ó

ó óóóó

óó

ó

ó

óó

ó

ó

ó óóó

óóóó

ó

ó

ó

ó

óó

ó

óó

óóó

ó

óóóó

ó

óó

óóó

ó

ó óó

óó óóóó

ó

óó

óóó

óó

ó

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bull Run R.

S. Fk. Bull Run R.

E. Fk. Clack amas R.

Wildwood

Faubion

Warm 

Springs

Simnasho

Pine Wapinitia Grove

Wamic

Friend

Rowena Mosier

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Dee

Winans

Odell

Van

Horn

Oak Grove

Rockford

Viento

Wyeth

Cascade Locks

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Idanha

Detroit

Niagra

Elkhorn

Eagle

Creek

Government Camp

Welches

Rhododendren

Wemme

Brightwood

Alder

Creek Cherryville

Sandy

Corbett Latourell Falls

Bridal Veil

Multnomah

Falls

Bonneville

Zigzag

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Clackamas County

Multnomah

County

Clackamas

County

Marion

County

Wasco

County

Jefferson

County

£¤26

£¤26

!(35

!(224

£¤26

£¤97

£¤197

£¤26

£¤26

£¤197

£¤26

£¤30

£¤30

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

!(216

!(22

!(14

!(224

!(140 !(14

!(35

!(142

!(211

!(216

Clackamas R.

White R.

White R.

E. Fk. Hood

R.

N. Santiam

R.

Roaring R.

Collawash R.

Hood R.

Sandy R.

Bull Run R.

S. Fk. Clackamas

R. Clackamas R.

Salmon R.

Zigzag R.

Breitenbush R.

Little N. Santiam R.

S. Fk. Roaring R.

N. Santiam R.

Sandy R. Sandy R. Ý25

Ý48

Ý43

Ý15

Ý14

Ý45

Ý42

Ý20

Ý18

Ý57

2000

Ý17

Ý10

Ý27

Ý46

Ý16

Ý12

Ý58

Ý36

Ý63

Ý13

2000

2000

Ý44

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Proposed OHV Decision Roads

Convert to OHV and Mixed Use Roads

óóóóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Gravel Rd. - Motorcycles Only

Improved Rd - Motorcycles Only

Native Rd - Motorcycles Only

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Paved Rd. Mixed Use

Mixed Use Gravel Rd - 2 Wheel Vehicles

Gravel Rd. Mixed Use Road

Improved Rd. Mixed Use Road

Native Rd. Mixed Use Road

Existing and Proposed New OHV Routes

Existing Trail - 2 Wheel Only

Existing Trail - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

New Construction - 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2 Wheel Only

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

Wilderness

CRG National Scenic Area

FS Paved Roads

All Other FS Roads

Pacific Crest Trail

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

Warm Springs Indian Res.

Other Ownership

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

Washington State

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or from other

suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of this information for a

particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various

sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or otherwise modified without notification.

For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8.5 E.

Mount Hood National Forest 

Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Overview

μ
óóóóó

óóóó óó

ó

ÜÑÜÑ

!(

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Wilderness

31 32

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

1 5 6 4 3 2 1 6

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

32 33 34 35 36 31

Ý16

Middle Fk. Hood R.

[\1620

Crystal Spring Creek

3511[\

020

[\2840

1610 [\

[\1612

Compass Creek

Doe Creek

[\1640

West Fork Evans Creek

[\1631

Tilly Jane Creek

Evans Creek

Ladd Creek

Bear Creek

630

Camp Creek

Boomer Creek

018

660

670

Little Creek

621

630

[\3512

012

651

630

630

012

McGee Creek

Ý18

640

650

670

621

660

640

Tony Creek

620

631

0 1 3

720

Stump Creek

014

630

640

012

640

Marco Creek

671

6 3 0

641

1650

Pinnacle Creek

7 10

650

011

620

1650

011

622

1630660

Ash Creek

015

650

650

1650

014

650

670

620

671

016

620

660

0 15

011

670

650

6 30

0 1 1

Polallie Creek

6 2 0

Laurance

Lake

R. 9 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

1

N..

T.

2

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

1

S.

R. 9 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Bear Creek

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Class III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Class III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Class III ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Proposed OR OHV Class III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National Forest

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

μ

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

1

N.
ÜÑ

35 36

26 25

22

15 14 13 18

10 11 12 7

3 2 1 6

23 24 19

31 32

30 29

662

621

Neal Creek

620

Mosier Creek

661

640

730

670

[\1700

650

1711

[\

673

624

Rimrock Creek

1710644

630

\[1700

North Fork Mill Creek

011

1710640

640

620

[\1710

Yellowjacket Creek

671

630

623

01 3

740

72 0

012

620

663

643

672

140

690

West Fork Neal Creek

Crow Creek

664

012

Alder Creek

630

643

013

665

645

660

650

Cat Creek

1700012

642

780

640

641

R. 10 E.

T.

1

N..

T.

4

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

1

N.

R. 10 E.

R. 11 E.

R. 11 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

4

S.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Gibson Prairie

OHV Decision Roads

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

OHV Trails

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National Forest

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks μ

State, Local, Private 0 0.5 1

Miles
ÜÑ

!(

!(

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Bull of the

Woods 

Wilderness

7 8 9 10

6 5 4 3

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

32 33 34

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

33 34 35 31 36 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

29 28 27 26 30 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

16

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

8 9 10

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10

11

3 5 4 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

10 11 9 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3

36 31 32 33 34

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

3 2 4 1

20 21 22

17 16 15 14

Clackamas R.

N. Fk. Breitenbush R.

S. Fk. Breitenbush R.

[\6350

Collawash R.

Ý46

Elk Lake Creek

Breitenbush R.

E. Fk. Collawash 

R.

564

East Humbug 

Creek

Devils Creek

Lowe Creek

Hunter Creek

[\4672

[\4671

Last Creek

564

Boulder Creek

Farm 

Creek

[\6355

Fawn Creek

Hill Creek

Mansfield Creek

Scorpion Creek

Lemiti Creek

Ogre Creek

Short Creek

Humbug Creek

Jazz Creek

Cliffs Creek

M

Round Creek

other Lode Creek

Skunk Creek

Leone Creek

Peat Creek

Cultus Creek

Fox Creek

Battle Creek

Cachebox Creek

Slide Creek

Cascade Creek

Rapidan Creek

Crag Creek

Pine Cone Creek

Dyke Creek

Poop Creek

Fan Creek

Minnie Boohoo Creek

Bonner Creek

Roaring Creek

Sisi Creek

6350037

Happy Creek

Berry Creek

Buckeye Creek

4672

[\

Lake Creek

Ý63

Squirrel Creek

Ý42

Cub Creek

Dickey Creek

Welcome Creek

R. 6 E.

T.

8

S.

T.

7

S..

T.

9

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

8

S.

R. 6 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 7 E.

R. 7 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Graham Pass

OHV Decision Roads

Mixed Use Roads

OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

OR OHV CLasses I, II, III ATVs

OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

OR OHV Class III ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Class III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National Forest

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks μ State, Local, Private

0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

7

S.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.
óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó ó

ó

óó

óóóóóóóó óó

óóóóó

óóóó ó óó óóóó

óóóóó óóó

óóó óó

óó ó

óóóó ó

óóó

óóóó óóóóóóóó

ÑÜ

ÑÜ

!K

18 17 16 15 14 18 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

31 32 33 34

36 35 31 32 33 36 35 34 31 32 33 35 34 36 31 32

30 29 28 27 25 26 30 25 26 29 27 28 30 29 28 27 26 30 25 29

19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 20 19 22 23 19 24 20

18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17 16 15 14 13

7 8 9 10 11 12 7

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

36

32 31 33 34 33 35 32 31 36 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

25 30 28 29 27

28 29 26 27 30 25 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

24 19 22 21 20 20 23 19 24 22 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 2013 18 17 15 16

12 7 8 10 9 11 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 7

1 6 5 5 4 6 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 6 3 5 2 1

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8

8 9 10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8

1 6 5

7 8 9 10 11 7 12 8 9 10

17 18 16 15 14 13 18 17

17 18 13 14 15 16 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 Salmon-Huckleberry

Wilderness

224

!(

224

!(

o G a Ct r.

Butte Cr.

Calico Cr.

Ck corll ehS

.r

Bull Cr.

John Cr.

.r C w auqS l e K el y Cr.

Buck Cr.

Three Lynx Cr.

S. Fk. Cripple Cr.

muT l b ni g C .r

Cp uP .r

h s a W r C .

Cultus Cr.

.r Ct o C

Shining Cr.

Dry Cr.

Memaloose Cr.

L gi h nt ni g Cr.

Third Cr.

.r Ce l ppir C

Sandstone Cr.

Whale Cr.

.r Cr eppo C

.r Cl l a Hk ca M

S. Fk. Eagle Cr.

Winslow Cr.

Iron Cr.

.r Cf ei hC

.r Cr aguo C

Music Cr.

Grouse Cr.

Peavine Cr.

B g i Cr.

Boyer Cr.

Half p- ni t Cr.

Sam C .r

a C y n n o r C .

Oasis Cr.

Bee Cr.

Bedford Cr.

ukS .r Ck n

Linney Cr.

Tag Cr.

Fall Cr.

r Ch si F .

Button Cr.

Rh gi H ock Cr.

Ca Ct r.

Rimrock Cr.

hS ovel Cr.

gi B r oh C n .r

l e H oi n Cr.

Second Cr.

P ni Ct .r

D ni ner Cr.

Wanderers Cr.

Oscar Cr.

Splintercat Cr.

.r Ca z al P

Moore Cr.

Gingham Cr.

Pick Cr.

Dog Cr.

Kink Cr.

K ni zel Cr.

.r Ce l ga E

Whisky Cr.

N. Fk. Clackamas R.

. k F. S . Rn o ml aS

Oak 

Grove Fk. Clackamas R.

. S k F C. al kc ma s a . R

Salmon R.

S. Fk. Roaring R.

Clackamas R.

Roaring R.

[\

[\

5411

4611

[\5830

[\4610

[\4540

[\4630

\[5850

[\4612

[\4620

[\4550

[\5730

[\4610

[\4545

\[4630

[\5412

[\5710

4613

[\

[\5410

5820

[\

45

Ý

57

Ý

145

012

017

510 118 027

145

2 1 0

038

20 8

265

262

120

035

0 1 5

031

048

42 2

031

2 6 0

022

531

019

2 00

051

120

0 3 2

031

1 2 2

018

210

014

021

410

14 7

300

024

190

0 1 4

220

025

1 2 0

020

62 2

0 42

120

047

152

018

130

0 1 9

195

019

021

1 5 0

031

063

170

0 1 1

020

018

13 0

1 3 0

016

047

221

043

542

020

210

230

034

123

013

0 1 6

032

015

140

4622

0 1 6

270

1 4 7

1 0 5

251

149

210

128

018

1 7 3

013

051

111

130

013

920

0 1 2

057

178

831

028

026

0 4 3

10 3

012

180

410

530

5 1 0

850

420

185

120

210

2 00

048

4621

182

0 4 1

250

730

221

261

120

017

10 2

1 5 0

231

1 12

135

050

10 7

011

91 0

520

182

016

081

32 0

1 07

160

1 3 6

160

1 8 7

162

2 2 0 471

31 0

0

610 13

531

071

125

160

190

120

220

016

430

021

041

0 2 2

015

015

167

055

120

140

491

011

031

160

640

170

200

150

130

045

120

1 47

0 4 2

220

180

020

240

150 160

140

1 0 4

015

143

200

2 03

032

0

11

021

015

3

15

146

012

310

150

205

225

203

030

1 0 4

2 8 0

270

246

210

170

130

017

120

081

1 15

042

012

026

061

160

15 0

31 0

040

130

140

012

021

017

014

190

0 6 1

021

011

613

140

025

1 50

051

150

013

140

125

021

3

2

0

140

200

151

140

220

135

180

0 2 1

210

1 30

1 26

063

150

190

210

019

203

175

1 5 0

0 2 3

126

170

140

016

011

344

140

311

260

010

012

140

2 0 0

126

130

030

150

150

120

168

130

2 0 0

502

1 7 0

134

123

116

140

160

190

180

14 0

1 2 0

150

120

244

150

1 3 5

12

0

0

24

042

242

220

039

1 30

031

1 63

170

265

1 90

019

275

0 4 2

120

240

015

130

581

246

4635

072

210

091

230

180

520

21 0

120

160

3 5 0

180

170

130

032

320

200

044

061

42 5

240

110

1 02

10 4

150

82 0

640

150

180

041

014 3 2 0

130

012

160

174

013

180

10 5

180

071

120

011

018

410

023

1 70

011

023

012

290

140

022

150

15 7

120

140

180

013

247

027

340

160

200

018

038

030

033

161

027

2 80

011

1 09

034

230 015

267

170

200

20 6

021

021

0 71

164

042

031 012

30 6

220

153

155

023

0 1 6

165

240

013

160175

160

250

040

025

610

820

059

122

320

46 21

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

T.4S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.4S.

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 7 E.

R. 7 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

LaDee Flat

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóClose to All Traffic

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsProposed OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Staging Areas

ÑÜ Staging Area

!K North Fork Quarry OHV Area

Highways and Roads

Other Paved RoadsHighways

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestWilderness

Existing FS Roads

FS Paved Roads

Gravel RoadsImproved Dirt RoadsDirt Roads 

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksState, Local, Private

μ 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.

T.6S.

T.5S.
óóóó óó ó

óóóó

óó

ó

óó

óóóóóó

óó

óó óóó

óóóóó

óóó óóó óó óó óó

óó

óóóóó óó óó óó óó

óó

óó óóó ó

óóóó óó óó óóóó óóóó óó óóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

óó óó óó

óó óó óó

óó

óó óóóó

óóóóóóó óó

óóóóóóóó

óóó

óóóóóóóóóóó

óó óó

óó óóó óóó óó óóó óó ó

óóó óó óó óóó óóó

óóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

ó

óó óóóó

óóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó óó

óó

ÑÜ

ÑÜ

ÑÜ

11 12 7 8 9

2 1 6 5 4 3 1 2 6 5 4

35 36 31 32 33 34 36 35 31 32 33

26 25

29 30 28 27 26 25 30 29 28

23 24 19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21

18 17 16

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4

11 12 7 8 9 10

12 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

14 13 17 18 16 15 14 13

[\2120

\[2130

ae B

keer Crev

Clear Creek

White River

e C ad r wS ma p r C ee k

Wilson Creek

Indian Cre

[\

ek

4850

Beaver But et Creek

Frog Creek

26£¤

120 250

Coyote Creek

2120330

231

280

keer Credl uo B

270

220

4310011

0720112

2110240

eer Csa ma C k

4310000

Willow Creek

023

[\2110

018

[\4330

0134 022

4310221

4885

[\

123

2130270

2130250

2130270

160

2120360

250

320

220

240

290

011

016

4310014

150

013

2120011

220

220

43 0

2120013

270

2130270 2110260

022

013

350

0 1 3

121

243

016

017

140

4310 4 13 0 42 0

0212 330

4310222

221

2 8 2

142

4310250

2110251

2110029

0 17

014

2130271

160

291

230

10 1

2110020

372

2110230

230

2120011

2110021

225

2120370

2120371

2820112

260

622

410

2110281

341

022

012

01

016 5

2120017

2110022

017

2110017

230

240

242

410

4310221

240

016

4310011

182

019

015

030

221

221

018

211001

0

9

15

12 01 82 0

360

321

2110261

2131

222

029

244

2110272

2120370

012

017

2110018

012

032

[\2130

024

222

120

2130250

221

332

151

2110030

2110260

2110280

310

220

270

4310241

031

035

2120331

232

260

4310242

2651

2110261

2120331

017 2130016

2110240

170

240

\[2120

216

!(

322

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

T.5S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.5S.

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.R. 11 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

McCubbins Gulch

OHV Decision Roads

óó

óóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Class III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Class III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Class III ATVsMixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing Trail: Class I, III ATVsProposed Trail: Class I, III ATVsProposed Trail: Class III ATVs only

ÑÜ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestFS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

HighwaysOther Paved Roads

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksWarm Springs Indian Res.State, Local, Private

μ 0 1 2 0.5 Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
!(

!(Dee

Winans

Mark O.

Hatfield

Wilderness

31

30

19

18

7

6

1 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

24 19 20 21 22 23 19 24

13 18 17 16 15 14 18 13

9 10 11 12 7 8 12 7

1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

29 28 30 27 26 25

30

25

20 21 19 22 24 23 24

17 16 15 14 18 13 13

W. Fk. Hood R.

2820[\

Green Point Creek

North Fork Green Point Creek

Middle Fk. Hood R.

Tony Creek

630

620

Pine Creek

Hood R.

1620

[\

Ý18

Camp Creek

South Pine Creek

Laurel Creek

620

Divers Creek

640

Lindsey Creek

[\1310

Long Branch Creek

\[1330

Gate Creek

Dead Point Creek

Ý16

630

Shingle Creek

621

660

Trout Creek

020

2810

011

2821630

Birdie Creek

Indian Creek

620

2821620

621

670 650

620

641

Spring Creek

631

680

012

Warren Creek

011

[\1610

651

020

Collins Creek

621

Ditch Creek

Ý13

0 1 3

620

670

622

661

[\2821

640

2821621

662

2810

630

630

Black

Lk.

Rainy

Lk.

Up.

Green Pt.

Reservoir

North

Lk.

Lower

Green Pt.

Reservoir

Bear Lk.

Warren

Lk.

R. 9 E.

T.

1

N.

T.

2

N..

T.

1

S.

T.

1

S.

T.

1

N.

R. 9 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Mount Defiance

OHV Decision Roads

Mixed Use: OR Class I ATVs

Mixed Use: OR Class I ATVs

Mixed Use: OR Class I ATVs

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks μ State, Local, Private

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

T.

2

N.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.
óóóóóóóó

óó óóóó

óóóóó ó óó óó

óó óóó óó

óóó

óó óó óóóóó óóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó óóó ó

óóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóó

óó óó ó

ó óóóóóóóóóóó óó óó óóóó

óóóóóó óóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó óóóóóóóóóóó ó

óóóó

óóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

óóóóóóó

óóóóó

óóó óóó

óóóóó

óóóóóó

óóó ó

óó óóóó

ó óó óó ó

ó

óóó óóóóóó óóó

óó óóóóóóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó

óóóó ó

ó óó

óóóóó óó

óó

óóó

óóóóó

óóóóóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóó óóó óóóóó óóóó

óóóóóóóóóó óó óó

óóó

óó óó

óóóó

óó óóó óóó óóó

óóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

óó óóó óóó óó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó óóó óóóóóóóóóóó

ÜÑ

1 6 5 2 4 3 2 1

36 31 32 33 35 34 35 36

25 30 29 28 26 27 26 25

24 19

12 7 8 11 9 10

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 2

36 31 32 33 34 35 36

35

25 30 29 28 27 26 25

26

24 19 20 21 22 23 24

23

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 14

13 18 17 14 16 15 14 13

11 12

20 21 23 22 23 24

[\4660

[\4680

[\4671

4220[\

4210

[\

Ý46

Ý42

Ý42

4210

[\

Clackamas R.

Pinhead Creek

Last Creek

Cabin Creek

Warm Springs R.

4651

140

4200520

Lemiti Creek

013

[\4661

[\5731

160

Peavine Creek

4660140

5730[\

Pot Creek

4230

5731120

350

Kansas Creek

4680

4200032

4200570

[\4240

4660

[\

Snive Creek

1 2 0

4661180

4661026

Pan Creek

110

Chief Creek

320

4661164

Dyke Creek

146

430

183

4661200

Poop Creek

4660170

460

Fawn Creek

038

4210350

Wall Creek

440

466 0150

220

473

180

4661205

4661140

230

130

4661150

4661120

370

120

480

120 Bonner Creek

1 2 0

46 60160

5732013

350

4661170

150

4661160

500

Wolf Creek

240

Campbell Creek

450

150

360

4661141

260

4 7 0

390

380

Lowe Creek

125

4661145

170

Dry Creek

130

3 4 0

016

141

400

340

[\5732

4660020

322

181

[\4245

032

4661130

370

4210044

130

031

120

220

442

360

4661190

390

4661162

510

540

3 1 5 250

324

182

280

46 6 0130

4 3 2

1 2 4

360

150

4210041

0 3 4

148

221

160

035

350

560

4660120

013

4661013

185

1 4 1

015

170

240

187

5732016

5731016

011

150

043

130

4660016

147

125

024

5732012

5731118

300

293

4661193

140

11 2

11

114 3

4210043

5732011

4661143

115

039

3 9 2

5720

[\

031

5732014

4661019

116

040

032

155

011

550

186

1 3 0

115

291

230

399

057

4660140

024

126 140

290

389

4661029

044

4210040

4660180

4660014

140

029

042

1 4 0

023

048

314

504

047

4661012

014

475

027

012

341

4660120

029

019

394

160

4250[\

4661018

5731015

031

4661166

459

045

035

451

045

037

033

530

033

Slow Creek

128

190

331

014

4661030

5731015

4661031

017

160

4661020

018

445

0 5 1

362

030

4661133

044

4210042

330

5731116

490

332

053

045

4661011

4660013

037

1 8 8

292

032

139

[\4210

028

316

112

059

340

117

046

014

034

115

022

032

320

350

222

131

Summit

Lk.

R. 8 1/2 E.

T.

7

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

7

S.

R. 8 1/2 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.

T.

6

S.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Peavine

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóó

Decommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

Warm Springs Indian Res.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25

Miles

R. 7 E.

R. 7 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

μ
29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 16 15 14 13

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

32 33 34 35 36 31

17 16 15 14 13

17

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

Badger Creek

Wilderness

White R.

Badger Creek

Boulder Creek

Threemile Creek

Gate Creek

[\4850

!(216

Cedar Creek

Little Badger Creek

Souva Creek

4820[\

4811[\

North Fork Gate Creek

[\2710

South Fork Gate Creek

Clear Creek

4860140

120

Pine Creek

Ý27

4812

[\

120

Tygh Creek

Lost Creek

4860 [\

4840 [\

4814

[\

Ý48 Ý48

250

[\2711

[\4881

Deep Creek

[\3550

210784

4830[\

0

011

Beaver Creek

£¤26

140

\[4810

3530

[\

122 Swamp Creek

220

140

160

[\4885

2130[\

Drop Creek

220

231

220

023

120

4811220

140

Jalland Creek

[\4330

121

270

2 6 0

263

015

160

Camas Creek

150

[\4813

250

4840120

4830120

018

018

123

4812141

141

4860016

262

200

[\4880

\[4841

4820152

032

019

Indian Creek

12 3

011

230

120

150

190

4830012

012

220

020

4811[\

[\4891

180

160

221

014

130

052

013

4830016

4814120

012

222 250

220

170

320

4813170

281

220

150

240

2 90

011

053

020

190

016

4880

Tolo Creek

017

051

130

120

01 7

130

016

170

150

191

0 11

310

220

023

124

131

340

230

020

012

0 1 1

1 6 1

017

120

4890

012

130

272

4820018

026

013

240

Rock Creek

021

022

021

016

350

025

171

0 1 3

121

[\3530

140

243

181

016

160

230

022

270

017

170

022

271

140

121

224

011

North Fork Rock Creek

054

017

2 2 1

2110

\[

180

0 2 5

241

1 4 0

265

191

140

4811029

015

017

014

[\4870

4814130

223

225

0 1 3

130

291

140

230

161

170

011

273

180

016

130

230

4820150

150

0 2 8

250

120

014

4840014

013

341

120

01

0

1

14

015

120

014

012

036

160

015

016

017

264

021 011

230

240

170

142

023

4860180

242

\[2110

282

018

270

014

261

013

4811028 140

150

180

0 1 4

232

027

016

4820016

4820016

015

030

221

4812142

122

220

0 2 4

018

0 1 9

120

240

015

360

2 8 0

321

024

260

015

2131

233

222

4811024

160

0 1 2

029

244

013

130

030

1 7 0

020

4812140

012

032

018

4841120

4860130

222

141

027

221

155 4820155

024

233

4820153

151

132

122

4820151

012

2 21

019

013

270

011

01

[\

1

4860

035

122

130

273

232

260

150

4800011

143

2 3 0

017

171

240

[\2120

!(216

4800240

4820140

223

Little

Boulder Lk.

Boulder

Lk.

Badger

Lk.

T.

4

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.

R. 11 E.

T.

3

S.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 3 OHV Proposal

Rock Creek

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóó

Decommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Overnight Camping and

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

Warm Springs Indian Res.

0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

T.

5

S.

T.

5

S.

Target Shooting Prohibited

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

μ
ó

ó ó

óó

ó ó

ó

ó

óó

ó

óó

óóó

óó

óóó óóó óó ó

ó óó

ó óóó

óó

óóó

ó

óó

ó

ó ó

óóóó

ó

ó

ó

óó ó

óó

óó ó ó

ó

óó

ó

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Wildwood !(

Faubion

Warm 

Springs

Simnasho

Pine Wapinitia Grove

Wamic

Friend

Rowena Mosier

Parkdale

Mount

Hood

Dee

Winans

Odell

Van

Horn

Oak Grove

Rockford

Viento

Wyeth

Cascade Locks

Breitenbush

Hot Springs

Idanha

Detroit

Elkhorn

Government Camp

Welches

Rhododendren

Wemme

Brightwood

Alder

Creek Cherryville

Sandy

Corbett

Latourell Falls

Bridal Veil

Multnomah

Falls

Bonneville

Zigzag

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Wasco

County

Hood

River

County

Clackamas County

Multnomah

County

Clackamas

County

Marion

County

Wasco

County

Jefferson

County

£¤26

£¤97

£¤197

£¤26

£¤26

£¤197

£¤197

£¤26

£¤30

£¤30

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

!(35

!(14

!(216

!(22

!(14

!(224

!(140

!(14

!(35

!(211

!(216

!(216

White R.

White R.

White R.

E. Fk. Hood 

R.

N. Santiam 

R.

Zigzag R.

Hood R. Sandy R.

Salmon R.

Collawash

R.

Middle Fk. Hood R.

Sandy R.

S. Fk. Clackamas R. Little N. Santiam R.

S. Fk. Roaring R.

Clackamas R. N. Santiam R.

Bull Run R.

S. Fk.

S

almon R.

Ý46

Ý16

Ý25

Ý45

Ý14

Ý63

Ý44

Ý43

Ý15

Ý10

Ý20

Ý57

Ý42

Ý48

Ý18

Ý17

Ý36

Ý54

2000

Ý27

Ý12

Ý58

Ý13

2000

2000 2000

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

Proposed OHV Decision Roads

Convert to OHV and Mixed Use Roads

óóóóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Native Rd - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATV's 

Gravel Rd. Mixed Use Road

Improved Rd. Mixed Use Road

Existing and Proposed New OHV Routes

Existing Trail - 2 Wheel Only

Existing Trail - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 wheel ATVs

New Construction - 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

New Construction - 2 Wheel Only

New Construction - 2, 3 and 4 Wheel ATVs

U.S. Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF

CRG National Scenic Area

Wilderness

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

FS Paved Roads

All Other FS Roads

Pacific Crest Trail

Other Features

!( Population Centers

County Lines

Lakes and Columbia R.

Other Land Ownership

BLM Lands

Warm Springs Indian Res.

Other Ownership

μ 0 2.5 5 10

Miles

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

T.

1

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

T.

5

S.

T.

8

S.

T.

2

S.

T.

6

S.

T.

9

S.

T.

7

S.

T.

10

S.

T.

11

S.

T.

2

N.

T.

1

N.

R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. R. 12 E. R. 13 E.

Washington State

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or from other

suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of this information for a

particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various

sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or otherwise modified without notification.

For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8.5 E.

Mount Hood National Forest 

Alternative 4 OHV Proposal

Overview
óóóó óóóóóóó

óóó óó

óóóó óó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó ó

ó

óó

óóóóóóóó óó

óóóóó óó

óóóóó óóó

ó óó

óóó

óóóó óóóóóóóó

ÑÜ

!K

Salm on

R.

N.Fk.Clackamas R.

Roaring R.

S.Fk.Roaring

R.

Cr.

Clackamas R.

18 17 16 15 14 18 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

31 32 33 34

36 35 31 32 33 36 35 34 31 32 33 35 34 36 31 32

30 29 28 27 25 26 30 25 26 29 27 28 30 29 28 27 26 30 25 29

19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 20 19 22 23 19 24 20

18 17 16 15 13 14 18 17 16 15 14 13

7 8 9 10 11 12 7

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

36

32 31 33 34 33 35 32 31 36 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

25 30 28 29 27

28 29 26 27 30 25 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

24 19 22 21 20 20 23 19 24 22 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 2013 18 17 15 16

12 7 8 10 9 11 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 7

1 6 5 5 4 6 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 6 3 5 2 1

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8

8 9 10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8

1 6 5

7 8 9 10 11 7 12 8 9 10

17 18 16 15 14 13 18 17

17 18 13 14 15 16 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 Salmon-Huckleberry

Wilderness

224

!(

224

!(

531

033

120

160

3 5 0

170

015

030

026

135

0 2 1 1 3 0

344 012

130

123

120

150

039

032

265

200

019

275

0 4 2

015

061

520

245 1 02

180

320

044

240

110

150

10 4

014

130

012

013

10 5

180

280

071

011

018

640

410

023

011

023

150

012

290

022

013

247

027

018

038

012

030

180

161

027

041

2 80

011

034

230 015

3 2 0

267

200

021

0 71

164

042

031 012

30 6

153

0 1 2

155

160

023

0 1 6

165

013

160175

160

250

174

040

1 6 7

025

610

820

059

122

320

145

012

017

510

180

118 027

145

2 1 0

038

20 8

265

262

021

120

035

0 1 5

031

048

46 21

42 2

031

2 6 0

022

140

019

2 00

150

051

120

0 3 2

157

031

120

1 2 2

018

210

014

021

410

14 7

300

024

190

0 1 4

140

220

025

1 2 0

020

180

62 2

0 42

047

152

018

130

0 1 9

340

195

019

021

1 5 0

160

031

063

170

200

0 1 1

020

018

13 0

1 3 0

016

047

221

043

1 09

542

020

210

170

230

034

123

021

013 0 1 6

032

015

140

4622

0 1 6

071

270

1 4 7

1 0 5

251

220

149

210

128

018

1 7 3

013

051

111

130

013

920

0 1 2

057

178

831

026

0 4 3

10 3

012

180

530

240

850

420

120

210

2 00

048

4621

182

0 4 1

250

730

221

261

120

017

10 2

1 5 0

231

1 12

135

050

10 7

011

91 0

20 5

182

016

081

32 0

1 07

160

1 3 6

160

1 8 7

162

2 2 0 471

31 0

013

531

024

125

160

1 9 0

120

220

016

430

021

041

0 2 2

015

015

167

055

120

140

491

011

031

160

640

170

200

150

130

045

120

1 47

0 42

220

180

020

240

150 160

140

1 0 4

015

143

200

2 03

032

0 11

021

31 5

146

012

310

150

205

225

203

1 0 4

2 8 0

270

246

210

170

130

017

081

1 15

042

012

061

160

15 0

31 0

040

130

140

021

017

014

190

0 6 1

021 011

613

140

025

1 50

051

150

013

140

125

021

3

2

0

140

200

151

140

220

180

1 30

1 26

063

150

190

210

019

203

175

1 5 0

20 3

126

170

140

016

011

140

311

260

140

200

126

120

030

150

150

120

168

130

2 0 0

502

1 7 0

134

116

140

160

91 0

180

14 0

1 2 0

150

1 7 0

244

1 3 5

120

042

242

220

1 30

031

1 63

170

1 90

120

240

130

581

246

4635

072

210

091

230

180

21 0

45

Ý

57

Ý

Fall Cr.

.r C h si F

Gingham Cr.

.r Cg o D

ukS .r Ck n

Kink Cr.

Bull Cr.

K ni ez .r Cl 

.r Ce l ga E

Whisky Cr.

Memaloose Cr.

Calico Cr.

Butte Cr.

.r C w auqS

John Cr.

l e K el y Cr.

Buck Cr.

Tag Cr.

Shining Cr.

Three Lynx Cr.

ll ehS or k c C .r

o G a Ct r.

S. Fk. Cripple Cr.

.r Ce l ppir C

muT l b ni g C .r

Half p- ni t Cr.

Cp uP .r

Dry Cr.

.r Ct o C

a W h s r C .

Cultus Cr.

Ligh nt ni g Cr.

Third Cr.

Sandstone Cr.

Whale Cr.

Sam C .r

.r Cr eppo C

.r Cl l a Hk ca M

Button Cr.

S. Fk. Eagle Cr.

Iron Cr.

Rh gi H ock Cr.

Pick Cr.

Ca Ct r.

.r Cr aguo C

Music Cr.

Rimrock Cr.

Shovel Cr.

Grouse Cr.

gi B r oh C n .r

a C y n n o r C .

.r Cf ei hC

Peavine Cr.

B g i Cr.

n oil e H Cr. Boyer Cr.

Second Cr.

Bee Cr.

P ni Ct .r

D ni ner Cr.

Oasis Cr.

Wanderers Cr.

Bedford Cr.

Oscar Cr.

Splintercat Cr.

Linney Cr.

.r Ca z al P

Moore Cr.

4610011

4611132

[\4611

[\4610

[\5830

[\5412

[\4612

\[4610

[\5411

5820

[\ \[5850

[\5410

[\4630

4613

[\

[\4540

[\4620

[\4550

[\5730

\[4630

[\5710

[\4545

4610016 4610115

4611121

N. Fk. Clackamas R.

Oak 

Grove Fk. Clackamas R.

. S k F C. al kc ma s a . R

S. Fk. Roaring R.

Clackamas R.

Roaring R.

. k F. S . Rn o ml aS

Salmon R.

4610011

4610113

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

T.4S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.4S.

R. 6 E. R. 5 E.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 7 E.

R. 7 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 4 OHV Proposal

LaDee Flat

OHV Decision Roads

óó óóóóóóóClose to All Traffic

Convert to OHV Trail: Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OHV Trail: Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OHV Trail: Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OHV Trail: Classes I, II, III ATVsConvert to OHV Trail: Classes I, II, III ATVsMixed-Use Road: Classes I, II, III ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsProposed OR OHV Classes I, II, III ATVs

Staging Areas

ÑÜ Staging Area

!K North Fork Quarry OHV Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestWilderness

Existing FS Roads

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

Other Paved RoadsHighways

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksState, Local, Private

μ

0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

R. 8 E.

R. 8 E.

T.6S.

T.5S.
óóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óó

óó

óóóóóó

óóóóóóóóó

óó

óóóóóóóóóóóó

óó óóó óóóóó

óóó óóó óó óó óó

óó

óóóóó óó óó óó óó

óó

óó óóó ó

óóóó óó óó óóóó óóóó óó óóóóóóóóó

óóóóó

ó

óóóóóóóóóóó ó

óó óó

óó óó óóó óó óóó óó óó

óóó óó óó óóó óóó

óóóóó

ÑÜ

ÑÜ

ÑÜ

11 12 7 8 9

2 1 6 5 4 3 1 2 6 5 4

35 36 31 32 33 34 36 35 31 32 33

26 25

29 30 28 27 26 25 30 29 28

23 24 19 20 21 22 24 23 19 20 21

18 17 16

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4

11 12 7 8 9 10

12 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

14 13 17 18 16 15 14 13

ae B

keer Crev

Clear Creek

White River

e C ad r wS ma p r C ee k

Wilson Creek

Indian Cre

[\

ek

4850

Beaver But et Creek

Frog Creek

270

26£¤

120 250

Coyote Creek

2120330

[\220

231

280

keer Credl uo B

220

2110240

eer Csa ma C k

4310

Willow Creek

023

[\2110

018

[\4330

022

4885

[\

123

160 250

320

220

240

290

011

[\4310 016

014

230

150

013

220

220

043

2120013

270

2110260

022

013

350

0 1 3

121

243

016

017

140

4310 42 0

0212 330

222

221

2 8 2

142

250

029

0 17

014

271

160

291

230

10 1

2110020

372

2110230

2120011

2110021

225

282

260

622

410

281

341

022

012

01

016 5

2120017

017

230

240

242

221

240

016

031

182

019

015

030

221

2120360

221

018

280

[\240

019

015

360

321

2131

030

222

029

244

272

2120370

012

017

2110018

2120330

012

270

032

[\2130

024

120

250

332

2120011

151

2110260

310

220

241

031

035

[\250

011

232

260

242

2120370

2651

\[230

2110261

2120331

017 2130016

2110240

170

240

\[2120

216

!(

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

T.5S.

T.6S.

T.6S.

T.5S.

R. 10 E. R. 9 E.

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, or

from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of

this information for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due

to compilation from various sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated,

corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.R. 11 E.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 4 OHV Proposal

McCubbins Gulch

OHV Decision Roads

óó

óóóóóóóóDecommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsConvert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, III ATVsProposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

ÑÜ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood National ForestFS Paved Roads

FS Gravel RoadsFS Improved Dirt RoadsFS Dirt Roads 

Other Features

Lakes, Ponds, WetlandsRiversNamed CreeksWarm Springs Indian Res.State, Local, Private

μ 0 1 2 0.5 Miles
!(

ó óóó

óóóóó

óó

ó

óó

óóóó

óó óó

óóóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóó

ÜÑ

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 16 15 14 13

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 33 34 35 36

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

14 13

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

32 33 34 35 36 31

17 16 15 14 13

17

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

Badger Creek

Wilderness

4811

[\

White R.

Badger Creek

Boulder Creek

Threemile Creek

Gate Creek

[\4850

!(216

Cedar Creek

Little Badger Creek

Souva Creek

4820[\

4810

[\

4811

[\

North Fork Gate Creek

4830[\

[\2710

[\South Fork Gate Creek

4840

Clear Creek

140

120

150

Pine Creek

Ý27

120

270

Tygh Creek

Lost Creek

4814

[\

Ý48

250

[\2711

[\4881

Deep Creek

[\3550

4870120

011

Beaver Creek

4860

[\

£¤26

140

[\3530

122

220

140

160

[\4885

2130[\

Drop Creek

220 [\ 220

231

220

023

120

4811220

140

120

Jalland Creek

4330[\

121

2 6 0

263

015

160

150

120

250

018

018

123

4812141

141

4860016

262

200

\[4841

152

032

019

Indian Creek

123

011

230

120

190

012

012

220

020

[\4891

180

160

221

014

130

052

013

016

4814120

012

222

4811[\

250

220

170

320

281

130

220

150

240

2 9 0

011

053

020

190

016

4880

Tolo Creek

017

051

130

1 20

017

130

016

230

170

150

191

017

0 11

310

220

023

124

1 31

340

132

230

020

012

0 11

1 6 1

017

029

120

4890

4890[\

012

130

272

026

013

240

Rock Creek

021

133

022

0 2 1

016

350

025

171

0 13

121

[\3530

140

243

181

240

240 [\

011

016

011

160

4820

[\

230

022

270

017

4813

[\ 170

022

271

1 4 0

121

130

224

011

130

054

017

2 2 1

[\2110

180

0 2 5

241

1 4 0

265

191

140

029

015

017

014

[\4870

4814130

225

0 1 3

130

291

140

230

161

170

273

131

180

016

130

150

0 2 8

[\250

014

120

014

014

281

013

341

120

011

014

015

014

Wildcat Creek

012

036

1 7 0

160

016

017

264

021

[\280

011

230

240

170

012

4860180

\[2110

[\4813

120

014

261

4811028

140

150

180

232

027

221

4812142

131 220

280

0 2 4

014

018

0 1 9

280

019

190

015

150

360

2 8 0

321

016

024

260

2131

120

4811024

160

0 1 2

013

130

4813170

030 272

1 7 0

020

015

018

120

4812140 4860130

230 [\

027

155

024 153

151

015

2 21

[\4860

011

031

280

130 150

143

2 3 0

[\4812

017

280

240

[\2120

!(216

130

4800240

Rock Creek

Reservior

Boulder

Lk.

Badger

Lk.

T.

4

S.

T.

3

S.

T.

4

S.

Oregon

Mount

Hood

National

Forest

R. 11 E.

R. 11 E.

T.

3

S.

Mount Hood National Forest Alternative 4 OHV Proposal

Rock Creek

OHV Decision Roads

óóóóóóóóóó

Decommission Road

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Convert to OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

Mixed-Use: OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs 

OHV Trails and Features

Existing OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

Proposed OR OHV Classes I, III ATVs

ÜÑ Staging Area

Existing US Forest Service

Mt. Hood NF Boundary

Wilderness

FS Paved Roads

FS Gravel Roads

FS Improved Dirt Roads

FS Dirt Roads 

Highways and Roads

Highways

Other Paved Roads

Other Features

!( Population Centers

Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands

Rivers

Named Creeks

State, Local, Private

0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

R. 10 E.

R. 10 E.

T.

5

S.

T.

5

This product is produced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest S.

Service, or from other suppliers. The Forest Service can not assure the

reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose. The data

and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various sources,

including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated, corrected, or

otherwise modified without notification. For more information contact:

Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055

(503) 668-1700

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

μ
Appendix B — 1

Appendix B
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix B — 2
Appendix B

Appendix B — 3

APPENDIX B: Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) 

Appendix C – Access and Travel Management Guide Summary

Land Allocation Acceptable OHV Use

A2 – Wilderness None acceptable

A3 – Research Natural Areas ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Non-License Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – None acceptable

Areas – None acceptable

A4 – Special Interest Areas ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – None acceptable

Areas – None acceptable

A5 – Unroaded Recreation ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Non-License Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – None acceptable

Areas – None acceptable

A6 – Semi-primitive Roaded ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Non-License Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Non-License Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), 

Passenger vehicles

Trails – Non-License Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

Areas – Non-License Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

A7 – Special Old Growth ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s) and Passenger vehicles

Trails – None acceptable

Areas – None acceptable

A8 – Northern Spotted Owl ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix B — 4

Land Allocation Acceptable OHV Use

A8 – Northern Spotted Owl ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Class 3 Non-license Motorized Trailbike, 

and Passenger vehicles Trails – SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS for Non-license Class 2, Summer 

Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 Non-licensed motorized Trailbike, High 

Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – None acceptable

A9-Key Site Riparian ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Class 3 Non-license Motorized Trailbike, and 

Passenger vehicles

Trails – Winter Use

Areas – Winter Use

A10-Developed Recreation ML1 – SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS for Winter Use

ML2 – Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS for Winter Use

Areas – SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS for Winter Use

A11-Winter Recreation 

Areas

ML1 – None acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 Non-Licensed 

Motorized Trailbike, Winter Use

Areas – Winter Use

A12-Outdoor Education ML1 – SEASONAL RESTRICTION for Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same ML2 plus Passenger vehicles

Trails – Winter Use

Areas – Winter Use

A13-Bald Eagle Recovery 

Area

ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Non-licensed Class 2, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), 

Winter Use

Areas – None Acceptable

B1-Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational Rivers – Wild 

Segments

ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – None Acceptable

ML 3-5 – None Acceptable

Trails – None Acceptable

Areas – None Acceptable
Appendix B

Appendix B — 5

Land Allocation Acceptable OHV Use

B1-Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational Rivers – Scenic 

Segments

ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

Areas – Same as trails, plus Winter Use

B1-Wild, Scenic and 

Recreational Rivers – 

Recreational Segments

ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – Same as trails, plus Passenger Vehicles

B2-Scenic Viewsheds ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – Same as trails

B3-Roaded Recreation ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – Same as trails

B4-Pine Oak Habitat ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), 

Passenger Vehicles

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – None Acceptable

B5-Pileated Woodpecker / 

Pine Martin Habitat

ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

Areas – None Acceptable
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix B — 6

Land Allocation Acceptable OHV Use

B6-Special Emphasis 

Watershed

ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – None Acceptable

ML 3-5 – Non-license Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), 

Passenger Vehicles

Trails – None Acceptable

Areas – None Acceptable

B7-General Riparian Areas ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – None Acceptable

B8-Earthflows ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – None Acceptable

B9-Wildlife Visuals ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – None Acceptable

Areas – None Acceptable

B10-Deer and Elk Winter 

Range

ML1 – None Acceptable

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – None Acceptable

B11-Deer and Elk Summer 

Range

ML1 – Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Non-licensed Class 2, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Winter Use

Areas – Winter Use

B12-Back County Lakes ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)
Appendix B

Appendix B — 7

Land Allocation Acceptable OHV Use

B12-Back County Lakes ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s), Winter Use

Areas – Same as trails

C1-Timber Emphasis ML1 – Winter Use

ML2 – Non-licensed Class 2, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, High Clearance Vehicles (4x4s)

ML 3-5 – Same as ML2, plus Passenger Vehicles

Trails – Non-license Class 2, Summer Use Class 1 ATV, Licensed Motorized Trailbike, Class 3 

Non-license Motorized Trailbike, Winter Use

Areas – Same as trails

D-Bull Run This area is closed to public entry by law.

Definitions and Explanations in Forest Plan:

Class 1 All-terrain Vehicles 

(ATVs)

Motorized off-highway recreational vehicle that is 50 inches or less in width having a dry weight 

of less than 600 ponds which travels on three or more low-pressure tires and having a saddle.

Class 2 ATVs Vehicle weighing more than 600 pounds and less than 8,000 pounds, able to travel crosscounty on or over land, water, sand, snow, ice, march, swampland or other natural terrain, and 

actually being operated off a highway (e.g., dune buggies, jeeps or other 4x4s). Many Class 2 

ATVs are registered as passenger car or street level vehicle.

Class 3 ATVs Motorized off-highway vehicle having a dry weight of less than 600 pounds which travels on 

two tires (off-road motor cycles).

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) Roads are not maintained for motor vehicle use and area closed to vehicle traffic. They may be 

used for foot or horse travel [FSH 7709 12.3(2a)].

Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) Roads are maintained for high-clearance vehicle use and are not maintained for public 

passenger car travel. These roads may be used by Forest visitors unless specifically prohibited. 

Passenger car use is discouraged [FSH 7709 12.3(2b)].

Maintenance Level 3 (ML3) Roads in this and higher maintenance levels are subject to the applicable standards of Highway 

Safety Act. They are maintained to be passable for public passenger cars operated at prudent 

driving speeds [FSH 7709 12.3 (2c,d,e)].

Seasonal Restriction Identify that the specific designation applies except in some site specific circumstances. These 

circumstances could include a particular resource activity or physical condition causing a 

hazardous or life threatening condition, or considerable adverse effects on Forest resource 

might occur.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix B — 8
Appendix C — 1

Appendix C

Oregon State Regulations
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix C — 2
Appendix C — 3

OREGON OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

SNOWMIBILES; ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 821 (2003) with applicable 36 CFR 

Selected and Abbreviated Italic text added for clarification 

See 36 CFR 261.13 for General Prohibitions Web site for ORS www.leg.state.or.us/ors

Page 1 of 4 OR State ATV Law Revised 2005 

DEFINITIONS 

801.190 “Class I all-terrain vehicle” (3-4 wheel OHV) means a motorized, off-highway recreational vehicle 50 inches or less in width with a dry weight 

of 800 pounds or less that travels on three or more low pressure tires, has a saddle or seat for the operator, and is designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel.

801.193 “Class II all-terrain vehicle” (jeep, pickup) any motor vehicle that: 

(1) Weighs more than a Class I all-terrain vehicle and less than 8,000 pounds; (2) Designed for/capable of cross-country travel; 

and (3) Being used off highway.

801.194 “Class III all-terrain vehicle” (Motorcycle) means an off-highway motorcycle with a dry weight of 600 pounds or less that travels on two tires.

801.490 “Snowmobile” means a self-propelled vehicle that: 

(1) Capable of travel over snow/ ice; (2) Propulsion by endless belt tread or cleats or any combination of, or similar means upon which it is operated; 

(3) Steers wholly/in part by skis/runners; (4) Not registered as other type vehicle. 

801.305 "Highway" is every public way, road, street, thoroughfare, place, bridge, viaduct, open, used/intended for use of general public for vehicular traffic. 

GENERAL ON ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 

For motor vehicles used on National Forest System roads and Class II ATV Operated On or Off National Forest System roads 

REGISTRATION (Vehicle License)

803.300 Fail to register D Traffic violation 

803.505 Fail to carry registration D Traffic violation 

803.560 Display Expired Sticker D Traffic violation 

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (Vehicle Insurance)

806.010 Driving Uninsured; B Traffic violation 

806.012 Fail to carry proof off insurance; B Traffic violation 

806.020 Exemptions from financial responsibility requirements.

(6) A snowmobile, Class I or Class III ATV. (Note Class II ATV is not exempt) 

(7) Except continuously not being operated on road & form submitted to DOT 

LICENSES, INDORSEMENTS & PERMITS (Drivers License)

807.010 Operating vehicle without driving privilege B Traffic violation 

807.035(1) Operate Motorcycle without endorsement ORS 807.010 B Traffic 

811.175 Driving while suspended or revoked 

Operator is in violation of ORS 811.175 (A Traffic violation) or ORS 811.182 (C Felony / A Misdemeanor) 

HELMETS – MOTORCYCLE & MOPEDS 

814.260 Failure of moped operator to wear motorcycle helmet D Traffic 

814.269 Failure of motorcycle operator to wear motorcycle helmet. D Traffic 

814.275 Failure of motorcycle passenger to wear motorcycle helmet D Traffic 

814.280 Endanger motorcycle passenger not wear motorcycle helmet D Traffic 

GENERAL AREAS OF OPERATION 

821.020 Applicability of off-road vehicle exemption from general equipment 

(1) Any land/road/place in State that meets following & not posted closed to ATV. 

(a) Lands which are open to the public. 

(b) Roads, other than two-lane gravel roads, which are open to the public. 

(c) Paved parking lots adjacent to or on designated off-road vehicle areas. 

(d) Any local two-lane gravel road that is open to the public and that is designated by the road authority with jurisdiction over the road as open to ORV. 

821.055 Operation of ATV on certain highways. Class I, II, III ATV may operate on a highway open to the public & not maintained for passenger car traffic. 
Appendix C — 4

OREGON OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

SNOWMIBILES; ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 821 (2003) with applicable 36 CFR 

Selected and Abbreviated Italic text added for clarification 

See 36 CFR 261.13 for General Prohibitions Web site for ORS www.leg.state.or.us/ors

Page 2 of 4 OR State ATV Law Revised 2005 

PROHIBITED AREAS 

Specific areas of National Forest System Lands may be closed to the use of Off-Road Vehicles. 

Check at the local Forest Service Officer for specific prohibitions. 

821.190 Unlawful operation of snowmobile or ATV on highway or railroad. 

(1) Unlawful operation of an ATV in any of the following described areas: 

(a) On/across paved portion, shoulder, inside bank or slope of highway, on / across median of highway or on / across highway right of way under 

 construction. 

(b) On or across a railroad right of way. 

821.200 Exemptions on operating on highway or railroad (snowmobile/all ATVs) 

(1) Highways & Railroads:

(a) At 90 degrees angle. (b) and Place where quick & safe. (c) and Come to stop. (d) and Yield right of way. 

(f) and 100+ feet from intersection. (g) and under 12 year old on snowmobile or Class I must be accompanied by 18+ year old on same/like vehicle. 

(2) Highways:

(a) Highway completely covered with snow/ice & closed to other motor vehicles. (b) Loading/unloading without causing hazard. 

(c) Posted to permit snowmobile / ATV use. (d) Emergency when snow renders other travel impractical. 

(e) Traveling on designated snowmobile / ATV trail. 

(3) Railroads:

(a) Posted to permit the operation. (b) Emergency. (c) Officer or employee or authorized contractor or agent of the railroad. 

821.250 Permitting dangerous operation of snowmobile or ATV;

(1) Owner/person w/ control of machine permits operator across highway who is: 

(a) Incapable by reason of age, physical or mental disability; (b) Under the influence of intoxicating liquor, inhalants or controlled substances. 

821.295 Operating Class II or Class III ATV in prohibited snow area;

(1) Operating vehicle in a prohibited snow area on a groomed trail or a designated snowmobile or cross country ski trail or area during a designated snow use 

period. 

PROHIBITED OPERATION 

821.192 Operating ATV in violation of posted restrictions. B Traffic violation 

821.240 Operating snowmobile or ATV while carrying firearm/bow; (1) Unless the firearm is unloaded (no ammo in gun), or all arrows are in a quiver. 

821.250 Permitting dangerous operation of snowmobile or ATV; (1) Owner/person w/ control of machine permits operator across highway who is: 

(a) Incapable by reason of age, physical or mental disability; or (b) Under the influence of intoxicating liquor, inhalants or controlled substances. 

821.260 Hunting or harassing animals from snowmobile or ATV; (Actively hunting is prohibited. May transport carcass) 

821.280 Commit unlawful damage with snowmobile, Class I, II ATV; Expose underlying soil or vegetation or injure, damage, destroy trees or crops. 

821.285 Commit unlawful damage with Class III ATV; (motorcycle) (1) Operates in such a manner as to injure, damage, destroy trees or growing crops. 

821.290 Dangerous operation of snowmobile or ATV;

(a) Rate of speed greater than reasonable and proper under the existing conditions. 

(b) Negligent manner that endanger person or property of another or cause injury or damage to either. 
Appendix C — 5

OREGON OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

SNOWMIBILES; ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 821 (2003) with applicable 36 CFR 

Selected and Abbreviated Italic text added for clarification 

See 36 CFR 261.13 for General Prohibitions Web site for ORS www.leg.state.or.us/ors

Page 3 of 4 OR State ATV Law Revised 2005 

DRIVING PRIVILEGES 

Snowmobile operator permit issued by DMV. ATV operator permit issued by OR State Parks at 800-551-6949, www.prd.state.or.us/atv_permit.html

SNOWMOBILE

821.150 Operation of snowmobile without driving privileges; (a) A driver’s license, or (b) A snowmobile operator permit

CLASS I ATV (3 or 4 wheeler, under 50”wide, less than 800 lbs)

821.170 Operation of Class I all-terrain vehicle without driving privileges; (a) A valid drivers license, or (b) A valid Class I ATV operator permit,

or (c) With 18 year old with driver license or ATV permit and on same or like ATV. 

(2) No under 12 year old on snowmobile trail without a Class I ATV permit. 

CLASS II ATV (jeep, pickup, etc; 50+” wide, over 800 lbs – less 8,000 lbs)

A Class II ATV operated off National Forest System roads or on a designated ATV/OHV trail or area, must meet the driver’s license requirements of a 

General Motor Vehicle. See page D-1 for applicable 36 CFR.

CLASS III ATV (Motorcycle)

821.172 Operation of Class III all-terrain vehicle without driving privileges; 

(1) 12+ year old meet one of the following; 

(a) Driver license; or (b) Class III ATV operator, or (c) With 18 year old with driver license or ATV permit & on same or like ATV. 

(2) 7 year old but under 12 must;

(a) Class III ATV permit; and (b) With 18 year with driver license or ATV permit and on the same or like ATV. 

(3) Person under 7 years of age may not operate a Class III ATV on public lands. 

CLASS I or III ATV (3 or 4 wheeler under 50” & 800 lbs or motorcycle)

821.174 Operating Class I or III ATV while driving privileges suspended. 

Operator is in violation of ORS 811.175 (A Traffic violation) or ORS 811.182 (C Felony / A Misdemeanor) 

821.292 Endangering Class III ATV operator; (motorcycle)

(1) Parent, guardian or person with responsibility of a child at least 7 but under 12 and child (a) Does not have a Class III ATV operator permit; 

and (b) Is not with parent, guardian, person with responsibility who is on the same ATV or like ATV. 

(2) Parent, guardian, person with responsibility of child under 7 and the child operates a Class III ATV on public lands. 

REGISTRATION & PERMITS 

SNOWMOBILES Registration and permits are issued by DMV 

821.070 Failure to title snowmobile;

821.100 Operation of unregistered snowmobile;

821.110 Failure to renew snowmobile registration 

821.120 Failure to properly display snowmobile registration numbers 

821.140 Failure to carry out-of-state snowmobile permit

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES (Class I, II and III) Registration/permits issued by OR State Parks, 800/551-6949 www.prd.state.or.us

821.142 Failure to carry out-of-state ATV permit

821.195 Operation of ATV without permit and decal
Appendix C — 6

OREGON OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

SNOWMIBILES; ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 821 (2003) with applicable 36 CFR 

Selected and Abbreviated Italic text added for clarification 

See 36 CFR 261.13 for General Prohibitions Web site for ORS www.leg.state.or.us/ors

Page 4 of 4 OR State ATV Law Revised 2005 

HELMET LAWS 

Note that snowmobiles & Class II are not included 

821.202 Failure of Class I or III ATV rider to wear motorcycle helmet;

(1) Under 18 years of age, operator or passenger on a Class I or Class III ATV. 

821.203 Endangering Class I or III ATV operator or passenger;

(a) Operating Class I or III ATV and carries another person who is under 18 years of age and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet; or

(b) Parent, guardian or person with responsibility of a child under 18 years and the child operates or rides on an ATV without wearing a motorcycle helmet. 

821.204 Issuance of citation for violation of ORS 821.202 or 821.203. 

(1) Child 11 or younger, citation shall be issued to parent, guardian or person with responsibility rather than to the child for violation of ORS 821.202. 

(2) Child 12, and under 18, citation may be issued to child or the parent, guardian or person with responsibility for violation of ORS 821.203, but not to both. 

EQUIPMENT 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (Class I, II and III and Snowmobiles) 

821.040 Operation of off-road vehicle without required equipment;

(a) Muffler that meets the standards for noise established under ORS 821.030. (b) Equipped with brakes that meet the requirements under ORS 821.030. 

(c) Equipped with a windshield wiper if the vehicle is equipped with a windshield. (d) On sand, equipped with a flag that meets ORS 821.030. 

(e) Any safety equipment required under ORS 821.030. (f) 1⁄2 hour after sunset to 1⁄2 hour after sunrise, w/ headlights & taillights. 

SNOWMOBILE

821.210 Operating improperly equipped snowmobile;

(a) A lighted headlight and taillight. 

(b) An adequate braking device that may be operated either by hand or foot. 

(c) Adequate operating muffler that blends exhaust and motor noise to preclude excessive or unusual noise and, on snowmobiles manufactured after 1/4/73, 

maintain such noise at a level of 82 decibels or below on the “A” scale at 100 feet. 

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES (Class I, II and III) 

821.220 Operating improperly equipped all-terrain vehicle;

(a) Adequate braking device that may be operated either hand or foot. 

(b) Adequate and operating muffling device maintained in good working order and comply with standards established by the DEQ. 

821.230 Operating all-terrain vehicle without proper lighting equipment

Operates ATV during time when limited visibility conditions exist and the ATV is not equipped with a taillight and a headlight. C Traffic 

CIVIL LIABILTY 

821.310 Treble damages for damage to property. Liable for three times the amount of damage to trees, shrubs, growing crops or other property injured by 

snowmobile or ATV Use for civil action / restitution 
Appendix D — 1

Appendix D
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 2
Appendix D

Appendix D — 3

APPENDIX D: Compliance with Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(1990) and Northwest Forest Plan (1994)

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

FW-025 (Soil Productivity)

In the first year following surface disturbing activities, the percent effective groundcover by soil erosion 

hazard class should achieve at least the following levels:

FW-032 (Soil Productivity)

Favorable habitat conditions for soil organisms should be maintained for short and long term soil 

productivity.

FW-040 (Air Quality)

Management activities shall comply with all applicable air quality laws and regulations, including the 

Clean Air Act (1977 and any updates or revisions) and its associated Oregon State Implementation Plan.

FW-041 (Air Quality)

Management activities shall comply with Oregon State Smoke Management Plan

FW-046 (Air Quality)

Forest resources in non-Class I airshed shall be protected from the effects of air pollution based on the 

guidelines for Class II airsheds (Clean Air Act 1977)

FW-047 (Air Quality)

Air Quality related values within Class I airsheds, e.g. portions of the Mt. Hood Wilderness and all of 

the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness on the Mt. Hood National Forest, shall be protected from the effects of air 

pollution.

FW-052, FW-053 (Air Quality)

Impacts of prescribed burning on smoke sensitive areas (e.g. Federal Class I airsheds and other areas 

designated in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan) shall be minimized. Total particulate emissions 

shall be reduced consistent with goals set by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

FW-054 (Water)

Water quality associated with management activities shall be in compliance with Oregon State 

requirements (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340-41) established in accordance with the 

Federal Clean Water Act (1977, as amended 1987).

FW-055, FW-056 (Water)

Compliance with State requirements shall be met through planning, application, and monitoring of 

Best Management Practices FEIS, (Appendix H). Best Management Practices (BMPs) describe the process 

which shall be used to implement the State Water Quality management Plan on lands administered by 

the USDA Forest Service.

FW-057, FW-058 (Water)

Individual, general Best Management Practices which may be implemented (i.e. on a project by project 

basis) are described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, 

11/88. Evaluations of ability to implement and estimated effectiveness shall be made at the project 

level.

FW-060 (Water)

Management practices causing detrimental changes water temperature or chemical composition, 

blockages of water courses, or deposits of sediment shall not be permitted (36 CFR 219.27 e).

Soil Hazard Class Effective Ground Cover

Low to Moderate 60%

Severe 75%

Very Severe 85%
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 4

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

FW-062 (Water)

Not more than 35 % of an area available for vegetative manipulation should be in a hydrologically 

disturbed condition at any one time.

FW-066 (Water)

Cumulative effects analyses of management activities on water quality and/or stream channel stability 

(e.g. watershed impact analyses) shall include lands on all ownerships within the watershed.

FW-075 (Water)

The disposal or accidental discharge of petroleum products and hazardous materials on National Forest 

System lands shall be prevented. 

FW-082 (Riparian Area)

At least 95 percent ground cover (e.g. vegetation, duff, or litter) shall be maintained within all project 

activity areas (within riparian areas). 

FW-083 (Riparian Area)

Ground disturbing activities should not occur in saturated soil areas.

FW-084 (Riparian Area)

Activities within and adjacent to riparian areas should not accelerate sediment delivery to streams, 

lakes, wetlands, seeps, and springs.

FW-105 (Riparian Area)

Fish bearing perennial streams – At least 95 % effective ground cover (e.g. adapted trees, shrubs, 

sedges, and grasses) in a project activity area should be maintained.

FW-113 (Riparian Area)

State water quality standards for turbidity shall be met.

FW-123 (Riparian Area)

Non-Fish bearing perennial streams (Class 3) – At least 90 % effective ground cover (e.g. adapted trees, 

shrubs, sedges, grasses, and duff) in a project activity area should be maintained.

FW-129 (Riparian Area)

Sediment loading shall be minimized and stream channel conditions maintained to meet State water 

quality standards for turbidity. 

FW-138 (Fisheries)

Impacts on habitat for the management indicator species group (salmonids) shall be determined for 

each project affecting fisheries, in terms of habitat quality, quantity, and distribution.

FW-156 (Forest Diversity)

Vegetation management activities shall not result in a permanent loss of any species native to a 

particular ecosystem. 

FW-161 (Forest Diversity)

Management activities shall contribute to recovery and conservation of Federally listed threatened or 

endangered species (Endangered Species Act, 1973; 36 CEF 219.19) 

FW-162 (Forest Diversity)

Habitat Management should provide for maintenance of viable populations of native and desirable 

non-native wildlife, fish (36 CFR 219.19), and plant species (USDA Regulations 9500-4) well distributed 

throughout their current geographic range within the National Forest System.

FW-174 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals shall be identified and managed in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973), Oregon ESA (1987), and FSM 2670.

FW-175 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals shall be protected and/or 

improved.
Appendix D

Appendix D — 5

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

FW-176 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Biological Evaluations (FSM 2672.4) shall be prepared for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, 

or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened or sensitive 

species.

FW-177, FW-178 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Consultation with USFWS shall occur on each program activity or project that the Forest Service 

determines may affect threatened or endangered species. Consult. Consultation shall be completed 

before any decision is made on the proposed project.

FW-179 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Species Management Guides shall be prepared, in accordance with Northwest Region species recovery 

plans, to address effects of management activities and identify opportunities to maintain or enhance 

habitat for plants and animal species which may frequently conflict with standard management 

practices.

FW-180 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

Lists of threatened, endangered and sensitive plant and animal species shall be maintained and 

updated periodically as new information is collected.

FW-182, FW-183, FW-184 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals)

If habitat allocated for threatened, endangered or sensitive species protection or recovery (i.e. A8 

Spotted Owl Habitat Areas and A13 Bald Eagle Recovery Areas) is lost (e.g. due to windthrow or 

wildfire), replacement habitat of equal or better quality (or the best available) shall be designated and 

allocated. For A8 Management Areas, replacement habitat shall be allocated if 30 acres or more habitat 

is lost. Replacement habitat should be located immediately adjacent to the remaining A8 habitat.

FW-187 (Wildlife)

Key habitat areas (e.g. reading areas, mineral licks, and wallows) should be protected.

FW-189 (Wildlife)

Existing natural meadows/openings shall be maintained.

FW-208 (Wildlife)

Within the roaded portions of the Forest, by year 2000, roads open to motorized vehicle traffic should 

be reduced to not exceed 2.0 miles per square mile within inventoried deer and elk winter range and 

2.5 miles per square mile within inventoried deer and elk summer range (i.e. outside of inventoried 

winter range).

FW-211, FW-212 (Wildlife)

Roads may be closed when necessary to limit activities which inhibit deer and elk use of quality 

foraging, rearing and wintering areas. Roads should be close to: (c) Provide limited-road-access 

recreational hunting opportunities, in coordination with ODFW [Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife].

FW-213 (Wildlife)

Activities within key deer and elk rearing areas may be restricted between May 15 and July 1. 

FW-243 (Wildlife)

Plant community integrity of special habitat conditions, e.g. caves, cliffs, talus slopes, meadows, oak, 

and dry shrub, should be protected.

FW-254 (Forest Protection and Public Safety)

Fire prevention activities shall be emphasized based on the following fire prevention priority levels

a. Level III (areas of active industrial operators)

b. Level II (areas of concentrated public use)

c. Level I (other National Forest System land)

FW-255 (Forest Protection and Public Safety)

Emphasis should be placed on providing fire prevention information and education within the Mt. 

Hood fire prevention zone of influence.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 6

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

FW-256 (Forest Protection and Public Safety)

All wildfires shall receive an “appropriate suppression response” (Regional Guide for Pacific Northwest 

Region, 1984).

FW-279 (Hazardous Materials)

Project spill contingency plans shall be developed for all project activities where oil or potentially 

hazardous substances are used by the Forest Service, its permittees, or other users (i.e. contractors) of 

National Forest lands (40 CFR Part 112).

FW-300 (Range Management)

Plants identified as pests by Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) shall be controlled as described 

in the Mt. Hood National Forest Noxious Weed Implementation Plan.

FW-301 (Range Management)

Implementation of control measures should adhere to priorities: 1) prevention; 2) early treatment; 3) 

maintenance; 4) correction; and, 5) no action.

FW-304 (Range Management)

Roads closed for recreational vehicle use may be used for livestock management purposes, i.e. 

administrative use.

FW-407, FW-408 (Transportation)

Opportunities for recreational access may be limited and shall be consistent with management 

direction.

FW-409 (Transportation)

Areas and trails may be designated as available for motorized and/or non-motorized access.

FW-411 (Transportation)

Seasonal closures or travel restrictions may be applied to protect or enhance resource values (i.e. both 

recreation and non-recreation associated resource values).

FW-412 (Transportation)

Provisions of Oregon State Laws related to the operation of motor vehicles shall be applicable to all 

open Forest Service roads, i.e. Forest Service road maintenance levels 2 through 5. Applicable Oregon 

State Laws are enforceable by State and County law officers.

FW-413 (Transportation)

Roads, areas and trails closed or restricted to recreational access shall be posted. Yes

FW-434 (Transportation)

Potential conflicts between commercial traffic and recreational traffic shall be coordinated to insure 

public safety. Examples include: (1) designing routes for log haul separate from winter recreation trails, 

(2) limiting commercial log and rock haul during high recreational use periods, and (3) dust abatement.

FW-447 (Transportation)

Off-road vehicle trials should not incorporate open roads as part of the trail system. Yes

FW-459 (Dispersed Recreation Activities)

Off-road vehicle (ORV) trails should not incorporate open roads as part of the trail system. Yes

FW-465 (Dispersed Recreation Activities)

Opportunities for ORV use should be available except where not allowed by management direction, 

and where determined to adversely impact land capability and resource values (see Appendix C, Trail 

and Access management Guide, and see Forest Transportation System/Facilitates; Travel and Access 

Standards and Guidelines)

Yes

FW-483 (Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers)

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted. Yes

FW-484 (Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers)

Administrative use of motorized vehicles shall be allowed within the river corridors of all river segment 

classifications.
Appendix D

Appendix D — 7

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

FW-497 (Visual Resource Management)

Within scenic segments, VQOs of Retention in the foreground and Partial Retention in the 

middleground shall be prescribed – as seen from the river, river banks, U.S. and State highways, Forest 

highways and roads, trails, and recreation facilities within the corridor.

FW-498 (Visual Resource Management)

Within recreational segments, VQOs of Retention in the foreground and Partial Retention in the 

middleground shall be prescribed – as seen from the river, river banks, U.S. and State highways, Forest 

highways and roads, trails, and recreation facilities within the corridor.

FW-543(Visual Resource Management)

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted. Yes

FW-554 (Visual Resource Management)

Visual quality objectives for “designated viewsheds” shall be prescribed as listed in Table Four-23 

Designated Viewsheds.

FW-609, FW-610 (Cultural Resources Management)

All proposed projects which could affect a cultural resource shall be assessed for their effect on National 

Register, eligible, or unevaluated properties. Assessments shall use the criteria of “effect and adverse 

effect” (36 CFR 800.9. Projects include all Federally funded undertakings, and undertakings requiring 

Federal permit (36 CFR 800.9 (a)(b)).

FW-627 (Human Rights)

The Forest shall be managed and administered in such a manner as to provide all persons equal 

opportunity, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, age, handicap, religion, or national 

origin.

FW-628 (Human Rights)

The Forest shall be managed to break down social and institutional barriers to legitimate uses of the 

Forest by nontraditional groups.

FW-629 (Human Rights)

Consultation with diverse cultural groups shall occur on a regular basis.

FW-630, FW-631 (Human Rights)

The treaty rights and privileges of Native Americans shall be honored. Treaty rights and privileges 

should supercede other management direction.

FW-632 (Human Rights)

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) shall be considered in administration of the Forest.

FW-639, FW-640 (Human Rights)

Special efforts shall be made to inform the public, including minorities and underprivileged individuals 

and groups, of benefits they are eligible to receive from Forest programs. Techniques suited to increase 

awareness and participation shall be used.

A2-043 (Wilderness)

The use of motorized or mechanized equipment, except small battery-powered-hand-held devices, 

such as cameras, shavers, or flashlights, shall be prohibited unless authorized by the Forest Service.

A2-104 (Wilderness)

Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited.

A3-006, A3-007 (Research Natural Areas)

Off-road vehicles (ORV) and non-motorized bicycle use shall be prohibited. RNAs shall be posted as 

closed to ORV and non-motorized bicycle use. Yes

A3-040 (Research Natural Areas)

All forms of off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited.

A4-038 (Special Interest Area)

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited except as noted in items 4 [a4-039] and 5 [A4-040] 

below. Yes
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 8

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

A4-039 (Special Interest Area)

Off-road vehicle uses in powerline rights-of-way should be allowed where consistent with other 

management direction, e.g. riparian and cultural resources protection. Yes

A5-037 (Unroaded Recreation)

Motorized vehicle use shall be prohibited, except in emergency situations (e.g. fire suppression and 

search and rescue) and timber salvage activities.

A6-034 (Semi-Primitive Roaded Recreation)

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be permitted only on designated trails.

A6-035 (Semi-Primitive Roaded Recreation)

The area north of Wahtum Lake shall be closed to recreational off-road vehicle use.

A7-024 (Special Old Growth)

Recreation off-road vehicle use should be prohibited. Yes

A7-026 (Special Old Growth)

All modes of cross-county travel should be discouraged.

A8-004, A8-005 (Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Area)

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be permitted only on designated trails. Recreational off-road 

vehicle use shall be prohibited between March 1 and September 30.

A8-038, A8-039 (Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Area)

Off-road vehicle use shall be permitted only on designated trails. Off-road vehicle activities shall be 

prohibited between March 1 and September 30.

A8-041 (Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Area)

All modes of off-trail trail should be discouraged.

A9-038 (Key Site Riparian)

Recreation off-road vehicle use, except over-snow vehicles, shall be prohibited. Yes

A10-005 (Developed Recreation)

All motorized recreational vehicles, except over snow vehicles, shall be limited to access roads and 

parking areas.

A10-023 (Developed Recreation)

Motorized vehicles, except over snow vehicles, shall be limited to access roads and parking areas.

A11-037 (Winter Recreation Areas)

Off-road vehicles use shall be prohibited. [within the immediate hydrologic influence zone upslope 

from Stringer Meadows (A4 Special Interest Areas, i.e. within Mt. Hood Meadows A11 Winter Recreation 

Management Area)].

A11-040 (Winter Recreation Areas)

Summer off-road vehicle and mountain bicycle use shall occur only on designated trails and roads.

A11-043 (Winter Recreation Areas)

Motorized access shall be allowed only within parking lots..

A12-026 (Outdoor Education Area)

Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited.

A13-030, A13-031 (Bald Eagle Habitat Area)

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be restricted to designated trails and shall be prohibited in active 

nesting areas between January 1 and August 15.

A13-032 (Bald Eagle Habitat Area)

All modes of off-trail travel shall be discouraged.

A13-032 (Bald Eagle Habitat Area)

All modes of off-trail travel shall be discouraged.

B1-050 (Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers)

All river segments shall be managed to remain in a free flowing and unpolluted state.
Appendix D

Appendix D — 9

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

B1-077, B1-078, B1-079 (Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers)

Within scenic and recreational river corridors, motorized use shall be limited. 

1) Motorized vehicles shall be permitted only on open roads.

2) Off-road vehicles (ORV) may occur only on designated trails.

Yes

B1-082, B1-083 (Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers)

Areas, roads and segments of rivers closed to vehicle use shall be posted. Administrative use of 

motorized vehicles shall be allowed in all river segments.

Yes

B2-060, B2-061 (Scenic Viewsheds)

Recreational off-road vehicles (ORV) may be permitted only on designated routes. Areas may be closed 

or restricted to ORV use to meet prescribed VQOs or achieve other resource objectives.

B3-038 (Roaded Recreation)

Off-road vehicle use shall be encouraged on designated trails and/or areas. Yes

B3-039 (Roaded Recreation)

Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited within the B3 Management Areas at Indian mountain (Hood 

River Ranger District) and along Sherar Burn Road 2613 (Zig Zag Ranger District).

B4-048, B4-049 (Pine-Oak Habitat)

Motorized vehicle use shall occur only on designated travel routes. Cross county motorized travel shall 

be prohibited.

B5-001, B5-002 (Pileated Woodpecker/Pine Martin Habitat Area)

Off-road motorized vehicle use should not be permitted except on designated trails. All areas and trails 

closed to off-road vehicle use shall be posted. Yes

B6-036, B6-037 (Special Emphasis Watersheds)

Recreational off-road vehicle use (other than over-snow) shall be discouraged. Recreational off-road 

vehicle use shall be prohibited in Still Creek and The Dalles Watershed Management Unit.

Yes

B7-010 (General Riparian Area)

Off-road vehicle stream crossing shall be specifically identified and should be equipped with bridges, 

culverts, or other effective measures to guard against bank/shoreline damage and water quality 

degradation.

B7-060 (General Riparian Area)

Recreational off-road vehicle use shall be discouraged.

B7-061 (General Riparian Area)

New trails should be located outside of wetlands and other special riparian, aquatic, and threatened/

endangered species habitat.

B7-062 (General Riparian Area)

Trails should cross riparian areas in the shortest distance possible, i.e. at right angles to the drainage.

B8-022, B8-023 (Earthflow)

Motorized vehicle use shall occur only on designated routes. Recreational cross country motorized 

travel shall be prohibited.

B8-051 (Earthflow)

Off-road vehicle recreational use shall be permitted only on designated trails..

B9-002 (Wildlife / Visual Area)

Recreational off-road vehicle activities should not be permitted.

B9-032, B9-033, B9-034 (Wildlife / Visual Area)

Roads open to recreational vehicle use may occur. Open road density should not exceed 1.5 miles per 

square mile. Roads that are necessary shall be developed at a minimum standard, i.e. minimizing effects 

on deer and elk habitat.

B9-035 (Wildlife / Visual Area)

Existing off-road vehicle tracks, and other wheel tracks, should be closed and rehabilitated, e.g. blocked, 

stabilized and returned to a natural condition.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 10

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Mt. Hood Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

B9-037 (Wildlife / Visual Area)

Recreational motorized vehicle activity shall not be permitted except on open roads and designated 

parking areas.

B10-038 (Deer and Elk Winter Range)

Recreational vehicle access corridors should be provided during the winter to higher elevation snow 

zones to facilitate winter recreational opportunities.

B10-039 (Deer and Elk Winter Range)

Recreational access should be restricted between December 1 and April 1.

B10-040, B10-041 (Deer and Elk Winter Range)

Recreational motorized vehicle use shall occur only on designated travel routes. Cross country 

recreational motorized travel shall be prohibited.

B11-002 (Deer and Elk Summer Range)

Recreational off-road vehicle use should not be permitted.

B11-005 (Deer and Elk Summer Range)

Off-trail travel should be discouraged.

B11-033 (Deer and Elk Summer Range)

Roads open to recreational vehicles use may occur.

B11-036 (Deer and Elk Summer Range)

Existing off-road vehicle tracks, and other wheel tracks, should be closed and rehabilitated, e.g. blocked, 

stabilized and returned to a natural condition. Yes

B11-037 (Deer and Elk Summer Range)

Recreational motorized vehicle activity shall not be permitted except on open roads and designated 

parking areas. Yes

B12-039, B12-040 (Backcountry Lakes)

Motorized access should be discouraged in near-foreground areas (i.e. 100 feet). The following lakes 

may be exceptions: 

a. North end of Summit Lake

b. Scout Lake

c. North side of Kinzel Lake

B12-039, B12-041 (Backcountry Lakes)

Vehicle access should not be provided within 1⁄2 mile of the following lakes: Buck, Dinger, and Veda.

C11-001 (Timber Emphasis)

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be encourages. ORV use should be restricted within specific areas 

with conflicting resource objectives. Yes

C11-041, C11-042 (Timber Emphasis)

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be encourages. ORV use should be restricted within specific areas 

with conflicting resource objectives. Yes

Amendment #7 (White River Wild & Scenic River)

Prohibit off-road driving unless and until Watershed Analysis, Access and travel Management planning, 

and the LAC study indicate that a designated route and crossing over White River is feasible and 

acceptable.

Amendment #7 (White River Wild & Scenic River)

Prohibit off-road driving in Two Rivers.
Appendix D

Appendix D — 11

Standards and Guidelines

Is a plan 

amendment 

needed?

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

C-4 & C-5

Survey and Manage Standards &Guidelines: (1) manage known sites, (2) survey prior to grounddisturbing activities.

C-6

Manage recreation areas to minimize disturbance to Survey & Manage species.

NWFP ROD Late-Successional Reserves

Recreational Use – Dispersed recreational uses, including hunting and fishing, generally are consistent 

with the objectives of Late Successional Reserves. Use adjustment measures, such as education, 

use limitations, traffic control devices, or increased maintenance when dispersed and development 

recreation practices retard or prevent attainment of Late Successional Reserve objectives.

NWFP ROD Riparian Reserves

Recreation Management 

RM-1: New recreation facilities within Riparian Reserves, including trails and dispersed sites should be 

designed to not prevent meeting the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Construction of these 

facilities should not prevent future attainment of the objectives. For existing recreation facilities within 

Riparian Reserves, evaluate and mitigate impact to insure that these do not prevent, and to the extent 

practicable contribute to, attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

RM-2: Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. Where adjustment measures, such as education, use limitation, 

traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facility and/or site closure are not effective, 

eliminate the practice or occupancy.

Surveyor’s Ridge LSR Assessment

Implement the road and trail management recommendations from the Eastside Travel and Access 

management planning effort. This effort established road and trail management guidelines and 

networks designed to meet current and anticipated needs to administrative and recreational access. The 

network is also deigned to reduce sediment input to streams.

Surveyor’s Ridge LSR Assessment

Proposal to designate a fifty mile motorized trail system, of which 22.9 miles lie within the LSR, for OHV 

(motorcycle, three and four-wheelers) use.

North Willamette LSR Assessment

A limited number of off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails are located in the Roaring River Watershed 

in RO207A. The Roaring River Watershed Analysis recommends the LSR Assessment develop “a 

multiwatershed OHV management plan that includes Roaring River Watershed”. The development or 

expansion of new OHV trails in LSRs is not recommended by this assessment team. OHV trails and roads 

are not considered neutral or beneficial to LSR objectives because they function like roads in terms of 

habitat fragmentation, potential sediment delivery, loss of soil productivity, and wildlife harassment.

Douglas Cabin LSR Assessment

Off-road motorized travel for non-emergency purposes [is an] incompatible use requiring further 

analysis of possible overriding social value.

Douglas Cabin LSR Assessment

Off-road motorized travel for non-emergency purposes [is an] incompatible use requiring further 

analysis of possible overriding social value.
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix D — 12
Appendix E — 1

Appendix E

Alternative 2 Road Data
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix E — 2
Appendix E

Appendix E — 3

APPENDIX E: Alternative 2 Road Data

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

1700-013 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Gibson I 0.1

1700-661 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Gibson I 1.2

1711-623 Open Road 1 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Gibson I 0.0

1711-623 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Gibson I 0.4

1700-660 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I 0.11711-620 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I 0.41711-620 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I 0.5

1711-621 Open Road 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I 1.7

1711-630 Open Road 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I 2.4

4610-011 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.6

4610-012 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.1

4610-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.3

4610-019 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.3

4611-012 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.4

4611-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.2

4611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.2

4611-132 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 1.0

4611-135 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.6

4610-011 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.1

4610-011 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.0

4610-013 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.2

4610-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.7

4610-015 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.3

4610-016 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 1.2
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix E — 4 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4610-112 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.9

4610-113 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.5

4610-113 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 1.5

4611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.2

4611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.74611-121 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.64611-125 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.24611-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.84610-000 Secondary Low Clear- ance Road 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 0.6

4610-000 Secondary Low Clear- ance Road 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 4.1

4610-000 Secondary High Clear- ance Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 10.44610-000 Secondary High Clear- ance Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 0.6

4610-000 Secondary High Clear- ance Road 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 0.5

4610-000 Secondary High Clear- ance Road 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 0.1

4610-024 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 0.2

4610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 1.2

4611-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I,II,III 1.5

4610-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-II 7.8
Appendix E

Appendix E — 5

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4610-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-II 0.5

2120-011 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

2120-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.3

2120-370 Open Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2130-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.0

2110-240 Open Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 1.32110-260 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.7

2110-260 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.82110-261 Open Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.22120-011 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.52120-370 Open Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.42120-371 Open Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.32130-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.42110-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Paved Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.42110-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 3 Paved Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.12110-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 3 Paved Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.82110-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.32110-018 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.32110-021 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.42110-250 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 2.42110-251 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.42120-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.2
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix E — 6 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 2120-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Paved Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 1.4

2120-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Paved Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.32120-013 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 0.52120-320 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I,III 1.54200-330 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4200-331 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4200-332 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4200-332 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4200-340 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4200-341 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

4200-520 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4210-042 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4210-043 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4661-018 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

4661-143 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4661-150 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.0

4661-160 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.9

4661-162 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.6

4661-164 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.3

4661-166 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2
Appendix E

Appendix E — 7

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4661-190 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.6

4661-193 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.4

4661-200 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.3

4200-320 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.4

4200-330 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.0

4200-340 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.8

4200-340 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.3

4200-520 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 2.4

4210-041 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.5

4210-044 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.7

4210-350 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.5

4230-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.5

4240-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.1

4240-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.7

4240-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.5

4661-026 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.1

4661-029 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.2

4661-140 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.3

4661-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.0

4661-141 Open Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 0.8

4661-180 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.5

4661-205 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, II, III 1.1

4200-032 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.7

4230-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.6
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix E — 8 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4230-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.8

4230-370 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.0

4230-370 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.3

4240-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 0.3

4240-110 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 3.0

4240-110 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 1.6

4661-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I,II,III 2.9

4811-170 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.4

4812-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.14812-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64812-160 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.54813-140 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44813-160 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.84814-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.84814-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64814-130 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44820-140 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 2.84820-150 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 3.34820-150 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44820-152 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.14820-153 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.14820-153 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44860-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.6
Appendix E

Appendix E — 9

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4860-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44860-130 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.14800-130 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.3

4800-130 Open Road 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.1

4800-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.0

4800-240 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.1

4800-240 Open Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.1

4800-241 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.5

4811-000 Secondary High Clear- ance Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.4

4812-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 3.14813-000 Open Road 2 Asphalt Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.5

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.74813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.34813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.24813-170 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.2

4813-170 Open Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.6

4814-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 2.54820-120 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.1

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.84860-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 1.1

4860-150 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I,III 0.3

TOTAL MILES OF ROADS PROPOSED AS OHV ROUTES 136.0
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix E — 10
Appendix F — 1

Appendix F

Alternative 3 Road Data
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 2
Appendix F

Appendix F — 3

APPENDIX F: Alternative 3 Road Data

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

1630-660 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Bear Creek CL 0.4

1640-651 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Bear Creek III 0.1

1630-660 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Bear Creek III 1.4

1612-641 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Bear Creek III 0.3

1612-660 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Bear Creek III 0.8

1640-650 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Bear Creek III 0.4

1612-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Bear Creek MU-III 2.2

1640-000 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Bear Creek MU-III 0.3

1630-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Bear Creek MU-III 3.3

1640-620 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Bear Creek MU-III 1.7

1700-012 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Gibson I, III 0.1

1710-644 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.9

1710-640 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.6

1711-000 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.9

1710-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.0

1710-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.3

1710-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 0.6

1711-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Gibson MU-I, III 1.2

4670-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Asphalt Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.0

4670-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 7.8

4670-215 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.1
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 4 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 6350-037 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.6

4672-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Asphalt Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.4

6350-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 9.6

6355-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.2

6355-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 5.7

6355-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 3.5

4672-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 5.5

4672-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 7.9

4671-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 0.4

4671-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 5.2

6350-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 2.6

6350-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-I, II, III 1.0

6355-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-III 1.1

6310-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Graham Pass MU-III 1.1

4611-132 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 1.0

4611-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.2

4610-020 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.1

4610-018 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.1

4610-011 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.6

4611-012 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.4
Appendix F

Appendix F — 5

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4611-135 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.6

4611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.5

4610-019 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.3

4610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.2

4610-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.3

4610-012 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.1

4610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.7

4610-015 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.3

4610-113 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.54610-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.7

4610-011 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.04610-113 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 1.54610-112 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.94610-011 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.14610-013 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.2

4610-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.04610-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 7.8

4611-125 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.2

4611-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.2

4611-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.8

4611-121 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.6
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 6 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.4

4610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.2

4610-016 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.2

4610-018 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.0

4610-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.6

4610-024 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.2

4610-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 10.44610-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.6

4611-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 1.5

4610-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 4.1

4610-000 Secondary High Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.5

4610-000 Secondary High Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.1

4610-220 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.0

4610-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, III 0.0

2110-280 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2110-260 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2110-261 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2110-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.0

2120-331 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.0
Appendix F

Appendix F — 7

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

2120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 2.3

2130-250 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2130-270 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.9

4310-221 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2110-030 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2110-021 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.3

2120-013 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.6

2110-020 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

4310-241 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2130-270 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.6

2110-230 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

2120-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.3

2120-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

2120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2130-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.0

4310-242 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

4310-011 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2110-018 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.1

2120-331 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.1

2120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.3
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 8 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 2110-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 1.3

2120-360 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.9

2130-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.4

2130-014 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.2

2110-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.3

2110-260 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.6

2110-260 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.8

2110-022 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.3

2120-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.7

2120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.4

2110-261 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.2

2110-251 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.4

2120-371 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.3

2110-030 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.1

2110-029 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.4

2130-250 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.9

2130-270 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 1.0

2110-280 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.1

2110-280 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.2

2110-282 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.3

4310-250 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.4

4310-220 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 1.0

4310-014 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.7

4310-222 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.4
Appendix F

Appendix F — 9

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

2110-019 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.2

2110-018 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.2

2110-031 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.2

2110-281 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.3

4310-011 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 1.3

2130-271 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.4

4310-240 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 0.5

4310-221 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch III 1.0

2110-270 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I, III 1.3

2110-272 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I, III 0.5

2110-272 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I, III 0.2

4310-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route McCubbins Gulch MU-I, III 1.3

2820-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 1.0

2820-620 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.4

2821-621 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.1

2821-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.1

2821-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 2.1

2821-630 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.8

2821-620 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.6

2821-000 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Mt. Defiance MU-I, III 0.4

4660-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

5731-015 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 10 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4660-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2 4210-043 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3 4200-570 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.6

4661-141 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.9

4661-200 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.3

4661-164 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.3

4661-031 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4661-012 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

5732-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

5731-015 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4661-190 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.6

4661-160 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.9

4661-150 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.0

4660-013 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4661-162 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.6

4661-018 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

4660-160 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 1.0

5731-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.4

5732-014 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4661-193 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.4

4661-166 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.2

4661-020 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4661-145 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.8

  Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.4

4200-520 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4210-042 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1
Appendix F

Appendix F — 11

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4660-180 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

4661-143 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4660-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4660-170 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.1

5732-013 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.3

4660-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.7

4660-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.5

4660-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Peavine CL 0.6

4660-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.6

5732-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.3

5732-013 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.0

4210-040 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.2

4660-020 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.7

4661-019 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.3

5731-020 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.3

5731-116 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.1

5731-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.8

4660-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.7

5731-116 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.9

5731-116 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.5

4661-029 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.2

4661-170 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.9

4661-133 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.2

4661-133 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.1
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 12 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4660-150 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.1 4661-120 Decision Road 1 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.0

4210-044 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.7

4210-350 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.1

4210-350 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.5

4210-041 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.5

4661-140 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.3

4660-180 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.7

4660-180 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.2

4660-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.4

4661-013 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.5

4661-026 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.1

4660-170 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.2

4660-140 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.9

5732-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.4

5731-118 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.4

4661-011 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.1

4661-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.0

4661-030 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.1

4661-205 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 1.0

5732-012 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.4

4200-520 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 2.4

4661-141 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Peavine I, III 0.8

5731-000 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 0.4
Appendix F

Appendix F — 13

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

5731-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 2.0

4660-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 1.5

4661-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 2.2

5732-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 0.7

4661-180 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 1.5

4661-130 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 0.7

4661-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 0.2

4200-032 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 1.7

4661-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Peavine MU-I, III 0.8

4820-140 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.0

4820-016 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4841-120 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4811-029 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.4

4820-018 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.6

4812-142 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4811-024 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4811-028 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4840-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.1

4800-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.1

4830-120 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.3

4820-016 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4820-151 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.1
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 14 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4820-155 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.1 4812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4812-141 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 1.1

4840-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.2

4841-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4840-014 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4811-200 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.5

4811-200 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.1

4830-012 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.0

4830-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.8

4800-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.5

4830-120 Open Road (Not Maintained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.1

4820-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.7

4811-029 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.2

4820-150 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4813-140 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.4

4811-220 Open Road (Not Maintained) 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.5

4860-180 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.2

4870-120 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 2.2

4820-016 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.2

4820-153 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.1

4820-150 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 2.3

4820-153 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.4
Appendix F

Appendix F — 15

Forest Service Road 

Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4820-152 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.1

4812-160 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.5

4800-240 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.0

4814-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.8

4814-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.6

4800-240 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.1

4813-160 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.8

4812-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.1

4814-130 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.4

4812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.6

4813-170 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.8

4860-130 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.1

4860-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.6

4860-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.4

4860-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.1

4860-015 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.5

4860-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.1

4860-150 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4860-150 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.3

4800-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.0

4820-132 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.5

4820-131 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.5

4820-131 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.4
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix F — 16 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.9 4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.2

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.2

4840-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.5

4870-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.2

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.8

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.7

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.2

4860-000 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.7

4860-140 Open Road 2 Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 3.6

4830-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.7

4800-241 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.4

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.6

4814-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 2.5

4870-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.4

4812-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 3.1

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.7

4811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 3.3

4811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.4

TOTAL MILES OF ROADS PROPOSED AS OHV ROUTES 257.9
Appendix G — 1

Appendix G

Alternative 4 Road Data
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix G — 2
Appendix G

Appendix G — 3

APPENDIX G: Alternative 3 Road Data

Forest Service 

Road Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4611-135 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.6

4610-019 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.34610-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.34611-012 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.44611-132 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 1.04611-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.24610-020 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.14610-018 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.14610-011 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.64611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.54610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.24610-012 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.14610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic LaDee Flat CL 0.74610-011 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.1

4610-013 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.2

4610-015 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.3

4610-113 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.5

4610-014 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.7

4610-011 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.0

4610-113 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 1.5

4610-112 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, II, III 0.9

4611-125 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.2
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix G — 4 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4611-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.2

4611-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.84611-121 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.64611-120 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.44610-115 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.24610-016 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 1.24610-018 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail LaDee Flat I, III 0.04610-000 Secondary High Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.5

4610-000 Secondary High Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.14610-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.64610-000 Secondary Low Clearance 3 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 4.14610-024 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 0.24611-000 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 1.54610-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, II, III 2.24610-120 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route LaDee Flat MU-I, III 0.0

2110-230 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

2110-260 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2120-017 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.3
Appendix G

Appendix G — 5

Forest Service 

Road Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

2120-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.42120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 2.3

2120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2130-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.02110-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.0

2120-013 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.6

2110-021 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.32110-020 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.4

2110-018 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.2

2110-261 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.12120-331 Open Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.02120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic McCubbins Gulch CL 0.1

2110-018 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.1

2110-261 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.22110-251 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.42120-331 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.12120-360 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.2

2120-370 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.3

2110-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 1.3

2120-360 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.7

2120-371 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.32120-330 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.4
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix G — 6 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 2120-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.1 2130-014 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.2 2130-016 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.4

2110-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.32110-260 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.62110-260 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.82110-022 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.32120-011 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail McCubbins Gulch I, III 0.54811-024 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.2

4811-028 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.24812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.24812-142 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 0.24812-141 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Close to All Traffic Rock Creek CL 1.14811-200 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.5

4813-140 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44811-220 Open Road (Not Main- tained) 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.54812-160 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.54800-240 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.04800-240 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.04814-120 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.84814-130 Decision Road 1 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64800-240 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.14813-160 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.84812-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.34812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.1
Appendix G

Appendix G — 7

Forest Service 

Road Number

2003 Roads Analysis 

ATM Strategy

Road 

Maintenance 

Level

Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles

4813-170 Open Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64813-170 Open Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.24860-130 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.14860-017 Decision Road 2 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64860-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44860-016 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 1.14860-015 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.54814-130 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.44812-140 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.64860-130 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.14860-150 Decision Road 1 Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.34860-180 Decision Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 0.24870-120 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Convert to Trail Rock Creek I, III 2.24811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.8

4811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 3.3

4811-000 Secondary High Clearance 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.4

4800-241 Decision Road 2 Improved Native Surface Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.4

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.6

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.2

4814-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 2.5

4813-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.2

4870-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.4
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix G — 8 Forest Service Road Number 2003 Roads Analysis ATM Strategy Road Maintenance Level Road Surface OHV Route Designation OHV Location OHV Class Miles 4812-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.1

4812-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 3.1

4870-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 1.2

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.8

4860-000 Open Road 2 Crushed Aggregate or Gravel Mixed-Use Route Rock Creek MU-I, III 0.7

TOTAL MILES OF ROADS PROPOSED AS OHV ROUTES 71.8
Appendix H — 1

Appendix H

Range of Natural Variability
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix H — 2
Appendix H

Appendix H — 3

APPENDIX H: Range of Natural Variability

Watershed Analysis Range of Natural Variability

Clackamas River - Oak Grove Fork

“In contrast to the eastern portion of the watershed which has been only slightly 

modified by erosion, erosional processes dominate the landscape in the western 

portion of the watershed. This is due to weaker and older geological units which have 

resulted in deeply incised drainages and steep slopes often over 70%. The weak materials and steep slopes contribute to many landslides in the western portion. The Lower 

Oak Grove channel is constricted by large ancient landslide deposits, which could 

reactivate and encroach upon the river” (pg. 5).

Collawash/Hot Springs

“Major sediment sources are consistently associated with drainages or steep, unstable slope conditions. The dominant processes influencing sediment production 

and delivery in the watershed are mass wasting and fluvial dynamics . . . Sediment is 

produced and delivered directly into water courses by distinct mechanism and events 

such as: debris slides, debris flows, and translational failures . . . The ancient landslide 

landforms (earthflows) are primary contributors of fine sediment to water courses” 

(pg. 2-15).

East Fork Hood River & Middle Fork 

Hood River

“Landslides and debris flows have been common in much of the [East Fork Hood 

River] watershed and have had a significant affect on the East Fork drainage system” 

(pg. 3-5). “Landslides and debris flow are historically common only within the upper 

reaches of the watershed and mostly within Coe and Eliot Branches” (pg. 3-22).

Fish Creek

“[M]ass wasting is a dominant process affecting the aquatic ecosystems of Fish Creek” 

(Appendix A, pg. 48). “A consequence of increased mass movement frequencies has 

been greater delivery of sediment to stream systems in Fish Creek” (pg. 51)

Hood River (Hood River SWCD)

“Many streams in the Hood River Watershed have a naturally high sediment load due 

to geology, terrain and glacial runoff. . . Most natural sediment transport occurs only 

every decade or so during the highest storm flows, and lasts a few days” (pg. 98)

Lower Clackamas River

“Erosion potential of soils in the watershed is predominantly high. This is attributed 

to the abundance of soil types derived from pyroclastic and igneous parent materials 

that are either readily broken down by weathering or occur on steep slopes (>30%). 

Yet many of these very erosive soil types exist on slopes less than 30%, they can be 

found on portions of the earthflow landforms that have gentle relief” (pg. 2-30).

Mosier (Wasco SWCD)

“Mosier Creek Watershed includes areas of The Dalles Formation and Bretz flood sediments. The Dalles Formation is a unit of mixed sedimentary material and volcanic ash 

deposited on top of the underlying basalt in the Mosier Syncline (low). Mosier Creek 

collects a lot of sand and fine sediments from The Dalles Formation. On the other 

hand, Rock Creek includes very little fine material, because its geology is dominated 

entirely by basalt formations” (pg. 4). Natural sources of sediment include “landslides 

and burns” (pg. 30). “Sedimentation can also be related to land use through road runoff (urban and rural) or road failure, and surface erosion on crop or rangeland” (pg. 30).

North Fork Clackamas River

“Historically, sediment delivery was more episodic than continual with high levels of 

delivery occurring during periods following recent large scale fires and floods. Casual 

agents for the sediment delivery were rain-on-snow events, flood or landslides” (pg. 

2-7).

Roaring River

“[M]uch of the upper drainage, especially the sideslopes, is very rocky and mantled 

with shallow soils” (pg. 51). “Most of the mass wasting potential occurs in the lower 

drainage where unstable geologic conditions are present” (pg. 51). “The function of 

mass wasting events in the sediment regime of the watershed contribute to the upper 

range of natural sediment production variability. Events are the “pulses” of sediment 

delivery which are closely related to large precipitation events (such as rain-on-snow) 

of the winter and runoff events of the spring...Present ranges of sediment delivering landslides in the watershed are not believed to be outside of the background or 

natural ranges” (pg. 52). “Soil conditions in the Roaring River watershed have been 

relatively unaffected by human disturbances” (pg. 52). “Erosion potential of soils in the 

watershed is predominately low to moderate” (pg. 53).
OHV Management Plan, Including Forest Plan Amendment #17

Appendix H — 4

Watershed Analysis Range of Natural Variability

Salmon River

“Mass wasting is the primary source of sediment in the lower watershed (Salmon, 

Boulder, Cheeney, Lower Salmon, South Fork/Mac Hall, and Middle Salmon watersheds). Sediment supply in the lower portion of the watershed is tied to high intensity, 

low frequency rainfall events which are thought to initiate debris slides and debris 

flows in the colluvial headwaters” (pg. 4-58). “The average annual rate of surface erosion is predicted to be much lower than that for mass wasting in the lower watershed. 

However, surface erosion supplies a chronic background rate of sediment above 

undisturbed conditions as compared to the infrequent, large pulses of mass wasting 

events” (pg. 4-59) 

South Fork Clackamas River

“Historically, sediment delivery from roads and timber harvest was more episodic than 

continual with high levels of delivery occurring during periods following recent large 

scale fires and floods. Casual agents for the sediment delivery were rain-on-snow 

events, flood or landslides” (pg 2-13). “Natural and undisturbed rates of erosion for the 

landform types within the South Fork watershed are unknown” (pg. 2-14).

Upper Clackamas River

“The highest rates of sediment delivery are associated with landforms that are steeply 

sloping and consist of weak or resistent rock types. These landforms occupy 11% of 

the Upper Clackamas watershed and are found primarily in the Northwest and West 

Group subwatersheds. A medium sediment delivery rating was given to quarternary 

landslide deposits, glaciated valley side slopes, and alluvial valley bottoms and terraces. These landforms occupy approximately 23% of the watershed, and are distributed throughout its northern and western portions. A low sediment delivery rating 

was given to the remaining landforms (68% of the watershed), most of which have 

gentle to moderate slopes. Talus receive a low rating despite its steep slopes, because 

it is incapable of producing appreciable amounts of sediment” (pg. 129).

White River

“Sediment input to streams also appears to have been more episodic than continual. 

Rain-on-snow events could result in high levels of erosion and rockfall on steeper 

slopes in the Transition and Eastside Zones. The Crest Zone would occasionally see 

similar effects, but at much more infrequent intervals due to the more consistent 

snowpack. High intensity rainstorms shortly after a high severity stand-replacing fire 

would also generate large sediment input. If what we believe about potential fire 

severity in upper Boulder Creek is true, then significant levels of sediment input to 

Boulder Creek and White River probably occurred 1-5years after this portion of the 

subwatershed burned” (pg. 4-10).
AAAAA
Th e 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 fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce 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.