ochoco summit ohv project – scoping...

Ochoco Summit OHV Project – Scoping Comments

Last Name

First Name

Co-signer(s) Date Org. Address City St Zip Email Phone Comment Specific to Proposed

Action? IDT Consideration How resolved?

Canan Joyce 11/19/2009

24017 Woods

Creek Rd.

Philomath

OR

97370

[email protected] Make designated OHV recreation areas as small as possible and do not allow OHVs on non-

motorized trails. No Alternative?

Ricker Joe 11/20/2009 503-399-

0177 Concerned about project impacts to wildlife calving, foraging and winter range; concerned about road density and whether project area is within standards. No Effects analysis

Borgir Rune 11/20/2009

2011 NW West

Hills Ave Bend O

R 9770

1 [email protected] In favor of trail system Yes None – supportive comment

Develop monitoring Yes Project design

Bakke Bjorn 11/20/2009 bjorn@onthe.

com In favor of trail system Yes None – supportive comment

Include jeep trails Yes None - already included in Proposed Action

Herrick William J. 11/20/

2009

William Herrick & Associates

PO Box 7499 Bend O

R 9770

8

[email protected]

Expanding OHV trails is not compatible with other forms of public use. Do not expand the OHV trail system Yes None – covered in the No Action

alternative

Riehl Keith 11/20/2009 Bend O

R [email protected] This is a good step in the right direction. Wants connecting trails. Yes None – already included in

Proposed Action

Schenck Marvin 11/21/2009

Klamath Basin OHV

Club tschenck58@

msn.com Please provide quality system of trails. Provide education for OHV users. Build working relationship with OHV clubs. Yes Project design

Richenbach Jared 11/21/

2009 37734 Eagle Ln. Astoria O

R 9710

3 [email protected] This is a great approach to responsible riding Yes None – supportive comment

H Matt 11/21/2009 cascaderdr@y

ahoo.com Add many miles of singletrack (10-12” wide) for motorcycles Yes Alternative?

Ramey Zac 11/21/2009 zacar@seasur

f.net This looks like a step in the right direction Yes None – supportive comment

Mann Allen 11/21/2009 amann6206@

gmail.com I always support a new trail system Yes None – supportive comment

Flaherty Dennis 11/21/2009

[email protected]

I am opposed to expanding or sustaining OHV use in National Forest Areas that already have established uses that are not compatible with OHV. Yes None – covered in the No Action

alternative

Public Jean 11/22/2009 15 Elm

Street Florham Park

NJ

07932

[email protected] ORVs need to be kept out of this area Yes None – covered in the No Action

alternative

Harris Donna Kermit Williams

11/22/2009

[email protected]

We vehemently oppose adding 124 miles of OHV roads in the Ochoco National Forest Yes None – covered in the No Action alternative

Tribby Dennis

and Linda

11/22/2009 lltribby@gma

il.com We would like to think that strong consideration be given to make the horse trails NON motorized. No – outside the scope of the proposed action

Effects analysis should show effects to equestrian use & horse trails, if

any.

Bell Dave 11/23/2009 daveb@colto

n.com I think it would be a great idea to develop OHV trails in the Ochoco National Forest Yes None – covered in Proposed Action

Heck Hugh 11/26/2009

14111 NW

Grizzly Mt. Rd.

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected]

It seems that the Forest Service main goal is to create income for the F.S. and not the forest. If you put thousands of people in the Summit Prairie area you will destroy it. Sooner or later the mass public will burn it up, or destroy it with garbage. I think that in most cases, mother nature can handle taking care of the mountain nicely. I hope that my email has some effect on your judgment of Summit Prairie.

No None – covered in No Action alternative

Quinn Daniel 11/28/2009 491 4th

Street Metoli

us OR

97741

[email protected] I would really like to see this trail system put into place. Yes None – covered in Proposed Action

Hanna Glenn 11/28/2009

10493 SW

Cornett Lp.

Powell Butte

OR

97753

[email protected]

My biggest concern with ATVs is the lack of enforcement. Yes Design criteria?

The new trail system should be closed at the end of September in conjunction with the ODFW Travel Mgt rules, or else people will use trails to hunt and retrieve game. Yes Design criteria?

I think the public and the wildlife would appreciate muffler silencers on ATVs and motorcycles. No N/A

Suggest seed-wash program for ATVs similar to what’s used for fire vehicles. Yes Project design?

Mitigation? (check with Crescent & BFR)

Archepol Jared 11/30/2009

Emerald Trail

Riders Assoc.

[email protected] Dispersal of riders is important for safety of riders and reduction of impact. Need more loops and

decision points. Avoid “there and back” trails. Yes Alternative development

mailto:[email protected]

































Last Name

First Name



Use of roads can decrease safety due to mixed use and increased speeds – suggest placing Class III trails parallel to roads. Yes Alternative development

Consider connecting eastern class III route to Spanish Peak road Yes Alternative development

Koeller Kent 11/30/2009 LOM [email protected]

ed.us Convert Allen Camp from horse camp to OHV camp Yes Alternative development

Kruse Mary Ann 11/30/

2009 [email protected] I am writing in support of the proposed trail system and trail management rule making it illegal to

drive off designated road and trails or outside specific areas. No N/A

Emphasizes need for enforcement No

Wiling Dave 11/30/2009

Concerned about effects of motorized use in elk calving areas and winter range; suggested using ODFW maps, overlaying proposal on critical habitat areas, road density analysis; referenced Starkey research and other research describing elk movement patterns related to motorized use.

Yes Effects analysis

Quinn Paul 12/1/2009 546-2468 Supportive of proposed action. Yes N/A

Turo Scott 12/2/2009

85 NE Hillcrest

St. Madras O

R 9774

1 Agree with need and purpose of the proposed action Yes None

Proposed trail system is too big Yes Alternative development

If 20% of land on Ochoco is proposed for motorized recreation, set aside 20% for non-motorized (additional to existing wilderness and roadless).

Outside scope; analysis should show how much nonmotorized rec is

availalble

Law enforcement and road closures not effective

Pyland Patti 12/3/2009

Deschutes Co. 4-

Wheelers jppyland@ms

n.com Proposal does not adequately address needs of the Class II OHV community; mixed use roads are not equivalent to trail; too much road and too little trail in proposal Yes Alternative development

Green Ethan Wilcox 12/3/2

009

Deschutes Co. 4-

Wheelers greentecheg@

yahoo.com Proposal does not adequately address needs of the Class II OHV community; mixed use roads are not equivalent to trail; too much road and too little trail in proposal Yes Alternative development

VanZyl Larry 12/3/2009

Deschutes Co. 4-

Wheelers larry@disksp

aceonline.net Proposal does not adequately address needs of the Class II OHV community; mixed use roads are not equivalent to trail; too much road and too little trail in proposal Yes Alternative development

Marquis Pat 12/4/2009

11595 N.W. Quail Road

Terrebonne

OR

97760

[email protected]

Two trail heads along route “principal use area East of Road 22” and additional trails are unnecessary and in conflict with other user groups and will exacerbate environmental and ecological impacts in the area.

Yes Alternative development

Comments on DEIS (Access Travel Management) No N/A

Proposed Indian Butte trail head and use of Road 350 is ill conceived. Use conflicts include: grazing allotment, fence lines, Indian Prairie roadless (hikers, birders, equestrians, bikers, hunters), unofficial equestrian endurance trail, equestrian use between Allen Creek camp and Indian Prairie.


Resource concerns around Indian Butte and Mt. Pisgah: fragile soils with springs and sensitive areas, fawning habitat, edge of WHMA; increased vehicle use will “drive the critters onto more sensitive grounds and possibly onto private lands.”

Yes Effects analysis; alternative development

Trail head proposed at Road 550, just north of Road 22: inviting use in area of riparian concern; locating OHV trail in close proximity to established horse camp – may create user conflicts. Yes Effects analysis; alternative

development

Moving Allen Creek Horse Camp would be an alternative to restricting OHV use (create new horse camp elsewhere) Yes Alternative development?

Road 220 is used by equestrians as connecter trail – suggest alternate route for OHV trail could use Road 211 or 214 instead. Yes Alternative development

Concerned about staging areas near road 350/2630 junction – sheep corrals are historic & won’t stand up to OHV traffic; area is already used by equestrians. Yes Effects analysis; alternative

development

Page121 of DEIS – dispersed camping on CRNG No N/A

Hoyser Kenna 12/6/2009 1648 Bent

Loop Powell Butte

OR

97753

Overall pleased with proposal because: - proposed trails are separated from eq. endurance trails - OHV trails don’t go through WHMA - trail minimizes conflicts with non-motorized users

Yes N/A

Several places where proposed trail would cross non-motorized trail; needs clear signage and maybe barriers Yes Project design

Would like to sign user-created horse trails No N/A

Proposed OHV trail is too close to Allen Creek Horse Camp and will lead to conflict; suggests that we officially turn over Allen Camp to OHV community and relocate horse camp; involve horse community in selection of new location for horse camp


Kimball Dave 12/6/2009

5353 SW Tomahaw

k Ave.

Redmond

OR

97756

[email protected] Wants to see some trails looped from Ochoco Divide to the east end of Big Summit. Yes Alternative development
















Last Name

First Name



McCarrel Kim 12/7/2009

64495 Old Bend Redmond

Hwy

Bend OR

97701

[email protected]

Overall pleased with proposal because: - proposed trails are separated from eq. endurance trails - OHV trails don’t go through WHMA - trail minimizes conflicts with non-motorized users

Yes N/A

Several places where proposed trail would cross non-motorized trail; needs clear signage and maybe barriers Yes Project design

Would like to sign user-created horse trails No N/A

Proposed OHV trail is too close to Allen Creek Horse Camp and will lead to conflict; suggests that we officially turn over Allen Camp to OHV community and relocate horse camp; involve horse community in selection of new location for horse camp


Ayer Elizabeth 12/7/2

009

Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel

Drive Association

711 Bennett Creek Road

Cottage

Grove

OR

97424

[email protected] Mixed use between ATVs/motorcycles and 4x4s is unsafe; 4x4 drivers don’t like graded roads. Yes Alternative development

Price Edd 12/8/2009

789 Mendiola

Rd. Nyssa O

R 9791

3 You have planned for 52 miles of trails for Class III vehicles. That is an easy 2-3 hour ride for most average off road riders. You need more trails for this growing number of users. Yes Alternative development

Lever Bob 12/9/2009 61385 SE

Orion Dr. Bend OR

97702 The project has a consensus agreement from the PAC working group. Yes Purpose & Need

The trail system is marginal when compared to East Fort Rock. Yes Alternative development

I don’t see that you have included (any user trails) in this plan. This could cut building costs down substantially. Yes Alternative development

Cross country ski trails should be used for OHV – seasons would prevent conflict; trails would be cleared. Yes Alternative development

Include access from trail system to Mt. Pisqua, Spanish Peak, and Slide Mountain. Yes Alternative development

Weber John 12/9/2009

Emerald Trail

Riders Association

[email protected]

541-767-9013

Provide Class I or III trail to form loop from Ochoco Divide Campground to Scotts Camp, to prevent “out and back” situation. Yes Alternative development

Provide Class I and/or III bypass trails to allow riders to avoid Class II areas to minimize risk of injury and/or conflict Yes Alternative development

Provide Class I and/or III trail at western edge of the East trail system to close the outer loop, avoid “out and back” and avoid Class II trail Yes Alternative development

James Don 12/10/2009 Prinevi

lle OR In general I agree with your proposed network of trails for OHVs and bikes. Yes None – supportive comment

You will need to be careful administering program…if it ever begins looking like McKay Creek it should be shut down. Yes Project design

Monitoring

Ochoco Divide Natural Area & other old growth management areas - running trail through would be a conflict of uses Yes? Check and disclose Forest Plan

allocations

You will possibly have to go to a permit system for planned use on any given day. No Outside scope

Trail system must not reduce or eliminate forest management (thinning, woodcutting, salvage, grazing, fire suppression, weed control, wildlife management) Yes

Effects analysis – change in LRMP allocation? If so, how would mgt.

change?

Archepol Adam 12/10/2009

Emerald Trail

Riders Association

Eugene OR The middle section could use more singletrack to lessen road riding; roads are dangerous. More

trail mileage would disperse impact. Yes Alternative development

Nelson Richard 12/10/2009

Bend Chapter,

OHA

PO Box 6618 Bend O

R 9770

8 Amount of new trails is a concern for impact on wildlife and habitat; however, reduction in cross-country may improve habitat. Yes None – observation

Staging area on the 2630 east of the 2210 is at site of old sheep corrals and has year-round spring. OHV use will make it a “mud bog.” Yes Effects analysis

Alternative development

The 350 road has been closed for years to protect wildlife habitat; area includes a section of “Forest Preserve.” OHV use will eliminate this as a wildlife sanctuary. Yes Effects analysis

Proposed route going NE from 2630 and connecting with the 2630 at road 365 could result in unauthorized use of road 230; this is an escape area for wildlife. Recommend that this section be eliminated


Route from Road 150 to Road 260 will encourage off-route travel into the escape area in previous comment. Recommend this route be moved to Road 22 Yes Alternative development

Proposal indicates that the 2630 and the 250 (parallel to 22) will only be open to OHV; this will restrict hunting to only those with OHVs. Does not agree with allowing OHVs exclusive access Yes Effects analysis

Alternative development

Area described in previous comment is an area of many springs and open meadows – OHVs could damage aspen and wet meadow habitat Yes Effects analysis

Opening area between Scotts Camp and Cottonwood Pit to exclusive OHV use is not acceptable. Yes Alternative development





Last Name

First Name



Biggest concern is law enforcement. Yes

Lodwig Ethan 12/11/2009

2685 Windsor Circle East

Eugene OR

97405

[email protected] Need to disperse users with multiple trails out of trailheads and staging areas. Yes Alternative development

Specifically, avoid “there and back” situation out of Ochoco Divide; add alternative route to Scotts Camp; suggest connecting the few, shorter detours into a full-length parallel trail. Yes Alternative development

Roads are not Class III trails; suggest Class III trails be created parallel to roads, but serpentine to increase mileage. Yes Alternative development

Eastern Class III loop looks great, but connecting trail to Spanish Peak Rd should be considered Yes Alternative development The area is vast; 200 miles or more of trail system would be better than 124 miles. Yes Alternative development

Anderson Clarence 12/11/2009 2735 SE

Gladstone Portlan

d OR

97202 Proposal does not have enough miles per square mile of trail. Yes Alternative development

Lund Keith A. 12/12/2009

10233 SW

Nicole Dr.

Powell Butte

OR

97753

[email protected] OHV users will bring further resource damage to an area that is already experiencing these

problemts. Yes Effects analysis

Other forest users will experience more conflict near the proposed trail…A trail system covering 124 miles would severely limit where I could go and not have a negative experience related to this trail.


Wildlife is being more disturbed every year from increased ATV use. No Effects analysis

Why should taxpayers have to pay for a special ATV interest group to have their own trail system that no other group will use? Yes Purpose & Need, background,

project design

Walker Tim and Denise 12/13/

2009 [email protected]

Leave our riding areas alone in fact create more areas and leave the existing areas and developing areas alone. No N/A

Stuart Amy M. Michael

G. Gerdes

12/13/2009

13501 NW

Grizzly Mtn. Rd

Prineville

OR

97754

Given the proposed project area, the analysis must include a comprehensive road density analysis that identifies current habitat effectiveness against attaining standards and guidelines of the Ochoco Land and Resource Management Plan


The addition of a new OHV system without addressing the extensive road network compounds already existing impacts to natural resources. Yes Effects analysis

Starkey research indicates that motorized vehicles harass wildlife; designating a new OHV system without addressing current open road densities is inconsistent with USFS law. Yes Effects analysis; findings of

consistency

Mayer Peter 12/14/2009 PO Box

7004 Bend OR

97708

[email protected] Proposal is marginal – additional trail miles are needed Yes Alternative development

Add parallel trails connecting with single trail segment to: 1. Between Ochoco Divide and Asphalt Pit 2. Between Roads 22-200 and end of 22-306 (using 256) 3. Between TH on Road 22-350 and Scotts Camp including Scotts Pit


Add a few 2-5 miles loops at all the staging and play areas. Yes Alternative development Provide designated trails and/or shared use road for access to Spanish Peak and Slide Mtn. Yes Alternative development

Use existing trails and roads; use cross-country ski trails. Yes Project design; alternative development

McCabe Mike 12/14/2009

Crook County Judge

300 NE 3rd St.

Prineville,

OR

97754

One major question that must be addressed to successfully resolve the problems posed by the growing OHV use on National Forests, and more specifically on the Ochoco NF, is whether or not it is possible given all the circumstances faced by National Forest managers to implement an effective system that provides for OHV user opportunities AND protects the resources that continue to be threatened. An alternative that displays the impacts and consequences of elimination of all OHV use is the appropriate way to provide this information.


It is important to note that the area being considered for the system of designated trails was the only area on the Ochoco NF that received consensus support from the PAC working group for such designation

Yes Chap. 1; background information

To successfully provide ATV opportunities AND protect resources, education must occur in multiple venues in activities supported by school, user groups, government agencies and others. Manufacturers and business support groups have to step up to promote responsible riding. A major first step would be for manufacturers to step back and look at their advertising; long term the damages portrayed in advertisements can only hurt their business even though it might help sales in the near future. Maps must be easily available and user friendly. In general, most members of the public cannot navigate by maps, and particularly on areas such as National Forests. Since maps will be the legal enforcement tool, considerable thought needs to go into how best to display and orient users.

No Design criteria/implementation

Many of the problems experienced with the current unmanaged system stems from location, design and construction of the trails. Analysis needs to consider the costs and likelihood of actually being able to do the job right in terms of planning, construction, monitoring and maintenance.

No Effects analysis/design criteria



Last Name

First Name



What adaptive management activities will be provided that insure that not only is initial construction done, but that long-term erosion of the system doesn’t result in failure with resultant environmental damages. How will OHV user groups be utilized to help insure that they are seen as responsible and legitimate? During the several years leading to this point, it has become obvious that there is strong local/regional leadership within the OHV user group, and that they understand the importance of being seen as responsible and helpful towards quality management. What efforts will be undertaken to insure those other individuals or small groups do not continue to damage NF resources and opportunities?

No Design criteria

While there are mitigation tools available, the EIS needs to clearly identify that some level of wildlife degradation will occur regardless of the best management practices. Yes Effects analysis

All trail locations should be carefully considered to minimize adding to this problem, leaving as much secure area as possible for big game. Yes Alternative development

Economic discussions should also include the best information on the likelihood that funding will be available to actually implement in a timely manner the proposed trails system, with all the necessary engineering and environmental protection.

Yes Ch 2 – implementation schedule?

The Ochoco NF and Crook County get little benefit currently from the ATV receipts collected statewide through permit sales and the small gasoline tax that goes to ATV management. The designation of a system of trails and roads will bring much more of that money here locally, increasing opportunity for on the ground management and also enforcement. Without designation, enforcement in particular will continue to be inadequate.

Yes Effects analysis – socioeconomics

If enforcement dollars are not available to adequately patrol and manage the system, adding more facilities will only make it worse. No

A “top down” decision was made to eliminate game retrieval using OHV’s on the Ochoco and other National Forests that was never subjected to appropriate analysis through NEPA. The process described in the regulations indicates this would be a local decision and your planning should include effects and consequences of that choice on the Ochoco NF. This will be a highly controversial change and one that on a Forest-wide basis will be difficult to enforce. Failure to enforce leads to lack of support for limitations.

No N/A – outside the scope of the Proposed Action

We recommend that the Ochoco NF impose no more than minimal restrictions on motorized access to dispersed campsites. No N/A – outside the scope of the

Proposed Action

Multi-party monitoring specific to the Ochoco NF needs to be included on an annual basis to track accomplishments, understand impacts and costs, learn of unexpected/unintended consequences, and to develop an annual report on success of this effort.

Yes Ch 2 - Monitoring

OHV use should be coordinated with the closure of big game hunting seasons on the Forest and beginning of winter sport use by snow-shoers and skiers. We are also concerned that it is clear that after November 1, if trails/mixed use roads are open to highway type vehicles they also will be open to ATV’s as this is common hunter conveyance.

No N/A – outside scope. BUT design criteria should indicate if seasonal

closures would apply

It needs to be clear that the TM plan does not limit access to firewood harvest. That activity is controlled by a separate permit and plan. Crook County has among the very highest levels of unemployment in the State and nation, and firewood is an important source of fuel for our residents. Further, wood cutters often remove fuels that would otherwise provide additional danger from wildfires. Please do not eliminate access to suitable wood cutting areas.

No N/A – outside scope of the Proposed Action

The plan needs to include a higher density of trails close by the several staging areas that will be provided. For family recreation, a group of small loop trails close by staging enables participation by more family members, whereas the longer trail segments are more important for a different type of user group. The goal should be to provide multiple opportunities within the defined landscape, and a higher density of shorter trails close by the staging area helps meet this need, coupled with much lower density of long loop trails.


Ulrich Larry 12/16/2009 Bend O

R [email protected] (Proposal needs) more mileage. Not a lot more, just enough to rectify the need for an additional trail

out of Ochoco Divide Snopark and some small loop trails out of the major staging areas. Yes Alternative development

Would like access to Slide Mtn – existing cross-country ski trail could provide. Yes Alternative development

Additional vault toilet at Walton Snopark would be unnecessary – expensive and only open for 6 months. Consider chemical toilet rental? Yes Alternative development

Would like access to Spanish Peak Road; Road 38 could have shared use section or add connector trail to system Yes Alternative development

Flint Bob 12/16/2009

2515 NW Canyon

Dr.

Redmond

OR

97756

[email protected]

Proposal is marginal. East Fork Rock system has 2.2 miles OHV trails/mi2. Proposed action is only .66 miles OHV trails/mi2. Add 2-5 mile loops in a ladder design to staging and play areas. Use cross-country ski trails to add to mileage


•

• Add parallel trails to segments connected with single trail segments: A. Between Ochoco Divide and Ahalt Pit B. Between Roads 22-200 and end of 22-306 (using 256) C. Between TH on Road 22-350 & Scotts Camp including Scotts Pit

• Provide designated trails and/or a shared use road for access to Mt Pisgah and Slide Mt. • Provide designated trail to boundary of project area for future access to Spanish Peak from

Cottonwood Pit via Mascal corrals and road 335. • Provide designated trails around the south and west sides of Big Summit Prairie


Last Name

First Name



Toman Billy 12/16/2009

Lobos Motorcycle Club Inc.

14000 S. Forsythe Rd

Oregon City

OR

97045

[email protected] Please do not let this area or any part of it go into wilderness. No N/A – outside scope of the proposed

action

With 165,000 acres there should be room for all of us to use and the use of single-track trails would keep the foot print small and could be used by other users so we all have access to the area. Yes Project design

Sink Ed 12/16/2009

60760 Tekampe Rd,

Bend OR

97702 Comments on fences and 300-ft. buffer for dispersed camping No N/A – outside scope of proposed

action

Proposal has no trails on the Round Mtn or Slide Mtn areas where there is currently some excellent riding Yes Alternative development

With only one long trail that is mostly old road, there is little or no challenging riding for quads. Also, all traffic (out and back) would be on the one trail, which is very unsafe. Yes Alternative development

Most of the good riding has been designated Class III, giving it all to the bikes Yes Alternative development

There is no access to trailheads for wilderness areas. Yes

Alt development? May require further information – does his user

group prefer to ride OHVs to wilderness trailheads, then go for a

hike?

There is no access to the entire area northwest of 22/2210. Yes Alt development?

Chanberlin Bob 12/16/

2009 5839 Shad Rd.

Terrebonne

OR

97760

The proposed amount of trails is not acceptable to me. There are hundreds of miles of trails in that area that are being used now by motorcycle riders that can and should be included in this plan. The Ochoco Trail Riders have given the forest service around 750 miles that would make good trails and you could loop them together.


Jacox Wayne 12/17/2009

750 S. Bent Loop Rd.

Powell Butte

OR

97753 The USFS proposes to abet the desecration of one of the most beautiful, peaceful horseback riding

and hiking areas in the Northwest if not the entire United States Yes Effects analysis

Generally, at a moment in history when the world community is debating the causes, effects and possible solutions to atmospheric pollution, the USFS proposes to create a noise and pollution corridor in one of our national forests. The noise of OHV traffic reverberates well beyond the OHV trail.


USFS road 2600/2630, about .25 mi east of point where 2630 crosses 2200/2210 – the sheep corrals. Proposed trail, staging area, play area nearby. Wet meadow/ grassy area around spring could be damaged by OHVs. Also, favorite camping area for horseback riders.

Yes Effects analysis/alternative development

USFS road 2200/267 jct w/ 2200/300; proposed trail proceeds east (south of Indian Butte). Several trails and loops proposed; area has several creeks and springs and is quite marshy, and is densely forested providing good elk cover. Perhaps move trail farther south and widen 2200 for a short distance to accommodate OHV traffic


Peterson David 12/17/2009 1620 Bent

Loop Rd. Powell Butte

OR

97753

I find no practical reason to develop more of any kind of OHV or recreational use for this area. It is totally uncalled for… There is within a short distance of your proposed area the Green Mountain and East Fort Rock OHV trail system which totals more than 500 miles of trails. This proposed area totals approximately 22,000 acres of great wildlife and significant ecological forest and should not be further exploited with the use of motorized vehicles. The areas I mentioned are barely used now so why would you propose more area for this type of use?

No None – covered in the No Action alternative

Ulrich Larry 12/17/2009

Ochoco Trail Riders

PO Box 491 Bend O

R 9770

9

More miles. Adding another trail from Ochoco Snopark to Ahalt staging and some small 2-5 mile loops out of the staging areas. Some kind of access to Mt. Pisgah and Spanish Peak. Trails would be preferable to roads. A trail between road 22/200 and the end of 22/306. A trail between TH on road 22/350 and Scotts Camp. Use existing cross country ski trails for single-track trail. Go from Walton snopark to Slide Mtn and then on past to the North and then west on user created trails and roads to make a loop.


Peterson Eric 12/18/2009

US EPA, Region 10, NEPA Review Unit

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle WA

98101-

3140

EPA recommends that the road/trail system established through the project reflect long term funding expectations. The EIS for this project should discuss resources available to build and/or maintain the proposed facilities. Please compare the relative likelihood for adequate maintenance funding for each of the action alternatives.

Yes Design elements Econ effects

Part of the proposed action is to restore/rehabilitate user-created trails. We believe it is appropriate to consider, as part of the DEIS, the environmental benefits of establishing restoration and rehabilitation guidelines – should include BMPs and implementation timelines

Yes Design elements

DEIS must identify 303(d) listed streams, relevant water quality restoration plans and/or TMDL. Any relevant TMDL implementation plans, agreements, goals or requirements? DEIS must demonstrate that there will be no net degradation of water quality to 303(d) listed streams as well as waterbodies where standards are currently being met.

No Effects analysis - Hydro section

EPA supports restricting motor vehicle stream crossings to designated areas to avoid riparian/wetlands/springs/seeps. Where road/trail affects shading of streams, that segment should be evaluated for relocation or closure.

No Effects; possible alternative

DEIS should identify drinking water sources and potential effects No Hydro section, if applicable

Last Name

First Name



The DEIS should include a comprehensive section on implementation and administration, including goals, objectives and activities (or some other organizational framework). Please clearly define the framework’s elements.

No Design elements

Include information on partnerships (actual and potential) and how this will increase capacity of the Forest Service to successfully implement mitigation measures over the long term. Yes Appendix?

EPA recommends that adaptive management plan be discussed in the DEIS; this should address: • The difference between implementation and effectiveness monitoring • Decision tree(s) to guide future decisions • Specific decision thresholds and management responses for resources of concern • Monitoring needs to assess whether thresholds are being met, • Funding opportunities and constraints for the monitoring

No Ch. 2 monitoring section

Providing a management trigger related to water quality standards for sediment may help to ensure risks to aquatic resources and water quality are minimized No Ch 2 monitoring – hydro

Areas of special interest for forest users that would be developed and improved through the implementation of this project include: trailheads, staging areas, play areas, youth riding areas, warm-up loops, and picnic and camping areas, etc. In these areas we believe that dispersed camping under general provisions (as described in the TMP DEIS) may result in adverse impacts to forest resources – especially soils, noxious weed spread, water quality, and special habitat for native plants. Recommend that these areas should be designated as “Special Provision Areas” subject to restrictions put forth in the TMP.


We recommend that the DEIS discuss the environmental benefits of incorporating the following mitigation measures for preventing the spread of noxious weeds into the proposed action. Some potential mitigation measures include:

• Constructing and maintaining OHV cleaning facilities to remove weed seeds and encouraging or requiring their use;

• Rerouting trails or roads around infestation(s) to reduce vectors for spread • Establishing a weed prevention and control education program and encouraging

voluntary assistance; and • Early and effective reseeding and revegetating of disturbed sites

No

Design features (find out how Crescent and BFR are handling this

issue; shoot for consistency if possible)

DEIS should describe habitat & impacts to TES species. No Effects analysis

Multiple use designations on different sections of the same route may increase the potential for unauthorized uses inconsistent with management goals and objectives. Recommend that the DEIS compare relative travel restriction consistency of the action alternatives (consistency on NFS land as well as with adjacent private, county,state, fed).

No Transportation section?

Consultation with tribes must take place No Ch 2 section on tribal consultation

Need to address climate change and how this will affect adaptive management strategies and cumulative effects on wildlife connectivity, hydrology, fire management and invasive species management

No Effects analysis

DEIS needs to consider effects to air quality No Effects analysis DEIS needs to consider effects to visibility No Effecst analysis See literature in attached reference list

Smith Kathy 12/18/2009 oneilsmith@a

ol.com In addition to my concerns of the proximity of these trails to wilderness areas and fire danger, I am greatly concerned of the emergency access. Hopefully there will be cell towers put up and heli pads for emergency vehicles.

No Outside the scope of the proposed action N/A

Morris Michael J. 12/18/

2009 230 NE 5th St. Bend O

R 9770

1 [email protected] The DEIS needs to have a thorough discussion of effects to deer and elk, including historic

information No Effects analysis

The DEIS needs to evaluate open roads – not just by map, but by ground-truthing No Effects analysis

TMP DEIS says alts 2 and 3 would not affect ATV recreation; ATV user group is relatively small percentage of forest users; purpose and need (that new trail system is needed to accommodate this user group after TMP closes off-road travel) is flawed

Yes Review TMP; review P & N

Basing this analysis on the TMP FEIS and decision would be a violation of NEPA because TMP will not be implemented for a number of years No

Indicates that the Ochoco NF is not an area that can support off-road travel without ecological damage No None – this is covered by the No

Action alternative N/A

VanDomelen Tim 12/18/

2009

Redmond Chapter OHA

3694 SW Williams Rd

Powell Butte

OR

97753

[email protected] Ten staging areas and 124 miles of trails is excessive…in general, we are opposed to this area as an

OHV playground. Yes None – this is covered by the No Action alternative N/A

Dillon Ron 12/18/2009 Boise ID bignasty@cab

leone.net Offering as many miles as possible to recreationists helps to maximize their experience and minimize impacts to the ground. Recommend offering as many miles of trail as possible; incorporate user trails and cross-country ski trails

No Alternative development

Suggest adding parallel trails to segments that are connected with single trail segments located between Ochoco Divide and Ahalt Pit, between Roads 22-200 and end of 22-306 (using 256) and between the TH on Road 22-350 and Scotts Camp, including Scotts pit. Add short, 2-3 mile loops at all staging and play areas. Provide designated trail to project boundary for future access to Mt. Pisgah from Cottonwood Pit via Mascal Corrals and road 335; provide designated trails or a shared use road for access to Spanish Peak and Slide Mtn.


Last Name

First Name



Woodward Craig 12/18/

2009 [email protected] OHV trails are not compatible with all the live streams in the area, as well as with wildlife,

wildflower viewing & photography. Does not want trails adjacent to his private property Yes None – this is covered by the No Action alternative

Ballard Dale 12/19/2009

Capitol Chapter, OHA

[email protected] There is no need for such a trail; will lead to harassment of wildlife. No None – this is covered by the No

Action alternative

Scott

Gary, Kenna, Kenton, and Teri

12/19/2009 Gmscott1942

@yahoo.com General support for proposed action. Yes None

Backman Donald 12/19/2009

Oregon Hunters Association

PO Box 1706

Medford

OR

97501

[email protected] DEIS should consider disturbance to wildlife during critical periods (calving/fawning; winter),

impacts to sensitive habitats, effects of displacement of big game. No Effects analysis – wildlife

Routes should avoid sensitive habitats and displacement of big game. No Effects and/or alternative development

Ferry Brian T. 12/20/2009

5060 NW Kingwood

Redmond

OR

97756

Proposed action does not address ONF’s current high road density; new trail should not be created. Instead, routes should be designated from current roads/routes (open and closed). Analysis must be clear on which roads and routes would be closed permanently and which are part of system


Extent of proposal is disproportionately large compared to percentage of forest visitors that are ATV users. Size and extent should be reduced and designed to avoid conflicts with all other forest users, including livestock permittees.


Thinks over-snow machines should be included in proposal. No

Outside the scope; P&N section (Chap 2) should clarify why over-

snow use is not included in this proposed action.

Proposed action would likely displace game onto private land and may disturb animals (esp. game and raptors) during critical times of the year. Impacts should be avoided by route location and/or seasonal restrictions.

Yes, but not site-specific Effects; project design features

Unless the proposed action is modified to include closing existing roads and routes, it does not seem consistent with protecting the soils and waterways that comprise the NFCR watershed. Yes Check consistency with NFCR

standards and guides

Concerned that enforcement will not be adequate. No Comments related to TMP DEIS No None – outside scope

Haas Ron 12/21/2009

164 Jersey Avenue

Oregon City

OR

97045

[email protected] Please OK this proposal; don’t let any of this area become a buffer zone for a wilderness area. No None – supportive

Staats Janice 12/20/2009

6934 SE Davis Loop

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected]

Concerned about effects to wetlands, riparian areas (list them; don’t just call them “sensitive habitats”), “legacy impacts” on streams and wetlands and recovery from impacts; retention of non-motorized use experience, including no odor of exhaust fumes and the amount of dust.

No Effects analysis (hydrology, fisheries, recreation)

You must have had an important objective you were meeting when you spent money to decommission roads, and it doesn’t make sense to spend more money now to construct/re-open a road or trail there again.

Yes Explanation in Ch 2 (description of alts) why this is a good idea.

Proposed action will impact non-motorized recreation experience. Yes (but not site-specific) Effects analysis – recreation

Recommend reduce scale of project to 20-25% of proposed action Yes Alternative development Update road density analysis to include all roads and trails No Effects analysis

Recommendation: Construct project progressively, a little at a time; compliance with rules must be demonstrated prior to more construction; if compliance does not happen, close area to ATV use. No Alternative development

Peterson James 12/20/2009

607 NE Third Street

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected]

Could we not expand the current trail system on Green Mountain? No Alternative development

Please lets not do this. No None – already covered in No Action alternative

Carr Craig A. 12/20/2009

Crooked River Watershed Council

498 SE Lynn Blvd.

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected] Issue: OHV trail stream crossing design and the risk of in-stream habitat degradation associated

with stream crossings. Yes Effects analysis (hydrology)

Issue: Non-mitigated reactivation of 56 miles of closed or decommissioned roads and trails Yes Explanation in Ch 2 (description of

alts) why this is a good idea. Effects analysis (soils, hydro)

Issue: bringing in more OHV use, increasing impacts on watershed function, ecosystem services Yes Effects analysis Recommend: securing adequate funding for enforcement, trail rehab, monitoring No Recommend: explicit incorporation of adaptive management No Project design features

Staats Scott

Wayne Elmore, Chuck Gates

12/21/2009

Friends of McKay

6934 SE Davis Loop

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected]

Concerned that size of project area indicates that trail system will be larger than we’re disclosing No Explain in Ch. 2

Studies indicate that OHV riders don’t stay on trails (see citation) No

Last Name

First Name



Unclear on how district concluded that there is community support for trail system in Ochoco Summit area No Chap 2: Explain pre-scoping, PAC,

and consensus areas

We feel that a project of this scope, especially in its beginning phases, should be handled by an ID team of professional engineers, biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, etc, and not by user groups No None – will be self-explanatory in

DEIS

The forest could designate roads that already exist. We would like to see this as one alternative in the EIS as well as closing the entire forest to ORVs along with a mention of the large amount of ORV trails that already exist in Central Oregon.

No

• Alternative development • Rec analysis should probably

include greater Central Oregon area

We see no mention in the scoping document of the existing ORV trail system beginning only 20 miles south of Prineville…600 miles of existing and interconnecting ORV trails…ONF is an entirely different landtype and cannot handle any large-scale ORV trail system.

No Rec analysis; Ch 1 P&N (differences between forested trail and high desert trail)

Funding for long-term monitoring and enforcement should be in place prior to project implementation No

Technically outside the scope; without decision we don’t know what we’ll need to enforce. Still, look to BFR & CRE for consistency

No more new trails should be created – already too much bare ground from user-created trails Yes None – covered by No Action alternative

Road density in project area already exceeds ONF standards – Forest Service should come up with an alternative where road densities do not have a negative impact on wildlife or watershed values. No Alternative development

If the forest is going to reopen any closed or decommissioned roads, then at least an equal amount of roads should be closed. Yes Alternative development

McKay area is still getting illegal use and resource damage is not repaired; no new trail system should be proposed until this is fixed. No Outside the scope

There should be a plan to mitigate displaced nonmotorized use; crowds and noise will keep all other forest users out of your 165,000-acre project area Yes

Effects analysis (recreation) will determine if mitigation should be proposed

The Forest Service should consider not opening any trail system until at least June 1 due to wet spring conditions Yes Alternative development

Perhaps the Forest Service should consider fee stations for this trail system (similar to NW Forest Pass). No Probably outside the scope.

How can the Forest Service assure the public that every new trail won’t become a tributary? Yes Effects analysis (hydro)

New system should be created in increments of 10-20 miles, then monitored. If violations occur, trails would be reclaimed and no new trail created. No Alternative development

Concerned about impacts to wildlife. Observed “near eradication of the Northern Pygmy Owl from the 33 Road in McKay Creek most likely due to the use and abuse of ORVs in the drainage.” No Effects analysis

Concerns and suggestions regarding law enforcement No Check w/BFR and CRE

Richardson Bill 12/21/

2009

Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation

24550 Ervin Road

Philomath

OR

97370

[email protected] Concerned about detrimental impact on wildlife of increasing motorized disturbance on 124-mile

trail system in an area that already contains and extensive road network. Yes Effects analysis (wildlife)

Concerned about increased risk of introduction or spread of invasive plants. Yes Effects analysis (weeds); mitigations Analysis should include evaluation of the costs of administration, enforcement, and maintenance Yes Effects analysis (econ)

Please design routes to avoid critical winter range areas as snowmobiles might use trail system; winter harassment is extremely detrimental to deer and elk Yes Alternative development; effects

analysis (wildlife)

See research in appended reference list

Ardt Glen 12/21/09 ODFW

61374 Parrell Road

Bend OR

97702

Implementation of the Proposed Action likely would modify the existing recreational experience from one of “allow[ing] for self-discovery and finding your own special place on a variety of roads and trails from highway to hiking” to a more intense developed and directed motorized recreational experience with associated effects to non-motorized fish and wildlife recreation.

Yes Effects analysis (recreation)

The Department believes the Proposed Action is premature and can not support the Proposed Action before the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland (Forest) conduct a comprehensive assessment to address impacts and identify strategies for mitigating those impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the entire system of roads and trails and the associated motorized use by the public.

Yes

Variety of recommendations related to locations of wildlife habitat. Yes? Review to determine which identified areas are in project area

Concern that the PA would lead to continued displacement of big game from NFS onto private land, increasing big game damage and private land conflicts and reducing hunting and viewing opportunities on public land.

Yes Effects analysis (wildlife)

No specific regulations related to tracked ATVs, which may use trail system in late winter/early spring, patchy snow conditions, and disturb wintering big game and nesting raptors. Yes Alternative development

Would rather see OHV expansion (if truly warranted) at Henderson Flat instead of Ochoco East area (recognizes that both were identified as Community Support Areas) Yes

Alternative development? Clarification in Ch 1 about why this area selected?

The Department is concerned that our decreasing deer and elk hunting opportunities will decline even further through this action. Yes Effects analysis (wildlife)

Last Name

First Name



Previously expressed concerns regarding ability of FS to administer, maintain, and enforce a developed OHV system were not addressed in the Proposed Action Yes

Staab Darek 12/21/09

Trout Unlimited

PO Box 2090 Bend O

R 97709

[email protected]

We understand that the Forest has had pressure to complete an off road trail for a mix of users, thus we could support the designation and creation of a single trail per major group, but we have plenty of play areas and other trail systems to meet the needs for our region. Thus, we would encourage a scaled down trail system, which is carefully placed within the watersheds and fish and wildlife migration corridors of the Forest. We would support:

1. A single class I trail from Highway 22 to Highway 30. However, Highway 30 must be the eastern end of the trail.

2. The loop being planned as a class II trail between Highway 30 and Scott’s Camp is well chosen and appears to be easy to complete and maintain. The middle leg which will be created from a decommissioned road would enhance the trail with an option in the loop.

3. The third trail which could be supported would be the side trail north of Highway 22 for class III.

Beyond the long distance class 1 trail, the loop for Class II vehicles, and side trails for class III, we cannot support additional trails, until these first three trails have been properly managed for several years and the funds and support has been secured by users and staff.


To be honest, it is difficult to support any new trail construction when the current trails and roads are not being maintained or enforced. No

I was shocked seeing the trail run straight through Crazy Creek and Big Springs, when we are currently raising grant funds to try and restore these exact areas, including road decommissioning and stream restoration from degradation caused by travel and recreation in the riparian area. To prevent further resource damage to the Deep Creek watershed, Highway 30 should be the eastern end of the trail, with no additional trails created to the south of the road. The class I and II trails that are proposed for the Deep Creek, Crazy Creek and Little Summit Creek drainages need to be pulled from the route.


This new trail system will never be able to keep users content and only on designated routes, and before long, riders will venture beyond the trail and take with them the weeds, social trails, harmful fluids, and fire potential, which would add to the restoration list already approved in the current Deep Creek Watershed Restoration EA. With these impacts in mind, the top 3 items which must be changed in the plan include:

1. The expensive and overly complex network of trails which is currently proposed must be reduced to something realistic to maintain and enforce. Until that has been accomplished, the trail system will just increase an already overtaxed maintenance log for the districts. We recommend the 3 scaled back trails if they are carefully planned over stream crossings and other sensitive areas.

2. The trail route must be removed from the main cold water tributaries of the Deep Creek

watershed and the cold water springs and meadows that support the watershed. Thus Highway 30 must be the eastern end of the trail at the 550 road, and the 800 road area trail must be pulled from the plan along with the play areas proposed. We have plenty of play areas and trails in other OHV parks in the region.

3. The trail must not override current maintenance and stewardship responsibilities. The implementation of this trail needs should only occur if there is also substantial commitment to off road restoration in impacted areas across the forest. For every mile of trail created a mile of trail must be restored. Trails are not created if the staff and funding are not available beyond current maintenance and trail plans.


The main user groups should have a trail to ride and help steward in the national forest, as it provides needed recreation and service opportunities for local citizens, new visitors, and it adds an option for an already large network of trails in the region. But, the entire forest does not need trailheads and access points for small subsets of riders. We already have regional OHV hotspots providing those experiences, so an added individual trail is sufficient for providing recreation in the forest while also meeting other unmet responsibilities.

No

Effects analysis – rec. Plus, it’s really becoming clear that we need to thoroughly describe the context for this proposed action. WHY do we need this new trail system when there is OHV opportunity in Central Oregon?

Last Name

First Name



Woodward Craig

Lucy Woodward, Clay Woodward, Kim Woodward, Clark Woodward, Cade Woodwa

rd, Kenna

Woodward, Carrie Puckett,

Brett Puckett, Caleb

Puckett, Layne

Puckett, Craig

Puckett, Crista

Porfily, Scott

Porfily, Grant

Porfily, Nash

Porfily, Holt

Porfily

12/21/09 wtg@bendnet

.com Opposed to proposed action. Attached petition signed by 50 people opposing proposed action. Yes None – already covered in the No Action alternative

Rasmussen Randy

Asante Riverwind (Sierra Club), Karen

Coulter (LOWD-BMBP),

Tim Lillebo (Oregon Wild), Bob

Friemark (The

Wilderness

Society)

12/21/09

American Hiking Society

946 NW Circle Blvd., #145

Corvallis

OR

97330

[email protected]

What remains unclear is the amount of user-created routes and closed or decommissioned roads (i.e., either total acreage or mileage) proposed to offset new disturbance associated with the Proposed Action. Thus, the public has an unclear understanding of the objectives of the stated restoration effort.

Yes Clarify in Ch 2 description of Alternatives

To date, there is inadequate justification for the proposed OHV trail system. Yes Clarify Purpose & Need

Moreover, because the agency has chosen to improperly segment the required NEPA analyses (as described below), it is inappropriate to initiate site-specific NEPA analysis for OHV trail proposals like the Ochoco Summit EIS prior to the agency completing the Deschutes-Ochoco National Forests Travel Management Project and EIS, which currently is scheduled for completion by Spring 2010 (lots of other comments in the same letter reiterated this concern).

Yes Determination of consistency with NEPA (also check w/BFR and CRE; they got this comment too)

Last Name

First Name



Parties represented in this scoping letter who participated in the Deschutes-Ochoco National Forests Travel Management Working Group share the perception that completion of the Travel Management planning process always was implied in working group meetings to precede the development of site-specific OHV trail proposals. In addition, the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests have failed to date to conduct “Travel Analysis,” as discussed in agency regulations and reflected in the directives for implementing the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Thus, it is both unwise and premature to consider new additions to the Forest travel system at this time. Only after completing the necessary Travel Analysis and identification of “a minimum (forest road) transportation system which is streamlined, non-redundant, and efficient,” would the Forest Service be in a position to assess the efficacy of additions to the Forest travel system at the scope and scale contemplated in the Ochoco Summit Proposed Action.

No TMP decision should be completed prior to completion of this analysis; this should be a non-issue

we believe it is inherently wrong for the Forest Service to premise its OHV trail planning process with a purpose and need statement that attempts to placate the OHV community with promises of infinite variety, challenge and engagement. To structure such a purpose and need statement is either intentionally misleading, naïve, or demonstrates a lack of understanding of the varied preferences within the OHV community. Although no more than 2 percent of all visitors to the Ochoco National Forest participate in OHV-related activities, individual OHV riders vary widely in their expectations, preferences and desired recreational experiences. Thus, the Forest Service can not support its claim in the NOI that the Ochoco Summit OHV Trail Proposed Action would “provide a quality experience” for all riders and thereby “keep the use on the designated system.” These statements are completely unfounded. Any given OHV trail system can not be expected to satisfy the desires of all—or even most—Class I, II and III OHV enthusiasts. Nor should the Ochoco National Forest attempt to do so, as some of these activities are not sustainable (e.g., hill-climbing and rock crawling). Those within the OHV community who seek a high level of challenge (i.e., adrenaline junkies) will not remain satisfied with the proposed trail system for long. One need only consider advances in the sport of rock crawling over the past few years to realize that what might be considered as challenging terrain today could, in fact, be viewed by enthusiasts as mere “child’s play” five years from now.

Yes Effects analysis (recreation)

The purpose and need is further difficult to justify because the Ochoco National Forest contains approximately 2,000 miles11 of rugged, Maintenance Level 2 roads (ML2 roads, maintained for high clearance vehicles) that already provide a variety of terrain and challenge levels for OHV users. The EIS must document the extent to which the current ML2 road system provides a variety of OHV opportunities and include alternatives that seek to maximize use of ML2 roads in lieu of designating new, potentially redundant routes that require new surface disturbance or the use of closed or decommissioned roads.


…the supply of nearby OHV trail systems and the degree to which they provide OHV riding opportunities, in fact, far outstrip regional demand must be disclosed in the EIS. No Effects analysis (recreation)

Thus, the Ochoco Summit OHV Trail EIS must document how the Forest Service determined that OHV-related demand is currently not being met given the abundance of OHV riding opportunities in the region. The EIS must cite current data on OHV use and trends, including what portion of visitors participate in OHV-related recreation on the forest versus that portion that engages in relatively “quiet” recreation (i.e., hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, bird watching, etc.). Further, the EIS must document that any unmet demand for OHV opportunities can be met only through construction of a new trail system as proposed on the Ochoco National Forest in light of currently proposed expansions of North Millican or other OHV areas.

Yes Effects analysis – recreation

The currently proposed 165,000-acre project area, as defined in the Proposed Action Scoping Document and depicted in accompanying maps, is unnecessarily large and includes portions of the Ochoco National Forest far removed from the proposed OHV trail system. Lands east and south of Big Summit Prairie, for example, are located several miles distance from proposed OHV trails and open roads that would connect trail segments and therefore should not be included in the proposed project area. If no additional trails have been contemplated, then the Draft EIS should include such a statement and the size of the project area should be reduced in the analyses of the Draft EIS to better reflect the extent of the landscape potentially affected by the proposed OHV trail system. Alternately, the DEIS must disclose whether the Forest Service or other parties have proposed OHV trails that extend beyond, or create linkages with, the currently proposed OHV trail system. If such proposals could be considered viable, either now or in the future, the DEIS must include this information in its description of related and reasonably foreseeable actions and include the action in its analysis of cumulative impacts.

Yes Explain in Ch 1 why the project area is the size that it is

Each proposed route must be placed and designed in a manner to minimize resource damage; trail design should follow “BMPs” (see supporting documentation file); EIS must disclose effects of each trail.

No Effects analysis – fish, hydro, wildlife, soils

Last Name

First Name



Given these requirements, we ask that the Forest Service develop and include in the EIS an adaptive management plan that provides triggers for closures associated with monitoring results demonstrating that OHV use on designated routes has caused natural resource damage. In particular, we ask that the Forest Service provide a plan to: • Effectively monitor OHV use; • Practice adaptive management by periodically reviewing the monitoring results and altering the management of OHVs to ensure that serious user conflicts and natural resource impacts are not occurring; • Ensure that OHV use does not result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources or loss of viability to native and desired non-native species; and • Close a trail or area if OHV use “is directly causing or will directly cause considerable adverse effects on public safety or soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources associated with that road, trail, or area

No Ch. 2 design elements and monitoring

The EIS must also disclose the Forest Service’s intentions for securing implementation funding for the Ochoco Summit OHV Trail project. Yes

EIS must disclose indirect effects of OHV user noncompliance No Effects analysis – recreation

the EIS should identify natural quiet as a resource worth protecting. One or more alternatives, including the Proposed Action, should incorporate an objective of retaining natural quiet (to the extent within the Forest Service’s control) in important landscapes, watersheds, or “soundsheds.”

No Outside the scope; covered in the No Action; further alt development?

EIS must analyze economics of “quiet recreation.” Recommend Kreg Lindberg’s model. No Effects analysis – socio-econ EIS must analyze noise effects No Effects analysis - ??

General comments on effects the EIS must analyze – nothing there that isn’t standard in our documents No Ch 3

The EIS must not focus on motorized route designation alone and methods to “enhance” the OHV riding experience, but must focus also on achieving a trails and travel system that minimizes conflicts between quiet and motorized recreation.

No Alt. development

Ervin Mike and

Teresa 12/21/

09 8015 SE Paulina Hwy

Prineville

OR

97754

[email protected]

General support for project No None

Feel that 124 miles is a good start, but is not enough Yes Alt. development Feel that narrow trail (50” wide or less) is adequate; jeep trails don’t need to be developed No Alt. development

ISSUES

1. Trail system is too short • lacks complexity; • does not meet desires of all types of OHV users • is not safe due to concentrated use/multi-use/insufficient dispersal of users.

2. Trail system could impact wildlife and wildlife habitat (especially big game). • Fragmentation and removal of security cover • Direct harassment of animals from OHV use • Displacement of animals onto private land

3. Road density is already too high in the project area. • Roads analysis needs to be done prior to analysis

4. Project area is too extensive • Proposed trail mileage is too much • Project area encompasses many more acres than proposed trail system needs • Additive to other trail systems in Central Oregon, this system is unnecessary

ochoco summit ohv project – scoping...

Documents