Go Back   Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association > Wheeling > Land Matters Discussion Area
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Land Matters Discussion Area Discussion Relating to Your Land/Legislative Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-09-2010, 05:23 PM
Jon_in_da_couve Jon_in_da_couve is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 30
Default MT Hood National Forest OHV management Plan

Howdy - Doing a little research here, and would appreciate any insight anyone can provide. I searched, but didn't find much. Did anyone from PNW4WDA provide input or help design the OHV management plan currently under review?

Thanks,
__________________
Jon
Those Guys Off Road
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-15-2010, 07:53 AM
Art Waugh Art Waugh is offline
Cherokee Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lebanon,OR
Posts: 725
Default

Jon-

In years past, like 7-8 ago, they had a 3 day collaborative meeting, and nothing came out of it. They have not really been interested in providing anything for class II. A couple of new areas for class I and III. They got some planning $ from the ATV fund a couple of years back. I don't know how the new wilderness desiginations affect even those areas they were planning. Region 3 did do some work and meetings with them a couple of years ago, but I don't know if anything came of it. Since the forest was not receptive no matter what, they tend to put the effort into TSF. I looked at their stuff last Nov., and there was very little for us, and comment period was past.
__________________
1981 Cherokee W/T, 360, T-18, Warn 8274 in custom bumper/deer strainer (tested and approved)

1988 Cherokee 4 door, 3" Rancho lift, custom sliders/steps, custom roof rack, custom camo paint, custom camo headliner, custom bumpers and Warn 9500 HS, 31-10.50's

Only 31's, but can drag self with either rig

BLM John Day/Snake RAC-OHV Representative

Wolfpack 4x4's - Region 5 - "Cave Lupum"

VP- Outcast Land Use Review Team
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-15-2010, 04:49 PM
Jon_in_da_couve Jon_in_da_couve is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 30
Default

Thanks for the input Art - The reason I got started even wondering about this was that I noticed the following press release.

"Decision on Mt. Hood National Forest OHV Plan Postponed

Sandy, OR By March, 2010, Mt. Hood National Forest had planned to release a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and accompanying Record of Decision (ROD) to document and disclose the potential environmental effects of designating a system of roads, trails and areas for Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs).

Forest Supervisor Gary Larsen has determined that additional field surveys are required prior to completing the environmental analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and issuing the Record of Decision. Field work will occur this spring and summer, and a decision is expected to be made in August, 2010.

For the current status of this and other projects on the Mt. Hood National Forest, please visit our website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood . "


I then dug a bit deeper and noticed that while they are being pretty quiet about it, the "proposed" plan does include some class II trails. Not much though!

Reading through the proposed action (alternative 2) it looks like out of the nearly 60 miles of new trails 3.4 of them will be open to class 2. Out of the total 221 miles available for OHV use under the propsed plan, Class 2 accounts for 71 miles, which doesn't sound bad until you drill down into the actual miles of "trail". Out of that 71 miles, 42 are "Mixed use" roads, which to me seems to indicate gravel road.

I guess the good news is that there will be class II trails created in the MT Hood National Forest. Even though the third "guiding principle" of this plan states "The OHV system designated should reflect that the Mt. Hood National Forest is not a key OHV recreation destination in the Pacific Northwest." and even though they make it quite clear that they do not want to compete with TSF, they are infact converting 25 miles of roads to class 2 trails. Given the desire to not be a key OHV destination, I am wondering who they will be working with to design these trails.

Honestly, it looks like the class I and III folks are far ahead of us Class II folks, and thats fine... I'd just like to try and do something in the future to get more share for class II. I completely understand focusing on TSF, but if all we did was focus on TSF, thats all we would have. I love it there, have a blast every time I go, but I also enjoy variety. The work the Pistons are doing in the Yacolt Burn will help bring a new option to the area, having a third (or even 4th 5th and 6th) would be awesome! Imagine having 3 legal wheeling areas within 50 miles of PDX. As hard as it may be to believe that could happen, it does seem to be happening. Not sure how good it will be, but it will be a start and the OHV travel plan has to be reviewed yearly.... so it could get better with a bit of work.

Anyway (this went way longer than I had planned) has anyone worked with the USFS recently on this? I have reached out to the forest service asking what user groups they have worked with but haven't heard anything back.

Thanks again for the info... it is helpful!
__________________
Jon
Those Guys Off Road
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-15-2010, 05:06 PM
Art Waugh Art Waugh is offline
Cherokee Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lebanon,OR
Posts: 725
Default

The guy to talk to up there is Malcolm Hamilton in the main office. Surprised they are going to take another look(due to new wilderness perhaps?) The amount of routes available sounds close to what was in the draft. At least it is a change, they never wanted class II other than on roads. Unless someone in the Region has been talking to them recently, the last one I know of was Karen Fisher when she was either Region or State Director. Don't know if Randy has been in touch with them yet or not.

Some of the reason for no use is it has about 40% wilderness, and PDX watershed, and the hikers/mtn bikers have a lot better lobby than us.
__________________
1981 Cherokee W/T, 360, T-18, Warn 8274 in custom bumper/deer strainer (tested and approved)

1988 Cherokee 4 door, 3" Rancho lift, custom sliders/steps, custom roof rack, custom camo paint, custom camo headliner, custom bumpers and Warn 9500 HS, 31-10.50's

Only 31's, but can drag self with either rig

BLM John Day/Snake RAC-OHV Representative

Wolfpack 4x4's - Region 5 - "Cave Lupum"

VP- Outcast Land Use Review Team
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-15-2010, 07:24 PM
Jon_in_da_couve Jon_in_da_couve is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 30
Default

Thanks again Art, the additional info is helpful. I sent a follow up mail to Michelle Lombardo at the USFS to see if she could let me know who she has been working with. I also asked from some additional details on what caused the delay, what additional studies are needed, and how this impacts the recomendation for Alternative 2. Alternative two (in my opinion) wasn't the best, but it also wasn't the worst for OHV's (class II and other). I hope this delay doesn't mean something worse may be propsoed or implemented.

And your right, the hikers / mtn bikers do seem to have a better lobby in place.... at this point.
__________________
Jon
Those Guys Off Road
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-30-2010, 11:58 AM
Art Waugh Art Waugh is offline
Cherokee Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lebanon,OR
Posts: 725
Default

In our local fish wrapper over the w/e.


http://www.democrathearld.com/news/s...144a2202d.html

Have not seen the final, but it sounds like we didn't get anything out of this one. But when you figure that over 40% of the forest in in designated Wilderness now, along with Bull Run, not much left to work with and they are not interested in any motorized bigger than class 3 anyway, and even that is like pulling wisdom teeth.
__________________
1981 Cherokee W/T, 360, T-18, Warn 8274 in custom bumper/deer strainer (tested and approved)

1988 Cherokee 4 door, 3" Rancho lift, custom sliders/steps, custom roof rack, custom camo paint, custom camo headliner, custom bumpers and Warn 9500 HS, 31-10.50's

Only 31's, but can drag self with either rig

BLM John Day/Snake RAC-OHV Representative

Wolfpack 4x4's - Region 5 - "Cave Lupum"

VP- Outcast Land Use Review Team
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2010, 10:22 PM
Jon_in_da_couve Jon_in_da_couve is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 30
Default

Thanks Art -I had found the decision on the forest service web site. I dont know much about this stuff, but it doesn't look good to me, at least not for class II. Here is the link to the decision.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/proje...?project=15824

It's a whole mess of PDF Files that I haven't completely waded through, but basically instead of choosing one of the 4 options on the table, the forest service has decided to implement a modified version of one of the options, (option 3). It almost seems like instead of choosing one of the 4 options they created a new one, can they do that?
  • Option 3 would have allowed 326 total miles of OHV use.
  • The modified version they have chose now only allows for 146 total miles for OHV use.
  • Option 3 would have allowed allowed almost 73 miles of class II trails.
  • The modified version they have chose now only allows for 13.7 miles of class II trails.
  • Prior to this decision, OHV stickered rigs could travel on over 2400 miles of roads.
  • Now they can only travel on 38.5 miles of roads.

Has anyone else read this thing yet? Appreciate any input...
__________________
Jon
Those Guys Off Road
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-01-2010, 08:00 AM
Art Waugh Art Waugh is offline
Cherokee Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lebanon,OR
Posts: 725
Default

Yep, they can mix and match out of the alternatives based on comments or other reasons.

They have never listened to class II, and never will. The 4 areas they had were all pretty much outlined 7-8 years ago, and were going to be for class I & III at that time. To quote an old time member from 35 years ago----"A foregone conclusion to a preconceived notion". They have known for years that class II users were going to be limited to some roads and roads only.
__________________
1981 Cherokee W/T, 360, T-18, Warn 8274 in custom bumper/deer strainer (tested and approved)

1988 Cherokee 4 door, 3" Rancho lift, custom sliders/steps, custom roof rack, custom camo paint, custom camo headliner, custom bumpers and Warn 9500 HS, 31-10.50's

Only 31's, but can drag self with either rig

BLM John Day/Snake RAC-OHV Representative

Wolfpack 4x4's - Region 5 - "Cave Lupum"

VP- Outcast Land Use Review Team

Last edited by Art Waugh; 09-01-2010 at 10:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.