DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment United States Environmental Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service Cascade Crest Fuel Break 2010 Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest Clackamas and Marion Counties, Oregon The project is located in T.7S., R.8E.; T.8S., R.8E.; T.7S., R.8½ E.; T.9S., R.8E.; Willamette Meridian. For Information Contact: James Roden 595 NW Industrial Way, Estacada, OR 97023 503.630.6861 [email protected] Dead lodgepole pine trees along Forest Road 4220 The 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 file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office 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. Cascade Crest Fuel Break Environmental Assessment 1.0 Summary .................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Document Structure ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Alternative A - No Action............................................................................. 16 3.2 Alternative C ................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Other Alternatives Considered ...................................................................... 16 3.4 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 21 4.0 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 22 4.1 Fire Hazard and Risk .................................................................................... 23 4.2 Recreation and Scenery................................................................................. 37 4.3 Fisheries and Water Quality.......................................................................... 58 4.4 Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened) ............................................................. 76 4.5 Other Wildlife ............................................................................................... 89 4.6 Soil Productivity ......................................................................................... 108 4.7 Botany ......................................................................................................... 117 4.8 Management Of Competing And Unwanted Vegetation ............................ 120 4.9 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 124 4.10 Climate Change ........................................................................................... 126 4.11 Economics – Financial Analysis ................................................................. 128 4.12 Transportation ............................................................................................. 129 4.13 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................... 129 4.14 Environmental Justice – Civil Rights ......................................................... 130 4.15 Other ........................................................................................................... 131 5.0 Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................... 131 Appendix A – Maps Appendix B – Response to Comments 1 Cascade Crest Fuel Break Environmental Assessment 1.0 SUMMARY This document discusses the creation of a shaded fuel break in the area north of Olallie Lake on the Mt. Hood National Forest. A shaded fuel break is a strip of land where woody debris and other fuels have been reduced and trees spaced out so that fire suppression forces can work safely in the event of a wildfire. The project area has high fire hazard due to a continuing mountain pine beetle infestation that is killing lodgepole pine trees. 2 Cascade Crest Fuel Break Environmental Assessment 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Document Structure ______________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this document in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This document discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following parts: Summary Introduction: This section includes the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency‟s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This discussion also includes design criteria and Best Management Practices. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Alternatives: This section provides a description of alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. Finally, this section provides a comparison of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource. Within each section, the existing situation is described first, followed by the effects of the alternatives. The No-action Alternative provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives. Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. References and Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Estacada Ranger Station in Estacada, Oregon. 3 Cascade Crest Fuel Break Environmental Assessment 2.2 Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ 2.2.1 The purpose of this project is to aid in the suppression of wildfires. The goal is to keep small fires from becoming large. 2.2.1.1 Background Over the past decade, Central Oregon and the Inland West have experienced large wildfires that have put many assets at risk, including people‟s lives and homes, sensitive or protected fish and wildlife habitat, culturally and tribally significant resources, critical infrastructure, soil productivity, scenery, clean air and other valued components of forests and communities. In recent years, federal land management agencies have been focusing efforts to minimize the potential impacts of large scale wildfires. Currently, an ongoing infestation of mountain pine beetle killing lodgepole pine in the project area has created large quantities of standing dead and down wood, creating a significant build-up of hazardous fuels. There is the potential for lightning or human caused fires to grow large threatening resources. The project would create a shaded fuel break by cutting some trees and brush and cleaning up fuels on the ground along roads 4220 and 4230 to aid in the safe suppression of wildfires. This project has been developed in cooperation with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. Section 2.3 has greater detail on the proposed action. If no action is taken, a large scale wildfire could impact resources on the Forest and tribal historic properties, first foods, medicinal plants and other resources. Large wildfires on the Forest/Reservation boundary have happened in past and are likely to happen again. The tribes have concerns about the risk to resources on the reservation but they also have concerns about resources in the vicinity of the fuel break on the National Forest. The fuel break would occur on their usual and accustomed lands. It would provide protection for usual and accustomed lands, as well as the adjacent reservation and ceded lands. The tribes have treaty rights in this area for hunting and the gathering of medicinal plants and first foods such as roots and huckleberries. The fuel break would also protect spiritual values. If no action is taken, a severe wildfire in this area would result in the loss of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan
    Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan to reassess how well the goals and strategies of the Plan are Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, positioned to address new issues. Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, The NWFP was developed in 1993 through a political Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis1 process involving scientists in an unusual and controversial role: assessing conditions and developing plan options “We are drowning in information, while starving directly for President Bill Clinton to consider with little for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by involvement of senior Forest Service managers. The role of synthesizers, people able to put together the right Forest Service scientists in this planning effort is differ- information at the right time, think critically about ent—scientists are now limited to producing a state-of-the- it, and make important choices wisely.” science report in support of plan revision and management —E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of (USDA FS 2012a), and managers will conduct the assess- Knowledge (1988) ments and develop plan alternatives. Implementation of the NWFP was followed by moni- Introduction toring, research, and expectations for learning and adaptive Long-term monitoring programs and research related to management; however, little formal adaptive management Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) goals, strategies, actually occurred, and the program was defunded after a few and outcomes provide an unprecedented opportunity years.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest
    NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN THE FIRST 10 YEARS (1994–2003) Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Melinda Moeur, Thomas A. Spies, Miles Hemstrom, Jon R. Martin, James Alegria, Julie Browning, John Cissel, Warren B. Cohen, Thomas E. Demeo, Sean Healey, Ralph Warbington General Technical Report United States Forest Pacific Northwest D E PNW-GTR-646 E Department of R P A U T RTMENTOFAGRICUL Service Research Station November 2005 Agriculture The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood ,water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The 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 file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Summer 2015 President’S Message—Jim Rice
    OldSmokeys Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Summer 2015 President’s Message—Jim Rice I had a great career with the U.S. Forest Service, and volunteering for the OldSmokeys now is a opportunity for me to give back a little to the folks and the organization that made my career such a great experience. This past year as President-elect, I gained an understanding about how the organization gets things done and the great leadership we have in place. It has been awesome to work with Linda Goodman and Al Matecko and the dedicated board of directors and various committee members. I am also excited that Ron Boehm has joined us in his new President-elect role. I am looking forward to the year ahead. This is an incredible retiree organization. In 2015, through our Elmer Moyer Memorial Emergency Fund, we were able to send checks to two Forest Service employees and a volunteer of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest who had lost their homes and all their possessions in a wildfire. We also approved four grants for a little over $8,900. Over the last ten years our organization has donated more than $75,000. This money has come from reunion profits, book sales, investments, and generous donations from our membership. All of this has been given to “non-profits” for projects important to our membership. Last, and most importantly, now is the time to mark your calendars for the Summer Picnic in the Woods. It will be held on August 14 at the Wildwood Recreation Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Environmental Assessment United States Department of Hunter Integrated Resource Agriculture Forest Service Project 2017 Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest Clackamas and Marion Counties, Oregon The project is located in T.6 S., R.6 E.; T.6 S., R.7 E.; T.6 S., R.8 E.; T.7 S., R.7 E.; T.7 S., R.8 E.; T.8 S., R.7 E.; T.8 S., R.8 E.; T.9 S., R.7 E.; T.9 S., R.8 E.; Willamette Meridian. For Information Contact: James Roden 595 NW Industrial Way, Estacada, OR 97023 503.630.6861 [email protected] 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Document Structure .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Area Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................ 9 1.4 Other Management Direction .......................................................................................................... 23 1.5 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................... 26 1.6 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide
    JUNE 2006 re Tribal Wildfi re Resource Guide Developed in Partnership with: Intertribal Timber Council Resource Guide Resource Innovations, University of Oregon Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation Tribal Wildfi “According to the traditional beliefs of the Salish, the Creator put animal beings on the earth before humans. But the world was cold and dark because there was no fi re on earth. The animal beings knew one day human beings would arrive, and they wanted to make the world a better place for them, so they set off on a great quest to steal fi re from the sky world and bring it to the earth.” -Beaver Steals Fire, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tribal Wildfi re Resource Guide June 2006 Developed in Partnership with: Intertribal Timber Council Written by: Resource Innovations, University of Oregon Graphic Design by: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation Images from: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation and the Nez Perce Tribe For thousands of years, Native Americans used fi re as a tool to manage their lands and manipulate vegetation to a desired condition. Tribes once lived harmoniously with nature until the U.S. Federal Government claimed much of their lands and changed the forests from a condition that we would today call “fi re-adapted ecosystems” into the fi re-prone forests that we now see throughout much of western United States. Many forests that were once abundant producers of natural resources are now resource-management nightmares. The cost to manage them now is astronomical compared with the natural method employed by Native Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Forest Plan
    Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Outline All sections of this document, considered together, are the complete compilation of standards and guidelines. However, these standards and guidelines are broken down into the following sections for clarity and ease of reference. A. Introduction - This section includes introduction, purpose, definition of the planning area, relationship to existing agency plans, introduction to the various land allocation categories used elsewhere in these standards and guidelines, identification of appurtenant maps, and transition standards and guidelines. B. Basis for Standards and Guidelines - This section includes a background discussion of the objectives and considerations for managing for a network of terrestrial reserves. This section also contains the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which includes discussions of the objectives and management emphases for Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. C. Standards and Guidelines - This section includes specific standards and guidelines applicable to all land allocation categories. It also contains descriptions of, and standards and guidelines applicable to, all designated areas, matrix, and Key Watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions of Forestry Alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 100–115 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis$ Robert G. Ribeà Department of Landscape Architecture, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5234, USA Available online 10 August 2006 Abstract Conflicts over timber harvesting and clearcutting versus wildlife conservation have instigated alternative silvicultural systems in the US Pacific Northwest. Major forest treatments can be the most controversial element of such systems. A public survey explored the social acceptability of 19 forest treatments that varied by forest age, level of green-tree retention, pattern of retention, and level of down wood. The survey presented respondents with photos of the treatments, explanatory narratives, and resource outputs related to human and wildlife needs. Respondents rated treatments for scenic beauty, service to human needs, service to wildlife needs, and overall acceptability. Acceptability distribution patterns were analysed for all forest treatments. These showed broad, passionate opposition to clearcutting, conflict over the acceptability of not managing forests, conflict over old growth harvests, conflict with some passionate opposition to 15% retention harvests, and unconflicted acceptance of young forest thinnings and 40% retention harvests. Modelling of these responses found that socially acceptable forestry attends to scenic beauty
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Ecology and Management 286 (2012) 171–182
    (This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.) This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Forest Ecology and Management 286 (2012) 171–182 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Carbon balance on federal forest lands of Western Oregon and Washington: The impact of the Northwest Forest Plan ⇑ Olga N. Krankina , Mark E. Harmon, Frank Schnekenburger, Carlos A. Sierra 1 Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA article info abstract Article history: The management of federal forest lands in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region changed in early 1990s Received 12 May 2012 when the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was adopted with the primary goal to protect old-growth forest Received in revised form 8 August 2012 and associated species. A major decline in timber harvest followed, extending an earlier downward trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Management Plan Template
    Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Chapter 2. POLICY, LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING, AND PARTNERSHIPS The regulations and policy in the following documents guide the fire management as outlined in this FMP. 2.1. National and Regional Fire Management Policy Forest Service policy and direction that are relevant to this plan include: National Fire Plan The Implementation Plan for the 10 year Comprehensive Strategy and Collaborative Memorandum of Understanding Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (January 2001) A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, August 2001, May 2002, December 2006 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February, 2009) Interagency Standards for Fire & Aviation Operations 2011 (Redbook) Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (IHOG) 2009 Interagency SEAT Operations Guide 2009 Pacific Northwest Aviation Plan The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species in Oregon Forest Service Manual 5100 (Fire Management) Forest Service Manual 2320 (Wilderness Management) Forest Service Handbook 5109 (Fire Management) Aerial Application of Fire Retardant, ROD Dec 2011 Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), 1995 Northwest Forest Plan BLM Manual 9200-9218 described the authority for fire management activities on Bureau of Land Management Lands Page 12 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 National Park Service Reference Manual – 18 Senate Bill 360 (Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protective Act of 1997) 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's Forest Action Plan
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Oregon’s Forest Action Plan Summary – Oregon's Forest Action Plan was developed in June 2010 by a team of Oregon Department of Forestry subject matter, geographic information and communications specialists to fulfill requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill that all States complete a Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy to maintain eligibility for U.S. Department of Forest Service State and Private Forestry funding for programs authorized by the federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. Statewide Forest Assessment States were required to conduct an assessment of the current conditions of all forestland regardless of ownership type, and trends leading up to these conditions. In addition, states were required to identify threats to forests and opportunities for addressing threats. The final task of completing the assessment was to identify priority landscapes for implementing opportunities. What Oregon Did – Current conditions and trends leading up to these conditions were displayed in an external web-based Oregon's Forest Atlas. Threats and opportunities were organized around 6 priority issues – Communities at Risk of Wildfire, Maintain the Forestland Base, Diversity of Upland and Aquatic Habitats, Invasive Species, Water Quality and Climate Change. These are contained in Oregon’s DRAFT Statewide Forest Assessment Document. The issues were cross referenced to the USDA Forest Service’s National State and Private Forestry Themes and Subthemes and the Oregon Board of Forestry’s Goals for the Forestry Program for Oregon. Priority landscapes were developed for: 1) Urban/Rural Forest Priority Areas, 2) Communities at Risk of Wildfire, 3) Forests Vulnerable to Loosing Timber Markets, 4) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation and 5) General Forestland Considerations (a composite prioritization across Communities at Risk of Wildfire, Forests Vulnerable to Loosing Timber Markets and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan
    The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan GORDON H. REEVES,∗§ JACK E. WILLIAMS,† KELLY M. BURNETT,∗ AND KIRSTEN GALLO‡ ∗U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. †Trout Unlimited, 329 Crater Lake Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, U.S.A. ‡Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 4077 Research Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. Abstract: Implemented in 1994, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan was designed to restore and maintain ecological processes for aquatic and riparian area conservation on federal lands in the western portion of the Pacific Northwest. We used decision support models to quantitatively evaluate changes in the condition of selected watersheds. In the approximately 10 years since strategy implementation, watershed condition scores changed modestly, but conditions improved in 64% of 250 sampled watersheds, declined in 28%, and remained relatively the same in 7%. Watersheds that had the largest declines included some where wildfires burned 30–60% of their area. The overall statistical distribution of the condition scores did not change significantly, however. Much of the increase in watershed condition was related to improved riparian conditions. The number of large trees (>51 cm diameter at breast height) increased 2–4%, and there were substantial reductions in tree harvest and other disturbances along streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Index (PDF)
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Burns Paiute Tribal Reservation G-6 Siletz Reservation B-4 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Reservation B-3 Umatilla Indian Reservation G-2 Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation H-9,10 Warm Springs Indian Reservation D-3,4 Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge B-4 Basket Slough National Wildlife Refuge B-4 Badger Creek Wilderness D-3 Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge D-9 9 Middle Santiam Wilderness C-4 Mill Creek Wilderness E-4,5 Black Canyon Wilderness F-5 Monument Rock Wilderness G-5 Boulder Creek Wilderness C-7 Mount Hood National Forest C-4 to D-2 Bridge Creek Wilderness E-5 Mount Hood Wilderness D-3 Bull of the Woods Wilderness C,D-4 Mount Jefferson Wilderness D-4,5 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument C-9,10 Mount Thielsen Wilderness C,D-7 Clackamas Wilderness C-3 to D-4 Mount Washington Wilderness D-5 Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge F-2 Mountain Lakes Wilderness C-9 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Newberry National Volcanic Monument D-6 C-2 to E-2 North Fork John Day Wilderness G-3,4 Columbia White Tailed Deer National Wildlife North Fork Umatilla Wilderness G-2 Refuge B-1 Ochoco National Forest E-4 to F-6 Copper Salmon Wilderness A-8 Olallie Scenic Area D-4 Crater Lake National Park C-7,8 Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area C-4 Crooked River National Grassland D-4 to E-5 Opal Creek Wilderness C-4 Cummins Creek Wilderness A,B-5 Oregon Badlands Wilderness D-5 to E-6 Deschutes National Forest C-7 to D-4 Oregon Cascades Recreation Area C,D-7 Diamond Craters Natural Area F-7 to G-8 Oregon Caves National Monument
    [Show full text]