Forest puts new limits on off-roaders

Jonathan Frochtzwajg

The Mount Hood National Forest has released a plan that substantially reduces how much of the forest is open to off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in an effort to mitigate the vehicles’ impact on the environment and the forest’s so-called “quiet users.”

Previously, OHVs were allowed anywhere they weren’t prohibited by posting – including on more than 2,300 miles of road. The new plan inverts that rule, permitting the vehicles only in four areas – including 146 miles of road – designated for their use on a map.

The Mount Hood National Forest started drafting the plan in 2005 to comply with a then-new U.S. Forest Service rule that requires national forests to “strike an appropriate balance in managing all types of recreational activities” by designating a “system of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use.”

“The rule spoke in broader language,” says Malcolm Hamilton, Mount Hood National Forest’s recreation program manager, but its “impetus was to address this issue of OHV use.”

To develop its plan, the National Forest spent years doing an environmental impact statement that included an extensive public involvement process. Hamilton says the forest “got a representative cross-section of input” through that process.

“Did we hear from everybody?” he says. “Of course not … But we intentionally sought out those OHV user groups and organizations that we know have a stake in the management of the forest, and we sought out and brought in input from the well-known conservation and environmental groups who have great ownership in what goes on.”

Ultimately, Hamilton says, “we believe that the decision that we’ve made balances the capability of the land, the environmental effect, the needs for OHV enthusiasts, and the needs of other recreationists.”

‘They want the whole damn thing’

Randy Drake, the Oregon director for the Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association, disputes that.

He says a representative from his organization, which works to get more trails for OHV use in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, sent a number of letters to the Mount Hood National Forest, but never got a reply.
And in the bigger picture, he says, OHV users form part of a class whose wishes the Forest Service routinely ignores.

“Everybody gets what they want, except for the OHVs and the horseback riders and the hunters,” Drake says. “If we say we want this scenic viewpoint over here, they’ll turn it into a mountain bike, hiking or walking viewpoint and exclude us, even though we have been using it for 45 years.”

Drake understands why public sentiment is, to a large degree, against OHV users: Many users take their vehicles off-trail, causing environmental damage. He argues, though, that that problem could be solved by providing more trails for OHV use, rather than closing land to it.

“You can’t use an OHV on a trail if there’s no trail,” he says. “If (OHV users) had trails, we would impact the forest 100 percent less than we do now.”

The forest’s plan calls for the construction of 26 miles of trail and the conversion of about 54 miles of road into trail, Hamilton says, but Drake responds that that trail system has “no scenic value, it has no vistas, (and) it’s on flat, dusty ground that you would not want to get on.”

“In other words,” he says, “the Forest Service is going to build trails for us to go on that none of us want to go on.”

As for OHV use’s effect on the experience of the forest’s quiet users, Drake says the Forest Service already has designated enough wilderness areas for hikers and other silence-seekers.

“These people could go into any of these wildernesses and enjoy a weekend … and not hear or see a motorized vehicle,” he says. “Instead, they’ll come down and they’ll say, ‘We want this area here’ … They want the whole damn thing for themselves, which isn’t right.”

‘A disproportionate impact’

To Lori Ann Burd, a staff attorney for the Mount Hood-focused environmentalist organization Bark, it’s the opposite: OHV use, she says, is “a use that excludes any other users.”

It’s also, she notes, “a use that really has a disproportionate impact on all the users…considering that it’s such a small percentage of visitors to Mount Hood.”

Burd says OHV users make up about one half of 1 percent of Mt. Hood National Forest’s visitors; hikers, by comparison, make up about 53 percent.

OHVs negatively affect the environment even when they stay on trails, Burd says: They reduce water quality by causing erosion where trails cross streams, track in invasive species on their tires and disturb wildlife.

“OHV use on Mount Hood has really been pretty out of control,” she says, “and there is a number of areas that have been absolutely trashed by OHV use.”

Burd points to Wildcat Mountain, near Sandy, as an example.

“It’s … a completely lawless area. Families don’t feel safe visiting there, people don’t feel safe parking their cars there, people don’t feel safe on the trails there,” she says. “There’s so much litter, there’s so much legal shooting, there’s so much riding in wilderness area. And it also visually just looks trashed.”

Bark participated extensively in the public involvement process for the new plan, Burd says, and they’re pretty pleased with the final product.

“I know that some people are concerned about the loss of access, and I think it’s important to note that OHV access has reduced access for other people,” she says. “I think that this decision will help the vast majority of forest visitors … be able to visit the forest and know that they’ll have a high-quality experience.”

The Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association, in contrast, is not so pleased. Drake says his organization will appeal the plan before its current, 45-day appeal period runs out.

--

Source: http://www.sandypost.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=128390437942389000

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites