Statewide Trails Plan, Entitled Oregon Trails 2016: a Vision for the Future, Constitutes Oregon’S Ten-Year Plan for Recreational Trail Management

Oregon Trails 2016: Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision for the Future A Vision for the Future

Download the report online at: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301-1271 503-986-0980 For the hearing impaired: 1-800-735-2900

This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.

Printed on recycled paper. February, 2016

2016-2025 2016-2025 Oregon Statewide Recreation Trails Plan Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Forward

A message from the Director, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department I am pleased to present of trail users and non-motor- Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision ized boaters resulting in feed- For The Future. This plan is back and opinions from 7,450 the product of more than two randomly selected residents. years of consultation and col- Trails plan workshops were laboration of recreational trail held in 14 locations across providers, interest groups and the state, allowing additional citizens across the state. It is public input on trails issues the state’s “official plan for rec- and funding need. We would reational trail management” to thank all citizens who took for the next 10 years, serving time to participate in the sur- as a statewide and regional information and planning veys and public workshops. tool to assist Oregon recreation providers (local, state, The plan has identified three top management issues federal, and private) in providing trail opportunities for each trail category type in the state. For OHV and and promoting access to Oregon’s trails and waterways. snowmobile trails, closure of trails and unimproved It also identifies how the state’s limited resources will backcountry roads on federal lands came to the fore- be allocated for motorized, non-motorized, and water front as top challenges. For non-motorized trails, trail projects throughout Oregon. Further, it establishes more trails connecting towns/ public places and need a review process for potential State Scenic Waterway for improved trail maintenance were identified. For corridor additions. non-motorized boating, increased boater access and Recreational trails provide many benefits to the citi- lack of funding for non-motorized boating are top zens of Oregon. In addition to the entertainment value challenges. Recommendations are included for ad- of recreation, trails also provide health, transportation, dressing these issues in the coming years. community, and environmental benefits. They also The OPRD will support the implementation of key make a substantial contribution to the state’s economy. statewide and local planning recommendations The plans trail expenditure and economic contribution through internal and external partnerships and analysis, conducted by Oregon State University, found OPRD-administered grant programs. My hope is that statewide, non-motorized boating, non-motor- that all Oregonians involved in the administration of ized trail, OHV trail, and snowmobile participation by recreational trails and non-motorized boating oppor- Oregon residents and out-of-state visitors contributes tunities take time to read this important document 26,873 jobs, $1.36 billion in value added, and $826 and make use of its recommendations to support your million in labor income. While Oregon’s residents strategic planning. treasure and care for this trail system, they are dedicated to ensuring resources are utilized with fiscal, social, and environmental responsibility, building on the past Sincerely, to provide for future generations.

The OPRD has taken an innovative approach to statewide trails planning by conducting simultaneous OHV, snowmobile, non-motorized, and water trails planning efforts. Public outreach was a key emphasis in the plan- Lisa Sumption ning effort, which included statistically reliable surveys Director . Acknowledgements

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Terry Bergerson: Project Manager and Primary Author Rocky Houston Ty Conley Katie Duzik Ron Price Holly Morgan Sherri Laier Ian Caldwell Trevor Taylort Jan Hunt Mike Law Greg Ciannella Chris Havel Laurel Hillmann Curtis Smith Alex Phillips Laura Underhill Calum Stevenson Michele Sctalise

Oregon State University Kreg Lindberg – Primary Investigator Eric White Mark Needham

Snowmobile Advisory Committee Jeff Mast – US Forest Service John Vogel – OSSA Duane Miles – OSSA Vera Riser – OSSA Mike Choate – OSSA Ron Greb – OSSA Peggy Spieger – OSSA Dennis Jordan – OSSA Kelly Tanzey – Baker County John Spieger – OSSA T.J. Reilly – OSSA Note: Oregon State Snowmobile Association (OSSA)

Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Committee Wade Bryant – ATV-GS Tom Harris – Four Runners Tim Custer – ATV-GS Steven McIntyre – OR Motorcycle Riders Assn Steve Doane – ATV-GS Henry Buckalew – Hood River County Randy Drake– PNW 4-Wheel Drive Assn Ron Grace – Ochoco Trail Riders Barret Brown – OR Motorcycle Riders Assn Jeff Mast – US Forest Service Tyrell Hart – Motorcycle Riders Assn Chris Knauf – Bureau of Land Management Ed Ariniello – OR Motorcycle Riders Assn Jahmaal Rebb – OR Dept of Forestry Rob Thorton– Citizen Advocate Lakeview Larry Robison – Coos County Note: ATV Grant Subcommittee (ATV-GS)

Water Trails Advisory Committee Julie Chick – Tillamook Estuaries Partnership Clyde Zeller – OR Dept of Forestry Geoff Frank – RTP Advisory Committee Jeff Powers – Benton County Jeff Mast – US Forest Service Jan Wirtz – City of Lake Oswego Rachael Graham – OR State Marine Board Maggie Rivers – Port of Alsea

2 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Non-Motorized Trails Advisory Committee Nancy Enabnit – RTP Advisory Committee Jenna Marmon – Jackson County Jim Thayer – ORTAC Bruce Ronning – Bend Metro (Retired) Lauralee Svendsgaard – ORTAC Annie McVay – City of Redmond Steve Jorgensen – Bend Metro P&R Dist Zach Jarrett – Bureau of Land Management Robert Spurlock – Portland Metro Jeff Mast – US Forest Service Jennifer Boardman – City of Central Point Jerry Davis – Jerry Davis Consulting Note: OR Recreation Trails Advisory Council (ORTAC)

All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Criteria Advisory Committee Wade Bryant – ATV-GS (Class I Representative) Tim Custer – ATV-GS (Committee Chair) Steve Doane – ATV-GS (Class III Representative) Pat Harris – ATV-GS (Class II Representative) Forest Bohall – ATV-GS (Class IV Representative) Note: ATV Grant Subcommittee (ATV-GS)

Recreational Trails Program Grant Criteria Advisory Committee Rebecca Wolf – RTP Advisory Committee Scott Youngblood – RTP Advisory Committee Kent Howes – RTP Advisory Committee Nancy Enabnit – RTP Advisory Committee Harry Dalgaard – RTP Advisory Committee Jeff Mast – US Forest Service Lauralee Svendsgaard – OR Recreation Trails Advisory Council John Vogel – Oregon State Snowmobile Association

Acknowledgements 3

Executive Summary

The 2016-2025 statewide trails plan, entitled Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future, constitutes Oregon’s ten-year plan for recreational trail management. The plan guides the use of the state’s Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) grant funds, and provides information and recommendations to guide federal, state, and local units of government, as well as the private sector, in making policy and planning decisions. Besides satisfying grant program requirements, a primary intent of this plan is to provide up-to-date, high-quality information to assist recreation providers with trail planning in Oregon. Further, it establishes a review process for potential State Scenic Waterway corridor additions.

Public outreach was a key emphasis in the planning effort, which included statistically reliable surveys of trail users and non-motorized boaters, resulting in feedback and opinions from 7,450 randomly selected Oregon residents. The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) contracted with Oregon State University (OSU) to conduct four separate surveys of state residents regarding their participation in four categories of trail-related recreation: motorized (ATV/OHV), snowmobile, non-motorized trail, and non-motorized boating. Statistically reliable results for the OHV, non-motorized trail and non-motorized boater surveys are provided at the statewide scale and trails planning region scale (11 planning regions in state). Results for the snowmobile trail survey are provided at the statewide scale.

Regional trails planning workshops were held in 14 locations across the state, allowing additional public input on trails issues and funding need for each of the four trail category types. In addition, workshop attendees had an opportunity to nominate top water trail and State Scenic Waterway study corridor additions.

OPRD also made a strong effort to involve trail providers (local, county, state, federal, non-profit) from across the state in the planning process. Trails plan collaborative efforts included: • Four separate trails plan advisory committees (ATV, snowmobile, non-motorized, water) to assist with the concurrent planning process. • A series of online surveys (ATV, snowmobile, non-motorized, water trails) of Oregon’s public recreation providers to determine region-level need for trail funding and issues affecting recreational trail provision. • Two separate advisory committees to assist with using trails planning findings to develop a set of ATV grant program and RTP grant program evaluation criteria for evaluating trail grant proposals.

The planning effort included four distinct methods to identify trail funding need for each of the four categories of trail-related recreation at the state and region levels. Early in the planning process, OPRD conducted a needs assessment as part of the online surveys of public recreation providers in the state. A similar needs assessment was included in the statewide surveys of resident trail users. These survey results were presented at each of the regional trails workshops. A voting process was used to identify top funding need in each planning region. Summary results were presented to members of the four trail advisory committees. A final set of regional and statewide funding needs were finalized during the four trails planning advisory committee meetings.

The planning effort also included four distinct methods to identify trail issues for each of the four categories of trail-related recreation at the state and region levels. A trail issues assessment was part of the online surveys of public recreation providers in the state. A similar issues assessment was included in the statewide surveys

Executive Summary 5 of resident trail users. These survey results were presented at each of the regional trails workshops. A voting process was used to identify top trail issues in each planning region. Summary results were presented to members of the four trail advisory committees. A final set of regional and statewide issues were finalized during the four trails planning advisory committee meetings. A set of strategic actions for addressing each statewide issue were finalized during the four trails planning advisory committee meetings.

The following is a summary of key statewide survey findings and implications, trail funding need, and management issues for each of the four trail category types.

Motorized (ATV/OHV) maintenance costs. There are also many designated OHV routes and trails on public lands in Statewide Motorized Trail Survey Findings and Oregon which are outside the boundaries of these Implications: Designated Riding Areas. Many OHV enthusiasts seek out these less crowded riding experiences • Class IV (side-by-side) permit sales began in and enjoy exploring new riding areas. As such, 2012 in Oregon. Survey results show that Class OPRD will provide additional points in the ATV IV riding is now 7% of total OHV rider days grant program for projects intending to enhance in the state. Of the four OHV classes, Class IV existing or provide new riding opportunities operators report the lowest level of satisfaction outside the boundaries of the state’s official list of (46% being very or somewhat satisfied) with 53 Designated Riding areas. OHV trail opportunities in the state. Land managers should reach out to Class IV operators • The survey identified a strong need for funding in future planning efforts to better serve their to maintain existing trails in good/sustainable specific rider needs. condition. A recent GAO report found the USFS is only able to maintain about one-quarter • OHV riders reported that the greatest loss in rid- of National Forest System trails to the agency ing opportunities in Oregon in the past 10 years standard, and the agency faces a trail main- was for riding opportunities outside the state’s tenance backlog of $314 million in fiscal year Designated Riding Areas. The 2015 Oregon OHV 2012. A consistent trail maintenance backlog is Guide includes a listing of 53 Designated Riding also reported on Oregon national forests. The Areas in the state. These areas are high-intensity state of Oregon should investigate the potential riding areas with associated high operation and for initiating a trails foundation with a mission

6 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future of protecting and maintaining recreational trails in the state. • Closure of trails and unimproved backcountry roads were also identified as top OHV management issues. Land managers should reduce unwarranted OHV closures through comprehensive review/input/analysis by all stakeholders. • The survey report identifies expenditure and economic contributions associated with OHV riding on public lands in Oregon. Statewide, OHV use by Oregon residents supports 869 jobs, Snowmobile $23 million in labor income, and $58 million in value added. When out-of-state visitors are Statewide Snowmobiling Survey Findings and included, the estimated amounts increased to Implications: 1,120 jobs, $45 million in value added, and • The general trend is for lower snow amount $29 million in labor income. This information accumulations at Oregon snowmobile areas. Less should be used to educate Oregonians about the snow was the most common reason for survey economic benefits received from their invest- respondents reporting a decrease in snowmobil- ment in OHV riding areas, facilities, and services ing trips in the state. The USFS should consider in the state. the effects of changing climate (e.g., receding snowpack and earlier spring runoff) on future Statewide Motorized Trail Funding Need: recreation use patterns when conducting OSV 1. Maintaining existing trails in good/ sustainable travel management. condition. • Approximately 49% of snowmobile survey 2. More single-track off-road motorcycle trails respondents are 50 years of age and older, com- (Class III). pared to 27% of snowshoeing participants and 3. Prioritize loop over out-and-back trails. 29% of cross-country skiing participants. These results suggest that snowmobiling provides an Statewide Motorized Trail Management Issues: opportunity for older Oregonians to continue 1. Closure of trails. The implementation of federal to enjoy the outdoors and access to public lands travel management planning has resulted in a during winter months. The OSSA reports that loss of OHV trail riding opportunities in Oregon. many club members suffer from a variety of Closure of designated trails and routes without age-related disabilities (arthritis, heart, walking) providing other designated routes in the same and continue to snowmobile on a regular basis. area leads to overuse and impacts in new areas. • The survey identified a strong need for funding 2. Closure of unimproved backcountry roads. Again, for backcountry off-trail riding and expanded trail the implementation of federal travel management systems. The State of Oregon should work with planning has also resulted in the loss of OHV the USFS Region 6 Office to develop a long-term riding on backcountry roads in Oregon. strategy for using state snowmobile gas tax funds 3. Riding in closed areas. Land managers have for snowmobile expanding existing trail systems, reported a proliferation of user created trails creating more backcountry off-trail riding oppor- arising from repeated unauthorized travel by tunities, trail grooming, and trail rehabilitation OHVs. on USFS lands in Oregon. In addition, a Federal

Executive Summary 7 funding mechanism should be implemented to Statewide Snowmobile Management Issues: fund such projects on USFS lands in Oregon. • Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas. In the • A recent court ruling requires that all Oregon coming years, all Oregon USFS Forest Districts Forest Districts will need to go through a public will go through a public planning process to re- planning process in the next five years to review view and designate roads, trails, and cross country and designate roads, trails, and cross country areas which are open to snowmobile use as part of areas which are open to snowmobile use (similar the over-snow vehicle (OSV) travel management to OHV Travel Management). This survey rule. There is a need to minimize unwarranted identified closure of trails and riding areas as the snowmobile riding closures during upcoming top snowmobile management issue in Oregon. OSV travel management planning in Oregon. As a result, land managers should reduce unwar- • Riding in closed areas. In recent years, the USFS ranted snowmobile trail and riding area closures has been confronted with a proliferation of trails through comprehensive review/input/analysis by arising from repeated unauthorized cross-coun- all stakeholders. try snowmobile travel. Unauthorized access can • The survey also identified a need for trail maps, result from either areas not mapped, signed, or current snow depth, and safety/ avalanche marked clearly as open or closed; or snowmobil- information for snowmobile riding areas on ers ignoring designations. the internet. Recreation providers should also • Lack of snowmobile trail maintenance. A con- consider developing geospatial PDF maps sistent snowmobile trail maintenance backlog of snowmobile routes to allow on-the-snow exists on Oregon national forests. wayfinding. Such maps can be uploaded onto mobile devices (smartphone or tablet) and then, using an app, use built-in GPS to track the users Non-Motorized Trails location on the map. Statewide Non-Motorized Trail Survey Findings and • The survey identifies expenditure and economic Implications: contributions associated with snowmobiling on public lands in Oregon. Statewide, snowmobiling • Relative to all Oregonians, non-motorized trail by Oregon residents supports 129 jobs, $4.1 users tend to be younger and less ethnically million in labor income, and $6.5 million in value diverse. According to the 2013-2017 Oregon added. When out-of-state visitors are included, SCORP, the state’s elderly population (65 years the estimated amounts increased to 155 jobs, and older) and minority populations (Hispanic, $7.7 million in value added, and $5.0 million in Asian, and African-American) are growing at labor income. This information should be used to a much higher rate than the population as a educate Oregonians about the economic benefits whole. As a result, Oregon’s recreation providers received from their investment in snowmobiling should consider developing marketing strategies areas, facilities, and services in the state. to encourage regular use of existing trail systems by elderly and minority populations in their Statewide Snowmobile Trail Funding Need: jurisdictions. • Expand existing trail system. • Survey results showed that dirt was the most • More trail grooming/ rehabilitation. common preferred trail surface for all activities • More back-country trail riding opportunities. other than biking on hard surface trails. Soft trail surface preference was also identified in the 2011 Oregon Outdoor Recreation Survey. Soft surface

8 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future trails are typically constructed of natural earth, value added, and $753 million in labor income. crushed rocks, or recycled concrete materials. This information should be used to educate They can also be made of gravel, dirt, limestone, Oregonians about the economic benefits re- and mulch. Recreation planners should note this ceived from their investment in non-motorized preference in trail planning efforts. trails in the state.

• The survey also identified that the highest prior- Statewide Non-Motorized Trail Funding Need: ity for additional trails was for walking/ hiking • Connecting trails into larger trail systems. both inside and outside one’s community. Trails for hard surface biking were the next highest • More signs/ trail wayfinding. priority for inside, while trails for backpacking • Repair of major trail damage. were the next highest priority for outside one’s community. Overall, a higher priority was Statewide Non-Motorized Trail Management Issues: placed on trails inside the community over trails 1. Need for more trails connecting towns/ public outside. Close-to-home trail investments will places. This issue is addressed by trails projects maximize everyday use by local residents. that connect communities to each other; provide • Repair of major trail damage was identified connections between existing trails; close a gap as the highest trail funding priority by survey within an existing trail; provide links to trails respondents. Such projects involve extensive outside Urban Growth Boundaries; provide ac- trail repair (e.g., resurfacing of asphalt trails or cess to parks and open space; and provide access complete replacement, regrading, and resur- to significant facilities within communities such facing of all trails) needed to bring a facility up as schools, libraries, indoor recreation facilities, to standards suitable for public use. As a result, and businesses. OPRD will provide additional points for projects 2. Need for improved trail maintenance. For this intending to repair major trail damage in the issue, trail maintenance includes routine trail RTP evaluation criteria. maintenance and trail rehabilitation/ restoration. • The survey report identifies expenditure Routine maintenance includes work that is and economic contributions associated with conducted on a frequent basis in order to keep non-motorized trail use in Oregon. Statewide, a trail in its originally constructed serviceable non-motorized trail use by Oregon residents standards (e.g., mowing, tree and brush pruning, supports 21,730 jobs, $672 million in labor leaf and debris removal, cleaning and repair of income, and $1.0 billion in value added. When drainage structures such as culvers, water bars, out-of-state visitors are included, the estimated and drain dips), maintenance of water crossings, amounts increased to 24,340 jobs, $1.2 billion in and repairs to signs and other amenities. Routine

Executive Summary 9 maintenance work is usually limited to minor non-motorized boater access areas may be paved repair or improvements that do not significantly launch ramps, parking areas with dirt trails, or change the trail location, width, surface, or roadside-to-the-waterway trails. trail structure. Trail rehabilitation/ restoration • The survey also identified a strong funding need involves extensive trail repair (e.g., resurfacing of for online boating information. Providing online asphalt trails or complete replacement, regrading, non-motorized boating maps and information and resurfacing of all trails) needed to bring a will also address the need for increased access facility up to standards suitable for public use for non-motorized boating by informing boaters (not routine maintenance). In some cases, trail about existing paddling opportunities in the state. rehabilitation/ restoration may include necessary Survey results also identify if water trail smart relocation of minor portions of the trail. apps were provided, they should include where/ 3. Need for more trail signs (directional and distance how to access the waterbody, safety information/ markers, and level of difficulty). Trail users require waterbody obstructions, a map of water trail sites, a number of different types of signs to safely and trailhead information, list of amenities that are enjoyably pursue their trail experience. Location available at the launch site, driving directions, signs that lead people to trailheads and parking and regulatory information. Recreation providers areas, directional signs along the trail, destination should also consider developing geospatial PDF signs to let people know they have reached end maps of water trail routes to allow on-the-water points, interpretive signs that describe the natural wayfinding. Such maps can be uploaded onto or cultural history of the area, and regulatory mobile devices (smartphone or tablet) and then, signs that explain the do’s and don’ts of the area using an app, use built-in GPS to track the users are important trail components. Trail managers location on the map. should provide information about their trails • Twenty-two percent of survey respondents indi- that allows users to choose the trails within their cated that they camp less often than they would skill and capability level. It is important for all like to on Oregon water bodies. Lack of primitive users, but especially elderly or disabled users, to campgrounds, lack of first-come first-serve boat understand a specific trail’s maximum grade and camping, and lack of developed campgrounds cross-slope, trail width, surface, obstacles and were top concerns limiting boat camping. Vehicle length before using the trail. safety and not enough information about camping opportunities were also identified as top concerns Water Trails limiting camping. Land managers should continue to develop non-motorized boater camping Statewide Non-Motorized Boater Survey Findings facilities to meet public boating needs. and Implications: • Vehicle safety at non-motorized boating parking • Survey results show that increased public access lots was identified by non-motorized boaters for non-motorized boating is the top facility/ as the top boater issue. As a result, recreation service funding priority. These findings can providers should consider improving parking reinforce local efforts to plan and develop security at waterway put-in and take-out loca- non-motorized access sites in their jurisdictions. tions. Strategies to consider include upgrading Access refers to a specific location where the parking lots and access facilities so that other public has the legal right and physical means to land-based and water-based recreationists are get to the water to launch a non-motorized boat. using the parking lot and facilities reducing Non-motorized boating access may be unim- opportunities for vandals to break into parked proved or enhanced to varying degrees. Formal cars. More frequent ranger patrols also reduce

10 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future break-ins. Placing signs at parking areas to increase in participation in non-motorized identify who to call in the event of a break-in can boating activities in both Oregon and the U.S. also be considered. in recent decades. Access refers to a specific • The survey report identifies expenditure and location where the public has the legal right and economic contributions associated with non-mo- physical means to get to the water to launch a torized boating in Oregon. Statewide, non-mo- non-motorized boat. Non-motorized boating torized boating by Oregon residents generated access may be unimproved or enhanced to $114 million in expenditure across the state. In varying degrees. turn, this expenditure contributed 1,084 jobs, $54 2. Lack of funding for non-motorized boater million in value added, and $34 million in labor facilities. Currently, non-motorized boat users income. When out-of-state visitors are included, do not register their boats, and as a result, there the estimated amounts increased to 1,258 jobs, is no dedicated funding source specifically $63 million in value added, and $39 million in for non-motorized facility development. The labor income. This information should be used to lack of a specific funding source limits the educate Oregonians about the economic benefits establishment of new opportunities solely for received from their investment in non-motorized people who enjoy non-motorized boating in boating facilities in the state. Oregon. Therefore, there is a need to address this programmatically by creating a dedicated Statewide Water Trail Funding Need: funding source for non-motorized boat access 1. Public non-motorized boater access to the water and launch facilities. (developed or undeveloped). 3. Lack of non-motorized boating maps and 2. Non-motorized boat launch facilities. information. Projects addressing this issue could 3. Restrooms. include water trail guides, information brochures, signage projects, websites, smartphone In addition to water trail funding need, top nom- apps, and promotional materials. inations for water trail development and potential State Scenic Waterway additions were also identified The plan also includes a set of ATV grant program to encourage water trail development and Scenic evaluation criteria for evaluating OHV grant pro- Waterway studies. posals and RTP grant program evaluation criteria for evaluating OHV, snowmobile, non-motorized and Statewide Water Trail Management Issues: water trail grant proposals. A substantial number of 1. Need for increased access for non-motorized the total evaluation points available for both sets of boating. The need for increased access for criteria are tied directly to findings from the trails non-motorized boating is driven by a continuing planning effort.

Executive Summary 11 Table of Contents

Forward A message from the Director, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department...... 1

Acknowledgements ...... 2

Executive Summary Motorized (ATV/OHV)...... 6 Snowmobile...... 7 Non-Motorized Trails...... 8 Water Trails...... 10

► Chapter 1 Introduction Plan Introduction...... 25 The Planning Process...... 27 Components Of The Planning Effort...... 28

► Chapter 2 Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary Introduction...... 33 Survey Methods ...... 33 Demographics and OHV Ownership...... 34 Trip Characteristics And Participation...... 37 Riding Types, Experiences, Preferences, And Priorities...... 43 Expenditure And Economic Contribution...... 55 Conclusions and Implications ...... 56

► Chapter 3 Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary Introduction...... 59 Survey Methods ...... 59 Demographics and Snowmobile Ownership...... 60 Trip Characteristics And Participation...... 64 Experiences, Preferences, And Priorities...... 71 Expenditure And Economic Contribution...... 75 Conclusions and Implications ...... 76

12 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 4 Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary Introduction...... 79 Survey Methods ...... 79 Demographic Profiles – SCORP Survey...... 80 Activity Days, Participation, and Trip Characteristics...... 83 Favorite Activity, Trail Preferences, And Priorities...... 92 Expenditure and Economic Contribution...... 105 Conclusions and Implications ...... 107

► Chapter 5 Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary Introduction...... 109 Survey Methods ...... 109 Demographic Profiles – SCORP Survey...... 110 Ownership, Trip Characteristics, and Participation...... 113 Scenic Waterways...... 135 Water Trails...... 138 Experiences, Preferences, and Priorities...... 141 Expenditure and Economic Contribution...... 146 Conclusions and Implications ...... 147

► Chapter 6 Needs Assessment Introduction...... 149 Needs Assessment Methods...... 149 Identified Need...... 153

► Chapter 7 Identification of Management Issues Introduction...... 163 Issue Identification Methods ...... 163 Identified Management Issues...... 165

Table of Contents 13 ► Chapter 8 Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions Introduction...... 173 Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Issues And Actions...... 173 Snowmobile Issues And Actions...... 178 Non-Motorized Trail Issues And Actions...... 181 Water Trail Issues And Actions...... 185

► Chapter 9 State Scenic Waterway Planning Introduction...... 191

► Chapter 10 All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria Allocation Process ...... 201 Project Priority Scoring System...... 202 For Evaluating Operation And Maintenance Project Proposals...... 202 For Evaluating Law Enforcement Project Proposals...... 207 For Evaluating Acquisition, Development And Planning Project Proposals...... 210 For Evaluating Emergency Medical Project Proposals...... 216

► Chapter 11 Recreational Trails Program Grant Evaluation Criteria Technical Review – Application Completeness...... 221 Project Priority Scoring System...... 221

14 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future List of Tables Table 1. Oregon Trails Plan Public Workshop Locations ...... 30 Table 2. Gender Of OHV Riders In Household, Percent ...... 34 Table 3. Age Of OHV Riders In Household, Years Old ...... 35 Table 4. Days Riding Per Year By Site, Average Number Of Days By “Most Often” Class ...... 41 Table 5. Respondent Days Per Year, By Region ...... 42 Table 6. Riding Days Per Year By Oregon Res ident OHV Riders, By Class ...... 43 Table 7. Riding Days Per Year By Oregon Resident OHV Riders, By Region ...... 43 Table 8. Travel Distances By “Most Often Visited” Site ...... 46 Table 9. Importance For Funding, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important, By Region ...... 50 Table 10. Problems On OHV Trails, Percent Rating Moderate Or Serious Problem, By Region ...... 53 Table 11. Annual Multiplier Effects Of OHV Rider Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars ...... 55 Table 12. Annual Multiplier Effects Of OHV Rider Trip Expenditure, Out-Of-State Riders Included; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars ...... 56 Table 13. Gender Of Snowmobilers In Household, Percent ...... 60 Table 14. Age Of Snowmobilers In Household, Years Old ...... 61 Table 15. Days Per Year Snowmobiling By Oregon Resident Snowmobiler ...... 68 Table 16. Days Snowmobiled Per Year By Site, Average Across All Respondents ...... 69 Table 17. Snowmobile Travel Distances And Crowding By “Most Often” Site ...... 71 Table 18. Multiplier Effects Of Snowmobiler Trip Expenditure, In-State and Out-Of-State Snowmobilers, Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars ...... 76

List of Tables 15 Table 19. Estimates Of Non-Motorized Trail Activity Days By County Where Occurred ...... 84 Table 20. Priority For Additional Non-Motorized Trails, Inside One’s Community, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region ...... 98 Table 21. Priority For Additional Non-Motorized Trails, Outside One’s Community, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region ...... 98 Table 22. Priorities For Additional Non-Motorized Trails And Maintenance, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region ...... 100 Table 23. Non-Motorized Trail Information Sources, Percent Reporting Somewhat Often Or Often By Region ...... 102 Table 24. Non-Motorized Trail Issue Importance, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important By Region ...... 104 Table 25. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars ...... 106 Table 26. Multiplier Effects of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, Out-of-State Trail Users Included; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars ...... 106 Table 27. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, By Activity, Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars ...... 106 Table 28. Non-Motorized Boat Ownership By Type ...... 113 Table 29. SCORP Estimates Of 2011 Non-Motorized Boating User Occasions And Participation ...... 119 Table 30. Non-Motorized Boating User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 1 ...... 121 Table 31. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 2 ...... 122 Table 32. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 3 ...... 124 Table 33. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 4 ...... 125 Table 34. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 5 ...... 126 Table 35. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 6 ...... 128 Table 36. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 7 ...... 129

16 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 37. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 8 ...... 130 Table 38. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 9 ...... 131 Table 39. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 10 ...... 132 Table 40. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 11 ...... 133 Table 41. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Regions And Water Body Categories, Weighted ...... 133 Table 42. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Regions, Weighted ...... 134 Table 43. Top 5 Rivers And Lakes By Site Days, Weighted ...... 135 Table 44. Recommended Scenic Waterway Additions by Priority and Total Points, Unweighted, Top 20 ...... 137 Table 45. Recommended Water Trail Additions by Priority and Total Points, Unweighted, Top 20 ...... 140 Table 46. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Boater Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars ...... 146 Table 47. Multiplier Effects of Non-Motorized Boater Trip Expenditure, Out-of-State Boaters Included; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars ...... 147 Table 48. List Of Top Nominated Water Trail Additions ...... 153 Table 49. Potential Scenic Waterway Study Reaches (2016-2025) ...... 197

List of Tables 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Oregon Trails Planning Regions ...... 29 Figure 2. OHV Rider Age Distribution ...... 34 Figure 3. Age Distribution, Additional OHV Riders ...... 35 Figure 4. Age Distribution, Across All OHV Riders In Households ...... 35 Figure 5. Annual OHV Rider Household Pre-Tax Income ...... 36 Figure 6. Number Of OHVs Owned In Household ...... 36 Figure 7. Number Of Permitted OHVs In Oregon ...... 37 Figure 8. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Distance Traveled ...... 37 Figure 9. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Persons In Travel Party ...... 38 Figure 10. Change In Number Of Day Trips In The Past Five Years, By Class ...... 38 Figure 11. Change In Number Of Multi-Day Trips In The Past Five Years, By Class ...... 39 Figure 12. Activities In Addition To OHV Riding ...... 39 Figure 13. Lodging Used During Multi-Day Trips ...... 40 Figure 14. Map Of OHV Designated Riding Areas And Regions ...... 44 Figure 15. Class Of Vehicle Used Most Often By Type Of Riding Area ...... 45 Figure 16. Change In Opportunities, Designated Areas, By Class ...... 45 Figure 17. Change In Opportunities, Other Areas, By Class ...... 45 Figure 18. Considerations In Deciding Where To Ride, By Class ...... 48 Figure 20. Priorities For New Versus Existing Areas, By Class ...... 51

18 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 21. Class Of Vehicle To Be Prioritized In Developing New Areas, By Class ...... 51 Figure 22. Problems On OHV Trails, By Class ...... 52 Figure 23. Overall Satisfaction With OHV Trail Opportunities In Oregon, By Class ...... 54 Figure 24. Views On a Potential $5 Permit Fee Increase, By Class ...... 54 Figure 25. Snowmobiler Age Distribution ...... 60 Figure 26. Age Distribution, DMV Snowmobiler Registrants, By Region ...... 61 Figure 27. Age Distribution, Additional Snowmobilers ...... 61 Figure 28. Annual Snowmobiler and OHV Rider Household Pre-Tax Income ...... 62 Figure 29. Number Of Snowmobiles Owned In Household ...... 62 Figure 30. Snowmobile Registrations Over Time, By Region (regions on left axis, statewide on right axis) ...... 63 Figure 31. Snowmobile Registrations By Region, Registrations Per 1,000 Residents (2013) ...... 63 Figure 32. Snow Water Equivalent (Inches) At Cascade Summit, Average Of December 15 and February 15 ...... 64 Figure 33. Average Age Of Snowmobiles Registered With DMV, By Region ...... 64 Figure 34. Typical Day And Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Distance Traveled ...... 65 Figure 35. Typical Day And Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Persons In Travel Party ...... 65 Figure 36. Typical Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Trip Length in Days ...... 65 Figure 37. Change In Number Of Snowmobile Day Trips In The Past Five Years By Trip Type ...... 66 Figure 38. Reasons For Increase In Snowmobile Trips, Number Of Mentions ...... 66 Figure 39. Reasons For Decrease In Snowmobile Trips, Number Of Mentions ...... 66

List of Figures 19 Figure 40. Activities In Addition To Snowmobiling, Number of Mentions ...... 67 Figure 41. Lodging Used During Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Number of Mentions ...... 67 Figure 42. Preferred Online Snowmobile Information, Number of Mentions ...... 67 Figure 43. Map Of Snowmobile Parking Areas And Regions ...... 70 Figure 44. Snowmobiler Considerations When Deciding Where To Ride ...... 73 Figure 45. Importance Of Alternate Snowmobile Trail Lengths ...... 73 Figure 46. Snowmobiler Priorities For Future Funding ...... 74 Figure 47. Problems On Snowmobile Trails ...... 75 Figure 48. Non-Motorized Trail User Age Distribution, SCORP ...... 81 Figure 49. Non-Motorized Trail User Gender Distribution, SCORP ...... 81 Figure 50. Percent Non-Motorized Trail Users With Bachelor’s Degree Or Higher, SCORP ...... 82 Figure 51. Race/ Ethnicity Distribution, All Non-Motorized Trail Activities, SCORP ...... 82 Figure 52. Annual Non-Motorized Trail User Household Income Distribution, SCORP ...... 83 Figure 53. Non-Motorized Trail Participation Frequency By Activity ...... 87 Figure 54. Non-Motorized Trail Participation Rate By Activity ...... 88 Figure 55. Hours Per Day Engaged By Non-Motorized Trail Activity ...... 89 Figure 56. Self-Evaluated Activity Level By Non-Motorized Trail Activity ...... 89 Figure 57. Use Of Recreation Trails To Walk Or Bike To Work ...... 90 Figure 58. Percent of Non-Motorized Trail Days Spent On Day Versus Multi-Day Trips By Region ...... 90 Figure 59. Distance Traveled For Typical Non-Motorized Trail Trip ...... 91

20 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 60. Number of Persons In Non-Motorized Trail User Travel Party ...... 91 Figure 61. Typical Non-Motorized Trail User Multi-Day Trips, Trip Length In Days ...... 91 Figure 62. Favorite Non-Motorized Trail Activity ...... 92 Figure 63. Satisfaction With Opportunities To Engage In Favorite Non-Motorized Trail Activity, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Satisfied ...... 93 Figure 64. Changes In Opportunities To Engage In Favorite Non-Motorized Trail Activity In Past 10 Years ...... 93 Figure 65. Preferred Trail Surface For Favorite Non-Motorized Activity ...... 94 Figure 66. Preferred Trail Length For Favorite Non-Motorized Activity, Miles ...... 94 Figure 67. Preferred Non-Motorized Trail Difficulty Inside One’s Community ...... 95 Figure 68. Preferred Non-Motorized Trail Difficulty Outside One’s Community ...... 95 Figure 69. Preferred Response To Crowded Non-Motorized Trails ...... 96 Figure 70. Support For Trail Widening And One-Way Designation To Reduce Non-Motorized Trail User Crowding And Conflict ...... 96 Figure 71. Priority For Additional Non-Motorized Trails, Inside And Outside Community, Sorted By Inside ...... 97 Figure 72. Non-Motorized Trail And Maintenance Priorities ...... 99 Figure 73. Non-Motorized Trail Information Sources By Age ...... 101 Figure 74. Non-Motorized Trail Issue Importance ...... 103 Figure 75. Non-Motorized Boater Age Distribution, SCORP ...... 110 Figure 76. Non-Motorized Boater Gender Distribution, SCORP ...... 111 Figure 77. Non-Motorized Boater Education Distribution, SCORP ...... 111 Figure 78. Non-Motorized Boater Race/ Ethnicity Distribution, SCORP ...... 112

List of Figures 21 Figure 79. Non-Motorized Boater Income Distribution, SCORP ...... 112 Figure 80. Number Of Non-Motorized Boats In Household ...... 113 Figure 81. Number Of Types Of Boats By Number Of Boats ...... 114 Figure 82. Type of Non-Motorized Boat Used Most Often ...... 114 Figure 83. Type Of Non-Motorized Boat Used Most Often, By Region Of Residence ...... 115 Figure 84. Percent Of Days By Type Of Water Body ...... 115 Figure 85. Percent Of Days By Type Of Water Body, By Region Of Residence ...... 116 Figure 86. Percent Of Boating Days Spent On Day Versus Multi-Day Trips By Region ...... 116 Figure 87. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Distance Traveled To Launch Point ...... 117 Figure 88. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Persons In Travel Party ...... 117 Figure 89. Typical Day and Multi-Day Trips, Boats Used By Travel Party ...... 118 Figure 90. Typical Day and Multi-Day Trips, Trip Length In Days ...... 118 Figure 91. Support For Scenic Waterway Program ...... 135 Figure 92. Support For Scenic Waterway Program By Region ...... 136 Figure 93. Scenic Waterway Qualities, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important ...... 136 Figure 94. Scenic Waterway Single Most Important Quality ...... 136 Figure 95. Information Needs For Water Trail App, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important ...... 138 Figure 96. Information Needs For Water Trail App By Boat Type Used Most Often, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important ...... 139 Figure 97. Waiting Time ...... 141 Figure 98. Waiting Time By Region ...... 141

22 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 99. Concerns Limiting Boat Camping ...... 142 Figure 100. Activities In Addition To Non-Motorized Boating ...... 142 Figure 101. Non-Motorized Boating Facility/ Service Importance ...... 143 Figure 102. Non-Motorized Boating Management Action Support ...... 144 Figure 103. Non-Motorized Boating Issue Importance ...... 144 Figure 104. Support For Annual Non-Motorized Boater Fee ...... 145 Figure 105. Map Of Top Nominated Water Trail Additions ...... 152 Figure 106. Oregon’s Existing State Scenic Waterways System ...... 192 Figure 107. Oregon’s State Scenic Waterway Designation Options ...... 193 Figure 108. Location Of The Molalla, Chetco, And Grande Ronde River Study Areas ...... 194 Figure 109. Location Of The Potential Scenic Waterway Study Reaches (2016-2025) ...... 198 Figure 110. Scenic Waterway Planning Schedule (2017-2025) ...... 199

List of Figures 23

► Chapter 1 Introduction

Plan Introduction framework for statewide comprehensive trail planning and the implementation process. In conjunc- The purpose of this planning effort was to provide tion with that purpose, it is intended to be consistent guidance for the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), with the objectives of the Federal Recreational Trails All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Grant Program, and Program (23 U.S.C. 206). The RTP requires that state information and recommendations to guide federal, use of apportioned funds be obligated for recreation- state, and local units of government, as well as the al trails and related projects that have been planned private sector, in making recreational trail policy and developed under the laws, policies, and adminis- and planning decisions. It also provides guidance trative procedures of the State; and are identified in, for other Oregon Parks and Recreation Department or further a specific goal of, a recreational trails plan, (OPRD)-administered grant programs including the or a statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation Local Grant, Land and Water Conservation Fund plan required by the Land and Water Conservation (LWCF), and County Opportunity Grant Programs. Fund Act of 1965, that is in effect. Besides satisfying grant program requirements, the The planning effort involved separate (but concur- primary intent of this plan is provide up-to-date, rent) off-highway vehicle (ATV) trail, snowmobile high-quality information to assist recreation provid- trail, non-motorized trail, water trail, and State ers with trail system planning in Oregon. In addi- Scenic Waterways planning components. There are tion, it provides recommendations to the Oregon considerable benefits associated with a concurrent State Park System operations, administration, trails planning process including: planning, development, and recreation programs. • Providing user groups with comparative infor- This document constitutes Oregon’s basic ten-year mation to emphasize areas of common ground policy plan for recreation trails. It establishes the and understanding,

25 • Packaging four plans into one volume, providing improving motorized recreation trails and areas. a one-stop planning document for recreational Funding for this program comes from a portion of planners who often work on a variety of trails the motor vehicle fuel tax and from ATV permits. planning projects, The ATV program was transferred to the OPRD • Reducing administrative and travel costs associ- from the Oregon Department of Transportation ated with conducting regional issues workshops. (ODOT) on January 1, 2000, by Senate Bill 1216. The All-Terrain Vehicle Account is established as a Legal Authority separate account in the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Fund. Monies in the ATV Account The OPRD was given responsibility for recreational established under ORS 390.555 are used for a variety trails planning in 1971 under the “State Trails Act” of ATV management purposes. ORS 390.565 also (ORS 390.950 to 390.990). In general the policy of established the ATV Grant Subcommittee (ATV- the statute is as follows: “In order to provide for GS), appointed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of Commission, to advise OPRD on the allocation of an expanding resident and tourist population, and monies in the ATV Account. in order to promote public access to, travel within and enjoyment and appreciation of, the open-air, A portion of the fuel tax monies in the ATV Account outdoor areas of Oregon, trails should be established are transferred to the ODOT for the development both near the urban areas in this state and within, and maintenance of snowmobile facilities. ODOT adjacent to or connecting highly scenic areas more administers the Snowmobile Program using these remotely located.” fuel tax receipts and registration fees associated with snowmobile use. ODOT administers the In addition, ORS 390.010 states that: “It shall be the Snowmobile Program through a contract with the policy of the State of Oregon to supply those outdoor Oregon State Snowmobile Association (OSSA) recreation areas, facilities and opportunities which which coordinates with land managers to identify are clearly the responsibility of the state in meeting snowmobile ride areas and with volunteer organiza- growing needs; and to encourage all agencies of gov- tions and contractors for grooming of snowmobile ernment, voluntary and commercial organizations, trails. Since snowmobile projects are eligible for RTP citizen recreation groups and others to work coop- grant funding, this plan will also address this type of eratively and in a coordinated manner to assist in trail use. meeting total recreation needs through exercise and appropriate responsibilities.” The policy also states The Oregon Scenic Waterway Program, established that it is in the public interest to increase outdoor by a vote of the people in 1969, is administered recreation opportunities commensurate with the under the authority of the State Parks Commission growth in need through necessary and appropriate through the State Parks and Recreation Department actions, including, but not limited to, the provision (ORS 390.805 to ORS 390.925). The scenic waterway of trails for horseback riding, hiking, bicycling and program seeks to preserve, protect and enhance motorized trail vehicle riding; the provision for scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife and cultural access to public lands and waters having recreational values possessed by each individual scenic waterway. values; and encouragement of the development of The OPRD is directed to periodically study rivers winter sports facilities. or segments of rivers and their related adjacent land for potential inclusion in the State Scenic Waterway Oregon’s All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) program began Program. in 1985 with the creation of a funding method for

26 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future The Oregon Governor’s Office directed OPRD to study three waterways every biennium (a two year budget period) to determine their eligibility for designation as a state scenic waterway. Three waterways were studied in 2013-2015; changes to the evaluation process may pause new waterway studies in 2015-2017. Regardless, evaluations include a public process in the affected counties, and the water trails plan includes an effort to identify and establish a review process for potential Scenic Waterway corridor additions.

The Planning Process

The last Statewide Trails Plan for Oregon was completed by the OPRD in February 2005 and maintains the state’s eligibility to participate in the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). That plan, Oregon Trails 2005-2014: A Statewide Action Plan, is coming to the end of its ten-year planning horizon.

OPRD began the current trails planning process in September 2013. An initial planning task was to identify the most important issues in Oregon related to recreational trails. Critical statewide management issues identified and addressed in the plan for each trail category are included below.

Trail Category Statewide Management Issue Off-highway Vehicle Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Riding in closed areas Snowmobile Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Riding in closed areas Lack of snowmobile trail maintenance Non-motorized More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance More trail signs (directional and distance markers and level of difficulty) Water Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities Lack of non-motorized boating maps and information

Since the primary intent of the plan is to provide information to assist recreation providers with trail system planning in Oregon, the plan has been titled, Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision for the Future. The plan is written primarily for recreation planners and land managers. In its component parts, it provides background on user need and on current trends affecting motorized (OHV and snowmobile), non-motorized, and water trail opportunities. It was designed as an information resource as well as a planning tool to guide agencies for the following 10 years.

Chapter 1 - Introduction 27 Components Of The Planning Effort

The following section includes a brief description of A Regional Planning Approach the major components of the planning effort. Trails Plan Advisory Committees The trails planning effort provides specific trail findings and recommendations for eleven planning Early in the planning effort, OPRD established four regions. These boundaries provide the most practical separate advisory committees (OHV, Snowmobile, basis for providing recreation information need Non-motorized, Water) to assist with the concurrent by federal, state, and local units of government to planning process. Advisory committee members identify key recreational issues, facility and resource were selected to ensure adequate agency/ organi- deficiencies, and supply and demand information for zational and geographic coverage and trail-user their planning efforts. Each region (see Figure 1) is group representation. During the planning effort, of sufficient geographic area and population to have committee members were asked to assist OPRD with a unique set of issues and associated management the following planning tasks: concerns. • Reviewing the basic planning framework; Web-based Surveys of Oregon Trail • Determining the basic plan outline; Providers

• Reviewing survey methods, instruments, and OPRD conducted a series of online surveys of reports; Oregon’s public recreation providers to determine • Identifying significant statewide trail issues and region-level need for trail funding and issues af- solutions; fecting recreational trail provision. Separate online • Identifying trail funding priorities; surveys were conducted for non-motorized boating, non-motorized trail, snowmobile trail, and OHV • Assisting with the development of criteria for trail providers. Non-motorized boating facility pro- evaluating grant proposals; and viders were also given an opportunity to nominate • Reviewing the planning documents. top Water Trail and State Scenic Waterway additions. In early planning efforts, committee members These survey reports are included as support docu- were asked to review materials provided in email ments to this plan and are included in a disk at the correspondence. A series of conference calls allowed back of the plan. committee members to provide input during survey methodology and questionnaire development. One full committee meeting was held for each of the four Advisory Committees (Water: March 27, 2015, Non- motorized: May 11, 2015, Snowmobile: June 29, 2015, and OHV: July 29, 2015). Meeting objectives included: • Finalizing statewide trail user survey reports; • Finalizing statewide and regional funding needs; • Finalizing the list of top statewide management issues; • Improving the list of strategies for addressing top statewide management issues.

28 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 1. Oregon Trails Planning Regions

Oregon Trail User Surveys

In preparation for the 2016-2025 Oregon Trails Plan, OPRD contracted with Oregon State University (OSU) to conduct four separate surveys of Oregon residents regarding their participation in four categories of trail-related recreation: Non-motorized trail, non-motorized boating, motorized (ATV/ OHV), and snowmobile recreation. Each survey was designed to elicit information on current use patterns (amount, location, and type of use), user experiences and preferences, and the economic contribution of the recreation activity. Statistically reliable results for the non-motorized trail, non-motorized boating, and motorized (ATV/ OHV) trail surveys are provided at the statewide scale and trails planning region scale. Results for the snowmobile trail survey are provided at the statewide scale. Survey results provide recreation planners across the state with up-to-date information for use in local and regional planning. A summary of survey results for each of the four reports is included in this plan. The following complete survey reports are included as support documents to this plan and are included in a disk at the back of this plan: • Oregon All-Terrain Vehicle Participation and Priorities; • Oregon Snowmobiler Participation and Priorities; • Oregon Non-motorized Trail Participation and Priorities; and • Oregon Non-motorized Boater Participation and Priorities.

Chapter 1 - Introduction 29 Economic Impacts Of Trail Use Regional Trails Issues/ Funding Need Workshops Oregonians and out-of-state visitors spend large amounts of money on outdoor recreation related A series of regional trails planning workshops were trips in Oregon. The OSU trail-user surveys iden- held at 14 locations (Table 1) across the state during tified expenditure and economic contributions a period from October 1 through October 30, associated with a non-motorized trail, non-motor- 2014. Please note that some regions had more than ized boating, OHV riding, and snowmobiling by one workshop. Daytime sessions (11:00 am – 4:30 residents and out-of-state visitors on public lands pm) were open to public recreation providers and in Oregon. This information can be used to educate evening sessions (6:00 pm – 8:00 pm) to the general Oregonians about the economic benefits received public. Trail issue and funding need information from their investment in trail areas, facilities, and was gathered at these workshops for each planning services in the state and to make a case for future component type (OHV, snowmobile, non-motor- system additions/ enhancements. ized, water trail). In addition, attendees had an opportunity to nominate top Water Trail and State Scenic Waterway study additions. At the conclusion of each workshop, participants were given 3 colored dots to assist in prioritizing the importance of issues and funding need for each trail category.

Table 1. Oregon Trails Plan Public Workshop Locations

Planning Region Workshop City Date 7 Pendleton 10/1/2014 7 The Dalles 10/2/2014 10 Mt. Vernon (John Day) 10/6/2014 11 Burns 10/7/2014 11 Ontario 10/8/2014 10 Baker City 10/9/2014 5 Coos Bay 10/20/2014 6 Rogue River 10/21/2014 9 Klamath Falls 10/22/2014 8 Bend 10/23/2014 1 Lincoln City 10/27/2014 3 Salem 10/28/2014 2 Portland 10/29/2014 4 Eugene 10/30/2014

30 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Trail Funding Need ATV Grant Program Project Selection Criteria The planning effort included four distinct methods to identify trail funding need for each of the four To allocate ATV grant funds in an objective manner, categories of trail-related recreation at the state and a set of evaluation criteria were developed for eval- region levels. Early in the planning process, OPRD uating OHV trail grant proposals. Separate criteria conducted a needs assessment as part of the online were developed for evaluating the following types of surveys of public recreation providers in the state. A project proposals: 1.) Acquisition, Development, and similar needs assessment was included in the state- Planning Proposals, 2.) Operation and Maintenance, wide surveys of resident trail users. These survey 3.) Emergency Medical, and 4.) Law Enforcement. results were presented at each of the regional trails A substantial number of the total evaluation points workshops. A voting process was used to identify available are tied directly to findings from the OHV top funding need in each planning region. Summary trails planning effort. results were presented to members of the four trail RTP Grant Program Project Selection advisory committees. A final set of regional and statewide funding needs were finalized during the Criteria four trails planning advisory committee meetings. To allocate RTP grant funds in an objective manner, Complete listings of region and statewide funding a set of evaluation criteria were developed for need for each trail category are included in the plan. evaluating OHV, snowmobile, non-motorized, and Trail Issues and Actions water trail grant proposals. A substantial number of the total evaluation points available are tied directly The planning effort included four distinct methods to findings from the trails planning effort. to identify trail issues for each of the four categories Potential State Scenic Waterway of trail-related recreation at the state and region Additions levels. Early in the planning process, OPRD conducted a trail issues assessment as part of the online The water trails plan included an effort to identify surveys of public recreation providers in the state. A and establish a review process for potential State similar issues assessment was included in the state- Scenic Waterway Program corridor study addi- wide surveys of resident trail users. These survey tions. The 2016-2025 Oregon trails planning effort results were presented at each of the regional trails included three distinct methods to identify a list of workshops. A voting process was used to identify top potential state scenic waterway study areas for the trail issues in each planning region. Summary results plan’s ten-year planning horizon. The following is a were presented to members of the four trail advisory description of these methods. committees. A final set of regional and statewide issues were finalized during the four trails planning The first method involved an online survey of advisory committee meetings. A set of strategic Oregon non-motorized boating facility managers. actions for addressing each statewide issue were Respondents were asked to nominate river segments finalized during the four trails planning advisory they would like to see added to the Oregon State committee meetings. Scenic Waterway Program. Recommended additions were identified by respondents using drop-down Complete listings of region and statewide issues for menus to select the highest, second highest, and each trail category and strategic actions are included third highest priority additions for each region. The in the plan. overall point score for each nominated waterway was calculated based on three points for each time the

Chapter 1 - Introduction 31 waterway was identified as a first priority addition, Trails Planning Website two points for a second priority, and one point for a third priority. In the same manner as the survey Early in the planning process, OPRD staff devel- of Oregon recreation providers, resident trail user oped a trails planning website for people across survey respondents were asked to nominate river the state to access current information about segments they would like to see added to the Oregon the 2016-2025 Oregon trails planning process. State Scenic Waterway Program. Next, regional trails One of the primary objectives of the website was workshop attendees were given an opportunity to to disseminate research and report results. The prioritize regional scenic waterway nominations. website address is. http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/ Finally, OPRD staff reviewed and finalized the list of Trail_Programs_Services/Pages/Trail-Plans. potential study areas. aspx#Updating_the_Oregon_Statewide_Trails_Plan. Potential Water Trail Additions

In a similar manner as described for potential Scenic Waterway Additions, the planning process determined a list of priority waterways for water trail development in the coming ten years. Additional points will be given to water trail projects on the potential water trails list and potential State Scenic Waterway additions list in the RTP evaluation criteria.

32 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 2 Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary

Introduction Survey Methods

Background The probability sample was designed to be as representative as possible of Oregon resident OHV riders. In preparation for the 2016-2025 Oregon Trails It was drawn at random from the list of all persons Plan, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department with off-highway vehicles (OHVs/ ATVs) registered (OPRD) contracted with Oregon State University with OPRD1. The sample design was developed to (OSU) to conduct a survey of Oregon resident derive information at the region level. Results of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail users regarding survey are provided at the statewide scale and region their current use patterns (amount, location, and scale (Figure 1 on page 29). type of use), user experiences and preferences, and the economic contribution of recreation activity. This chapter includes a summary of selected state- The survey focused on recreational OHV riding on wide and region scale survey results. The full survey public lands in Oregon. The OHV survey covered report, Oregon Off-highway Vehicle Participation the four classes of OHV/ ATV vehicles: and Priorities, is available online at: oregon.gov/ oprd/Trail_Programs_Services/Documents/ • Class I, quads and three-wheel ATVs. ATV_Participation_Priorities.pdf. • Class II, dune buggies, and rails, 4x4 vehicles, and side-by-sides greater than 65 inches in width. Survey respondents could complete the question- • Class III, off-road motorcycles. naire in either online or paper format. Surveys were sent out to 10,297 residents. Of those delivered • Class IV, side-by-sides 65 inches or less in width. (10,084), 2,569 were obtained, for an overall 1 http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/atv/pages/permits.aspx

33 response rate of 25%. This included 21% for those engaging in OHV use in the past year (2,139 respondents) and 4% for those who did not engage. This response rate is typical by current survey standards, especially considering the long median online completion time of 23 minutes. With respect to format, 65% of the surveys were completed online and 35% in paper format.

Sample data were weighted by age and region. OPRD does not record age in the OHV permit registration process, so the reference point was the age distribution of OHV riders (all classes combined) from the 2011 survey conducted for the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The age-weighted region distribution in the current trail sample was further weighted to correspond to the region distribution of OHV households in the OPRD registration list. The list of survey recipients involved oversampling of rural regions and OHV classes other than Class I, in order to obtain sufficient data to present results by region and class.

Demographics and OHV Ownership

This section presents demographic results from Table 2. Gender Of OHV Riders the OHV survey probability sample. In Household, Percent

Gender Male Female Respondent 89 11 Within the sample, 89% of respondents were 2nd OHV rider 37 63 male and 11% female (Table 2). Respondents also 3rd OHV rider 58 42 reported the gender and age of additional OHV 4th OHV rider 50 50 riders in the household. When these additional 5th OHV rider 58 42 OHV riders are accounted for, 62% were male 6th OHV rider 49 51 and 38% were female. Total 62 38 Age

Figure 2 shows the age distribution for respondents and all Oregonians. OHV riders tend to be younger than the Oregon population as a whole. Figure 2. OHV Rider Age Distribution Figure 1.2. Age distribution 50

40 30 30 21 21 22 20 17 17 18 Percent 15 15 13 8 10 4 0 18 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 69 70+ Age range Probability Oregonians

34 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future As with gender, respondents reported the ages of Table 3. Age Of OHV Riders In additional OHV riders in the household. As shown Household, Years Old in Table 3, the age of additional OHV riders is lower than that of the respondent. The average age across Mean age all OHV riders was 33. Respondent 41 2nd OHV rider 37 Evaluation of the full distributions suggests that 3rd OHV rider 22 the “2nd OHV rider” typically was an additional 4th OHV rider 22 adult, whereas the 3rd of higher OHV riders 5th OHV rider 26 often were children (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the 6th OHV rider 21 combined age distribution across all OHV riders in Total 33 households. Figure 1.3a. Age distribution, additional OHV riders, probability Figure 3. Age Distribution, Additional OHVsample Riders

55 60 51 47 50 41 40 40 30 29 27 30 2122 23 23 17 20 Percent 20 15 15 15 8 8 8 9 10 8 4 6 5 6 7 6 10 3 2 111 2 2 4 1 3 3 3 0 Respondent 2nd OHV rider 3rd OHV rider 4th OHV rider 5th OHV rider 6th OHV rider

Under 18 18 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 69 70+

Figure 4.Figure Age Distribution, 1.3b. Age Acrossdistribution, All OHV across Riders allIn HouseholdsOHV riders in households, probability sample 50

40 28 30 20 20 17 15 Percent 13 10 5 3 0 Under 18 18 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 69 70+ Age range

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 35 Income

Figure 5 shows the distribution of annual household pre-tax income. OHV riders ‒ at least those with their own OHVs ‒ tend to have a higher income level than Oregonians as a whole. Figure 5. Annual OHV Rider Household Pre-Tax Income Figure 1.4. Annual household pre‐tax income 50

30 25 19 19 21 20 15 Percent 14 13 11 11 12 12 8 10 5 7 7 2 0 Less than $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 or $15,000 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 more Income range Probability All Oregonians

Household Vehicle Ownership

Figure 6 shows number of vehicles owned by OHV households, across class. For example, 35% of OHV households do not own a Class I vehicle (though they received the survey because they registered at least one OHV across the four classes). A quarter (24%) own one Class I vehicle, 19% own two, and so on. As expected, Class IV vehicles were the least likely to be owned and were owned in the smallest numbers; very few households own more than two Class IV vehicles.

With the negligible number of “more than 8 vehicles in a given class” responses set to eight, the average number of vehicles owned by OHV households is 1.44 Class I vehicles, 0.89 Class II vehicles, 1.01 Class III vehicles, and 0.22 Class IV vehicles. Figure 1.5. Number of OHVs owned in household, Figure 6. Number Of OHVs Owned In Household probability sample

100 2 3 8 5 4 7 8 16 10 13 7 80 13 6 19 60 32 20 5 24 4

Percent 82 40 3 53 46 2 20 35 1 0 0 Class I Class II Class III Class IV

36 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Permit Sales

All OHVs operated on public lands in Oregon must be registered with OPRD, and Figure 7 shows registration counts by class over time. Permit sales from 1999 are missing from agency records; because permits are valid for two years, numbers from both 1999 and 2000 are missing. Registration peaked in 2007 at 191,782 vehicles across all classes, with the exception of Class IV with permit sales beginning in 2012. Figure 7. NumberFigure Of Permitted 1.6. Number OHVs ofIn Oregonpermitted OHVs in Oregon

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total ‐ All Classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Trip Characteristics And Participation

This section presents trip characteristics and during the trip. The day versus multi-day distinction participation estimates. is used in presenting results in this section as well as Day Trip and Multi-Day Trip in estimating economic contributions. Characteristics The following results are for the “typical” day and multi-day trips, defined as the single location where Almost all respondents (96%) took at least one day respondents most often engaged in each type of trip and 86% took at least one multi-day trip in the trip in the past 12 months. Figure 8 indicates that previous 12 months. Multi-day trips are defined as three-quarters of day trips (75%) were within 60 those involving an overnight stay away from home, miles of home while two-thirds (67%) of multi-day even if the respondent only rode an OHV one day trips were more than 60 miles from home. Figure 2.1. Typical day and multi‐day trips, Figure 8. Typicaldistance Day And traveled, Multi-Day probability Trips, Distance sample Traveled 100 75 80 67 60

40 33 Percent 25 20

0 Within 60 miles of home Further than 60 miles from home Day Multi‐day

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 37 The remaining results in this section and estimating expenditure and economic significance are based on travel parties. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) approach to outliers is followed here2.

Figure 9 shows number of persons in travel party for day and multi-day trips. The average number of persons is 3.5 for day trips and 3.9 for multi-day trips. Figure 9.Figure Typical 2.2. Day TypicalAnd Multi-Day day and Trips, multi Persons‐day trips, In Travel persons Party in travel party, probability sample 50

40 28 29 30 23 21 20 20 16 Percent 14 13 11 10 10 5 3 3 5 0 1234567 Number of persons in travel party Day Multi‐day

Figure 10 shows number of days for multi-day trips. Three days is the most common trip length, which may reflect a high portion of “long weekend” trips. The average number of days was 5.2 days, keeping in mind that this mean is “pulled up” by longer trips (10 or more days). The median is 3 days.

Respondents indicated whether the numbers of each type of trip (day trip and multi-day trip) had increased in the past five years, with results in Figure 10 (day trips) and Figure 11 (multi-day trips). Results are similar across trip type, with the percentage of respondents for whom number of trips has increased being larger than the percentage for whom number of trips has decreased. Figure 2.4a. Change in number of day trips in the past five years, Figure 10. Change In Number Ofby Day class, Trips probability In The Past sample Five Years, By Class

100 14 15 25 22 21 80

47 41 60 Decreased 45 43 45 Stayed the same

Percent 40 Increased 20 39 44 30 35 33 0 I II III IV All combined Class

2 White, E.M., D.B. Goodding, and D.J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: round 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

38 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 11. FigureChange 2.4b. In Number Change Of Multi-Dayin number Trips of multiIn The‐ dayPast trips Five Years,in the By past Class five years, by class, probability sample

100 16 15 24 26 23 80 35 60 47 43 43 40 Decreased 40

Percent Stayed the same

20 50 Increased 33 38 31 37 0 I II III IV All combined Class

Among the reasons for change, more free time was mentioned by 27% of the respondents who indicated a change in either type of trip, less free time was mentioned by 17%, more income was mentioned by 16%, the high cost of fuel was mentioned by 16%, and less income was mentioned by 12%. The open-ended reasons for increased trips were diverse, with increased interest amongst family (often children) and friends being a common response. Reduced access was the main open-ended reason for decreased trips.

OHV riders engaged in a variety of activities while on day or multi-day trips (Figure 12), with exploring the town/ area and watching wildlife being mentioned most. Responses in the Other category were diverse and included hiking, golfing, boating, geocaching, mushroom hunting, prospecting/ mining, and casino visits. Figure 12. Activities In Addition To OHV Riding Figure 2.5. Activities in addition to OHV riding, probability sample

0 10 20 30 40 Percent 50 Explore town 46 Watch wildlife 45 Fish / crab 44 Other outdooor 42 Hunt 40 Dine out 38 Photography 32 Historic places 29 Brewpubs 24 Shop 19 Wineries 5 Ranger programs 5 Other 13

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 39 Figure 13 indicates that RV or tent camping in dispersed areas was the most commonly used form of lodging while on multi-day trips. Responses to Other category were varied, with common responses being cabins and vacation rentals.

Figure 13. Lodging UsedFigure During 2.6. Lodging Multi-Day used during Trips multi‐day trips, probability sample

Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50

RV or tent, dispersed 41 RV / camper, CG 38 Tent, CG 31 RV / camper area, group 17 Friends / family 14 Tent, group 13 Hotel / motel 13 Other 9

Participation By Riding Area And Region

Table 4 shows the average number of days by riding area, across all respondents in the probability sample. The Other category for each region (e.g., R10 Other) reflects days ridden on other areas on public lands, such as dirt roads.

The table is sorted by number of days for all classes combined, with the “Top 5” sites for each class highlighted in gold. Winchester Bay is the site ridden most for all classes combined (4.43 days), and it is in the Top 5 for Class I, Class II, and Class IV riders. It is not in the Top 5 for Class III riders. Tillamook State Forest is the site ridden most by Class III riders, but it is not in the Top 5 for the other three classes.

The “All classes combined” column includes respondents who did not answer the “most often” question and respondents who reported different “most often” classes for designated versus other areas. Thus, it is possible for the value in that column to appear inconsistent with the values in the “by class” columns, as is the case for Winchester Bay.

40 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 4. Days Riding Per Year By Site, Average Number Of Days By “Most Often” Class

Site Site All classes I II III IV number name combined All listed sites combined 26.26 41.91 26.95 29.46 33.87 7 Winchester Bay 2.08 3.19 1.10 3.33 4.43 6 South Jetty 2.63 2.71 1.07 2.60 3.06 8 Horsfall 1.63 5.18 1.30 2.48 2.75 2 Tillamook State Forest 0.88 2.10 2.56 0.35 1.93 R10 Other 1.74 2.90 0.95 2.72 1.36 R6 Other 2.36 0.60 0.77 0.50 1.07 4 Sand Lake 1.10 1.15 0.38 0.65 1.03 R1 Other 0.68 1.70 1.16 0.24 1.00 43 Blue Mountain 0.61 1.15 0.27 0.95 0.94 R9 Other 1.00 1.46 0.49 1.66 0.84 R8 Other 0.42 2.35 1.18 0.95 0.80 35 East Fort Rock 0.42 1.02 1.32 0.22 0.76 R3 Other 0.86 0.79 0.62 0.35 0.69 1 Nicolai Mountain 0.21 0.46 0.47 0.06 0.67 R11 Other 0.76 0.74 0.49 2.05 0.64 46 Mt. Emily 0.84 0.59 0.13 0.66 0.62 R2 Other 0.18 1.56 0.61 0.28 0.62 44 Virtue Flat 0.22 1.94 0.17 0.22 0.60 R7 Other 0.56 0.69 0.24 0.63 0.59 25 Shotgun Creek 0.29 0.14 1.21 1.20 0.58 R4 Other 0.50 0.36 0.45 1.01 0.54 R5 Other 0.45 1.59 0.59 0.62 0.53 33 Millican Valley 0.60 0.54 0.77 0.14 0.51 37 Christmas Valley 0.35 0.82 0.42 0.64 0.51 26 Northwest Area 0.18 0.86 0.68 0.07 0.43 3 Upper Nestucca 0.52 0.41 0.38 0.02 0.41 45 Winom-Frazier 0.36 0.08 0.81 0.49 0.41 42 John Day Area 0.42 0.29 0.04 0.98 0.38 40 Morrow/Grant Cty Trails 0.40 0.43 0.42 0.35 0.37 29 Santiam Pass 0.20 0.46 0.39 0.16 0.36 30 Cline Buttes 0.37 0.81 0.33 0.13 0.35 9 Winchester Trails 0.15 0.22 0.27 0.09 0.33 20 North Umpqua 0.10 0.20 0.02 0.08 0.32 24 Huckleberry Flats 0.17 0.24 0.43 0.08 0.26 16 Timber Mountain 0.00 0.02 0.90 0.16 0.25 23 Cottage Grove 0.14 0.15 0.49 0.18 0.23 19 Prospect 0.22 0.03 0.18 0.46 0.22 10 Blue Ridge 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.06 0.21

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 41 Table 4. (Continued)

Site Site All classes I II III IV number name combined 15 Lily Prairie 0.00 0.11 0.75 0.03 0.21 47 Breshears 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.21 21 Diamond Lake 0.18 0.13 0.05 0.59 0.18 11 Chetco 0.08 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.16 48 Upper Walla Walla 0.15 0.03 0.22 0.00 0.15 27 McCubbins Gulch 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.04 0.14 39 Radar Hill 0.16 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.14 22 Three Trails 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.13 34 Edison Butte 0.09 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.12 31 Henderson Flat 0.10 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.11 5 Mt. Baber 0.07 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.10 18 Klamath Sportsman Park 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.10 13 Galice 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.08 32 Green Mountain 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.01 0.08 38 Crane Mountain 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.07 14 McGrew 4x4 Trail 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.06 36 Rosland 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.06 12 Pine Grove / Ill. River 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.05 28 McCoy MRA 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.05 17 Elliott Ridge 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.04 41 West End (Sunflower) 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.03

Table 5. Respondent Days Per Year, By Region Table 5 shows the estimated annual number of days riding per respondent by region, reflecting the sum Days per Percent of Region of Table 4 results across sites within the region. respondent total Region 1 5.14 15.2 Region 2 1.05 3.1 Region 3 1.10 3.2 Region 4 1.61 4.8 Region 5 11.47 33.9 Region 6 2.48 7.3 Region 7 1.66 4.9 Region 8 2.82 8.3 Region 9 1.65 4.9 Region 10 4.11 12.1 Region 11 0.78 2.3 Statewide 33.87

42 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future OHV Riding Days By Region

The annual number of riding days statewide was estimated based on the OPRD database of permits by vehicle class (see Figure 7) and the annual number of days ridden for recreational purposes on public land, by class, from the 2014 Oregon fuel consumption report3 referenced in footnote 3 (see page 8 of that report for recreational days per vehicle and page 10 for proportion on public land). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Riding Days Per Year By Oregon Res ident OHV Riders, By Class

Permits Days ridden on Class Days (vehicles) public land per vehicle I 84,871 19.8 1,684,520 II 24,909 21.7 541,173 III 32,799 20.5 671,323 IV 8,846 24.6 217,337 Total 151,425 3,114,353

The statewide total number of days (3.1 million) was then allocated to regions based on the percentages shown in Table 5, with the allocation shown in Table 7. Table 7. Riding Days Per Year By Oregon Resident OHV Riders, By Region

Region Days Region 1 472,624 Region 2 96,548 Region 3 101,145 Region 4 148,040 Region 5 1,054,669 Region 6 228,036 Region 7 152,637 Region 8 259,300 Region 9 151,718 Region 10 377,915 Region 11 71,721 Statewide 3,114,353

Riding Types, Experiences, Preferences, And Priorities

Recreational OHV riding in Oregon was grouped into two main types: • The 48 designated riding areas as shown on the map on the following page (Figure 14). • Other areas or routes, such as dirt roads open for riding on Forest Service, BLM, state forest, or county lands.

3 OSU Survey Research Center. 2015. Procedures and Results of Data Collected for the 2014 Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle Survey on Fuel Consumption. Report to the Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 43 Figure 14. Map Of OHV Designated Riding Areas And Regions

Area # Area Name Region # Nicolai Mountain !1! 1 Nicolai Mountain 1 2 Tillamook State Forest 1 3 Upper Nestucca 1 Upper Walla Walla

! 4 Sand Lake 1 /48 5 Mt. Baber 1 Tillamook Northwest Area ! 6 South Jetty 5 !2! State "26 REGION 1 7 Winchester Bay 5 Forest

8 Horsefall 5 REGION 7 Mt. Emily

Sand Lake REGION 2 "46! 9 Winchester Trails 5 ! # /4 ! ! 3 Upper /47 Breshears 10 Blue Ridge 5 Winom---Fraiser Nestucca 11 Chetco 5 McCubbins Gulch Morrow/Grant /45! /27! County Trails 12 Pine Grove & Illinois River Trails 6

"40! 13 Galice 6 !

/41 14 McGrew 4x4 Trail 6 Virtue# Flat West End (Sunflower) ! REGION 10 44 15 Lily Prairie 6 McCoy MRA ! 16 Timber Mountain 6 /28 !5! 17 Elliott Ridge 6 Mt. ! REGION 3 /43 Blue Mountain Baber Henderson Flat John Day Area 18 Klamath Sportsman's Park 9

Santiam Pass ! Green Mountain ! 19 Prospect 6

! /31 /42

/29 /32! Shotgun Creek # 20 North Umpqua 6 # !

25! 30 21 Diamond Lake 6

Cline Buttes REGION 8 South Jetty 22 Three Trails 9 Oregon # Honeyman State Park /6! ODNRA REGION 4 33! Millican Valley 23 Cottage Grove 4 ODNRA Edison Butte 24 Huckleberry Flats 4 Dunes Huckleberry Flats /34!

Winchester /24! 25 Shotgun Creek 4 !

National / 7 Bay ! 26 Northwest Area 2

Rosland# /35 East Fort Rock ODNRA Cottage Grove !

! 36 27 McCubbins Gulch 7 /23 Recreation Radar Hill #

Horsefall 39! 28 McCoy MRA 3

! REGION 11 Area / 88 ODNRA 29 Santiam Pass 3

# 30 Cline Buttes 8 Christmas# Valley ! Blue Ridge ! Diamond ! ! 10 "9 /22 37 31 Henderson Flat 8 /20! Lake North Umpqua ! Three Trails Winchester /21 32 Green Mountain 8 REGION 5 Trails 33 Millican Valley 8

REGION 6 34 Edison Butte 8

LAND MANAGER 35 East Fort Rock 8 Prospect # 36 Rosland 8 /19! BLM 37 Christmas Valley 9 Pine Grove and REGION 9 " 38 Crane Mountain 9 Illinois River Trails COUNTY

Chetco ! 39 Radar Hill 11 ! /12

/11 ! !

/13 Lily Prairie Crane Mountain ODF 40 Morrow/Grant County Trails 7 ! "15 ! Galice # /38 41 West End (Sunflower) 8 ! / 16 USFS 42 John Day Area 10 ! Elliott /17 Timber ! Ridge "18 Klamath Sportsman's Park 43 Blue Mountain 10 ! /14 Mountain 44 Virtue Flat 10 McGrew 4x4 Trail 45 Winom-Fraiser 7 46 Mt. Emily 10 Area # Area Name Region # Area # Area Name Region # Area # Area Name Region # 47 Breshears 10 Copyright:© 2014 Esri 48 Upper Walla Walla 7 1 Nicolai Mountain 1 18 Klamath Sportsman’s 9 35 East Fort Rock 8 Park 2 Tillamook State Forest 1 36 Rosland 8 19 Prospect 6 3 Upper Nestucca 1 37 Christmas Valley 9 20 North Umpqua 6 4 Sand Lake 1 38 Crane Mountain 9 21 Diamond Lake 6 5 Mt. Baber 1 39 Radar Hill 11 22 Three Trails 9 6 South Jetty 5 40 Morrow/Grant County 7 23 Cottage Grove 4 Trails 7 Winchester Bay 5 24 Huckleberry Flats 4 41 West End (Sunflower) 8 8 Horsefall 5 25 Shotgun Creek 4 42 John Day Area 10 9 Winchester Trails 5 26 Northwest Area 2 43 Blue Mountain 10 10 Blue Ridge 5 27 McCubbins Gulch 7 44 Virtue Flat 10 11 Chetco 5 28 McCoy MRA 3 45 Winom-Fraiser 7 12 Pine Grove & Illinois River 6 Trails 29 Santiam Pass 3 46 Mt. Emily 10 13 Galice 6 30 Cline Buttes 8 47 Breshears 10 14 McGrew 4x4 Trail 6 31 Henderson Flat 8 48 Upper Walla Walla 7 15 Lily Prairie 6 32 Green Mountain 8 16 Timber Mountain 6 33 Millican Valley 8 17 Elliott Ridge 6 34 Edison Butte 8

44 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Vehicle Class Use

Figure 15 shows the class of vehicle used most often for each type of riding area. In designated riding areas (first column), 42% of respondents most often rode Class I vehicles, 17% Class II vehicles, 32% Class III vehicles, and 9% Class IV vehicles. The distribution for other areas differs from that for designated areas in that Class FigureII and Class 3.1. IV Class are somewhat of vehicle more used likely most to be oftenthe “most by often” type ofclass of vehicles uses. riding area, probability sample Figure 15. Class Of Vehicle Used Most Often By Type Of Riding Area 100 9 11 80 32 29 Class IV 60 Class III 17 26 40 Class II Percent Class I 20 42 34 0 Designated Other Change In Riding Opportunities

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show respondent evaluation of the change in availability over the past 10 years for each type of riding. For both types, the percentage for decreased was greater than for increased, but this was especially the case for Other areas. Figure 3.2a. Change in opportunities, designated areas, by class, probability Figure 16. Change In Opportunities, Designatedsample Areas, By Class 100 13 11 16 16 12 80 36 38 39 35 Unsure 60 55 Decreased

Percent 40 18 29 30 25 Not changed 15 20 Increased 31 24 21 21 15 0 I II III IV All combined Class Figure 3.2b. Change in opportunities, other areas, by class, probability Figure 17. Change In Opportunities, Other Areas, By Class sample 100 11 7 12 15 22 80

60 57 Unsure 73 61 62 56 Decreased

Percent 40 Not changed 20 22 Increased 15 19 16 19 11 0 6 5 5 7 I II III IV All combined Class

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 45 Travel Distances

Respondents indicated the riding area where they rode most, then reported the distance traveled to the area (one-way driving miles from home). Table 8 presents results, sorted by the number of observations for each riding area. Among sites with at least ten observations, the John Day Area (site 42) was the site most distant from home, with OHV riders traveling an average of 227 miles to the site.

Table 8. Travel Distances By “Most Often Visited” Site

Distance (miles) Site number Site name Observations Mean Median All sites combined 3,187 113 93 49 Other public land 1,061 106 67 2 Tillamook State Forest 233 65 51 7 Winchester Bay 197 148 147 8 Horsfall 161 120 120 6 South Jetty 139 108 106 37 Christmas Valley 129 185 195 35 East Fort Rock 125 146 149 4 Sand Lake 117 102 95 26 Northwest Area 94 98 80 27 McCubbins Gulch 89 109 85 33 Millican Valley 83 149 162 29 Santiam Pass 74 79 74 25 Shotgun Creek 71 50 36 24 Huckleberry Flats 53 95 76 42 John Day Area 44 227 245 30 Cline Buttes 43 111 132 31 Henderson Flat 32 118 131 21 Diamond Lake 32 95 69 28 McCoy MRA 25 81 78 23 Cottage Grove 24 54 47 14 McGrew 4x4 Trail 23 218 220 9 Winchester Trails 23 78 37 46 Mt. Emily 19 151 73 43 Blue Mountain 19 106 73 40 Morrow/Grant Cty Trails 18 145 114 45 Winom-Frazier 18 115 82 15 Lily Prairie 17 81 19 3 Upper Nestucca 17 33 36

46 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Site 49 reflects the “all other public land” category, while sites 51 through 57 reflect sites written in as visited (not necessarily the most visited) by at least five respondents, yet not on the list of 48 designated areas.

Table 8. (Continued)

Distance (miles) Site number Site name Observations Mean Median 32 Green Mountain 15 119 146 16 Timber Mountain 15 103 72 19 Prospect 15 102 85 22 Three Trails 15 98 71 1 Nicolai Mountain 13 91 33 20 North Umpqua 13 63 35 5 Mt. Baber 13 51 39 12 Pine Grove / Ill. River 12 122 113 13 Galice 12 109 25 34 Edison Butte 10 162 172 11 Chetco 9 54 19 52 Spinreel 8 137 155 39 Radar Hill 7 212 233 51 Riley Ranch 6 111 107 55 Sumpter area 5 267 255 38 Crane Mountain 5 263 260 44 Virtue Flat 4 171 149 47 Breshears 4 163 62 10 Blue Ridge 4 156 176 17 Elliott Ridge 4 61 68 41 West End (Sunflower) 3 203 200 53 China Hat 3 123 156 18 Klamath Sportsman Park 3 52 28 48 Upper Walla Walla 3 38 21 57 Steens 2 301 311 54 Ochocos 2 74 74 56 Owyhee 1 70 71 36 Rosland 1 23 23

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 47 Considerations In Deciding Where To Ride

Figure 18 shows the importance of considerations when deciding where to ride, percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, sorted by All respondents combined. The top consideration was direct access to riding areas.

Figure 18.Figure Considerations 3.3. Considerations Inin decidingDeciding where Where to ride, by To class, Ride, probability By Class sample

Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important 0 20 40 60 80 100

79 67 Direct access to riding areas 80 75 77 60 56 Bathrooms 66 62 60 49 I 47 Fire rings 44 62 50 II 49 39 III Campgrounds 41 55 45 IV 42 39 All combined Staging area 42 39 44 45 36 RV campsites / large vehicle parking 21 54 39 35 35 Group camp sites 32 48 36 35 42 Tent campsites 39 24 36 35 30 Picnic tables 30 42 34 31 17 Loading / unloading facilities 26 25 30 29 26 Children’s loop near staging area 29 21 30 33 22 Showers 17 36 26 24 14 Water hookups 11 30 19 21 17 Electric hookups 8 38 18 19 16 Children’s playground 14 16 17 15 13 Sewer hookups 5 23 14

48 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Funding Need

Respondents indicated the importance of various potential improvements, with Figure 19 showing percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Maintenance of existing trails and more trail maps and information were rated most important across all respondents.

Results by region are included in Table 9. Figure 3.4. Importance for funding, by class, probability sample Figure 19. Importance For Funding, By Class Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important 0 20 40 60 80 100

52 Maintain trails in good condition 43 60 56 67 46 Trail maps / information 53 64 44 52 71 More trails for Class I 15 27 32 46 32 More trails for Class III 29 80 24 46 36 Prioritize challenging / technical trails 46 58 39 45 37 More trails for Class II 18 82 32 44 41 I More cross‐country travel areas 42 51 44 53 44 II Prioritize trails with attractive views 34 52 41 45 III 29 38 Prioritize loop trails 35 45 40 IV 36 Signs along the trails 42 47 39 47 All combined 40 Reduce natural resource damage 35 44 3839 36 More trail events 43 47 29 39 31 More trails for Class IV 12 32 33 83 27 Prioritize trails 100+ miles long) 33 38 3233 Facilities (load ramps, wash stations, 30 22 29 etc.) 2930 34 Provide children's play areas 22 26 26 30 20 Prioritize trails close to home 28 33 23 29 29 More educational programs 17 29 28 20 More space for training classes 10 14 18 27 17 Enforcement of existing rules 14 19 17 22

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 49 Table 9. Importance For Funding, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important, By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Maintain trails in 51 63 51 66 46 59 62 40 46 59 41 56 good condition

Trail maps / information 52 56 55 51 41 43 58 53 51 54 52 52

More trails for Class I 48 40 47 57 50 49 56 29 51 50 53 46

More trails for Class III 56 48 39 52 53 51 36 43 46 33 38 46

Prioritize challenging / 53 51 42 41 49 49 36 36 36 46 30 45 technical trails

More trails for Class II 39 47 44 50 49 42 34 38 33 42 30 44

More cross-country 42 38 39 42 46 54 52 45 62 65 50 44 travel areas Prioritize trails with 40 38 38 46 39 44 41 41 43 53 44 41 attractive views

Prioritize loop trails 46 43 39 35 40 35 48 37 39 39 34 40

Signs along the trails 34 46 45 40 30 34 35 37 32 27 20 39

Reduce natural 34 39 42 43 33 41 37 30 31 37 33 39 resource damage

More trail events 47 41 36 41 38 47 41 22 34 40 27 39

More trails for Class IV 39 33 27 44 39 33 25 22 35 41 37 33

Prioritize trails 45 29 32 26 32 32 37 31 28 49 31 32 100+ miles long Facilities (load ramps, 31 29 28 42 30 32 31 27 27 29 28 30 wash stations, etc.) Provide children’s 36 25 31 34 38 43 26 26 21 26 16 30 play areas Prioritize trails close 39 36 20 26 23 25 24 33 35 25 25 29 to home More educational 24 23 31 31 26 33 28 17 34 40 34 28 programs More space for 13 19 14 21 21 17 15 14 17 24 21 18 training classes Enforcement of 14 15 23 20 17 13 17 14 17 9 18 17 existing rules

50 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Priorities For New Versus Improving Existing Riding Areas

Figure 20 presents priorities for purchasing land to add new riding areas versus improving existing areas. In general, preferences favored adding new areas. Figure 20. PrioritiesFigure 3.5.For NewPriorities Versus for Existing new versus Areas, existing By Class areas, by class, probability sample 100 11 14 13 13 13 Strongly prioritize 8 80 19 18 20 15 improving existing 13 Somewhat prioritize 8 11 60 12 11 improving existing 20 No preference 20 22 22 26 Percent 40 Somewhat prioritize adding 20 45 41 Strongly prioritize 35 31 39 adding 0 I II III IV All combined Class

Respondents who preferred adding new areas typically prioritized the development of trails either their “most often ridden” class or for all classes equally (Figure 21). Figure 3.6. Class of vehicle to be prioritized in developing new areas, by class Figure 21. Class Of Vehicle To Be Prioritized In Developing New Areas, By Class ridden most often, probability sample 100 19 Prioritize all 80 41 38 37 classes equally Class IV 63 60 6 Class III 19

Percent 40 76 Class II 60 54 19 20 36 Class I 20 0 I II III IV All combined Class ridden most often by respondent

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 51 Issue Importance

Figure 22 shows ratings of trail problems based on respondent experiences while riding OHVs, percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Closure of trails and logging roads are the most commonly rated problems, especially for Class II and Class IV riders.

Results by region are included in Table 10. Figure 3.7. Problems on OHV trails, by class, probability sample Figure 22. Problems On OHV Trails, By Class Percent rating Moderate or Serious Problem 020406080100

51 67 Closure of trails 55 69 60 52 58 Closure of logging roads 50 61 54 40 44 Litter / dumping 32 29 37 32 25 Too much law enforcement 28 23 28 24 29 Lack of trail ethics 22 19 23 I 19 27 Vandalism 15 II 23 19 III 18 14 Too many people 16 17 IV 17 19 All combined 17 Alcohol or drug use 8 16 14 15 18 Riding in closed areas 8 16 14 10 14 Target shooting 17 11 13 14 15 Rowdy behavior 6 14 11 10 16 Unsafe OHV use 8 10 11 9 14 Riding on trails for other OHV classes 10 10 10 9 10 Too little law enforcement 9 10 10 6 8 Conflict between users 4 6 6 3 4 Vehicle noise 5 7 5

52 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 10. Problems On OHV Trails, Percent Rating Moderate Or Serious Problem, By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

Closure of trails 53 57 51 64 71 66 71 49 72 75 49 60

Closure of logging roads 46 51 48 47 61 54 72 49 75 80 58 54

Litter / dumping 39 32 38 41 40 42 33 42 37 45 34 37

Too much law 22 26 24 31 30 39 26 27 38 30 21 28 enforcement

Lack of trail ethics 18 20 28 25 32 14 25 19 26 28 20 23

Vandalism 18 15 18 26 19 20 21 17 30 29 22 19

Too many people 13 17 17 26 21 15 19 16 24 9 10 17

Alcohol or drug use 18 7 14 27 24 18 10 8 15 15 18 14

Riding in closed areas 10 7 14 17 21 16 19 15 17 20 17 14

Target shooting 11 13 12 16 8 12 10 21 10 16 8 13

Rowdy behavior 11 5 13 17 14 9 13 11 20 18 15 11

Unsafe OHV use 12 7 11 18 14 12 10 12 19 6 10 11

Riding on trails for other 7 8 11 13 6 13 13 11 14 10 10 10 OHV classes

Too little law enforcement 8 8 13 11 12 11 8 8 13 9 7 10

Conflict between users 8 6 3 8 3 5 6 10 9 5 76

Vehicle noise 4 2 4 9 12 7 5 4 3 6 3 5

Satisfaction With Trail Opportunities

Respondents completing the survey online were asked how satisfied they were, overall, with trail opportunities on public land in Oregon. Results in Figure 23 indicate a higher percentage who are satisfied than dissatisfied. Overall, 64% reported being very or somewhat satisfied with OHV trail opportunities on public lands in Oregon. The highest level of satisfaction was among Class III riders, with 70% reporting being very or somewhat satisfied. The lowest level of satisfaction was among Class IV operators, with 46% reporting being very or somewhat satisfied.

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 53 Figure 3.8. Overall satisfaction with OHV trail opportunities in Oregon, by Figure 23. Overall Satisfactionclass, With probability OHV Trail sample Opportunities (online only) In Oregon, By Class 100 12 6 Very satisfied 22 23 18 80 40 Somewhat 47 satisfied 60 39 46 47 Neither

Percent 40 27 Somewhat 13 16 8 12 dissatisfied 20 Very dissatisfied 21 18 18 18 18 0 5 7 5 8 6 I II III IV All combined Class Level Of Support For Permit Fee Increase

Respondents were asked whether they would oppose or support an increase in the permit fee to expand facilities and opportunities. The specific wording was:

An ATV permit is required when riding an OHV on public land in Oregon. The permit is valid for two years and currently costs $10. Permit revenue is used to provide facilities and riding opportunities in Oregon. Would you support or oppose an increase in the permit fee from $10 to $15 to expand funding for facilities and opportunities?

Results in Figure 24 indicate greater support than opposition to such an increase. 60% indicated they strongly or somewhat supported the increase and 25% indicated they somewhat or strongly opposed it. Figure 3.9. Views on a potential $5 permit fee increase, by class, probability Figure 24. Views On a Potential $5 Permit Feesample Increase, By Class 100 Strongly support 30 23 30 80 35 37 Somewhat support 60 Neither oppose 28 26 45 30 25 nor support

Percent 40 Somewhat 17 15 9 15 13 oppose 20 16 Strongly oppose 12 9 7 11 14 14 14 13 14 0 I II III IV All combined Class

54 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Expenditure And estimate the “multiplier effects” of money flowing through the local economy. To illustrate, assume that Economic Contribution an OHV rider eats lunch at Restaurant X in Region 8. In order to provide the lunch, Restaurant X hires This section presents a summary of OHV rider expen- employees and purchases food that is then prepared diture, based on the “typical trips” described earlier. for customers. Food is an input purchased from Note that this expenditure is only associated with another business, and this process generates indirect travel, not with equipment purchase or maintenance. effects. Wages paid to employees generate induced The expenditure and economic contribution reflects effects, because those employees spend a portion OHV riding activity by both local (to the OHV of their income in the local economy (perhaps by riding location) and non-local Oregon residents. eating at Restaurant Y or shopping at Supermarket Expenditures categories used in this analysis included: Z). Please see the full survey report for a thorough • Hotel, motel, condo, cabin, B&B, methods description. or other lodging except camping • Camping (RV, tent, etc.) Table 11 shows the results of the multiplier analysis, by region. The columns are as follows: • Restaurants, bars, pubs • Employment, full-time or part-time jobs. • Groceries • Labor income, which includes employee • Gas and oil compensation (including wages, salaries, and • Other transportation benefits) and proprietary income (including self-employment income). In the analysis, survey spending question responses are used to calculate per person OHV rider expendi- • Value added, which includes labor income, rents, tures for day and for multi-day trips for each region. profits, and indirect business taxes. The expenditure of OHV riders by region was • Output, which is the dollar value of goods and “run” through the IMPLAN4 input-output model to services sold.

Table 11. Annual Multiplier Effects Of OHV Rider Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars Region Employment Labor Income Value Added Output 1 122 3,471,100 5,346,800 8,705,800 2 29 1,079,600 1,595,500 2,489,100 3 25 717,900 1,088,500 1,744,700 4 43 1,307,300 1,993,000 3,101,900 5 288 7,376,600 11,534,000 19,311,500 6 50 1,451,800 2,247,300 3,668,800 7 50 1,149,100 1,740,300 2,978,700 8 70 2,119,600 3,316,100 5,401,000 9 51 1,082,800 1,650,300 2,866,100 10 116 2,252,500 3,639,900 6,421,800 11 25 506,200 777,400 1,360,500 Total 869 22,514,500 34,929,200 58,049,700

4 IMPLAN is widely used to estimate the economic contribution of tourism, recreation, and other activities.

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 55 Statewide, OHV riding by Oregon residents annually contributes 869 jobs, $23 million in labor income, and $58 million in value added.

A 2009 report on the economic impact of OHV recreation in Oregon5 had a different scope and used a different methodology, such it does not provide a direct comparison for the results in Table 10. However, that report – and the sources it utilized – provides a reference point for the relative contribution of non-resident OHV riding in Oregon. In that analysis, 34% was used as the proportion of all riding days on the South Coast (Region 5) being from out-of-state visitors, with 15% used for all other regions. Thus, out-of-state riders are estimated to contribute an additional 52% of the Region 5 amount in Table 10 (34% / 66%) and an additional 18% (15% / 85%) of the amounts for other regions. Table 12 shows the statewide total for in-state riders from Table 10, together with the estimated contribution from out-of-state riders.

Table 12. Annual Multiplier Effects Of OHV Rider Trip Expenditure, Out-Of- State Riders Included; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars

Origin Employment Labor Income Value Added Output In-state 869 22,514,500 34,929,200 58,049,700 Out-of-state 251 6,471,500 10,070,300 16,784,500 Combined 1,120 28,986,000 44,999,500 74,834,200

When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimat- hunting, and dining out mentioned most. Land ed amounts increase to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in management agencies, tourism groups, local com- value added, and $29 million in labor income. munities and businesses should use these results to assist out-of-town OHV riders with trip planning. Conclusions and Class IV (side-by-side) permit sales began in 2012 Implications in Oregon. Survey results show that Class IV riding is now 7% of total OHV rider days in the state. Of the four OHV classes, Class IV operators report Oregon survey results show that 20% of OHV the lowest level of satisfaction (46% being very or riders in the state are under the age of 18. The U.S. somewhat satisfied) with OHV trail opportunities in Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that the state. Land managers should reach out to Class children are at higher safety risk as OHV operators IV operators in future planning efforts to better than older riders. As a result, the state of Oregon serve their specific rider needs. should continue to improve and expand user education and safety education programs for youth OHV riders reported that the greatest loss in riding involved with or interested in OHV recreation. Such opportunities in Oregon in the past 10 years was for educational efforts should be incentive based, fun, riding opportunities outside the state’s Designated and area specific to ensure youth participation. Riding Areas. The 2015 Oregon OHV Guide includes a listing of 53 Designated Riding Areas in the Oregon OHV riders engage in a variety of activities state. These areas are high-intensity riding areas with while on day or multi-day trips, with exploring the associated high operation and maintenance costs. town/areas, watching wildlife, fishing/crabbing, There are also many designated OHV routes and 5 Lindberg, K. 1999. The Economic Impacts of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation in Oregon. Report to the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

56 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future trails on public lands in Oregon which are outside household garbage, tires, yard debris, large residen- the boundaries of these Designated Riding Areas. tial appliances, automobiles, and hazardous materi- Many OHV enthusiasts seek out these less crowded als are improperly dumped on public OHV riding riding experiences and enjoy exploring new riding areas in Oregon. Managing agencies should educate areas. As such, OPRD will provide additional points Oregon’s OHV community about the problem of in the ATV grant program for projects intending to illegal waste disposal on riding areas, work with user enhance existing or provide new riding opportuni- groups to set up debris clean-up days, encourage ties outside the boundaries of the state’s official list of OHV enthusiasts to report illegal dumping to proper 53 Designated Riding areas. authorities, implement adopt-a-site programs, and prosecute serious illegal dumping offenses in a The survey identified a strong need for funding timely manner. to maintain existing trails in good/sustainable condition. A recent GAO report6 found the USFS is Finally, this report identifies expenditure and eco- only able to maintain about one-quarter of National nomic contributions associated with OHV riding Forest System trails to the agency standard, and the on public lands in Oregon. Statewide, OHV use by agency faces a trail maintenance backlog of $314 Oregon residents supports 869 jobs, $23 million in million in fiscal year 2012. A consistent trail main- labor income, and $58 million in value added. When tenance backlog is also reported on Oregon national out-of-state visitors are included, the estimated forests. The state of Oregon should investigate the amounts increased to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in potential for initiating a trails foundation with a value added, and $29 million in labor income. This mission of protecting and maintaining recreational information should be used to educate Oregonians trails in the state. about the economic benefits received from their investment in OHV riding areas, facilities, and The survey also identified a funding need for trail services in the state. maps and information about riding opportunities. Riders continue to report confusion about where or when motorized access is or not allowed, or what type of vehicle, and how or where to find that information. The USFS and BLM should develop user-friendly maps and signs for route systems including large format signage, on-the-ground route markers, and information kiosks with maps to inform riders of the law and indicate where they can ride legally.

Closure of trails and unimproved backcountry roads were also identified as top OHV management issues. Land managers should reduce unwarranted OHV closures through comprehensive review/input/analysis by all stakeholders.

Survey respondents also identified illegal dumping in OHV areas as a top management issue. Bags of 6 U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013). Forest Service Trails: Long and short-term improvements could reduce maintenance backlog and enhance system sustainability. GAO-13-618.

Chapter 2 - Oregon Resident Off-Highway Vehicle Trail User Survey Summary 57

► Chapter 3 Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary

This chapter includes a summary of selected survey Introduction results. The full survey report, Oregon Snowmobiler Background Participation and Priorities, is available online at: oregon.gov/oprd/Trail_Programs_Services/ Documents/Snowmobile_report2015.pdf In preparation for the 2016-2025 Oregon Trails Plan, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Survey respondents could complete the question- (OPRD) contracted with Oregon State University naire in either online or paper format. Surveys (OSU) to conduct a survey of Oregon resident were sent out to 1,250 residents. Of those delivered snowmobilers regarding their current use patterns (1,242), 528 were obtained, for an overall response (amount, location, and type of use), user experiences rate of 42%. This included 40% for those who and preferences, and the economic contribution of snowmobiled in the past year (501 respondents) and recreation activity. 2% for those who did not snowmobile. This response rate is good by current standards. With respect to Survey Methods format, 68% of the surveys were completed online and 32% in paper format.

The probability sample was designed to be as Sample data were weighted by age. The DMV list was representative as possible of Oregon resident snow- “cleaned” by removing persons under 18 years old or mobilers. It was drawn at random from the list of with a mailing address outside of Oregon. Duplicate all persons with snowmobiles registered with the entries per household were removed. The resulting Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The age distribution matched those of snowmobiler sample design was developed to derive information studies in Wyoming and Pennsylvania, except in at the statewide scale. the lower and upper age groups. The registration

59 list distribution was modified by adding 4% to the the household. When these additional snowmobilers lowest age group (18 to 29) and subtracting 4% from are accounted for, 56% were male and 44% were the highest age group (70 or older). The resulting female. adjusted distribution was a reasonable match with Table 13. Gender Of Snowmobilers the Wyoming and Pennsylvania results and was used In Household, Percent to calculate age weights. Male Female Figure 1 (page 29) shows the planning regions across Respondent 77 23 the state. 2nd snowmobiler 39 61 3rd snowmobiler 57 43 Demographics and 4th snowmobiler 43 58 Snowmobile Ownership 5th snowmobiler 56 44 6th snowmobiler 65 35 This section presents demographic results from the Total 56 44 snowmobiler survey probability sample. Age Gender Figure 25 shows the age distribution for respondents Within the sample, 77% of respondents were male and all adult Oregonians. Snowmobiling participa- and 23% female (Table 13). Respondents also report- tion occurs across age groups, though it is particu- ed the gender and age of additional snowmobilers in larly high amongst people in the 40 to 59 age range.

Figure 25. Snowmobiler Age Distribution Figure 1.2a. Age distribution, survey respondents, statewide

30 25 27 21 17 17 18 17

Percent 20 16 15 13 11 10 5

0 18 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 69 70+ Age range Oregonians Probability

60 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 26 shows the age distribution, by region, for owners of snowmobiles registered with the Oregon DMV. There is regional variation, but most owners are in the middle age ranges (from 40 to 60 years old). Relatively few registrants live in Region 1 and 5, so results for those regions should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 26. AgeFigure Distribution, 1.2b. Age DMV distribution, Snowmobiler DMV Registrants, registrants, By Region by region 100 70+ 13 18 16 17 80 21 13 23 20 22 20 41 60 ‐ 69 60 35 29 31 32 34 25 25 50 ‐ 59 37 28 29 40 Percent 38 25 40 ‐ 49 27 21 27 24 24 25 24 25 20 20 30 ‐ 39 12 0 18 ‐ 29 1234567891011 Region

As with gender, respondents reported the ages Table 14. Age Of Snowmobilers of additional snowmobilers in the household. In Household, Years Old As shown in Table 14, the age of additional Mean age snowmobilers was lower than that of the Respondent 49 respondent. The average age across all snow- 2nd snowmobiler 47 mobilers was 39. 3rd snowmobiler 24 Evaluation of the full distributions suggests 4th snowmobiler 21 that the “2nd snowmobiler” typically was an 5th snowmobiler 24 additional adult, whereas the 3rd or higher 6th snowmobiler 34 snowmobilers often were children (Figure 27). Total 39

Figure 1.3. Age distribution, probability sample, additional Figure 27. Age Distribution, Additional Snowmobilers snowmobilers

50 45 38 40 36 36 3636

30 2527 27 2525 2022 17 20 16 16 14 17 Percent 11 1313 11 10 9 6 6 6 10 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 0 2 0 220 2 2 0 Respondent 2nd snowmobiler 3rd snowmobiler 4th snowmobiler 5th snowmobiler 6th snowmobiler

Under 18 18 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 69 70+

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 61 Income

Figure 28 shows the distribution of annual household pre-tax income for snowmobilers, OHV riders, and Oregonians as a whole. Snowmobilers and OHV riders (at least those in each group who own and register their vehicles) have higher income than Oregonians as a whole. This is especially true for snowmobilers. Figure 28. Annual SnowmobilerFigure 1.4. and Annual OHV Rider household Household pre Pre-Tax‐tax income Income

50 Snowmobilers OHV riders All Oregonians 40 29 30 25 20 19 21 19 21 20 15 Percent 13 14 15 11 11 10 12 12 7 8 7 10 5 3 1 2 1 0 Less than $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 or $15,000 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 more Income range

Household Vehicle Ownership

Figure 29 shows number of vehicles owned by snowmobile households. Most snowmobile households own more than one snowmobile, with two, three, and four being the most common number of snowmobiles owned. With the small number of “more than 8 snowmobiles” responses set to eight, the average number of snowmobiles owned per household was 3.4. Figure 29.Figure Number 1.5. Of SnowmobilesNumber of snowmobiles Owned In Household in household, probability sample

50 40 30 30 21 22 20 Percent 11 8 5 10 3 2 0 12345678 or more Number of snowmobiles in household

Snowmobile Registrations

All snowmobiles in Oregon must be registered with the DMV, and Figure 30 shows registration counts by class over time.7 Figure 31 shows registration rates across regions in per capita terms, using registrations per 1,000 residents.

7 Some snowmobiles are ridden without being registered. The level of non-compliance is unknown, but anecdotal reports indicate that in some locations it may be as high as 20%.

62 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 30. Snowmobile Registrations Over Time, By Region (regions on leftFigure axis, statewide 1.6a. Snowmobile on right axis) registrations over time, by region (regions on left axis, statewide on right axis) 4,000 20,000 1 18,000 3,500 2 16,000 3 3,000 14,000 4 2,500 5 12,000 6 2,000 10,000 7

8,000 8 1,500 9 6,000 1,000 10 4,000 11 500 2,000 Oregon

0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 31. SnowmobileFigure 1.6b. Snowmobile Registrations registrations By by Region, region, registrations Registrations per 1,000 Per residents 1,000 (2013) Residents (2013)

30 27.5 25 20 14.9 14.4 15 12.5 8.8 10 3.0 4.1 3.7 5 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.4 0 1234567891011Oregon Region Statewide registrations peaked in 2006 at 17,771. The subsequent drop presumably reflects the recession, though registrations have not recovered as the economy has improved in recent years. Snow amounts may help explain the lack of recovery in registration numbers. Figure 32 shows the average across December and February for snow water equivalents at the Cascades Summit monitoring site, at 5,100 feet near Odell Lake, between Highway 58 and Diamond Peak.8 There is substantial year-to-year variation, but the general trend since 2006 is downward. This has been noticed by snowmobilers, as indicated in Figure 39 below (low snow is a reason for fewer snowmobiling trips).

8 Data from NRCS website: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/rgrpt?report=swe_hist&state=OR

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 63 Figure 32.Figure Snow 1.7. Water Snow Equivalent water (Inches)equivalent At Cascade (inches) Summit, at Cascade Summit, Average Of Decemberaverage 15 and ofFebruary December 15 15 and February 15

30 30 line 25 25 bars

20 20 orange blue

15 15 average,

average, 10 10 year 5 5 Annual

0 0 Three ‐

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 33 shows the average age of registered snowmobiles, by region. Figures were calculated as 2014 minus the model year for snowmobiles registered as of May 2014. Statewide, the average registered vehicle was 12 years old. Median values were close to the presented means, which indicates that the means are not “pulled up” by a smallFigure number 1.8. of particularlyAverage age old vehicles.of snowmobiles registered with DMV, by Figure 33. Average Age Of Snowmobilesregion Registered (2014) With DMV, By Region 14.2 15 12.7 13.0 12.6 12.3 12.1 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.7 12.0 9.8 10 years

5 Age

0 1234567891011Oregon Region Trip Characteristics And Participation

This section presents trip characteristics and participation estimates. Day Trip and Multi-Day Trip Characteristics

Almost all respondents (96%) took at least one day trip, while 72% took at least one multi-day trip in an average season over the past five years. Statewide, 47% of the total days were spent on day trips and 53% on multi-day trips. Multi-day trips are defined as those involving an overnight stay away from home, even if the respondent only rode a snowmobile one day during the trip. The day versus multi-day distinction is used in presenting results in this section as well as in estimating economic contributions.

The following results are for the “typical” day and multi-day trips, defined as the single location where respondents most often engaged in each type of trip in the average season in the past five years. Figure 34 indicates that two-thirds of day trips (67%) were within 60 miles from home while more than two-thirds (70%) of multi-day trips were more than 60 miles from home.

64 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 2.1. Typical day and multi‐day trips, distance Figure 34. Typical Daytraveled, And Multi-Day probability Snowmobile sample Trips, Distance Traveled 100 80 67 70 60 40 30 33 Percent 20 0 Within 60 miles of home Further than 60 miles from home Day Multi‐day

The remaining results in this section and estimating expenditure and economic significance are based on travel parties. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) approach to outliers is followed here9.

Figure 35 shows number of persons in travel party for day and multi-day trips. For both types of trips, four people in the travel party being the most common. The average number of persons is 3.3 for day trips and 3.6 for multi-dayFigure trips. 2.2. Typical day and multi‐day trips, persons in travel Figure 35. Typical Day And Multi-Dayparty, probability Snowmobile sample Trips, Persons In Travel Party

50 44 40 35 31 30 24 20 20 Percent 14 11 10 6 6 3 5 2 0 1 0 1234567 Number of persons in travel party Day Multi‐day

Figure 36 shows number of days for multi-day trips. Three days is the most common trip length, which may reflect a high portion of “long weekend” trips. The average number of days was 4.7 days, keeping in mind that this mean is “pulled up” by longer trips (10 or more days). The median is 3 days. Figure 2.3. Typical multi‐day trips, trip length in days, Figure 36. Typical Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Trip Length in Days probability sample 50 41 40

30 21 20 Percent 11 8 10 7 5 4 2 2 0 0 2345678910 to 14 15 or Trip length, days more

9 White, E.M., D.B. Goodding, and D.J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: round 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 65 Respondents indicated whether the numbers of each type of trip (day trip and multi-day trip) had increased in the past five years, with results in Figure 37. Results are similar across trip type, and the percentage of respondents for whom number of trips has increased is similar to the percentage for whom number of trips has decreased. Figure 2.4. Change in number of trips in past five Figure 37. Changeyears In byNumber type ofOf trip,Snowmobile probability Day Tripssample In The Past Five Years By Trip Type

50 45 44 40 31 28 30 25 27 20 Percent 10 0 Increased Stayed the same Decreased Day Multi‐day

As shown in Figure 38, the main reason for an increase in snowmobiling trips was more free time. Respondents in the Other category were diverse and included kids becoming old enough to ride, better access to overnight facilities, more interest among friends, and better snowmobiles. Figure 38. ReasonsFigure 2.5a. For Reasons Increase for increase, In Snowmobile number of mentions, Trips, probability Number sample Of Mentions

96 100 78 80 72 60

40 22 Mentions 20 0 More free time More income More snow Other

Less snow was the most common reason for a decrease in snowmobiling trips (Figure 39). The most common Other responses were related to age or to less interest among children or friends.

Figure 39. ReasonsFigure 2.5b. For ReasonsDecrease for decrease, In Snowmobile number of mentions, Trips, Numberprobability sample Of Mentions

149 150 125 100 73 81 75 46 40 50 Mentions 25 0 High cost fuel Less free time Less disposable income Less snow Other

66 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Snowmobilers engage in a variety of activities while on day or multi-day trips (Figure 40), with dining out being the Figuremost 2.6.frequent. Activities in addition to snowmobiling, number of mentions, probability sample Figure 40. Activities In Addition To Snowmobiling, Number of Mentions

Mentions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dine out 253 Explore the town 167 Watch wildlife 148 Visit brewpubs 146 Other outdoor activities 94 Shop 89 Visit historic places 85 Other 66 Downhill ski 60 Hunt 52 Cross‐country ski 29

Figure 41 indicates that hotels are the most commonly used form of lodging while on multi-day trips. Responses to the Other category were varied, with “own cabin” being the most common. Other common responses Figureincluded 2.7. Lodgingrenting used a cabin, during multiowning‐day trips,a second number home, of mentions, and staying probability in sno-parks with RVs. sample Figure 41. Lodging Used During Multi-Day Snowmobile Trips, Number of Mentions

Mentions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hotel / motel 165

Other 120

At home of local friends/family 80

RV / camper in campground 68

RV or tent dispersed / dry camp 42

Group RV / camper area 18

Respondents completing the online survey indicated the types of information they would like to see on the internet for Oregon riding areas. As shown in Figure 42, the most preferred information was trail maps and informationFigure on 2.8. snow Preferred depth. online information, number of mentions, probability sample online survey Figure 42. Preferred Online Snowmobile Information, Number of Mentions

Mentions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Trail maps 291 Snow depth info 291 Safety / avalanche info 209 Services (fuel, dealers, etc.) 191 GPS data 157 Directions to sno‐parks 143 Lodging 110

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 67 Participation By Region Participation By Parking Area

Table 15 shows the estimated number of days A map showing the 64 snowmobile parking areas snowmobiling per respondent and across all Oregon listed in the survey by planning region is included resident snowmobilers, per year. The per respondent below (Figure 43). Table 16 shows the average estimate is derived from this survey. The estimate for number of days snowmobiled by parking area, all snowmobilers is the product of the per respon- across all respondents in the survey. Dutchman Flat dent estimate and the number of registered snowmo- and Wanoga are the parking areas with the highest biles in 2014 (13,563). In total, Oregon residents are number of days. estimated to engage in snowmobiling 352,500 days The sum across all listed sites (24.7 days) is lower per year. than the statewide total in Table 15 (26.0 days) Across all national forests in Oregon, Forest Service because the latter includes days at sites other than National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data those specifically listed in the survey. Respondents suggest that 83.4% of snowmobile visits are made had the opportunity to write/ type in sites other by Oregon residents and 16.6% by non-residents. than those listed in the survey (shown in Table 16). Non-resident visits are in addition to those shown in This provided some indication of the proportion of Table 15. snowmobiling that involved parking at listed sites versus other sites. However, an estimate of this pro- Table 15. Days Per Year Snowmobiling portion is difficult for various reasons, including the By Oregon Resident Snowmobiler possibility that some sites were not entered (doing Per respondent All snowmobilers so required additional time) and the possibility that some entered sites correspond with a listed site in Region 1 0.2 2,600 Table 16 (respondents know the site by a name other Region 2 1.4 18,900 than that listed). Given this caveat, responses suggest Region 3 1.9 26,300 that between 5% and 15% of snowmobiling days on Region 4 0.6 7,500 public land in Oregon involve parking areas other Region 5 0.0 400 than those in Table 16. Region 6 3.6 48,600 Region 7 2.4 32,800 Region 8 9.2 124,600 Region 9 3.2 43,300 Region 10 3.5 46,900 Region 11 0.1 700 Statewide 26.0 352,500

Across all national forests in Oregon, Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data suggest that 83.4% of snowmobile visits are made by Oregon residents and 16.6% by non-residents. Non-resident visits are in addition to those shown in Table 15.

68 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 16. Days Snowmobiled Per Year By Site, Average Across All Respondents

Site Site Average Site Site Average number name days number name days All listed sites combined 24.7 56 Mt. Emily 0.18 31 Dutchman Flat 2.80 11 Four Mile Lake Road 0.17 30 Wanoga 2.07 22 Waldo Lake Road 0.17 26 Ten Mile 1.65 15 Union Creek 0.16 37 Ray Benson 1.28 53 Blue Springs Summit 0.15 23 Crescent Lake 1.26 43 White River East 0.14 27 Paulina Lake 0.95 45 Little John 0.14 29 Edison Butte 0.92 50 Starr Ridge 0.14 40 Skyline Road 0.86 17 Claude Lewis Trailhead 0.12 32 Three Creek Lake Road 0.85 38 Big Springs 0.12 19 South Diamond 0.82 42 Trillium Lake 0.12 18 Three Lakes (West 0.79 46 Billy Bob 0.12 Diamond Lake) 9 Dead Indian 0.11 16 Thousand Springs 0.77 25 Six Mile 0.11 57 Langdon Lake / Morning 0.70 44 Bennett Pass 0.10 Creek / MP 20 58 Spout Springs Ski Area / 0.10 41 Frog Lake 0.69 MP 22 24 Junction 0.53 64 Ferguson Ridge 0.09 61 Catherine Summit 0.52 13 Camas 0.08 59 Tollgate / Woodland 0.44 35 Lava Lake 0.08 10 Great Meadow 0.41 52 Dixie Mountain 0.08 62 Clear Creek 0.32 33 Ikenick 0.07 2 Mount Ashland 0.28 21 Walt Haring 0.06 6 Fish Lake 0.28 47 Ochoco Divide 0.06 14 Annie Creek 0.28 12 Quartz Mountain 0.05 28 East Lake 0.27 34 Tombstone Summit 0.04 60 Andies Prairie / Horseshoe 0.27 8 Rainbow Bay 0.03 Prairie / MP 27 49 Idlewild 0.03 54 Grande Ronde Lake 0.26 1 Page Mountain 0.01 36 Little Nash 0.25 4 Big Elk 0.01 55 Four Corners 0.25 7 Ichabod Spring 0.01 39 McCoy 0.24 3 Buck Prairie 0.00 48 Walton Lake 0.24 5 Summer Home 0.00 20 North Crater Lake 0.23 51 Huddleston 0.21 63 Salt Creek Summit 0.20

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 69 Figure 43. Map Of Snowmobile Parking Areas And Regions Area # Area Name Region # 1 Page Mountain 6 This map shows the 64 snowmobile parking areas listed in 2 Mount Ashland 6 3 Buck Prairie 6 the survey. The map also splits Oregon into 11 regions. 4 Big Elk 6 5 Summer Home 6 Each of the 64 areas is in one of the 11 regions. 6 Fish Lake 6 7 Ichabod Spring 9 8 Rainbow Bay 9 9 Dead Indian 9 10 Great Meadow 9 11 Four Mile Lake Road 9 57 Langdon Lake / Morning Creek / MP 20 58 Spout Springs Ski Area / MP 22 59 Tollgate / Woodland 12 Quartz Mountain 9 60 Andies Prairie / Horseshoe Prairie / MP 27 13 Camas 9 14 Annie Creek 9 43 White River East 56 Mt. Emily 15 Union Creek 6 46 Billy Bob 16 Thousand Springs 6 REGION 2 17 Claude Lewis Trailhead 6 REGION 1 45 Little John REGION 7 42 Trillium Lake 44 Bennett Pass 64 Ferguson Ridge 18 Three Lakes (West Diamond Lake) 6 41 Frog Lake 63 Salt Creek Summit 19 South Diamond 6 55 Four Corners 20 North Crater Lake 6 40 Skyline Road 61 Catherine Summit 21 Walt Haring 9 54 Grande Ronde Lake 22 Waldo Lake Road 6 62 Clear Creek 23 Crescent Lake 9 24 Junction 9 39 McCoy 53 Blue Springs Summit 25 Six Mile 8 REGION 10 26 Ten Mile 8 REGION 3 27 Paulina Lake 8 28 East Lake 8 38 Big Springs 47 Ochoco Divide 52 Dixie Mountain 29 Edison Butte 8 35 Lava Lake 36 Little Nash 48 Walton Lake 30 Wanoga 8 34 Tombstone Summit 37 Ray Benson REGION 8 33 Ikenick 31 Dutchman Flat 8 32 Three Creek Lake Road 8 32 Three Creek Lake Road 50 Starr Ridge 51 Huddleston 33 Ikenick 3 34 Tombstone Summit 3 35 Lava Lake 3 31 Dutchman Flat 30 Wanoga REGION 4 36 Little Nash 3 29 Edison Butte 37 Ray Benson 3 REGION 5 49 Idlewild 38 Big Springs 3 39 McCoy 3 25 Six Mile 28 East Lake 26 Ten27 Paulina Mile Lake 40 Skyline Road 7 41 Frog Lake 2 24 Junction 23 Crescent Lake 42 Trillium Lake 2 43 White River East 2 22 Waldo Lake Road 44 Bennett Pass 2 21 Walt Haring 45 Little John 2 46 Billy Bob 7 18 Three Lakes (West Diamond Lake) 19 South Diamond 47 Ochoco Divide 8 17 Claude Lewis Trailhead 20 North Crater Lake 48 Walton Lake 8 49 Idlewild 11 15 Union Creek 16 Thousand Springs REGION 11 50 Starr Ridge 10 51 Huddleston 10 REGION 6 14 Annie Creek REGION 9 52 Dixie Mountain 10 53 Blue Springs Summit 10 54 Grande Ronde Lake 10 5 Summer6 Fish Home Lake 55 Four Corners 7 11 Four Mile Lake Road 10 Great Meadow 56 Mt. Emily 7 9 Dead Indian 12 Quartz Mountain 57 Langdon LK / Morning CRK / MP 20 7 4 Big Elk 7 Ichabod8 Rainbow Spring Bay 58 Spout Springs Ski Area / MP 22 10 3 Buck Prairie 59 Tollgate / Woodland 10 13 Camas 60 Andies PR / Horseshoe PR / MP 27 10 1 Page Mountain 2 Mount Ashland 61 Catherine Summit 10 62 Clear Creek 10 63 Salt Creek Summit 10 Copyright:© 2013 Esri 64 Ferguson Ridge 10 Area # Area Name Region # Area # Area Name Region # Area # Area Name Region # 1 Page Mountain 6 23 Crescent Lake 9 46 Billy Bob 7 2 Mount Ashland 6 24 Junction 9 47 Ochoco Divide 8 3 Buck Prairie 6 25 Six Mile 8 48 Walton Lake 8 4 Big Elk 6 26 Ten Mile 8 49 Idlewild 11 5 Summer Home 6 27 Paulina Lake 8 50 Starr Ridge 10 6 Fish Lake 6 28 East Lake 8 51 Huddleston 10 7 Ichabod Spring 9 29 Edison Butte 8 52 Dixie Mountain 10 8 Rainbow Bay 9 30 Wanoga 8 53 Blue Springs Summit 10 9 Dead Indian 9 31 Dutchman Flat 8 54 Grande Ronde Lake 10 10 Great Meadow 9 32 Three Creek Lake Road 8 55 Four Corners 7 11 Four Mile Lake Road 9 33 Ikenick 3 56 Mt. Emily 7 12 Quartz Mountain 9 34 Tombstone Summit 3 57 Langdon LK / 7 13 Camas 9 35 Lava Lake 3 Morning CRK / MP 20 14 Annie Creek 9 36 Little Nash 3 58 Spout Springs Ski Area 10 15 Union Creek 6 37 Ray Benson 3 / MP 22 16 Thousand Springs 6 38 Big Springs 3 59 Tollgate / Woodland 10 17 Claude Lewis Trailhead 6 39 McCoy 3 60 Andies PR / 10 18 Three Lakes 6 40 Skyline Road 7 Horseshoe PR / MP 27 (West Diamond Lake) 41 Frog Lake 2 61 Catherine Summit 10 19 South Diamond 6 42 Trillium Lake 2 62 Clear Creek 10 20 North Crater Lake 6 43 White River East 2 63 Salt Creek Summit 10 21 Walt Haring 9 44 Bennett Pass 2 64 Ferguson Ridge 10 22 Waldo Lake Road 6 45 Little John 2

70 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Experiences, Preferences, And Priorities Travel Distances And Crowding

Respondents indicated the parking area where they rode most, then reported the distance traveled to the area (one-way driving from home) and how crowded they felt in the area (separately for crowding in the parking area and while riding). Feelings or crowding were based on the following 1 to 9 scale:

How crowded Not at all Slightly Moderately Extremely do you feel crowded crowded crowded crowded In the parking area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 While riding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table 17 presents results, sorted by the number of observations by parking area. Gold highlights indicate the three sites with at least five observations and with the highest values in each category (one-way driving miles from home, crowding in parking areas, crowding while riding). Salt Creek Summit was the site most distant from home, with snowmobilers traveling an average of 281 miles to the site. Dutchman Flat had the highest crowding rating in the parking area, while Langdon Lake had the highest crowding rating while riding. Table 17. Snowmobile Travel Distances And Crowding By “Most Often” Site Site Site Observations Distance (miles) Perceived crowding number name Mean Median Parking area Riding All sites combined 805 95 66 4.6 3.0 23 Crescent Lake 61 115 100 3.4 2.8 31 Dutchman Flat 56 78 37 8.0 4.3 40 Skyline Road 45 69 59 6.2 3.5 37 Ray Benson 44 77 76 4.7 3.5 30 Wanoga 42 84 31 5.9 4.6 26 Ten Mile 40 81 59 5.7 3.6 41 Frog Lake 38 67 60 4.8 2.7 27 Paulina Lake 30 162 158 4.9 3.4 10 Great Meadow 27 94 48 3.9 2.5 18 Three Lakes (W. Diamond Lake) 25 161 120 4.8 3.4 19 South Diamond 19 137 124 4.3 3.5 57 Langdon Lake / Morning Crk 19 46 38 5.7 4.7 59 Tollgate / Woodland 19 125 76 2.9 2.7 61 Catherine Summit 18 94 35 4.4 2.7 16 Thousand Springs 17 74 65 5.2 2.7 29 Edison Butte 16 82 79 6.1 3.1 32 Three Creek Lake Road 13 74 75 5.7 3.6 63 Salt Creek Summit 13 281 299 3.0 1.9 62 Clear Creek 12 167 183 4.0 2.5 46 Billy Bob 11 107 84 2.9 2.9 24 Junction 10 94 95 3.5 2.5

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 71 Table 17. (Continued)

Site Site Observations Distance (miles) Perceived crowding number name Mean Median Parking area Riding 65 Diamond Lake (unspec.) 10 112 100 4.2 3.0 55 Four Corners 9 73 62 4.7 2.7 39 McCoy 8 77 86 3.3 2.6 14 Annie Creek 7 43 42 3.4 2.5 22 Waldo Lake Road 6 68 75 2.6 1.3 51 Huddleston 6 85 37 4.5 3.7 54 Grande Ronde Lake 6 59 38 2.9 1.6 56 Mt. Emily 6 104 40 2.3 2.1 48 Walton Lake 5 32 30 5.2 3.0 60 Andies / Horseshoe Prairie 5 66 21 4.5 3.1 13 Camas 4 43 18 1.6 1.3 20 North Crater Lake 4 500 500 5.4 2.0 66 Halfway 4 266 307 1.6 1.3 9 Dead Indian 3 34 34 2.9 2.6 15 Union Creek 3 60 55 1.6 1.6 33 Ikenick 3 40 40 9.0 5.0 34 Tombstone Summit 3 189 189 2.0 1.0 35 Lava Lake 3 114 109 2.0 1.3 49 Idlewild 3 226 289 1.9 1.9 53 Blue Springs Summit 3 52 48 1.2 1.0 64 Ferguson Ridge 3 6 6 1.0 1.0 6 Fish Lake 2 70 70 2.0 1.0 25 Six Mile 2 119 153 5.0 3.5 36 Little Nash 2 59 59 2.1 2.0 38 Big Springs 2 95 95 4.9 4.9 42 Trillium Lake 2 85 85 4.0 2.5 43 White River East 2 62 62 2.7 2.3 45 Little John 2 40 40 3.4 1.6 50 Starr Ridge 2 71 71 1.9 1.3 3 Buck Prairie 1 300 300 1.0 1.0 8 Rainbow Bay 1 150 150 6.0 5.0 21 Walt Haring 1 34 34 3.5 1.5 28 East Lake 1 35 35 3.0 1.0 47 Ochoco Divide 1 30 30 3.0 2.0 52 Dixie Mountain 1 140 140 1.0 1.0 58 Spout Springs Ski Area / MP 22 1 43 43 5.0 3.0 67 Sumpter 1 30 30 2.5 2.0 99 Other (specified) 67 75 46 3.5 2.2 98 Other (unspec.) 37 76 65 3.3 2.6

72 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Considerations In Deciding Where To Ride

Figure 44 shows the importance of considerations when deciding where to ride, percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. The two top considerations in deciding where to ride are backcountry off-trail riding opportunities and availability of parking. Responses in the Other category included a range of considerations, with the most commonFigure being access 3.1. toConsiderations good snow throughout when the deciding season. where to ride, Figure 44. Snowmobiler Considerationsprobability When sampleDeciding Where To Ride

Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important 0 20 40 60 80 100

Backcountry off‐trail riding 71 Parking 71 Trail grooming / maintenance 67 Trail location, variety, etc. 65 Other 60 Trail signs 52 Trail map 49 Website / online info. 35 Shelters at sno‐park + trails 32 Campgrounds near trailheads 21 Absence of law enforce. 19 Safety + ethics education 18 Active law enforce. presence 6

Trail Length Preferences

Figure 45 shows preferences for various trail lengths, which were described in the survey as follows: • Long interconnected trails (more than 100 miles) • Medium trails (50 to 100 miles) • Short trails (fewer than 50 miles)

Many respondents rate all trail lengths as important, but trails over 100 miles received the fewest ratings of 4 or 5 on the 5-pointFigure scale. 3.2. The Importance average ratings of alternatewere 2.9, 3.6, trail and lengths, 3.7 for Long, probability Medium, and Short, respectively. Figure 45. Importance Of Alternate Snowmobilesample Trail Lengths

100 15 26 80 32 20 5 = Very important 60 36 4 28 26 3

Percent 40 2 18 24 24 20 1 = Not important 19 5 9 10 0 8 Long Medium Short

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 73 Funding Need

Respondents indicated the funding importance of various potential improvements, with Figure 46 showing percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. The Other category received the highest ratings, keeping in mind that most people did not provide “write-in actions” and associated ratings for the Other category. Percentages are those that listed an action/ rating in the Other category, those that did so presumably considered it a high priority for funding. Actions written in the Other category were diverse, with many focusing on access ‒ expanding current access and avoiding future access restrictions. Backcountry off-trail riding opportunities and expanded trail systems also were rated highly by respondents. Figure 3.3. Priorities for future funding, probability sample Figure 46. Snowmobiler Priorities For Future Funding

Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important 0 20 40 60 80 100

Other 75 Backcountry off‐trail riding 66 Expand trail system 65 Trail grooming 56 Parking / sno‐parks 55 Signs along trails 44 Trail maps / information 44 Long‐distance trails 40 Snow removal in sno‐parks 35 Restrooms 33 Avalanche education 31 Warming shelters 29 RV camping nearby 26 Trail safety / reduce hazards 24 Educational programs, safe… 20 Enforcement of existing rules 9

Issue Importance

Figure 47 shows ratings of problems based n respondent experiences while riding snowmobiles, percent rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Closure of trails and riding areas was the most commonly rated as a moderate or serious problem.

74 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 47. ProblemsFigure 3.4. On Problems Snowmobile on Trails snowmobile trails, probability sample

Percent rating a Moderate or Serious Problem 0 20 40 60 80 100

Closure of trails / riding areas 54 ATVs on snowmobile trails 26 Cross‐country skiers on trails 20 Too much law enforcement 16 High avalanche risk 13 Reckless riding 12 Alcohol / drug use 11 Riding in closed areas 11 Vandalism 9 Lack of parent supervision 9 Excessive speed 9 Too many people / machines 8 Dogs on trails 8 Dangerous "high marking" 6 Too little law enforcement 6 Vehicle noise 3

Expenditure And In the analysis, survey spending question responses are used to calculate per person snowmobiler Economic Contribution expenditures for day and for multi-day trips for each region. The expenditure of snowmobilers by region This section presents a summary snowmobiler was “run” through the IMPLAN10 input-output expenditure, based on the “typical trips” described model to estimate the “multiplier effects” of money earlier. Note that this expenditure is only associated flowing through the local economy. To illustrate, with travel, not with equipment purchase or mainte- assume that a snowmobiler eats lunch at Restaurant nance. The expenditure and economic contribution X in Region 8. In order to provide the lunch, reflects snowmobiling activity by both local (to Restaurant X hires employees and purchases food the snowmobiling location) and non-local Oregon that is then prepared for customers. Food is an input residents. Expenditures categories used in this purchased from another business, and this process analysis included: generates indirect effects. Wages paid to employees • Hotel, motel, condo, cabin, B&B, or other generate induced effects, because those employees lodging except camping spend a portion of their income in the local econo- • Camping (RV, tent, etc.) my (perhaps by eating at Restaurant Y or shopping at Supermarket Z). Please see the full survey report • Restaurants, bars, pubs for a thorough methods description. • Groceries • Gas and oil • Other transportation 10 IMPLAN is widely used to estimate the economic contribution of tourism, recreation, and other activities.

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 75 Table 18 shows the results of the multiplier analysis, by region. The columns are as follows: • Employment, full-time or part-time jobs. • Labor income, which includes employee compensation (including wages, salaries, and benefits) and proprietary income (including self-employment income). • Value added, which includes labor income, rents, profits, and indirect business taxes. • Output, which is the dollar value of goods and services sold.

Statewide, snowmobiling by Oregon residents annually contributes 129 jobs, $4.1 million in labor income, and $6.5 million in value added. Inclusion of out-of-state snowmobilers is estimated to add another 20% to these figures. Table 18 shows statewide multiplier effects. When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimate amounts increase to155 jobs, $7.7 million in value added, and $5.0 million in labor income. Table 18. Multiplier Effects Of Snowmobiler Trip Expenditure, In-State and Out- Of-State Snowmobilers, Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars

Origin Employment Labor Income Value Added Output In-state 129 4,137,500 6,453,000 10,999,400 Out-of-state 26 827,500 1,290,600 2,199,900 Combined 155 4,965,000 7,743,600 13,199,300

Conclusions and Oregon snowmobilers engage in a variety of activities while on day or multi-day trips, with dining Implications out, exploring the town/areas, watching wildlife, and visiting brewpubs mentioned most. Land manage- The general trend is for lower snow amount accumu- ment agencies, tourism groups, local communities lations at Oregon snowmobile areas. Less snow was and businesses should use these results to assist the most common reason for survey respondents re- out-of-town snowmobilers with trip planning. porting a decrease in snowmobiling trips in the state. The USFS should consider the effects of changing Snowmobilers reported perceived crowding at park- climate (e.g., receding snowpack and earlier spring ing and riding areas in the state. To address reported runoff) on future recreation use patterns when crowding, the USFS should evaluate the need for conducting OSV travel management. additional parking at Dutchman Flat, Skyline Road, and Edison Butte, and the need for expanded trail Approximately 49% of snowmobile survey respon- systems at Landon Lake/ Morning Creek, Wanoga, dents are 50 years of age and older, compared to 27% and Dutchman Flat. of snowshoeing participants and 29% of cross-country skiing participants. These results suggest that The survey identified a strong need for funding snowmobiling provides an opportunity for older for backcountry off-trail riding and expanded trail Oregonians to continue to enjoy the outdoors and systems. The State of Oregon should work with access to public lands during winter months. The the USFS Region 6 Office to develop a long-term OSSA reports that many club members suffer from strategy for using state snowmobile gas tax funds a variety of age-related disabilities (arthritis, heart, for snowmobile expanding existing trail systems, walking) and continue to snowmobile on a regular creating more backcountry off-trail riding oppor- basis. tunities, trail grooming, and trail rehabilitation on

76 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future USFS lands in Oregon. In addition, a Federal funding mechanism should be implemented to fund such projects on USFS lands in Oregon.

A recent court ruling requires that all Oregon Forest Districts will need to go through a public planning process in the next five years to review and designate roads, trails, and cross country areas which are open to snowmobile use (similar to OHV Travel Management). This survey identified closure of trails and riding areas as the top snowmobile management issue in Oregon. As a result, land managers should reduce unwarranted snowmobile trail and riding area closures through comprehensive review/input/ analysis by all stakeholders.

The survey also identified a need for trail maps, current snow depth, and safety/ avalanche information for snowmobile riding areas on the internet. Recreation providers should also consider developing geospatial PDF maps of snowmobile routes to allow on-the-snow wayfinding. Such maps can be uploaded onto mobile devices (smartphone or tablet) and then, using an app, use built-in GPS to track the users location on the map.

Finally, this report identifies expenditure and economic contributions associated with snowmobiling on public lands in Oregon. Statewide, snowmobiling by Oregon residents supports 129 jobs, $4.1 million in labor income, and $6.5 million in value added. When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimated amounts increased to 155 jobs, $7.7 million in value added, and $5.0 million in labor income. This information should be used to educate Oregonians about the economic benefits received from their investment in snowmobiling areas, facilities, and services in the state.

Chapter 3 - Oregon Resident Snowmobiler Survey Summary 77

► Chapter 4 Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary

Introduction sample design was developed to derive information Background at the region level. Results of the survey are provided at the statewide scale and region scale (Figure 1 on page 29). In some cases, multiple rural regions are In preparation for the 2016-2025 Oregon Trails combined to achieve an adequate sample size. In this Plan, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department chapter, all references to trails and trail users refer to (OPRD) contracted with Oregon State University non-motorized trails and users. (OSU) to conduct a survey of Oregon resident non-motorized trail users regarding their current This chapter includes a summary of selected state- use patterns (amount, location, and type of use), wide and region scale survey results. The full survey user experiences and preferences, and the economic report, Oregon Non-Motorized Trail Participation contribution of recreation activity. The probability and Priorities, is available online at: oregon.gov/ sample was designed to be as representative as oprd/Trail_Programs_Services/Documents/ possible of all non-motorized trail users in Oregon. Nonmotorized_%20trail_report.pdf. For this project, non-motorized trails were defined as linear routes (not including roads and sidewalks) used for recreation, commuting, and other purposes. Survey Methods They can be narrow or wide, and of any surface, such as dirt, asphalt, wood, woodchip, gravel, or beach/ The project involved both a probability sample and sand. The questionnaire covered non-motorized use a convenience sample. This summary will focus on of trails anywhere in Oregon, including those “near results from the probability sample. The probability respondent homes and those further away.” The sample drawn included all respondents in the 2013- 2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor

79 Recreation Plan (SCORP) data file who engaged in Demographic Profiles – one or more of the following activities:11 SCORP Survey • Walking on local trails or paths • Walking/ day hiking on non-local trails or paths Results from the 2011 survey conducted for the • Long-distance hiking (backpacking) 2013-2017 Oregon SCORP provide additional information and a reference point for the current • Jogging or running on trails or paths trail user survey results. This section includes • Bicycling on paved trails demographic profiles from SCORP. • Bicycling on unpaved trails Age • Horseback riding • Cross-country/ nordic skiing/ skijoring on Figure 48 shows that, as expected, older Oregonians groomed trails are less likely to engage in trail activities, with walking on local trails or paths and cross-country • Cross-country/ nordic skiing/ skijoring on skiing having the highest representations of older ungroomed trails or off designated trails age groups. Conversely, backpacking and running • Snowshoeing have the highest proportions of younger age groups. Persons in the probability sample could complete Gender the questionnaire in either online or paper format. Surveys were sent out to 4,910 residents. Of those As shown in Figure 49, the gender distribution delivered (4,887), 2,027 were obtained, for an overall across activities is reasonably close to the balance response rate of 41%. This included 28% for those in the population as a whole, though women are engaging in trail use in the past year (1,377 respon- noticeably more common than men in horseback dents) and 13% for those who did not engage. This riding, snowshoeing, and biking on paved trails. response rate is good by current survey standards, Women are less common than men in backpacking. especially considering the long median online completion time of 25 minutes. With respect to format, 56% of the surveys were completed online and 44% in paper format. Sample data were weighted on age and gender distributions in the SCORP sample of non-motorized trail users.

11 A small number (less than 10%) of these SCORP trail respondents were removed from this sample so they could be sent the boater questionnaire.

80 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 48. Non-MotorizedFigure Trail User1.2. AgeAge Distribution, distribution, SCORP SCORP Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Oregonians 21 17 17 18 14 13

Walk local 25 24 21 16 10 5

Walk non‐local 25 25 21 17 9 3

Backpack 36 25 18 12 8 1

Run 36 30 21 9 4 0

Bike paved 26 26 22 16 9 2

Bike unpaved 28 24 25 14 7 2

Horseback 31 20 22 18 8 2

XC ski 28 21 22 15 12 2

Snowshoe 29 23 21 16 10 1 18‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60‐69 70+

Figure 49. Non-MotorizedFigure Trail 1.3. User Gender Gender distribution, Distribution, SCORPSCORP Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Oregonians 49 51

Walk local 46 54

Walk non‐local 46 54

Backpack 54 46

Run 46 54

Bike paved 44 56

Bike unpaved 46 54

Horseback 43 57

XC ski 51 49

Snowshoe 44 56

Male Female

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 81 Education

Trail users tend to be more highly educated than Oregonians as a whole, especially for cross-country skiers and snowshoers (Figure 50). Figure 50.Figure Percent 1.4. Non-Motorized Percent with Trail bachelor's Users With degree Bachelor’s or higher, Degree SCORPOr Higher, SCORP

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Oregonians 29

Walk local 52

Walk non‐local 55

Backpack 53

Run 57

Bike paved 58

Bike unpaved 51

Horseback 47

XC ski 70

Snowshoe 65

Race/ Ethnicity

With respect to race and ethnicity, minorities are under represented among trail users (Figure 51). Figure 51. Race/ Ethnicity Distribution, All Non-Motorized Trail Activities, SCORP Figure 1.5a. Race / ethnicity distribution, all trail activities, SCORP Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

12 Latino 2 2 Black Oregonians 4 0 89 Native 3 American Asian 4 1 Hawaiian / All trail 2 3 Pacific activities 0 92 White 4

Income

Figure 52 presents household annual income distribution, with trail users having higher income levels than Oregonians overall. This is especially true for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, but also true for other activities.

82 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 52. Annual Non-Motorized Trail User Household Income Distribution, SCORP Figure 1.6. Annual household income distribution, SCORP Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Oregonians 25 27 20 12 17

Walk local 14 21 22 19 24

Walk non‐local 13 22 22 19 25

Backpack 11 21 21 20 27

Run 11 17 20 23 29

Bike paved 12 17 24 20 28

Bike unpaved 12 20 21 19 28

Horseback 7 17 29 21 27

XC ski 11 19 18 20 32

Snowshoe 9 14 24 21 32 <$25k $25k‐<$50k $50k‐<$75k $75k‐<$100k $100k+

Activity Days, Participation, and Trip Characteristics Activity Days By County and Region

Table 19 presents estimated activity days by county and region, separated into trail use categories. Days are by location of use (county in which the trail activity occurred) and are rounded to the nearest hundred. Blank cells reflect 1,000 or fewer activity days.

Some recreation activities involve licenses/ permits or equipment that must be registered (e.g., hunting, fishing, OHV riding, and snowmobiling). For those activities, license/ permit and vehicle registration counts provide a good foundation for estimating use. For other activities, large general population surveys such as those conducted for SCORP processes, provide the best foundation. Given the inevitable potential for error in survey measurement, a conservative approach is used here. In recent years, both Oregon and Washington State12 completed general population surveys for their respective SCORP processes. For each of the non-motorized trail activities included in this chapter, estimated user days from the Oregon SCORP and Washington SCORP (applied to the Oregon population base) were compared, and the smaller of the two estimates was used. Extrapolation was used when the Washington SCORP activity categories did not fully match the Oregon SCORP categories.

12 The Washington SCORP survey is: Responsive Management. 2012. Results of general population survey in support of the development of the Washington State comprehensive outdoor recreation plan.

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 83 Table 19. Estimates Of Non-Motorized Trail Activity Days By County Where Occurred

Walk local Walk non-local Backpack Run Bike paved Bike unpaved Horseback XC groomed XC ungroomed Snowshoe Clatsop 987,700 541,600 93,200 364,900 181,000 Clatsop 43,100 43,200 Lincoln 798,300 939,900 8,500 165,700 24,200 Lincoln 31,000 20,100 Tillamook 584,500 589,900 55,800 34,100 22,800 Tillamook 33,500 21,000 Region 1 2,370,500 2,071,400 157,500 564,600 228,000 Region 1 107,700 84,300 Clackamas 4,331,900 2,401,900 244,400 1,521,200 361,500 Clackamas 178,500 509,300 110,400 102,000 196,700 Columbia 718,100 112,000 8,000 279,300 109,600 Columbia 138,200 60,200 2,400 Hood River 538,000 933,600 99,000 254,200 107,700 Hood River 171,000 16,100 169,400 83,700 183,900 Multnomah 20,380,700 4,075,700 121,000 11,248,600 4,552,200 Multnomah 2,496,100 19,400 11,300 30,900 Washington 8,263,400 1,584,000 168,100 4,830,300 1,459,800 Washington 566,400 147,800 500 Region 2 34,232,100 9,107,300 640,600 18,133,600 6,590,700 Region 2 3,550,100 752,900 294,000 185,700 411,400 Benton 4,380,100 1,822,900 70,600 3,479,500 1,833,100 Benton 275,800 57,400 1,600 1,900 Linn 1,696,100 392,000 18,600 337,700 354,200 Linn 86,700 24,900 8,600 14,100 3,900 Marion 4,324,400 1,304,600 105,000 502,700 490,700 Marion 121,500 187,700 9,400 3,600 15,300 Polk 740,800 185,700 1,200 193,700 59,900 Polk 24,200 18,000 Yamhill 1,270,100 94,700 700 185,200 185,900 Yamhill 51,300 44,500 Region 3 12,411,400 3,799,900 196,000 4,698,800 2,923,700 Region 3 559,500 332,400 18,000 19,300 21,100 Lane 6,075,500 1,889,300 294,500 2,174,800 2,207,900 Lane 509,700 62,500 89,700 99,100 186,100 Region 4 6,075,500 1,889,300 294,500 2,174,800 2,207,900 Region 4 509,700 62,500 89,700 99,100 186,100 Coos 1,313,800 758,100 18,600 230,300 174,200 Coos 86,800 91,300 Curry 568,600 199,300 12,200 121,300 26,100 Curry 42,200 34,900 Region 5 1,882,500 957,500 30,900 351,600 200,300 Region 5 129,000 126,100 Douglas 1,267,700 412,900 90,800 442,000 195,300 Douglas 28,300 89,100 1,200 6,300 7,000 Jackson 3,405,500 1,444,900 491,900 1,091,400 850,400 Jackson 274,400 154,100 47,300 56,700 23,600 Josephine 859,600 271,500 39,200 445,900 170,600 Josephine 85,200 5,400 1,800 7,200 Region 6 5,532,900 2,129,300 621,900 1,979,300 1,216,300 Region 6 387,900 248,600 48,500 64,800 37,800 Gilliam 23,600 Gilliam Morrow 63,900 30,600 1,200 32,100 10,900 Morrow 4,900 9,900 Sherman 15,600 Sherman 5,600 Umatilla 781,100 158,000 13,400 130,600 68,900 Umatilla 34,500 104,900 1,100 4,300 9,100 Wasco 278,900 168,600 6,500 75,500 83,200 Wasco 25,000 39,800 9,700 Region 7 1,163,100 357,200 21,100 238,200 163,000 Region 7 64,500 160,200 1,100 4,300 18,800 Crook 220,700 72,600 11,300 47,100 27,200 Crook 11,800 39,600 4,400 1,000 Deschutes 6,809,900 1,985,400 374,200 2,660,600 2,368,900 Deschutes 518,600 1,868,500 330,600 218,600 203,400 Jefferson 230,500 232,900 46,900 88,300 43,100 Jefferson 27,500 25,100 2,800 5,100 Wheeler 17,500 Wheeler Region 8 7,261,100 2,308,300 432,400 2,795,900 2,439,300 Region 8 557,900 1,933,300 330,600 225,800 209,500 Klamath 1,130,600 368,900 106,700 743,600 174,900 Klamath 171,500 61,100 10,700 19,500 73,500 Lake 120,800 62,400 4,300 23,900 4,700 Lake 12,000 27,300 1,500 2,600 Region 9 1,251,400 431,300 111,000 767,500 179,700 Region 9 183,500 88,400 10,700 20,900 76,100 Baker 372,300 184,100 25,400 133,200 61,300 Baker 22,700 91,700 17,800 8,300 33,200

84 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 19. Estimates Of Non-Motorized Trail Activity Days By County Where Occurred Table 19. (continued)

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 85 Table 19. (continued)

Walk local Walk non-local Backpack Run Bike paved Bike unpaved Horseback XC groomed XC ungroomed Snowshoe Grant 123,100 673,400 13,200 47,400 6,100 Grant 1,300 13,200 1,200 Union 424,100 219,700 68,600 108,500 118,800 Union 71,100 106,100 12,600 11,200 33,700 Wallowa 136,200 89,600 65,400 26,900 2,900 Wallowa 6,800 80,300 8,300 6,500 Region 10 1,055,700 1,166,800 172,600 316,100 189,000 Region 10 101,900 291,400 30,400 29,100 73,300 Harney 85,900 98,600 6,600 17,500 Harney 16,100 38,100 2,500 Malheur 225,500 72,500 10,500 154,900 12,000 Malheur 19,200 321,600 Region 11 311,500 171,000 17,100 172,400 12,000 Region 11 35,300 359,700 2,500

State total 73,547,700 24,389,100 2,695,300 32,192,800 16,349,900 State total 6,187,100 4,439,900 823,000 651,500 1,034,900

Across all trail activities, there were an estimated 162,311,200 activity days in Oregon in the reference year of 2011.

Note that the SCORP and current trail survey estimates are based on surveys of Oregon residents and do not include trail use in Oregon by non-residents. The US Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides one reference point for estimating the balance of Oregon resident versus non-resident trail use in Oregon. Across all national forest units in Oregon, there are an estimated 2.62 million non-motorized trail visits annually. Of these, 76% are visits by Oregon residents and 24% by non-residents. However, the majority of the user occasions in this trail analysis likely occur on trails in or near communities rather than in more distant national forests. The recent Washington State economic analysis provides estimates of activity days in local parks, with non-residents representing approximately 11% of use13. Non-resident trail use across the activities in this chapter fall within the 11% to 24% range, with the lower end used here to be conservative.

13 See Table 7 and Table 17 in Briceno, T. and G. Schundler. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Available at: http://www. rco.wa.gov/documents/ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf

86 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 19. (continued)

State total 73,547,700 24,389,100 2,695,300 32,192,800 16,349,900 State total 6,187,100 4,439,900 823,000 651,500 1,034,900

Trail Survey Participation Across Activities

Trail respondents reported how many days they participated in various trail activities on trails in Oregon during the past 12 months. As shown in Figure 53, the activity with the most participation is walking/ hiking, with the “total” category for walking including days participating in sub categories. The sub categories include walking and/ or running on ocean beaches, with a dog on-leash, and with a dog off-leash. A given walking or running occasion may fall into none, one, two, or all three of these sub categories. Figure 53. Non-MotorizedFigure 2.1. Trail Participation Participation frequency Frequency by By activity, Activity probability sample

Mean days in past 12 months, across all trail users 0 10 20 30 40

Walking / hiking, total 38.5 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 11.2 Walking / running, dog on‐leash 11.0 Running / jogging, total 10.1 Walking / running, ocean beach 8.2 Biking, hard surface 6.8 Biking, singletrack 3.5 Horseback riding 2.2 Snowshoeing 1.3 Backpacking 1.2 Cross‐country skiing, groomed 1.1 Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 0.8 Skateboarding 0.1 In‐line / roller skating, roller skiing 0.0

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 87 Figure 54 shows the participation rate by activity ‒ the percentage of respondents who engaged in each activity at least once in the past 12 months. Almost everyone (96%) engaged in walking/ hiking at least once. Two-thirds of respondents walked specifically on an ocean beach at least once. Different ordering between Figure 53 and 54 reflects participation frequency. For example, more people walk on an ocean beach than walk their dog on-leash (Figure 54). However, those who walk their dog on-leash do so more frequently than those who walk on an ocean beach, which leads to a higher average number of days for on-leash dog walking (Figure 53). Figure 54. Non-MotorizedFigure 2.2. Trail Participation Participation rate Rate by By activity, Activity probability sample Percent of trail users particpating at least once in past 12 months 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking, total 96

Walking / running, ocean beach 66

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 39

Biking, hard surface 33

Running / jogging, total 30

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 30

Backpacking 23

Biking, singletrack 23

Snowshoeing 19

Cross‐country skiing, groomed 15

Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 13

Horseback riding 10

In‐line / roller skating, roller skiing

Skateboarding

Figure 55 shows hours per day spent on trails while engaging in each activity. Backpacking and horseback riding involves the highest percentage of people with six or more hours while engaging. Running has the highest percentage of people with an hour or less, followed by walking/ running with dog on-leash and biking on hard surface trails.

Figure 56 shows activity level while engaging in each activity on trails. These were self-evaluated levels using the following guidelines presented in the questionnaire: • Low ‒ for example, walking or bicycling at a slow pace. • Medium ‒ for example, walking or bicycling at a moderate pace. • Vigorous ‒ for example, jogging, walking, or bicycling at a vigorous pace, breaking a sweat, heart beating rapidly.

Biking on singletrack trails and running were the activities with the highest percentage at the vigorous activity level, while walking/ running on an ocean beach had the highest percentage at the low activity level.

88 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 2.3. Hours per day engaged by activity, probability sample Figure 55. Hours Per Day Engaged By Non-Motorized Trail Activity

Percent 020406080100

Walking / hiking 29 36 27 9

Running / jogging 71 20 7

Walking / running, ocean beach 38 42 17 4

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 55 31 8 6

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 38 39 18 5

Backpacking 35 55

Biking, singletrack 30 43 25

Biking, hard surface 49 33 14 5

Horseback riding 12 15 42 32

Cross‐country skiing, groomed 11 36 47 7

Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 20 37 38 4

Snowshoeing 19 33 38 10

½ to 1 hour 1½ to 2 hours 3 to 5 hours 6 or more hours Figure 2.4. Self‐evaluated activity level by activity, probability Figure 56. Self-Evaluated Activity Level By sampleNon-Motorized Trail Activity

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 30 62 8

Running / jogging 22 43 35

Walking / running, ocean beach 62 33 4

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 47 48 5

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 40 51 9

Backpacking 25 52 23

Biking, singletrack 21 37 42

Biking, hard surface 22 54 25

Horseback riding 43 52 5

Cross‐country skiing, groomed 20 50 30

Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 20 51 29

Snowshoeing 21 59 19

Low Medium Vigorous

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 89 Eleven percent of respondents use recreation-oriented trails to walk or bicycle to work, with Figure 57 showing differences across regions. The highest percentage is in Region 4 (Lane County). Figure 2.5. Use of recreation trails to walk or bike to work, Figure 57. Use Of Recreation Trailsprobability To Walk Or Bike sample To Work

Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50

Region 4 36 Region 5 15 Region 2 13 Region 8 13 Region 3 12 Region 1 9 Region 7 6 Region 6 5 Region 10 4 Region 9+11 3

Day Trip And Multi-Day Trip Characteristics

Almost all respondents (98%) took at least one trail-related day trip and 81% took at least one multi-day trip in the past year (12 months). Multi-day trips are defined as those involving an overnight stay away from home, even if the respondent only used trails one day during the trip. The day versus multi-day distinction is used in presenting results in this section as well as in estimating economic contribution later in the chapter.

Figure 58 shows the percentage of trail days in each region that involved day trips versus multi-day trips. The percentages are similar across regions, though the northern Willamette Valley (Regions 2 and 3) is particularly dominated by day use; this is not suprising given the large residential population in that area. FigureFigure 58. Percent 2.7. ofPercent Non-Motorized of trail days Trail spentDays Spent on day On versus Day Versus multi Multi-Day‐ Trips By Region day trips by region, probability sample 100 14 10 27 22 25 23 19 27 21 22 80

60 90 40 86 81 79 78 Percent 73 78 75 77 73 20

0 12345678109 & 11 Region where trail use occured Multi‐day Day

The following results are for the “typical” day and multi-day trips, defined as the single location where respondents most often engaged in each type of trail activity trip in the past 12 months. Figure 59 indicates that 60% of day trips are within 30 miles of home while two-thirds of multi-day trips were more than 60 miles from home.

90 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 2.8. Distance traveled for typical trip, probability sample Figure 59. Distance Traveled For Typical Non-Motorized Trail Trip

100

80 66 60 60

Percent 40 30 24 20 10 10

0 Within 30 31 to 60 More than 60 One way driving miles from home Day Multi‐day

The remaining results in this section and the expenditure and economic significance section are based on travel parties. The NVUM approach to outliers is followed in this analysis.14

Figure 60 shows the number of persons in travel party for day and multi-day trips. Travel parties are larger for multi-day trips, but two persons is most common for both trip types. Figure Figure60. Number 2.9. Number of of Persons persons in In travel Non-Motorized party, probability sample Trail User Travel Party Day Multi‐day 50 43 40 40

30 24 17 17 Percent 20 16 16 9 10 4 5 6 2 0 1 0 1234567

Figure 61 shows number of days for multi-day trips, with two and three days being the most common. Figure 2.10. Typical multi‐day trips, trip length in days, Figure 61. Typical Non-Motorized Trailprobability User Multi-Day sample Trips, Trip Length In Days 50

40 31 28 30

20 Percent 11 11 10 6 5 3 11 3 0 2345678910 to 14 15 or more

14 White, E.M., D.B. Goodding, and D.J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: round 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 91 Favorite Activity, these categories are omitted from the following “by favorite activity” analyses. In addition, walking/ Trail Preferences, And running on an ocean beach is omitted from trail Priorities surface, length, and difficulty results. Figure 63 shows satisfaction with three aspects of Respondents reported their favorite among the listed trail opportunities for engaging in their favorite trail activities, then reported trail preferences for activity. The aspects were described as follows: that activity. • Proximity ‒ you can access trails for this activity Favorite Activity And Trail Preferences near your home.

As shown in Figure 62 walking/ hiking is the favorite • Quality ‒ the trails are well-suited to the experi- activity for almost half the respondents. Note that ence you seek. respondents could choose only one activity and that • Variety ‒ you can access multiple trails. the walking/ running sub categories were presented Across all activities, the percent somewhat or very as separate activities in this question. Thus, 48% who satisfied (4 or 5 on the 1 to 5 scale) is highest for chose walking/ hiking presumably reflect people quality and lowest for variety. There were high whose favorite activity is walking/ hiking not on an ratings (80% or higher) for some aspects of some ocean beach and not involving a dog. activities, but opportunities for improvement remain There were fewer than 10 respondents who indicated for other aspects and activities. that each of the winter trail activities was their favorite. No respondent indicated that inline skating or skateboarding was their favorite. Therefore,

Figure 62. FavoriteFigure Non-Motorized 3.1. Favorite Trail trail Activity activity, probability sample

Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50

Walking / hiking 48 Walking / running, ocean beach 10 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 7 Backpacking 5 Horseback riding 5 Running / jogging 5 Other 5 Biking, hard surface 5 Biking, singletrack 4 Walking / running, dog on‐leash 3 Snowshoeing 1 Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 0 Cross‐country skiing, groomed 0

92 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 3.2. Satisfaction with opportunities to engage in favorite activity, probability sample, percent rating Somewhat or Very Satisfied Figure 63. Satisfaction With Opportunities To Engage In Favorite Non- Motorized Trail Activity, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Satisfied Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

69 Walking / hiking 80 68

73 Running / jogging 87 54

62 Proximity Walking / running, ocean beach 66 57 Quality 73 Variety Walking / running, dog on‐leash 71 58

62 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 81 55

44 Backpacking 80 68

57 Biking, singletrack 65 56

47 Biking, hard surface 64 27

59 Horseback riding 65 54

Respondents then indicated whether opportunities to engage in their favorite activity have decreased, not changed, or increased in the past 10 years, with results shown in Figure 64. In general, increased opportunities outweighed decreased opportunities. Figure 3.3. Change in opportunities to engage in favorite activity in Figure 64. Changes In Opportunitiespast 10 To years,Engage probability In Favorite sample Non-Motorized Trail Activity In Past 10 Years Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 5 8 39 41 8

Running / jogging 3 6 34 39 18

Walking / running, ocean beach 5 18 51 25 2

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 2 14 33 42 9

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 4 11 48 31 6

Backpacking 18 15 32 31 4

Biking, singletrack 2 6 33 49 11

Biking, hard surface 7 10 38 35 10

Horseback riding 13 24 21 38 4

Decreased greatly Decreased slightly Not changed Increased slightly Increased greatly

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 93 Figure 65 shows preferred trail surface by favorite activity, excluding walking/ running on ocean beaches. Dirt is the preferredFigure surface 3.4. for Preferred all activities trail other surface than biking for favorite on hard surface activity, trails. probability Figure 65. Preferred Trail Surface For Favoritesample Non-Motorized Activity

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 69 7

Running / jogging 64 15

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 61 17

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 78 3

Backpacking 85

Biking, singletrack 95

Biking, hard surface 12 72

Horseback riding 81

Dirt Grass Woodchip Wood / plastic / rubber Gravel / rock Asphalt / concrete Other

Preferred trail length is illustrated in Figure 66. The majority of walkers and runners preferred lengths of one to five miles, while those engaging in backpacking, biking (singletrack or hard surface), and horseback riding tend to prefer lengthsFigure of 3.5. six orPreferred more miles. trail length for favorite activity, miles, Figure 66. Preferred Trail Length Forprobability Favorite Non-Motorized sample Activity, Miles

Percent 020406080100

Walking / hiking 20 55 20

Running / jogging 64 22 6 6

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 37 56 5

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 23 60 16

Backpacking 12 18 35 7 28

Biking, singletrack 15 33 29 24

Biking, hard surface 26 24 31 19

Horseback riding 21 43 12 25

Less than 1 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15

Preferred trail difficulty was asked with respect to trails both within the community and outside the community, with results in shown in Figures 67 and Figure 68. Moderate, varied trails were preferred by most respondents, with interest in challenging trails being greater for trails outside one’s community. Singletrack bikers were more likely than others to prefer challenging trails.

94 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 3.6. Preferred trail difficulty inside one's community, probability sample Figure 67. Preferred Non-Motorized Trail Difficulty Inside One’s Community

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 18 73 8

Running / jogging 9 78 10

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 16 84

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 19 77 4

Backpacking 8 85 2

Biking, singletrack 73 27

Biking, hard surface 22 72 3

Horseback riding 5 81 8

Easy, level or flat Moderate, varied Challenging Other Figure 3.7. Preferred trail difficulty outside one's community, probability sample Figure 68. Preferred Non-Motorized Trail Difficulty Outside One’s Community

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 8 70 22

Running / jogging 3 56 38

Walking / running, dog on‐leash 12 67 21

Walking / running, dog off‐leash 4 76 19

Backpacking 59 38

Biking, singletrack 4 38 58

Biking, hard surface 21 72 7

Horseback riding 70 27

Easy, level or flat Moderate, varied Challenging Other

Trail Management Preferences

Several questions were asked regarding preferences for responding to crowding or conflict. Figure 69 indicates that respondents generally prefer creating new trails to reduce crowding, where it exists, rather than letting existing trails remain crowded. This is especially true for singletrack bikers. The potential for additional financial and environmental costs due to creating new trails was noted, so preferences for new trails presumably reflect a high value for quality trail experiences.

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 95 Figure 3.8. Preferred response to crowded trails, probability Figure 69. Preferred Response To Crowdedsample Non-Motorized Trails

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking / hiking 31 32 22 12 3 Running / jogging 27 46 21 3 3 Walking / running, ocean beach 26 28 30 15 2 Walking / running, dog on‐leash 21 46 28 5 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 23 33 30 7 8 Backpacking 27 19 32 13 8 Biking, singletrack 64 22 7 4 4 Biking, hard surface 23 25 42 2 9 Horseback riding 42 18 30 5 5

Strongly prefer, new trails Somewhat prefer, new trails Equal preference Somewhat prefer, remain crowded Strongly prefer, remain crowded

Figure 70 includes preferences for trail widening and one-way designation as tools to reduce crowding and conflict, with means on a scale of 1 being strongly oppose to 5 being strongly support. Across all respondents (bottom category), there was support for trail widening, but less support (below neutral) for one-way designation. That relationship occurred for all favorite activity categories except singletrack biking. For that activity, respondents were more supportive of one-way designation (though still only neutral on average) than of trail widening.

Figure 70.Figure Support 3.10. For Support Trail Widening for trail And widening One-Way and Designation one‐way To designation Reduce Non-Motorized Trail User Crowding And Conflict to reduce crowding and conflict, probability sample

Mean rating 12345

3.7 Walking / hiking 2.4 3.9 Running / jogging 2.4 3.5 Walking / running, ocean beach 2.6 3.5 Walking / running, dog on‐leash 2.5 Trail widening 3.2 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 2.6 One‐way designation 3.4 Backpacking 2.6 2.6 Biking, singletrack 3.0 4.0 Biking, hard surface 2.3 3.7 Horseback riding 2.3 3.6 All favorite activities combined 2.5

96 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Priorities For Trails And Facilities

Figure 71 shows priorities for additional trails, separately for inside and outside one’s community. Trails for walking/ hiking were the highest priority for both locations. Trails for hard surface biking were the next highest priority for inside, while trails for backpacking were the next highest priority for outside one’s community. For most activities, a higher priority was placed on trails inside the community over trails outside. Figure 71.Figure Priority 3.11. For Priority Additional for additionalNon-Motorized trails, Trails, probability Inside sample, inside And Outside Community,and outside Sorted By community Inside (sorted by inside)

Percent rating Moderate or High Prioity 0 20 40 60 80 100

72 Walking / hiking 64 55 Biking, hard surface 47 Inside Running / jogging 53 37 Outside 44 Walking / running, dog off‐leash 41 42 Walking / running, dog on‐leash 39 36 Biking, singletrack 37 34 Backpacking 48 24 Horseback riding 26 20 Other 19 18 Cross‐country skiing, groomed 27 17 Snowshoeing 26 15 Skateboarding 11 14 Cross‐country skiing, ungroomed 23 12 In‐line / roller skating, roller skiing 8

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 97 Results by region are included in Table 20 (inside one’s community) and Table 21 (outside one’s community). Table 20. Priority For Additional Non-Motorized Trails, Inside One’s Community, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+11 10 Total Walking / hiking 70 76 72 56 78 75 78 77 64 65 72 Biking, hard surface 62 59 49 76 56 54 58 53 53 49 55 Running / jogging 48 54 63 33 30 51 39 56 60 47 53 Walking / running, dog off-leash 51 49 39 21 45 57 18 61 53 42 44 Walking / running, dog on-leash 47 40 40 18 41 56 33 55 47 43 42 Biking, singletrack 45 47 30 22 46 25 30 45 35 35 36 Backpacking 35 36 28 16 42 40 49 33 32 35 34 Horseback riding 30 27 13 5 11 27 44 35 22 30 24 Other 24 37 10 0 36 27 11 8 29 17 20 Cross-country skiing, groomed 20 16 4 6 20 22 14 48 25 35 18 Snowshoeing 17 17 7 11 18 20 11 40 18 31 17 Skateboarding 35 10 14 4 28 23 12 10 14 16 15 Cross-country skiing, ungroomed 21 13 4 8 21 20 7 24 20 35 14 In-line / roller skating, roller skiing 25 7 12 4 10 8 7 15 12 18 12

Table 21. Priority For Additional Non-Motorized Trails, Outside One’s Community, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+11 10 Total Walking / hiking 71 69 60 92 62 81 77 53 53 53 64 Biking, hard surface 40 48 49 76 37 54 71 34 38 37 48 Running / jogging 55 53 43 52 51 36 49 40 34 62 47 Walking / running, dog off-leash 41 47 38 14 45 59 23 53 46 30 41 Walking / running, dog on-leash 43 44 39 15 36 55 37 44 33 30 39 Biking, singletrack 42 37 46 26 20 36 26 43 37 23 37 Backpacking 39 43 33 43 45 15 36 43 27 44 37 Horseback riding 27 32 14 20 30 18 30 34 42 37 27 Other 26 23 20 35 21 28 38 36 21 30 26 Cross-country skiing, groomed 24 29 21 27 30 19 21 24 37 34 26 Snowshoeing 26 26 15 20 33 11 17 20 35 41 23 Skateboarding 12 40 20 0 36 21 8 9 10 20 19 Cross-country skiing, ungroomed 26 10 11 4 25 6 9 0 11 8 11 In-line / roller skating, roller skiing 16 4 6 4 13 6 4 14 14 8 8

98 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Priorities for additional trails and maintenance are shown in Figure 72, based on the question “please share your priorities for trails in Oregon over the next 10 years, keeping in mind limited funding and land”. Repair of major trail damage was the highest priority.

Results by region are included in Table 22. Figure 72. Non-MotorizedFigure 3.12. Trail Trail and And maintenance Maintenance Prioritiespriorities, probability sample

Percent rating Moderate or High Priority 0 20 40 60 80 100

Repair major trail damage 75 Protection of natural features 68 Routine upkeep of the trails themselves 65 Routine removal of litter / trash 52 Connecting trails into larger trail systems 45 More trail maps / trail information 43 More soft surface walking trails 38 More signs at trailhead 34 More signs along trails 32 More info about parking permits 30 More trails for runners / general exercise 30 More trails for off‐leash dog recreationists 28 More restrooms 26 More trails for persons with disabilities 24 More hard‐surf. trails for bikers generally 20 More hard surface walking trails 19 More natural‐surf. trails for mountain bikers 19 More parking 17 More trails for horseback riders 12 More trails for cross‐country skiers 12 More trails for snowshoers 11 More trails for in‐line / roller skaters, roller skiers 2

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 99 Table 22. Priorities For Additional Non-Motorized Trails And Maintenance, Percent Rating Moderate Or High Priority By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+11 10 Total Repair major trail damage 79 77 73 72 84 70 68 74 88 67 75 Protection of natural features 83 77 70 74 54 61 46 67 70 54 68 Routine upkeep of the trails 72 60 63 63 82 65 67 62 73 64 65 themselves Routine removal of litter / trash 65 49 51 64 63 46 38 52 62 52 52 Connecting trails into larger trail 43 46 49 75 41 43 42 36 42 44 45 systems More trail maps / trail information 44 35 51 51 34 42 45 39 41 38 43 More soft surface walking trails 33 39 42 53 38 37 33 43 27 28 38 More signs at trailhead 32 33 38 26 29 33 30 31 42 36 34 More signs along trails 35 33 36 21 23 26 33 30 34 27 32 More info about parking permits 36 34 26 43 33 32 27 25 36 31 30 More trails for runners/general 29 38 27 36 27 11 29 45 38 15 30 exercise More trails for off-leash dog 20 25 24 14 48 38 15 35 52 27 28 recreationists More restrooms 20 35 28 49 26 15 20 17 27 18 26 More trails for persons with 24 28 16 32 25 21 20 25 49 12 24 disabilities More hard-surf. trails for bikers 17 31 21 34 21 21 7 18 19 11 20 generally More hard surface walking trails 18 26 16 25 13 10 11 27 23 11 19 More natural-surf. trails for 14 24 17 37 30 13 13 17 18 14 19 mountain bikers More parking 14 23 15 21 9 21 12 20 18 14 17 More trails for horseback riders 9 13 6 1 11 19 26 18 13 13 12 More trails for cross-country skiers 3 14 9 24 4 3 6 25 13 18 12 More trails for snowshoers 4 14 9 23 11 8 8 15 14 12 11 More trails for in-line / roller 12105125152 skaters, roller skiers

100 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Information Sources

Figure 73 includes information sources utilized when seeking information about trails by age of respondent, sorted by Total (all ages combined). Word of mouth is the most frequent source of information. As expected, there is some variation by age. For example, those in younger age categories are more likely than those in older age categories to use word of mouth and social media. Conversely, those in older age categories are more likely to use newspapers.

Information sources utilized by region are included in Table 23. Figure 73.Figure Non-Motorized 3.13. Information Trail Information sources by age, Sources probability By Age sample

Percent rating Somewhat Often or Often 0 20 40 60 80 100

70 68 58 Word of mouth (e.g., friends, family) 55 56 52 62 55 66 53 Agency websites 55 46 35 55 42 60 52 Printed maps, guidebooks, other books 57 57 59 53 24 33 30 Agency offices 41 36 33 32 22 22 19 Rec. at hotels or visitor info centers 25 25 29 22 18 to 29 17 20 24 30 to 39 Local trail groups + their websites 22 16 15 40 to 49 20 16 50 to 59 25 21 Rec. at outdoor / bike / sports stores 20 60 to 69 18 15 20 70 or older 11 28 Total 19 Other 18 30 12 18 25 13 13 Social media 12 7 5 15 3 6 7 Newspapers 16 16 18 9 9 4 7 Strava, MapMyRide, similar websites 7 5 3 7 5 2 7 TV (e.g., public service announcements) 6 6 7 5 3 4 5 Radio 3 4 4 4

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 101 Table 23. Non-Motorized Trail Information Sources, Percent Reporting Somewhat Often Or Often By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+11 10 Total Word of mouth 67 61 62 91 54 55 66 66 47 65 62 (e.g., friends, family) Agency websites 57 60 61 32 53 47 55 46 60 47 55 Printed maps, guidebooks, 51 53 53 37 52 67 53 53 44 59 53 other books Agency offices 39 36 19 28 39 34 37 25 41 49 32 Rec. at hotels or visitor info 33 26 13 15 42 22 17 18 49 15 22 centers Local trail groups + their 21 23 24 33 16 10 10 25 12 16 20 websites Rec. at outdoor/bike/sports 19 26 17 41 13 8 21 25 17 20 20 stores Other 16 28 18 0 10 28 3 34 22 6 19 Social media 13 12 14 2 7 13 16 23 30 10 15 Newspapers 13 5 8 8 14 8 8 12 7 10 9 Strava, MapMyRide, similar 5 11 9 2 5 3 4 5 6 1 7 websites TV (e.g., public service 4 3 2 2 2 12 10 7 7 3 5 announcements) Radio 6 4 1 0 11 3 4 2 11 3 4

Issue Importance

Respondents were asked, based on their trail use in the past 12 months, how important they felt each of several issues was on trails in Oregon. The ability to experience the natural environment was the most important (Figure 74), followed by more trail information on the internet.

Results by region are included in Table 24.

102 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 74. Non-MotorizedFigure Trail 3.14. Issue Issue Importance importance, probability sample Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important 0 20 40 60 80 100

Ability to experience the natural environment 73 More trail information on the Internet 58 More trail signs / markers 52 Improved trail maintenance 50 More trash cans at trailheads 48 Trail maps at more trailheads 48 More information on how to get to the trail 42 More restroom facilities at trailheads 39 More trails connecting towns / places 36 Improved sense of safety at trailheads 36 Improved sense of safety on trails 35 Nature information at more trailheads 35 More pet litter bags / dispensers 34 More availability of drinking water 30 Improved security of parking areas 30 More parking space at trailheads 29 More enforcement of trail rules 27 Improved trail surface quality 26 Reduced overcrowding 23 More availability of benches 19 Reduced user conflicts, limit to one activity 15

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 103 Table 24. Non-Motorized Trail Issue Importance, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important By Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+11 10 Total Ability to experience the 77 78 77 76 65 83 53 74 71 64 73 natural environment More trail information on 52 53 69 68 27 70 40 67 56 43 58 the Internet More trail signs / markers 58 53 53 67 36 52 59 47 40 51 52 Improved trail maintenance 50 43 53 32 44 45 51 55 52 54 50 More trash cans at 63 44 46 48 55 62 50 42 55 38 48 trailheads Trail maps at more 54 44 55 51 35 50 49 42 42 39 48 trailheads More information on how to 51 40 49 36 26 56 37 35 40 30 42 get to the trail More restroom facilities at 41 42 38 60 43 37 47 34 37 30 39 trailheads More trails connecting 44 42 32 40 51 26 30 40 41 27 36 towns / places Improved sense of safety at 53 47 32 28 31 38 28 33 36 27 36 trailheads Improved sense of safety on 43 41 34 41 34 38 29 41 36 19 35 trails Nature information at more 52 35 39 19 32 41 26 25 26 37 35 trailheads More pet litter bags / 49 34 38 23 41 37 29 34 27 23 34 dispensers More availability of drinking 31 30 33 48 29 17 43 24 24 27 30 water Improved security of 44 39 29 28 27 27 26 29 26 22 30 parking areas More parking space at 31 30 30 45 16 33 31 26 25 20 29 trailheads More enforcement of trail 30 29 25 30 21 20 30 26 39 16 27 rules Improved trail surface 39 24 26 21 25 18 33 30 35 13 26 quality Reduced overcrowding 16 27 23 14 15 20 21 36 24 16 23 More availability of benches 27 17 16 24 30 21 31 10 20 11 19 Reduced user conflicts, limit 20 16 11 18 13 19 8 22 21 7 15 to one activity

104 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Expenditure and food that is then prepared for customers. Food is an input purchased from another business, and this Economic Contribution process generates indirect effects. Wages paid to employees generate induced effects, because those This section presents a summary of trail user expen- employees spend a portion of their income in the diture, based on the “typical trips” described earlier. local economy (perhaps by eating at Restaurant Y Note that this expenditure is only associated with or shopping at Supermarket Z). Please see the full travel, not with equipment purchase outside of trips survey report for a thorough methods description. nor other non-trip expenditure (e.g., purchase and care of horses). Expenditure and economic contribu- Table 25 shows the results of the multiplier analysis, tion reflect trail use by both local (to the trail loca- by region. The columns are as follows: tion) and non-local Oregon residents. Expenditures • Employment, full-time or part-time jobs. categories use in this analysis included: • Labor income, which includes employee • Hotel, motel, condo, cabin, B&B, or other compensation (including wages, salaries, and lodging except camping benefits) and proprietary income (including • Camping (RV, tent, etc.) self-employment income). • Restaurants, bars, pubs • Value added, which includes labor income, rents, • Groceries profits, and indirect business taxes. • Gas and oil • Output, which is the dollar value of goods and services sold. • Other transportation Statewide, non-motorized trail use by Oregon In the analysis, survey spending question responses residents supports 21,730 jobs, $672 million in labor are used to calculate per person trail user expendi- income, and $1.0 billion in value added. tures for day and for multi-day trips for each region. Three reference points were used for expenditure reported on this trip: US Forest Service NVUM program survey results, Oregon State Park survey results, and results of a recent Washington State economic analysis15.

Regional trail user occasions were extrapolated from SCORP estimates and used with trip expenditure data to calculate annual expenditures by destination region. The expenditure of trail users by region was “run” through the IMPLAN input-output model to estimate the “multiplier effects” of money flowing through the local economy. To illustrate, assume that a hiker, mountain biker, or equestrian eats lunch at Restaurant X in Region 8. In order to provide the lunch, Restaurant X hires employees and purchases

15 Briceno, T. and G. Schundler. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Available at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/ documents/ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 105 Table 25. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars

Region Employment Labor Income Value Added Output 1 850 22,620,000 36,427,000 63,722,000 2 9,590 342,059,000 513,083,000 829,943,000 3 3,060 84,563,000 130,398,000 217,566,000 4 1,540 44,591,000 70,169,000 117,209,000 5 780 16,810,000 28,119,000 49,461,000 6 1,450 40,154,000 64,205,000 111,020,000 7 240 5,031,000 8,166,000 14,368,000 8 2,930 87,508,000 139,629,000 236,213,000 10 400 7,181,000 12,771,000 23,352,000 9 & 11 920 21,931,000 35,349,000 62,896,000 Total 21,730 672,448,000 1,038,317,000 1,725,751,000

Non-residents who engage in non-motorized trail use in Oregon contribute additional amounts to regional economies. The magnitude of this additional contribution is unknown, but can be estimated from external data sources such as the US Forest NVUM program and the Washington State economic analysis. Non- resident trail use across the activities in this report likely fall within the 11% to 24% range, with the lower end used here to be conservative. Thus, the statewide contribution of non-resident trail users is estimated as an additional 12% of the resident estimates. Table 26. Multiplier Effects of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, Out-of- State Trail Users Included; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars

Origin Employment Labor Income Value Added Output In-state 21,730 672,448,000 1,038,317,000 1,725,751,000 Out-of-state 2,610 80,694,000 124,598,000 207,090,000 Combined 24,340 753,142,000 1,162,915,000 1,932,841,000

When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimated amounts increase to 24,340 jobs, $1.2 billion in value added, and $753 million in labor income.

Statewide expenditure and economic contributions was also estimated separately for walking/ hiking, mountain biking on unpaved trails, and horseback riding. There were insufficient observations to estimate expenditure for other individual trail activities. Table 27 shows the annual economic contribution by activity and metric. Table 27. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Trail User Trip Expenditure, By Activity, Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars

Activity Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Walking / hiking 13,280 365,295,000 574,020,000 972,100,000 Biking, singletrack 1,090 30,850,000 47,937,000 82,169,000 Horseback riding 590 15,839,000 24,397,000 40,396,000

106 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future • Walking/ hiking was estimated to generate $1.1 next highest priority for outside one’s community. billion in expenditure, which led to 13,280 jobs, Overall, a higher priority was placed on trails inside $574 million in value added, and $365 million in the community over trails outside. Close-to-home labor income. trail investments will maximize everyday use by • Mountain biking was estimated to generate $83 local residents. million in expenditure, which led to 1,090 jobs, Respondents preferred creating new trails to reduce $48 million in value added, and $31 million in crowding, where it exists, rather than letting existing labor income. trails remain crowded. Given a choice between • Horseback riding was estimated to generate $58 trail widening and one-way designations as tools to million in expenditure, which led to 590 jobs, reduce crowding and conflict, trail widening was $24 million in value added, and $16 million in preferred for all favorite activity categories except labor income. singletrack biking.

Repair of major trail damage was identified as the Conclusions and highest trail funding priority by survey respondents. Implications Such projects involve extensive trail repair (e.g., resurfacing of asphalt trails or complete replacement, Relative to all Oregonians, non-motorized trail regrading, and resurfacing of all trails) needed to users tend to be younger and less ethnically diverse. bring a facility up to standards suitable for public According to the 2013-2017 Oregon SCORP, the use. As a result, OPRD will provide additional points state’s elderly population (65 years and older) and for projects intending to repair major trail damage in minority populations (Hispanic, Asian, and African- the RTP evaluation criteria. American) are growing at a much higher rate than The most important trail issue to respondents was the population as a whole. As a result, Oregon’s a need to improve the settings along trail corridors recreation providers should consider developing to provide a more natural experience. The study of marketing strategies to encourage regular use of evolutionary psychology and the human relationship existing trail systems by elderly and minority popu- with nature has been developed under the scientific lations in their jurisdictions. framework of the “biophilia hypothesis.” Based on Survey results showed that dirt was the most com- this study, contemporary landscape preferences are mon preferred trail surface for all activities other thought to reflect innate landscape qualities that than biking on hard surface trails. Soft trail surface enhanced survival or dominance throughout human preference was also identified in the 2011 Oregon evolutionary history. For decades, research scientists Outdoor Recreation Survey. Soft surface trails are and design practitioners have been working to define typically constructed of natural earth, crushed aspects of nature that most impact our satisfaction rocks, or recycled concrete materials. They can with the built environment. Biophilic design can also be made of gravel, dirt, limestone, and mulch. reduce stress, improve cognitive function and creativ- 16 Recreation planners should note this preference in ity, improve our well-being and expedite healing. trail planning efforts. As a result, Oregon’s recreation providers should consider designed landscape improvements along trail The survey also identified that the highest priority for additional trails was for walking/ hiking both inside and outside one’s community. Trails for 16 Browning, W., Ryan, C., and Clancy, J. (2014). 14 Patterns hard surface biking were the next highest priority of Biophilic Design: Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built for inside, while trails for backpacking were the Environment. Terrapin Bright Green LLC, 1-60.

Chapter 4 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Trail Survey Summary 107 corridors using biophilic design practices such as17: other sensory devices that entice the individual • Visual connection with nature (preferred view to travel deeper into the environment). is looking down a slope to a scene that includes • Risk/Peril (An identifiable threat coupled with a a thicket of shade trees, flowering plants, calm reliable safeguard). non-threatening animals, indications of human By combining exposure to biota with natural habitation and bodies of clean water18). materials and nature-influenced design strategies, • Presence of water. recreational trails can better improve people’s health • Prospect (An unimpeded view over a distance, and overall fitness. for surveillance and planning). Finally, this report identifies expenditure and eco- • Refuge (A place for withdrawal from environ- nomic contributions associated with non-motorized mental conditions or the main flow of activity, trail use in Oregon. Statewide, non-motorized trail in which the individual is protected from behind use by Oregon residents supports 21,730 jobs, $672 and overhead). million in labor income, and $1.0 billion in value • Mystery (The promise of more information, added. When out-of-state visitors are included, the achieved through partially obscured views or estimated amounts increased to 24,340 jobs, $1.2 billion in value added, and $753 million in labor 17 Browning, W., Ryan, C., and Clancy, J. (2014). 14 Patterns income. This information should be used to educate of Biophilic Design: Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. Terrapin Bright Green LLC, 1-60. Oregonians about the economic benefits received 18 Orians, G.H. & Heerwagen, J.H. (1992). Evolved Responses from their investment in non-motorized trails in the to Landscapes. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The state. Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (555-579). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

108 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 5 Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary

boards, kiteboards, float tubes, inner tubes, inflatable Introduction mattresses, and similar “floatie” craft. The sample design was developed to derive information at the Background region level. Results of the survey are provided at the statewide scale and region scale (Figure 1 on page In preparation for the 2016-2025 Oregon Trails 29). All references to boating in this report summary Plan, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department are to non-motorized boating. (OPRD) contracted with Oregon State University (OSU) to conduct a survey of Oregon resident This chapter includes a summary of selected state- non-motorized boaters regarding their current use wide and region scale survey results. The full survey patterns (amount, location, and type of use), user report, Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation experiences and preferences, and the economic and Priorities, is available online at: oregon.gov/ contribution of recreation activity. The probability oprd/Trail_Programs_Services/Documents/ sample was designed to be as representative as Nonmotorized_Boater_Participation_Priorities.pdf possible of all non-motorized boaters in Oregon. For this project, non-motorized boating referred Survey Methods to recreating with non-motorized watercraft that rely primarily on paddles or oars for propulsion. The project involved both a probability sample Coverage included drift and row boating, canoeing, and a convenience sample. This summary will kayaking, rafting, and standup paddle boarding. focus on results from the probability sample. The It excluded outrigger canoes and sculling/ sweep probability sample was drawn from two sources: 1) boats, as well as sailboats, surf boards, windsurfing persons who reported participating in one of the

109 relevant activities in the 2011 survey conducted for information and a reference point for the current the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive boater survey results. The following demographic Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and 2) persons profile results show 2011 results for Oregonians as who purchased an Oregon Aquatic Invasive Species a whole, Oregon outdoor recreationists as a whole, Prevention (AIS) permit. Approximately 23% of the for residents who engaged in white-water non-mo- mail out sample was from SCORP respondents, the torized boating activities (canoeing, kayaking, and remainder from AIS permit holders. rafting), and flat-water non-motorized boating activities (canoeing, sea kayaking, rowing, stand-up Persons in the probability sample could complete paddling, tubing/ floating), and those engaged in the questionnaire in either online or paper format. both types (white-water and flat-water) of non-mo- Surveys were sent out to 5,675 residents. Of those torized boating. delivered (5,428), 2,326 were obtained, for an overall response rate of 43%. This response rate is good by Figure 75 shows that, as expected, older Oregonians current survey standards, especially considering the are under-represented amongst participants in long median online completion time of 27 minutes. boating activities. Conversely, younger residents are With respect to format, 73% of the surveys were overrepresented. Oregonians who engage in both completed online and 27% in paper format. Most WW and Flat boating have a particularly “youthful” (37%) of the surveys were participants, with the distribution. Oregonians who engage in Flat only remainder (6%) by non-participants. Sample data tend to be somewhat older than those who engage in were weighted by age and whether respondent most WW only. often engaged in whitewater or flat water boating.

Demographic Profiles – SCORP Survey Age

Results from the 2011 survey conducted for the 2013-2017 Oregon SCORP provide additional

Figure 75. Non-Motorized Boater Age Distribution, SCORP

110 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Gender

As shown in Figure 76, women tend to be over-represented amongst Oregonians who participate in Flat only and under-represented amongst those who participate in Both. Figure 76. Non-Motorized Boater Gender Distribution, SCORP

Education

As shown in Figure 77, boaters have education levels similar to all Oregon recreationists, with somewhat higher levels of university degrees for WW only and Flat only and slightly lower levels for Both. The lower level of university education for those in the Both category may be due in part to the higher proportion of young people in that category (see Figure 77); some may be in the process of completing a bachelor’s degree. Figure 77. Non-Motorized Boater Education Distribution, SCORP

Race/ Ethnicity

With respect to race and ethnicity, boaters follow the general Oregon recreationist population insofar as most identify as white and non-Latino (Figure 78). Note that respondents could select multiple races, and that Latino/ non-Latino was asked separately, following the US Census approach.

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 111 Figure 78. Non-Motorized Boater Race/ Ethnicity Distribution, SCORP

Income

Figure 79 presents household annual income distribution, with boaters having slightly higher income levels than Oregonians overall who participate in outdoor recreation. Residents who engage in WW only are less likely than residents who engage in Flat only to be in the lowest income category, though residents who engage in Both are more likely to be in that category. This may be due in part to the high proportion of young people who engage in Both (see Figure 75). Figure 79. Non-Motorized Boater Income Distribution, SCORP

112 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Ownership, Trip Characteristics, and Participation Boat Ownership and Use Characteristics

Table 28 shows ownership patterns by boat type. For example, 24% of non-motorized boating households own one drift or row boat, 2% own two, and 1% own three or more. In total, 27% (the sum of the previous three columns) own one or more. An average of .31 drift or row boats are owned across all non-motorized boating households. An average of .033 drift or row boaters were new to the households in the past 12 months. This represents 11% of those owned (0.033/0.31). As expected, given the novelty of the sport, stand up paddle board (SUP) has the highest percentage of “new to the household.” WW rafts and canoes have the lowest percentages. Table 28. Non-Motorized Boat Ownership By Type

Percent owning number of boats Mean number New in past 12 New as percent 1 2 3 or more 1 or more owned months of owned Drift or row 24 2 1 27 0.31 0.033 11 Canoe 28 6 1 35 0.44 0.037 8 WW kayak 13 8 7 28 0.59 0.057 10 Other kayak 11 17 6 34 0.69 0.111 16 WW raft 22 5 3 30 0.44 0.027 6 Other raft 16 3 1 20 0.25 0.026 10 SUP 4 3 1 8 0.13 0.071 54

Figure 80 shows ownership patterns, in percentage of non-motorized boating households owning each number of boats. Note that one or more people in a household may have engaged in non-motorized boating in the past 12 months despite owning non boats (due to borrowing, renting, participating in a guided trip, etc.). Most households own one or two boats. Figure 80. Number Of Non-Motorized Boats In Household Figure 2.1. Number of boats in household, probability sample 50

40 31 30 24

Percent 20 15 12 10 7 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 012345678910 or Number of boats in household more

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 113 Figure 81 shows the number of types of boats (drift/ row, canoe, WW kayak, etc.) in households, across the number of boats in each household. For example 100% of households with only one boat (far left column) have only one type of boat, as one would expect. Of the households with two boats (second column from the left), 49% own one boat type of boat (both of the household’s two boats are the same type) and 51% own two types of boats (the two boats are different types). Figure 81. NumberFigure Of2.2. Types Number Of Boats of typesBy Number of boats Of Boats by number of boats, probability sample

100 12 7 21 12 29 28 31 80 36 6 51 41 5 47 31 14 60 14 4 100 42 31 66 11 3 Percent 40 25 40 55 2 49 33 50 31 20 24 1 14 16 10 0 5 7 7 12345678910 or more Number of boats in household

Figure 82 presents type of boat used most often, with Other (non-WW) kayak being the most common category. Allowing for differences in topography, and thus WW versus Flat balance, the results shown in Figure 81 are broadly consistent with national participation (relative across boat/ activity types) in the Outdoor Foundation 2014 Outdoor Participation report19. Figure 82. Type of Non-Motorized Boat Used Most Often

Figure 83 presents results by region. The absence of SUP from some regions may accurately reflect no residents in that region using SUP most often. However, it also may reflect the inevitable potential for error due to small numbers of observations.

19 http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.2014.html

114 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 83. Type Of Non-Motorized Boat Used Most Often, By Region Of Residence

Figure 84 presents percentage of days paddling Oregon water bodies by type of water body, with Figure 85 showing results by region. Almost one-third of the days are spent on each of whitewater parts of rivers and streams, flat water parts of rivers and streams, and lakes, reservoirs and ponds. Fewer days are spent in bays and on the Pacific Ocean. As expected, residents of coastal regions spend a greater percentage of their days in bays and on the ocean relative to residents of inland regions. Figure 84. Percent Of Days By Type Of Water Body

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 115 Figure 85. Percent Of Days By Type Of Water Body, By Region Of Residence

Day Trip and Multi-Day Trip Characteristics

Almost all respondents (95%) took at least one day trip and the majority (52%) took at least one multi-day trip in the past year (12 months). In the mail questionnaire, respondents reported the number of days boating in each region and the allocation of those days into day and multi-day trips. Multi-day trips are defined as those involving an overnight stay away from home, even if the respondent only boated one day during the trip. The day versus multi-day distinction is used in presenting results in this section as well as in estimating economic contribution.

Figure 86 shows the percentage of all days boating in each region that involved day trips versus multi-day trips. Figure 2.6. Percent of boating days spent on day versus Figure 86. Percent Of Boating Days Spent On Day Versus Multi-Day Trips By Region multi‐day trips by region, probability sample 100 9 10 17 11 80 33 38 31 33 66 60

40 91 90 83 89 Percent 67 62 69 67 20 34 0 12345687 & 10 9 & 11 Region where boating occured Multi‐day Day

116 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future The following results are for the “typical” day and multi-day trips, defined as the single location where respondents most often engaged in each type of trip in the past 12 months. Figure 87 indicates that the majority of day trips (59%) were within 30 miles of home while almost half (47%) of multi-day trips were more than 90 miles away from home. Figure 87. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Distance Traveled To Launch Point

The remaining results in this section and the expenditure and economic significance section are based on travel parties. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) approach to outliers is followed in this analysis.20

Figure 88 shows number of persons in travel party for Day and Multi-day trips. For both types of trips, two people in the travel party is the most common. Figure 89 shows number of boats used by travel party. Most trips involve one or two boats. Figure 88. Typical Day And Multi-Day Trips, Persons In Travel Party

20 White, E.M., D.B. Goodding, and D.J. Stynes. 2013. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: round 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 117 Figure 89. Typical Day and Multi-Day Trips, Boats Used By Travel Party

Figure 90. Typical Day and Multi-Day Trips, Trip Length In Days

Figure 90 shows number of days for multi-day trips. Note that the SCORP estimates reflect a different As a reminder, this includes trip days that did not set of activities relative to the current boater survey. involve boating. Three days is the most common trip User occasions are the number of times people length, which may reflect a high proportion of “long engage in an activity; in this report, they are treated weekend” trips. as the equivalent of user days. Occasions are by Participation by County location of use (the boating activity occurred in that county) and are rounded to the nearest hundred. The 2011 SCORP survey was a large general popula- Blank user occasions reflect 1,000 or fewer occa- tion survey and, therefore, provides the best foun- sions. Percent participation is by location of resi- dation for estimating recreation use across Oregon dence (the percent of county residents who engaged counties. Table 29 presents 2011 SCORP estimates, in activity in the category) and are rounded to the separated into WW and Flat based on the following nearest whole number. For percent participating, an categories: asterisk by the county name (Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Lake, Morrow, Sherman, Wallowa and Wheeler) • White-water canoeing, kayaking, rafting. indicates that 2011 SCORP regional values were • Flat-water canoeing, sea kayaking, rowing, used due to low sample sizes for those counties. stand-up paddling, tubing/ floating.

118 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 29. SCORP Estimates Of 2011 Non-Motorized Boating User Occasions And Participation

Location, user occasions Percent participating Whitewater Flat water Whitewater Flat water Clatsop 12,000 432,500 6 11 Lincoln 33,800 71,400 10 12 Tillamook 10,500 63,800 5 10 Region 1 56,300 567,600 Clackamas 260,800 345,000 11 11 Columbia 8,200 29,800 7 10 Hood River 27,900 59,000 14 20 Multnomah 155,800 1,173,100 9 12 Washington 3,700 23,000 14 8 Region 2 456,400 1,629,900 Benton 18,400 48,100 11 14 Linn 274,000 48,200 9 11 Marion 30,900 67,900 11 7 Polk - 3,400 13 8 Yamhill - 16,000 8 11 Region 3 325,300 183,600 Lane 130,100 359,900 13 13 Region 4 130,100 359,900 Coos 30,400 174,500 22 25 Curry 18,100 29,500 16 16 Region 5 48,500 204,000 Douglas 48,500 80,100 11 16 Jackson 183,100 160,400 29 11 Josephine 152,500 14,200 29 11 Region 6 384,100 254,700 Gilliam* - - 9 10 Morrow* - 21,500 9 10 Sherman* - - 9 10 Umatilla 4,900 32,000 8 12 Wasco 215,600 9,100 15 7 Region 7 223,400 64,500 Crook 9,600 21,600 10 11 Deschutes 1,196,800 503,800 14 32 Jefferson 18,100 26,100 10 10 Wheeler* 2,100 - 12 7 Region 8 1,226,600 552,600 Klamath 25,600 106,000 16 11 Lake* - 13,800 15 12 Region 9 26,600 119,800

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 119 Table 29. (Continued)

Location, user occasions Percent participating Whitewater Flat water Whitewater Flat water Baker 2,800 11,300 10 9 Grant* 8,600 2,800 12 12 Union 16,700 23,200 13 13 Wallowa* 9,800 10,000 12 12 Region 10 37,900 47,300 Harney* - - 5 3 Malheur 2,600 1,700 5 3 Region 11 3,600 2,700

Accounting for rounding, there were an estimated 2,911,800 whitewater and an estimated 3,982,700 flat water occasions in 2011. Combined, there were 6,894,500 user occasions. Participation by Region and Water Body

Tables 30 through 40 show weighted user days by water body (river stretch, lake, or bay) for the online questionnaire. Respondent write-ins of water bodies were allocated where possible. The Other category reflects regional water bodies that were not on the list and only written-in once.

For example, the results in Table 30 indicate that respondents in the probability sample spent 381 days on the Siletz River. This represents 30% of all sample user days on rivers in Region 1 and 20% of all sample user days across Region 1 rivers, lakes, and bays combined. A total of 1,285 user days were spent on rivers in Region 1. This represents 68% of all user days across Region 1 rivers, lakes, and bays combined. Table 3 also shows that 13% of all user days across Region 1 were on lakes and 19% were on bays.

Summary tables follow the detailed set of regional tables.

120 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 30. Non-Motorized Boating User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 1

Site % of % of days category region Rivers R17 Siletz River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Forks to Siletz Bay) 381 30 20 R18 Yaquina River 154 12 8 R21 Alsea River (RM 12 near Tidewater to USFS boundary) 135 10 7 Salmon River (Lincoln County) 97 8 5 R5 Nehalem River 77 6 4 R127 Columbia River (Mouth to Saint Helens) 77 6 4 R12 Nestucca River (RM 7 to RM 15, near Beaver) 52 4 3 R9 Wilson River 41 3 2 R20 Alsea River (Pacific Ocean to head of tide, RM 12 near Tidewater) 35 3 2 Beaver Creek (Lincoln County) 35 3 2 R11 Nestucca River (mouth up to RM 7, near Cloverdale) 32 3 2 R10 Trask River 32 2 2 R22 Alsea River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Forks to USFS 28 2 1 boundary) Drift Creek 20 2 1 R4 Necanicum River 18 1 1 R16 Little Nestucca River 17 1 1 Other 10 1 1 R19 Elk Creek 10 1 1 R8 Kilchis River 8 1 0 R7 Salmonberry River 6 0 0 R2 Lewis and Clark River 6 0 0 R24 Yachats River 4 0 0 R6 North Fork Nehalem River 3 0 0 R1 Youngs River 3 0 0 Tillamook River 2 0 0 John Day River (Clatsop County) 2 0 0 R13 Nestucca River (RM 15 to RM 26, above confluence of Limestone Creek and Blaine) 1 0 0 R15 Nestucca River (RM 35 to RM 47, near the lower end of Old Meadow Lake) 0 0 0 R23 Five Rivers 0 0 0 Rivers total 1,285 100 68 Lakes Ollala Reservoir 110 45 6 Big Creek Reservoir 44 18 2 L7 Devils Lake 44 18 2 L1 Coffenbury Lake 23 9 1 L5 Cape Meares Lake 7 3 0 Eckman Lake 7 3 0

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 121 Table 30. (Continued)

Site % of % of days category region Other 4 2 0 Lake Lytle 2 1 0 L4 Cullaby Lake 1 1 0 L3 Sunset Lake 1 1 0 L6 Town Lake 1 0 0 Hebo Lake 1 0 0 Lost Lake, Clatsop County 0 0 0 Lakes total 244 100 13 Bays B1 Nehalem Bay 76 21 4 B7 Yaquina Bay 65 18 3 B6 Siletz Bay 40 11 2 Salmon River (Lincoln County) 40 11 2 B8 Alsea Bay 38 11 2 B3 Netarts Bay 33 9 2 B2 Tillamook Bay 30 8 2 B5 Nestucca Bay 26 7 1 Ocean (Region 1) 8 2 0 B4 Sand Lake Estuary 4 1 0 Depoe Bay 2 0 0 R127 Columbia River (mouth to Saint Helens) 1 0 0 Beaver Creek (Lincoln County) 0 0 0 Bays total 364 100 19 Region total 1,892 100

Table 31. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 2

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R128 Columbia River (Saint Helens to Troutdale) 918 26 21 R124 Willamette River (Columbia River to Canby) 858 25 20 R57 Sandy River (Confluence with Bull Run River to Columbia River) 251 7 6 R51 Clackamas River (Source to River Mill Dam) 235 7 5 R50 Clackamas River (River Mill Dam to Willamette River 217 6 5 confluence) R49 Tualatin River 213 6 5 R130 Columbia River (Bonneville Dam to Deschutes River) 162 5 4 R127 Columbia River (Mouth to Saint Helens) 139 4 3 Hood River (mainstem) 101 3 2 R58 Sandy River (Source to confluence with Bull Run River) 77 2 2

122 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 31. (Continued)

Site days % of category % of region R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria) 63 2 1 R56 Molalla River (Glen Avon to Willamette River, near Canby) 38 1 1 Multnomah Channel 37 1 1 R64 Pudding River 35 1 1 W Fork Hood River 29 1 1 R5 Nehalem River 28 1 1 R61 Middle Fork Hood River 19 1 0 R52 North Fork Clackamas River 16 0 0 Willamette (Region 2) 13 0 0 R129 Columbia River (Troutdale to Bonneville) 10 0 0 R59 Salmon River 8 0 0 R60 White River 7 0 0 R55 Molalla River (Source to Glen Avon) 6 0 0 R48 Clatskanie River 5 0 0 R54 Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 3 0 0 Gilbert River 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 R53 South Fork Clackamas River 0 0 0 Rivers total 3,488 100 80 Lakes L27 Henry Hagg Lake 214 25 5 L32 Trillium Lake 210 25 5 L34 Timothy Lake 171 20 4 Oswego Lake 71 8 2 L31 Laurance Lake 40 5 1 L28 Sturgeon Lake 28 3 1 Smith & Bybee Lakes 26 3 1 Frog Lake 25 3 1 L30 Green Peter Reservoir 23 3 1 L26 Vernonia Lake 9 1 0 Lost Lake (Hood River County) 9 1 0 Benson Lake 6 1 0 L29 Blue River Lake 5 1 0 L33 Harriet Lake 4 0 0 Estacada Lake (Clackamas) 3 0 0 Other 2 0 0 North Fork Reservoir 2 0 0 Fairview Lake & Blue Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 849 100 20 Region total 4,337 100

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 123 Table 32. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 3

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria) 601 32 25 R66 North Santiam River 302 16 12 R70 McKenzie River 189 10 8 R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria, to Mid Fork 168 9 7 Junction) R65 Santiam River (Junction with N Santiam to Willamette River 98 5 4 (Lower)) Other 86 5 4 R17 Siletz River (Confluence of North and South Forks to Siletz Bay) 83 5 3 R63 Yamhill River 48 3 2 R68 South Santiam River 46 3 2 Luckiamute River 37 2 2 R67 Little North Santiam River 31 2 1 Mary’s River 27 1 1 Calapooia River 25 1 1 R62 North Yamhill River 24 1 1 R22 Alsea River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South 22 1 1 Forks to USFS boundary, near Fall Cr) R18 Yaquina River 19 1 1 R69 Middle Santiam River 18 1 1 Willamette (Region 3) 17 1 1 R15 Nestucca River (RM 35, near Bear Cr, to RM 47, below Walker Cr) 3 0 0 R16 Little Nestucca River 2 0 0 R73 South Fork Alsea River 1 0 0 R64 Pudding River 0 0 0 R72 North Fork Alsea River (Bailey Creek to confluence with Alsea 0 0 0 River, near Alsea) Rivers total 1,848 100 76 Lakes L36 Silverton Reservoir 139 23 6 L44 Big Lake 108 18 4 L43 Clear Lake 64 11 3 L41 Foster Reservoir 59 10 2 L40 Detroit Lake 55 9 2 L46 Smith Reservoir 52 9 2 L47 Trail Bridge Reservoir 43 7 2 L38 Freeway Lakes 23 4 1 L45 Carmen Reservoir 20 3 1 L39 Elk Lake 10 2 0

124 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 32. (Continued)

Site days % of category % of region L42 Lost Lake 10 2 0 Other 5 1 0 L35 Mission Lake 4 1 0 L37 Walter Wirth Lake 3 0 0 Breitenbush Lake 2 0 0 Marion Lake 1 0 0 Big Cliff Reservoir 0 0 0 Silver Creek Reservoir 0 0 0 Fish Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 598 100 24 Region total 2,447 100

Table 33. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 4

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R70 McKenzie River 464 40 27 R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria, to Mid Fork 218 19 13 Junction) R80 Middle Fork Willamette River 125 11 7 R81 North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River 107 9 6 R79 Coast Fork Willamette River 76 7 4 R74 Lake Creek 43 4 2 Other 31 3 2 R76 Siuslaw River (Wildcat Cr, near Austa, to Clay Creek Campground) 27 2 2 R25 Siuslaw River (mouth to confluence with Lake Creek, near 17 2 1 Swisshome) R75 Siuslaw River (Confluence of Lake Cr, near Sweethome, to 15 1 1 Wildcat Cr, near Austa) R82 South Fork McKenzie River 15 1 1 R73 South Fork Alsea River 8 1 0 Row River 4 0 0 Coyote Creek 3 0 0 R77 Siuslaw River (Clay Creek Campground to Siuslaw Falls) 2 0 0 R78 Siuslaw River (Siuslaw Falls to junction of North and South Fork) 1 0 0 Rivers total 1,156 100 67 Lakes L50 Fern Ridge Reservoir 214 38 12 L58 Waldo Lake 93 16 5 L56 Hills Creek Reservoir 82 14 5 L51 Fall Creek Lake 43 7 2

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 125 Table 33. (Continued)

Site days % of category % of region L59 Gold Lake 32 6 2 L54 Dorena Reservoir 21 4 1 L52 Dexter Reservoir 21 4 1 Leaburg Reservoir 15 3 1 L55 Cottage Grove Lake 13 2 1 L48 Triangle Lake 10 2 1 Blair Lake 9 2 1 L49 Hult Reservoir 7 1 0 L57 Cougar Reservoir 2 0 0 L60 Summit Lake 2 0 0 Blue River Reservoir 1 0 0 Clear Lake 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 L53 Lookout Point Reservoir 0 0 0 Lakes total 568 100 33 Region total 1,724 100

Table 34. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 5

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R42 Rogue River (Grave Creek confluence to Illinois River Confluence) 669 41 29 R36 South Fork Coquille River 271 16 12 R27 Umpqua River (mainstem from confluence of North and South 133 8 6 Fork to mouth at Pacific Ocean) R38 Elk River 122 7 5 R41 Rogue River (Illinois River confluence to mouth at Pacific Ocean) 94 6 4 R43 Illinois River (Deer Creek to Agness) 64 4 3 R37 Sixes River 53 3 2 R25 Siuslaw River (mouth to confluence with Lake Creek, near 42 3 2 Swisshome) R29 Coos River 40 2 2 R33 North Fork Coquille River 32 2 1 R46 Chetco River (from Boulder Creek to Loeb State Park) 28 2 1 R32 Coquille River, mainstem 25 2 1 R28 Smith River 19 1 1 R31 South Fork Coos River 16 1 1 R34 East Fork Coquille River 10 1 0 R24 Yachats River 9 1 0 R45 Chetco River (from Loeb State Park to the mouth at Pacific Ocean) 5 0 0 Other 4 0 0

126 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 34. (Continued)

Site days % of category % of region Tenmile Creek 4 0 0 Siltcoos River 3 0 0 R30 Millicoma River 3 0 0 R26 North Fork Siuslaw River 2 0 0 New River 2 0 0 R136 Pistol River 1 0 0 R35 Middle Fork Coquille River 0 0 0 Rivers total 1,648 100 72 Lakes L23 Floras Lake 94 26 4 L25 Powers Park Pond 73 20 3 L17 N. Tenmile Lake 35 10 2 L16 Eel Lake 23 6 1 L21 Empire Lakes 19 5 1 L9 Mercer Lake 18 5 1 L19 Tenmile Lake 17 5 1 L12 Siltcoos Lake 17 5 1 L11 Woahink Lake 14 4 1 L20 Loon Lake 12 3 1 L10 Munsel Lake 10 3 0 L14 Tahkenich Lake 8 2 0 Cleawox Lake 7 2 0 L8 Sutton Lake 6 2 0 L18 Saunders Lake 3 1 0 L15 Elbow Lake 2 1 0 Other 2 0 0 L13 Carter Lake 0 0 0 L22 Bradley Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 359 100 16 Bays B10 Coos Bay 134 49 6 B9 Winchester Bay 95 35 4 Other 18 7 1 R41 Rogue River (Illinois River confluence to mouth at Pacific Ocean) 14 5 1 Sunset Bay 12 4 1 R45 Chetco River (from Loeb State Park to the mouth at Pacific Ocean) 1 0 0 Siltcoos River 0 0 0 Port Orford 0 0 0 Bays total 275 100 12 Region total 2,283 100

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 127 Table 35. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 6

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R42 Rogue River (Grave Creek confluence to Illinois River Confluence) 550 34 26 R89 Rogue River (Lost Creek Lake to Grave Creek) 531 33 25 R27 Umpqua River (From confluence of North and South Forks to the 211 13 10 Pacific Ocean) R84 North Umpqua River 160 10 8 R43 Illinois River (Deer Cr to Agness near confluence w/ Rogue R) 53 3 3 R87 South Umpqua River (Tiller to confluence with North Umpqua 34 2 2 River, near Riversdale) R86 South Umpqua River (Source to Tiller) 23 1 1 Other 20 1 1 R90 Rogue River (above Lost Creek Lake) 18 1 1 R91 Applegate River 11 1 1 R85 Little River 8 0 0 R44 Illinois River (Illinois River Forks State Park to Deer Creek) 1 0 0 R28 Smith River 1 0 0 R88 Cow Creek 0 0 0 Rivers total 1,621 100 77 Lakes L72 Emigrant Lake 125 26 6 L69 Lake Selmac 53 11 3 L68 Lost Creek Lake 52 11 2 L71 Applegate Lake 51 10 2 L76 Hyatt Reservoir 40 8 2 L62 Ben Irving Reservoir 34 7 2 L67 Diamond Lake 33 7 2 L75 Howard Prairie Lake 32 7 2 L66 Lemolo Lake 22 5 1 L65 Toketee Reservoir 15 3 1 L63 Galesville Reservoir 8 2 0 Squaw Lakes 7 1 0 L73 Fish Lake 6 1 0 L74 Agate Lake 2 0 0 L64 Hemlock Lake 2 0 0 Other 2 0 0 L61 Cooper Creek Reservoir 1 0 0 L70 Bolan Lake 0 0 0 Willow Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 485 100 23 Region total 2,106 100

128 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 36. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 7

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R96 Deschutes River (Pelton Dam to Columbia River) 809 62 56 R99 John Day River (Service Cr. to Columbia River) 304 23 21 R102 Umatilla River 68 5 5 R103 North Fork John Day River 60 5 4 R130 Columbia River (Bonneville Dam to Deschutes River) 34 3 2 R133 Columbia River (Heppner Junction, near Hwy 74, to state line 27 2 2 above Hat Rock State Park) Other 8 1 1 R131 Columbia River (Deschutes River to John Day Dam) 4 0 0 R132 Columbia River (John Day Dam to Heppner Junction, near 1 0 0 Hwy 74) Rivers total 1,315 100 91 Lakes L79 McKay Reservoir 72 52 5 Rock Creek Reservoir 58 42 4 Pine Hollow Reservoir 4 3 0 Indian Lake 3 2 0 Other 0 0 0 L78 Willow Creek Reservoir 0 0 0 L77 Lake Wallula 0 0 0 Lakes total 138 100 9 Region total 1,452 100

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 129 Table 37. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 8

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R95 Deschutes River (Upper, source to Pelton Dam) 912 57 39 R96 Deschutes River (Lower, Pelton Dam to Columbia River) 396 25 17 R99 John Day River (Service Cr. to Columbia River) 235 15 10 R98 Crooked River 26 2 1 R97 Metolius River 19 1 1 R100 John Day River (Source to Service Cr.) 17 1 1 Little Deschutes River 9 1 0 Other 0 0 0 Rivers total 1,612 100 68 Lakes L91 Hosmer Lake 113 15 5 L89 Sparks Lake 104 14 4 L85 Suttle Lake 84 11 4 L83 Lake Billy Chinook 51 7 2 L87 Prineville Reservoir 48 6 2 L98 Wickiup Reservoir 46 6 2 L90 Elk Lake 45 6 2 L100 East Lake 41 5 2 L96 Crane Prairie Reservoir 36 5 2 L99 Paulina Lake 29 4 1 L94 Cultus Lake 25 3 1 Devils Lake (Deschutes) 18 2 1 L95 Little Cultus Lake 17 2 1 South Twin Lake (Deschutes) 17 2 1 L93 Little Lava Lake 14 2 1 L92 Lava Lake 11 2 0 L81 Olallie Lake 9 1 0 L82 Lake Simtustis 8 1 0 L96 North Twin Lake 8 1 0 L86 Ochoco Reservoir 6 1 0 Three Creeks Lake 6 1 0 L88 Antelope Flat Reservoir 4 1 0 Walton Lake 4 0 0 L84 Haystack Reservoir 3 0 0 Lakes total 747 100 32 Region total 2,360 100

130 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 38. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 9

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R92 Klamath River (Boyle Dam to CA state line) 167 84 42 R94 Williamson River 13 7 3 Other 6 3 2 Wood River 3 2 1 Spring Creek 3 1 1 Sprague River 3 1 1 R93 Klamath River (Klamath River Falls to Boyle Dam) 2 1 1 Rivers total 197 100 49 Lakes L103 Crescent Lake 48 24 12 L110 Lake of the Woods 38 19 9 L109 Upper Klamath Lake 24 12 6 L101 Odell Lake 18 9 5 L126 Vee Lake 11 6 3 L102 Davis Lake 11 6 3 L120 Lofton Reservoir 8 4 2 L121 Cottonwood Meadow Lake 8 4 2 L104 Miller Lake 6 3 2 L122 Willow Valley Reservoir 5 3 1 L116 Campbell Lake 5 3 1 L107 Fourmile Lake 5 3 1 L108 Agency Lake 4 2 1 L118 Holbrook Reservoir 3 1 1 L115 Deadhorse Lake 2 1 0 L111 Lake Ewauna 1 1 0 L114 Thompson Reservoir 1 1 0 L119 Heart Lake 1 0 0 L105 Duncan Reservoir 1 0 0 L112 J.C. Boyle Reservoir 1 0 0 L106 Ana Reservoir 1 0 0 L124 Drews Reservoir 0 0 0 L123 Dog Lake 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 L128 Hart Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 204 100 51 Region total 401 100

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 131 Table 39. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 10

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R110 Grande Ronde River (Confluence with the Wallowa River to 290 40 32 WA state line, near Troy) R116 Snake River (Baker Co Line, near Copper Cr, to WA state line) 148 20 17 R114 Wallowa River (Minam to confluence with the Grande Ronde 99 14 11 River) R113 Wallowa River (Wallowa Lake to Minam) 49 7 6 R100 John Day River (Source to Service Cr.) 37 5 4 R115 Imnaha River 26 4 3 R103 North Fork John Day River 25 3 3 R108 Grande Ronde River (Red Bridge State Park to Hilgard 20 3 2 Junction State Park) R104 Middle Fork John Day River 13 2 1 R107 Grande Ronde River (Confluence with East Fork Grande Ronde 9 1 1 to Red Bridge State Park) R109 Grande Ronde River (Hilgard Junction State Park to conflu- 9 1 1 ence with the Wallowa River) R111 Minam River 2 0 0 Other 0 0 0 R112 Lostine River 0 0 0 Rivers total 728 100 81 Lakes L134 Wallowa Lake 40 23 4 L132 Jubilee Reservoir 29 17 3 L133 Morgan Lake 26 15 3 L144 Olive Lake 24 14 3 L143 Anthony Lake 17 10 2 L145 Phillips Lake 10 6 1 L139 Hells Canyon Reservoir 5 3 1 L142 Grande Ronde Lake 5 3 1 L141 Oxbow Reservoir 5 3 1 L148 Magone Lake 3 2 0 L146 Brownlee Reservoir 2 1 0 L135 Pilcher Creek Reservoir 1 1 0 L136 Wolf Creek Reservoir 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 L138 Fish Lake 0 0 0 Lakes total 170 100 19 Region total 898 100

132 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 40. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Water Bodies, Weighted, Region 11

Site days % of category % of region Rivers R122 Owhyee River (Lake Owyhee to Rome, near Hwy 95) 48 96 50 R121 Owhyee River (Owyhee Dam to Snake River) 1 2 1 R123 Owhyee River (Rome, near Hwy 95, to state line) 1 2 1 R120 Snake River (Owyhee River to State Line) 0 1 1 Rivers total 50 100 52 Lakes L151 Bully Creek Reservoir 32 68 33 Fish Lake (Harney County) 6 13 6 L160 Mann Lake 6 12 6 L158 Krumbo Reservoir 1 2 1 L154 Chickahominy Reservoir 1 2 1 L153 Delintment Lake 1 1 1 L157 Lake Owyhee 0 1 1 Lakes total 46 100 48 Region total 97 100

Table 41 presents summary results by region and type of water body, while Table 42 presents results by region across all types of water bodies. Table 43 presents the “Top 5” rivers and lakes in terms of site days within the probability sample. Note that a given river (or river stretch) may occur in more than one region; site days reflect only the region with the greatest number of days for that water body. Table 41. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Regions And Water Body Categories, Weighted

Water body category + region Site days % of category % of statewide total Rivers Region 1 1,285 9 6 Region 2 3,488 23 17 Region 3 1,848 12 9 Region 4 1,156 8 6 Region 5 1,648 11 8 Region 6 1,621 11 8 Region 7 1,315 9 7 Region 8 1,612 11 8 Region 9 197 1 1 Region 10 728 5 4 Region 11 50 0 0 Rivers total 14,949 100 75 Lakes

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 133 Table 41. (Continued)

Water body category + region Site days % of category % of statewide total Region 1 244 6 1 Region 2 849 19 4 Region 3 598 14 3 Region 4 568 13 3 Region 5 359 8 2 Region 6 485 11 2 Region 7 138 3 1 Region 8 747 17 4 Region 9 204 5 1 Region 10 170 4 1 Region 11 46 1 0 Lakes total 4,409 100 22 Bays Region 1 364 57 2 Region 5 275 43 1 Bays total 639 100 3 Statewide, all water bodies 19,997 100

Table 42. Non-Motorized Boater User Days Across Regions, Weighted

Site days % of statewide total Region 1 1,892 9 Region 2 4,337 22 Region 3 2,447 12 Region 4 1,724 9 Region 5 2,283 11 Region 6 2,106 11 Region 7 1,452 7 Region 8 2,360 12 Region 9 401 2 Region 10 898 4 Region 11 97 0 Statewide, all water bodies 19,997 100

134 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 43. Top 5 Rivers And Lakes By Site Days, Weighted

Region Waterbody Site days Rivers 2 R128 Columbia River (Saint Helens to Troutdale) 918 8 R95 Deschutes River (Upper, source to Pelton Dam) 912 2 R124 Willamette River (Columbia River to Canby) 858 7 R96 Deschutes River (Pelton Dam to Columbia River) 809 5 R42 Rogue River (Grave Creek confluence to Illinois River Confluence) 669 Lakes 4 L50 Fern Ridge Reservoir 214 2 L27 Henry Hagg Lake 214 2 L32 Trillium Lake 210 2 L34 Timothy Lake 171 3 L36 Silverton Reservoir 139

Scenic Waterways

Respondents were asked whether they support the Scenic Waterway Program, with results shown in Figure 91. When interpreting these results, readers should keep in mind that land designated can have complex effects across multiple stakeholders, and that this survey was of boaters, not of adjacent landowners nor the general public. One would expect boaters to have positive perspectives regarding this type of designation.

Figure 92 shows support by region, on a scale of 1=Strongly oppose to 5=Strongly support. The highest level of support is in the Willamette Valley while the lowest level of support is in southern Oregon. Figure 91. Support For Scenic Waterway Program

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 135 Figure 92. Support For Scenic Waterway Program By Region

Figure 93 shows respondent importance of various qualities when evaluating potential additions to the Scenic Waterway Program, in percent of respondents who selected 4 or 5 on a scale of 1=Not important to 5=Very important. Scenery and environmental values (including fish and wildlife habitat) were most important. Figure 93. Scenic Waterway Qualities, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important

Figure 94 shows respondent selection of the single most important quality for consideration when adding waterways to the program. Environmental qualities clearly dominate. Figure 3.3. Scenic Waterway single most important Figure 94. Scenic Waterway Single Most Important Quality quality, probability sample

Fish and wildlife 31 Environment 31 Scenery 11 Solitude 10 Recreation 10 Vehicle access 4 Whitewater 2 Trail only access 2 Flat water 1

Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50

Respondents were then asked to recommend additional rivers for inclusion in the Scenic Waterway Program.

136 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future In the online questionnaire, recommended additions were identified using drop-down menus to select the highest, second highest, and third highest priority additions for each region. The list included separate segments for longer rivers. Rivers that already are scenic waterways were excluded.

Table 44 includes the number of times a river segment was identified as either a first, second, or third priority addition in the online questionnaire (priority = 1, 2, or 3). The overall points score was calculated based on three points for each time the river was identified as a first priority addition, two points for a second priority, and one point for a third priority. Some rivers cross regional boundaries and were recommended in more than one region in the online questionnaire. In such cases, the highest region-level score was used for that river segment. Table 44. Recommended Scenic Waterway Additions by Priority and Total Points, Unweighted, Top 20

Regions 1 2 3 Points R98 Crooked River 8 109 327 R70 McKenzie River 4 68 14 11 243 R66 North Santiam River 3 40 17 9 163 R89 Rogue River (Lost Creek Lake to Grave Creek) 6 34 21 10 154 R94 Williamson River 9 24 32 136 R93 Klamath River (Klamath River Falls to Boyle Dam) 9 35 15 135 R100 John Day River (Source to Service Cr.) 10 32 13 11 133 R80 Middle Fork Willamette River 4 13 30 13 112 R60 White River 2,7 31 6 4 109 R27 Umpqua River (From confluence of North and South Forks to 5,6 24 9 12 102 the Pacific Ocean) R44 Illinois River (Illinois River Forks State Park to Deer Creek) 6 15 18 12 93 R58 Sandy River (Source to confluence with Bull Run River) 2 19 13 10 93 R5 Nehalem River 1,2 20 13 6 92 R115 Imnaha River 10 17 11 13 86 R49 Tualatin River 2 21 9 5 86 R121 Owhyee River (Owyhee Dam to Snake River) 11 20 7 7 81 R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria, to Mid Fork 3,4 17 3 21 78 Junction) R124 Willamette River (Columbia River to Canby) 2 17 7 12 77 R69 Middle Santiam River 3 17 9 6 75 R101 Warm Springs River 7 11 17 6 73 R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria) 2,3 8 19 11 73 R68 South Santiam River 3 4 21 19 73 R102 Umatilla River 7 11 8 16 65 R113 Wallowa River (Wallowa Lake to Minam) 10 9 14 10 65 R134 North Fork Owyhee River 11 8 14 13 65

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 137 Water Trails • Driving directions • Regulatory information In the online questionnaire, respondents reported (e.g., fishing and hunting regulations) the information they would like a “water trail” smart • Other app to provide if it were created for water bodies in • GPS coordinates Oregon. Figure 95 shows the percent giving a rating of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 = “Not important” to 5 = • Common wildlife in area “Very important”. • Suggested itineraries Complete wording for the items is as follows: • Nearby attractions • Where/ how to access the water body • Gear checklist • Safety/ information/ water body obstructions Location and safety information were rated as the • Map of water trail sites most important. Items noted in the Other category included water levels, difficulty ratings (e.g., white- • Trailhead information water class), level of use/ crowding in area, nearby • List of amenities that are available camping/ lodging, and user ratings/ feedback. Figure at launch site 96 shows results by boat type used most often.

Figure 95. Information Needs For Water Trail App, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important

138 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Figure 96. Information Needs For Water Trail App By Boat Type Used Most Often, Percent Rating Somewhat Or Very Important

As for scenic waterways, respondents were asked to recommend additional water bodies for inclusion in the water trails program. In the online questionnaire, recommended additions were identified using drop-down menus to select the highest, second highest, and third highest priority additions for each region. The list included separate segments for longer rivers.

Table 45 includes the number of times a water body was identified as either a first, second, or third priority addition in the online questionnaire. The overall points score was calculated based on three points for each time the water body was identified as a first priority addition, two points for a second priority, and one point for a third priority. Some rivers cross regional boundaries and were recommended in more than one region in the online questionnaire. In such cases, the highest region-level score was used for that river segment.

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 139 Table 45. Recommended Water Trail Additions by Priority and Total Points, Unweighted, Top 20

Regions 1 2 3 Points R70 McKenzie River 4 19 8 0 73 R97 Metolius River 8 19 3 3 66 R49 Tualatin River 2 15 3 5 56 R103 North Fork John Day River 7,10 14 4 4 54 R98 Crooked River 8 9 12 3 54 R84 North Umpqua River 6 10 5 4 44 R81 North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River 4 8 6 3 39 R27 Umpqua River (From confluence of North and South Forks to 5,6 9 4 3 38 the Pacific Ocean) R66 North Santiam River 3 5 10 2 37 L109 Upper Klamath Lake 9 10 1 2 34 R110 Grande Ronde River (Confluence with the Wallowa River to 10 9 2 3 34 WA state line, near Troy) L58 Waldo Lake 4 8 2 4 32 R100 John Day River (Source to Service Cr.) 10 8 4 0 32 R63 Yamhill River 3 8 3 0 30 R50 Clackamas River (River Mill Dam to Willamette River 2 7 2 4 29 confluence) R109 Grande Ronde River (Hilgard Junction State Park to conflu- 10 4 7 2 28 ence with the Wallowa River) R94 Williamson River 9 5 5 3 28 B10 Coos Bay 5 6 3 2 26 L91 Hosmer Lake 8 4 5 4 26 R43 Illinois River (Deer Cr to Agness near confluence w/ Rogue R) 5,6 3 8 0 25

140 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Experiences, Preferences, and Priorities Waiting Time

Respondents were asked how long they have to wait at launch areas for others to launch or take out. Figure 97 suggests that waiting is not a major issue. Figure 98 shows results by region, using averages on a scale of 1 = “Do not have to wait at all” to 6 = “More than 20 minutes.” Even in the “highest” regions, average reported waiting time is only “1 to 5 minutes.” Figure 97. Waiting Time

Figure 98. Waiting Time By Region

Boat Camping

With respect to non-motorized boat camping, 22% of respondents indicated they camp less often than they would like to on Oregon water bodies. Figure 99 shows the frequency of concerns that constrain camping from boats. “Campground” is abbreviated as “CG.” Write-in responses in the “Other” category include cost, crowds, kayaks too small for overnight gear, and lack of available permits, launch sites, and/ or camp sites.

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 141 Figure 99. Concerns Limiting Boat Camping

Activity Importance

Respondents indicated the importance of various activities to their enjoyment of non-motorized boating, with Figure 100 showing percent giving a rating of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 = “Not important” to 5 = “Very important.” Fishing, viewing nature, and camping were the most important, while whitewater close-to-town was the least important. The high percentages across diverse activities may reflect a general “enthusiasm” for indicating importance. Figure 100. Activities In Addition To Non-Motorized Boating

142 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Facility/ Service Importance

Figure 101 shows importance ratings for facilities and services, in percent giving a rating of a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 = “Not important” to 5 = “Very important.” Access is clearly the most important followed by online information. Figure 101. Non-Motorized Boating Facility/ Service Importance

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 143 Support for Management Actions

Figure 102 shows support for various management actions, on a scale from 1 = “Strongly oppose” to 5 = “Strongly support,” with 3 = “Neutral.” The strongest support was for restricting development along the shoreline, while the least support was for prohibiting wood fires at campsites. Open-ended comments suggest that the concern about shoreline development may reflect the effect on water access. Figure 102. Non-MotorizedFigure 5.5. Management Boating Management action support, Action Support probability sample

Restrict devel. along shore 3.9 Require pack‐in, pack‐out 3.7 More public access points 3.7 More water‐accessible… 3.7 Other 3.5 Better emergency response 3.4 Distance markers along water… 3.0 More enforcement / patrols 2.9 Limit the number of people 2.6 Prohibit wood fires at campsites 2.1

12345 Mean rating Issue Importance

Figure 103 shows importance ratings for non-motorized boating issues, in percent giving a rating of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 = “Not important” to 5 = “Very important.” Car safety (e.g., from car clouts) and access were the most important issues. Figure 103. Non-Motorized Boating Issue Importance Figure 5.6. Issue importance, probability sample Percent rating Somewhat or Very Important

Car safety 60 Increased access 59 Trash cans 47 Water conditions 42 Alcohol / drug use 35 Overcrowding 34 Personal safety 33 Conflict, other boaters 30 Water flows 29 More restrooms 28 More parking 27 Conflict, non‐boaters 22 Picnic / BBQ 16 Shuttle service 15

0 20 40 60 80 100

144 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Support For Annual Fee For Boating Enhancement

Respondents were asked whether they would support a fee that would fund land acquisition and other enhancements to non-motorized boating. In the online questionnaire, the question included one of the following fee amounts: $10, $15, or $20. In the paper questionnaire, the question included either $10 or $20 as the fee amount. Question wording was as follows:

Would you oppose or support an annual fee of $10 [amount varied] that would be required for all non-motorized boats (regardless of length) and would be transferable across boats?

The fee would include the current Aquatic Invasive Species permit, with $5 of the total fee used to fund the invasive species program. The remaining amount would fund land acquisition for boater access, expanded parking and restrooms, camping facilities along paddling routes, and safety and educational material.

Figure 104 shows results for the probability sample. The majority of boaters were supportive or neutral, but there was a substantial level of opposition. As expected, the level of “strong” support decreased with higher fees. The level of “strong” opposition increased at the highest fee level. Figure 104. Support For Annual Non-Motorized Boater Fee

Open-Ended Comments Summary

Respondents were asked to write suggestions for improving non-motorized boating opportunities in Oregon. A categorical analysis of responses identified these most common comment themes: • Desire for more access to boating opportunities including more access, more put-ins, increased parking, or improving existing ramps. • Conflicts with motorized boaters along with calls for more speed limits, no wake areas, or areas exclusive- ly for non-motorized use. • Desire for additional information from managers including calls for more maps, information on boating areas, conditions or regulations, and such information to be made available online. • Complaints about fees, including that fees are too high or too complicated, or that fees should be used differently or administered in a different way.

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 145 Expenditure and input-output model to estimate the “multiplier effects” of money flowing through the local econo- Economic Contribution my. Please see the full survey report for a thorough methods description. This section presents a summary of boater expenditure, based on the “typical trips” described earlier. Table 46 shows the results of the multiplier analysis, Note that this expenditure is only associated with by region. The columns are as follows: travel, not with equipment purchase. The expen- • Employment, full-time or part-time jobs. diture and economic contribution reflects boating • Labor income, which includes employee activity by both local (to the boating location) and compensation (including wages, salaries, and non-local Oregon residents. Expenditures categories benefits) and proprietary income (including use in this analysis included: self-employment income). • Hotel, motel, condo, cabin, B&B, or other • Value added, which includes labor income, rents, lodging except camping profits, and indirect business taxes. • Camping (RV, tent, etc.) • Output, which is the dollar value of goods and • Restaurants, bars, pubs services sold. • Groceries Statewide, non-motorized boating by Oregon • Gas and oil residents contributes 1,084 jobs, $34 million in labor • Other transportation income, and $54 million in value added.

In the analysis, survey spending question responses Non-residents who engage in non-motorized are used to calculate per person boater expenditures boating in Oregon contribute additional amounts to for day and for multi-day trips for each region. regional economies. The magnitude of this addition- Regional boater user occasions were extrapolated al contribution is unknown, but can be estimated from SCORP estimates and used with trip expendi- from external data sources. The US Forest Service ture data to calculate annual expenditures by des- National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program tination region. The expenditure of non-motorized provides one reference point for estimating the bal- boaters by region was “run” through the IMPLAN ance of Oregon resident versus non-resident boating

Table 46. Multiplier Effects Of Non-Motorized Boater Trip Expenditure, By Region; Employment In Jobs, Other Measures In Dollars

Region Employment Labor Income Value Added Output 1 144 4,017,900 6,690,500 10,319,800 2 264 9,807,100 15,241,200 23,147,500 3 61 1,759,100 2,864,400 4,429,600 4 94 2,880,200 4,701,700 7,106,300 5 32 834,000 1,383,100 2,221,100 6 114 3,284,100 5,413,900 8,593,300 8 252 7,805,500 12,824,100 20,391,400 7 & 10 91 2,301,800 3,820,800 6,352,700 9 & 11 34 822,100 1,395,400 2,237,800 Total 1,084 33,511,900 54,335,300 84,799,500

146 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 47. Multiplier Effects of Non-Motorized Boater Trip Expenditure, Out-of- State Boaters Included; Employment in Jobs, Other Measures in Dollars

Origin Employment Labor Income Value Added Output In-state 1,084 33,511,900 54,335,300 84,799,500 Out-of-state 174 5,361,900 8,693,600 13,567,900 Combined 1,258 38,873,800 63,028,900 98,367,400

activity in Oregon. Across all national forest units in Non-motorized boaters spend equal amounts of Oregon, there are an estimated 137,425 non-motor- time paddling in whitewater parts of rivers and ized water visits annually. Of these, 83% are visits by streams, flatwater parts of rivers and streams, and Oregon residents and 17% by non-residents. If this on lakes, reservoirs and ponds. Most boat in travel pattern is the same for non-motorized boating out- parties of two people, involving one or two boats, side national forests, the statewide contribution of with non-whitewater kayaks being the most com- non-resident boaters would be an additional 20% of monly used watercraft. the estimates provided here (16.9% / 83.1%). Recent Survey results show that increased public access for analysis in Washington state indicates that their non-motorized boating is the top facility/service ration of out-of-state versus in-state expenditure funding priority. These findings can reinforce local is 16%.21 This suggests that out-of-state spending efforts to plan and develop non-motorized access in Oregon adds another 16% to 20% to the figures sites in their jurisdictions. Access refers to a specific shown in Table 19. Table 47 shows the statewide location where the public has the legal right and total for in-state boaters from Table 46, together with physical means to get to the water to launch a estimated contribution from out-of-state boaters, non-motorized boat. Non-motorized boating access using the 16% reference point. may be unimproved or enhanced to varying degrees. When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimat- Formal non-motorized boater access areas may be ed amounts increase to 1,258 jobs, $39 million in paved launch ramps, parking areas with dirt trails, or labor income, and $63 million in value added. roadside-to-the-waterway trails.

The survey also identified a strong funding need Conclusions and for online boating information. Providing online Implications non-motorized boating maps and information will also address the need for increased access for non-motorized boating by informing boaters about The 2011 Oregon SCORP survey and the National existing paddling opportunities in the state. Survey Survey on Recreation and the Environment show results also identify if water trail smart apps were that non-motorized boating is growing in Oregon provided, they should include where/how to access and nationally. There are now more non-motorized the waterbody, safety information/ waterbody boating participants in the state than motorized obstructions, a map of water trail sites, trailhead boating participants. information, list of amenities that are available at Relative to all Oregonians, non-motorized boaters the launch site, driving directions, and regulatory tend to be younger and have higher incomes. information. Recreation providers should also consider developing geospatial PDF maps of water trail 21 Briceno, T. and G. Schundler. 2015. Economic Analysis of routes to allow on-the-water wayfinding. Such maps Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Available at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/ can be uploaded onto mobile devices (smartphone ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf

Chapter 5 - Oregon Resident Non-Motorized Boater Survey Summary 147 or tablet) and then, using an app, use built-in GPS to and have the highest concentration of non-motor- track the users location on the map. ized boater participation for land acquisition, facility development, and water trail projects for OPRD Twenty-two percent of survey respondents indi- administered grant programs (LWCF, LGGP, and cated that they camp less often than they would RTP programs). like to on Oregon water bodies. Lack of primitive campgrounds, lack of first-come first-serve boat The survey was also used to assist in identifying top camping, and lack of developed campgrounds were potential additions to the Scenic Waterway program top concerns limiting boat camping. Vehicle safety and water trail additions in the state. Regional public and not enough information about camping oppor- workshop voting and advisory committee review tunities were also identified as top concerns limiting were used to finalize top potential additions. OPRD camping. Land managers should continue to develop should encourage water trail development on these non-motorized boater camping facilities to meet waterways during the 10-year planning horizon. public boating needs. Finally, this report identifies expenditure and eco- Vehicle safety at non-motorized boating parking lots nomic contributions associated with non-motorized was identified by non-motorized boaters as the top boating in Oregon. Statewide, non-motorized boater issue. As a result, recreation providers should boating by Oregon residents generated $114 million consider improving parking security at waterway in expenditure across the state. In turn, this expen- put-in and take-out locations. Strategies to consider diture contributed 1,084 jobs, $54 million in value include upgrading parking lots and access facilities added, and $34 million in labor income. When out- so that other land-based and water-based recreation- of-state visitors are included, the estimated amounts ists are using the parking lot and facilities reducing increased to 1,258 jobs, $63 million in value added, opportunities for vandals to break into parked cars. and $39 million in labor income. This information More frequent ranger patrols also reduce break-ins. should be used to educate Oregonians about the Placing signs at parking areas to identify who to call economic benefits received from their investment in in the event of a break-in can also be considered. non-motorized boating facilities in the state.

Although the demand is increasing for non-motorized boating access and facilities, a funding mechanism is lacking to address this need on a statewide basis. The Oregon State Marine Board is funded primarily by marine fuel tax and title and registration fees for motorized boaters. Survey results suggest support among non-motorized boaters for a $10 or $15 fee (with $5 of this amount for the invasive species program). The Marine Board should work with non-motorized boaters to identify a fee to support non-motorized boater services, including access to waterways.

The survey identified non-motorized boater participation (site days) by water body (river stretch, lake, or bay) in each of the 11 planning regions. OPRD should consider providing grant emphasis for non-motorized boater projects that are on the list

148 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 6 Needs Assessment

Introduction The second method was a component of the statewide survey of OHV trail users (Oregon Off- The 2016-2025 trails planning effort included a highway Vehicle Participation and Priorities) con- region-level analysis to identify priority projects for ducted by Oregon State University (OSU). Resident OHV, snowmobile, non-motorized, and water trails. OHV participants were asked to rate the importance The following is a description of needs assessment of 20 priorities by answering the following question. methods and lists of identified statewide and “Trail managers have limited resources to provide regional funding priority need. for all types of OHV trail experiences. How important is each of the following for you at the area you wrote in above (rode the most)?” Specific items were Needs Assessment rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not important Methods to 5=Very important). OHV Needs Assessment Methods Next, a series of regional public meeting workshops were held at 14 locations across the state in October The OHV planning effort included four distinct 2014. Each workshop included an afternoon session methods to identify OHV trail need at the state and open to all public recreation providers and an eve- region levels. The first method involved an online ning session open to the general public. Following a survey (Survey Monkey website) of Oregon OHV area presentation describing the trails planning process, managers conducted in March-April, 2014. Of the 54 workshop attendees were given three colored dots to providers contacted, 33 completed the survey for a prioritize the importance of OHV funding need in 61% response rate. Respondents were asked to rate the the region. importance of region-level OHV funding need.

149 Finally, the OHV trails planning advisory committee Non-Motorized Trail Needs Assessment members were given an opportunity to prioritize the Methods importance of statewide OHV trail funding need during the July 29, 2015 committee meeting. The non-motorized trails planning effort included Snowmobile Needs Assessment four distinct methods to identify non-motorized Methods trail need at the state and region levels. The first method involved an online survey (Survey Monkey The snowmobile planning effort included four website) of Oregon non-motorized trail providers distinct methods to identify snowmobile trail need conducted in July to August, 2014. Of the 558 at the state and region levels. The first method providers contacted, 232 completed the survey for a involved an online survey (Survey Monkey website) 42% response rate. Respondents were asked to rate of Oregon snowmobile area managers conducted the importance of region-level non-motorized trail in June 2014. Of the 100 providers contacted, 52 funding need both within Urban Growth Boundaries completed the survey for a 52% response rate. (UGBs) and in dispersed settings. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of The second method was a component of the state- region-level snowmobile funding need. wide survey of non-motorized trail users (Oregon The second method was a component of the state- Non-motorized Trail Participation and Priorities) wide survey of snowmobilers (Oregon Snowmobiler conducted by OSU. Resident non-motorized trail us- Participation and Priorities) conducted by OSU. ers were asked to rate the importance of 22 priorities Resident snowmobilers were asked to rate the by answering the following question. “Please share importance of 16 priorities by answering the follow- your priorities for trails in Oregon over the next 10 ing question. “How important is it for trail managers years, keeping in mind limited funding and land.” to allocate funding for each of the following actions Specific items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale at the area you wrote in Question 3 above (rode in (1=Not important to 5=Very important). the most)?” Specific items were rated using a 5-point Next, at regional trails workshops, attendees were Likert scale (1=Not important to 5=Very important). given three colored dots to prioritize the importance Next, as with other trail category types, workshop of non-motorized trail funding need within UGBs attendees were given three colored dots to prioritize and in dispersed settings. the importance of snowmobile funding need in the Finally, the non-motorized trails planning advisory region. committee members were given an opportunity to Finally, the snowmobile trails planning advisory prioritize the importance of non-motorized trail committee members were given an opportunity to funding need both within UGBs and in dispersed prioritize the importance of statewide trail funding settings during the May 11, 2015 committee need during the June 29, 2015 committee meeting. meeting. At the statewide level, top non-motorized trail funding need within Urban Growth Boundaries is for connecting trails into larger trail systems, routine upkeep of the trails themselves, and more

150 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future signs along trails/ wayfinding. In dispersed settings, Finally, the water trails planning advisory committee top funding need is for routine upkeep of the members were given an opportunity to prioritize the trails themselves, connecting trails into larger trail importance of non-motorized boating funding need systems, and more trail maps/ trail information/ during the March 27, 2015 committee meeting. wayfinding. The RTP grant program does not fund The plan also included three distinct methods to routine trail maintenance projects. As a result, nominate water trail additions and identify a list of funding priority for routine maintenance will be potential State Scenic Waterway study areas for the replaced repair of major trail damage in the RTP plan’s ten-year planning horizon. The State Scenic evaluation criteria. Waterway nomination process and final list of Water Trail Needs Assessment Methods potential study areas is included in Chapter Nine. The following is a description of the methods used The water trails planning effort included four and final list of top water trail additions identified. distinct methods to identify non-motorized boating need at the state and region levels. The first method First, Oregon non-motorized boating facility involved an online survey (Survey Monkey website) managers were asked in the online survey to nom- of Oregon non-motorized boating facility managers inate top waterways for water trail development. conducted in July 2014. Of the 330 providers con- Recommended waterways were identified by respon- tacted, 215 completed the survey for a 65% response dents using drop-down menus to select the highest, rate. Respondents were asked to rate the importance second highest, and third highest priority additions of region-level non-motorized boating funding for each region. The overall point score for each need and to nominate water bodies (rivers, lakes, nominated waterway was calculated based on three or bays) they would like to nominate for water trail points for each time the waterway was identified development. as a first priority addition, two points for a second priority, and one point for a third priority. The second method was a component of the statewide survey of non-motorized boaters (Oregon The second method was a component of the state- Non-motorized Boater Participation and Priorities) wide survey of non-motorized boaters. In the same conducted by OSU. Resident non-motorized boaters manner as the survey of Oregon boating facility were asked to rate the importance of 22 priorities by managers, respondents were asked to nominate top answering the following question. “How important waterways for water trail development. are the following facilities and services to the Figure 105 and Table 48 include the list of the 33 enjoyment of your non-motorized boating trips in waterways identified for water trail development Oregon?” Specific items were rated using a 5-point from this process. OPRD would like to encourage Likert scale (1=Not important to 5=Very important). water trail development projects on these waterways Respondents were also asked to nominate water and potential Scenic Waterway additions (Table 49) bodies for water trail development. during the 10-year planning horizon. In many cases, Next, at regional trails workshops, attendees were nominated water trails were also identified as poten- given three colored dots to prioritize the importance tial Scenic Waterway additions. of non-motorized boating funding needs.

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 151 Figure 105. Map Of Top Nominated Water Trail Additions

!( Nominated Lakes (! Nominated Bays Nominated Rivers Planning Regions

Grande Ronde River Nehalem River

Tualatin River Umatilla River Wallowa River 1 Clackamas River White River 7 Salmon North Fork River Yamhill 2 River John Day River 10 Siletz Bay (! 3 North Santiam Metolius River N Fk John Day River Middle Fk Willamette R 8 Crooked River

McKenzie River Malheur !( Hosmer Lake Umpqua 4 River River !( Waldo Lake Snake South Santiam River Coos River Bay (! North Umpqua River 11 5 Williamson Owyhee River Wood River Illinois 6 River River 9 !( Upper Klamath Lake Applegate River

Chetco River

152 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Table 48. List Of Top Nominated Water Trail Additions

Region 1 Region 9 Salmon River R94 Williamson River R5 Nehalem River Wood River B6 Siletz Bay L109 Upper Klamath Lake Region 2 Region 10 R49 Tualatin River R110 Grande Ronde River (Confluence with the Wallowa R50 Clackamas River (River Mill Dam to Willamette River River to WA state line, near Troy) confluence) R114 Wallowa River (Minam to confluence with the R5 Nehalem River Grande Ronde River) Region 3 R100 John Day River (Source to Service Creek) R63 Yamhill River Region 11 R66 North Santiam River R120 Snake River (Owyhee Dam to state line) R68 South Santiam River R122 Owyhee River (Lake Owyhee to Rome, near Hwy 95) Region 4 R118 Lake Owhyee R70 McKenzie River L58 Waldo Lake Identified Need R81 North Middle Fork Willamette River Region 5 The following is a summary of trail needs identified through this planning process related to the ATV R45 & R46 Chetco River (From Boulder Creek to mouth at and RTP grant programs. Pacific Ocean) B10 Coos Bay OHV Funding Priorities R27 Umpqua River (Mainstem from confluence of N & S Statewide Need Forks to mouth at Pacific Ocean) Region 6 OHV funding priorities R84 North Umpqua River Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition R27 Umpqua River (From confluence of N & S Forks to More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) mouth at Pacific Ocean) Prioritize loop over out and back trails R43 Illinois River (Deer Creek to Agness near confluence Regional Need with Rogue River) Region 7 Trails Planning Region 1 R102 Umatilla River (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

R103 North Fork John Day River OHV funding priorities R60 White River More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) Region 8 Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition R98 Crooked River Reduce natural resource damage near trails R97 Metolius River L91 Hosmer Lake

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 153 Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

OHV funding priorities Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) Trail maps/ information

Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

OHV funding priorities Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition Trail maps/ information Reduce natural resource damage near trails

Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

OHV funding priorities Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition

More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III)

More trails for quads (Class I)

Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

OHV funding priorities More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) More trails for quads(Class I) More trails for 4x4s (Class II)

Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

OHV funding priorities More trails for 4x4s (Class II) More enforcement of existing rules/regulations in trail areas Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition

154 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

OHV funding priorities Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition Reduce natural resource damage near trails Trail maps/ information

Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

OHV funding priorities More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) Prioritize long-distance trails (over 100 miles) More cross-country travel areas

Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

OHV funding priorities More cross-country travel areas More trails for quads (Class I) More trails for 4x4s (Class II)

Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

OHV funding priorities More cross-country travel areas Maintaining existing trails in good/sustainable condition Trail maps/ information

Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

OHV funding priorities More trails for quads (Class I) More single-track off-road motorcycle trails (Class III) More cross-country travel areas

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 155 Snowmobile Funding Priorities

Statewide Need

Snowmobile funding priorities Expand existing trail system More trail grooming/ trail rehabilitation More back-country off-trail riding Regional Need

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities No snowmobile trails in region

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities Expand existing trail system More trail grooming/ trail rehabilitation More parking/ sno-parks in the area

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities Expand existing trail system More trail grooming/ trail rehabilitation More signs along trails

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More enforcement of existing rules/regulations in trail areas Expand existing trail system More back-country off-trail riding

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities No snowmobile trails in region

156 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More parking/ sno-parks in the area Expand existing trail system More back-country off-trail riding

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More parking/ sno-parks in the area Increase safety/ reduce hazards Expand existing trail system

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More back-country off-trail riding Expand existing trail system More parking/ sno-parks in the area

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More signs along trails More trail maps/ information Increase safety/ reduce hazards

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More back-country off-trail riding Expand existing trail system More trail maps/ information

Snowmobile Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

Snowmobile trail funding priorities More back-country off-trail riding Expand existing trail system More parking/ sno-parks in the area

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 157 Non-Motorized Trail Funding Priorities

Statewide Need Within Urban Growth Boundaries And In Dispersed Settings

Non-motorized trail funding priorities Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Routine upkeep of the trails themselves Routine upkeep of the trails themselves Connecting trails into larger trail systems More signs along trails/ wayfinding More trail maps/trail information/ wayfinding

Regional Need Within Urban Growth Boundaries And In Dispersed Settings

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Connecting trails into larger trail systems Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Repair major trail damage Repair major trail damage

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems More trails Repair of major trail damage Repair of major trail damage Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Connecting trails into larger trail systems

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Repair of major trail damage Repair of major trail damage Connecting trails into larger trail systems Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat More trails

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Repair of major trail damage Repair major trail damage Connecting trails into larger trail systems More trail maps/ trail information More trails

158 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Repair of major trail damage Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Repair of major trail damage Connecting trails into larger trail systems

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems Connecting trails into larger trail systems Repair of major trail damage More trails Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Repair of major trail damage Repair of major trail damage Connecting trails into larger trail systems Connecting trails into larger trail systems More trail maps/ trail information Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Connecting trails into larger trail systems More trails More trails Repair major trail damage Repair major trail damage Protection of natural features, including wildlife habitat

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trail maps/ trail information Repair major trail damage Connecting trails into larger trail systems More trails Repair major trail damage More trail maps/ trail information

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 159 Water Trail Funding Priorities

Statewide Need

Water trail funding priorities Public access to the water (developed or undeveloped) Non-motorized boat launch facilities Restrooms Regional Need

Water Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- Salmon River R5 Nehalem River oped or undeveloped Information available online R5 Nehalem River R17 Siletz River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Forks to Siletz Bay Map of routes B6 Siletz Bay

Water Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R49 Tualatin River R60 White River oped or undeveloped) Non-motorized boat launch R50 Clackamas River (River Mill Dam R58 Sandy River (Source to confluence with facilities to Willamette River confluence) Bull Run River) Parking for cars without trailers R5 Nehalem River R5 Nehalem River R49 Tualatin River R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria)

Water Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R63 Yamhill River R66 North Santiam River (Pending dam oped or undeveloped) status review) Non-motorized boat launch R66 North Santiam River R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, facilities near Peoria, to Mid Fork Junction Parking for cars without trailers R68 South Santiam River R69 Middle Santiam River R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria) R68 South Santiam River R17 Siletz River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Forks to Siletz Bay

160 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Water Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R70 McKenzie River R70 McKenzie River (Paradise South) oped or undeveloped) Non-motorized boat launch L58 Waldo Lake R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, facilities near Peoria, to Mid Fork Junction Restrooms R81 North Middle Fork Willamette R79 Coast Fork Willamette River River

Water Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R45 & R46 Chetco River (from R27 Umpqua River (Mainstem from oped or undeveloped) Boulder Creek to the mouth at confluence of North and South Fork to the Pacific Ocean) Pacific Ocean) Designated water trails with signs B10 Coos Bay R28 Smith River Information available online R27 Umpqua River (mainstem from confluence of North and South Fork to mouth at Pacific Ocean)

Water Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R84 North Umpqua River R89 Rogue River (Lost Creek Lake to oped or undeveloped) Applegate River) Non-motorized boat launch R27 Umpqua River (from conflu- R27 Umpqua River (Mainstem from facilities ence of North and South Forks to confluence of North and South Fork to the mouth at Pacific Ocean) Pacific Ocean) Restrooms R43 Illinois River (Deer Creek to R44 Illinois River (Illinois River Forks State Agness near confluence with Rogue Park to Deer Creek) River) R28 Smith River

Water Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R102 Umatilla River R60 White River oped or undeveloped) Areas without motorized boats R103 North Fork John Day River R102 Umatilla River (Source to McKay) Information available online R60 White River

Chapter 6 - Needs Assessment 161 Water Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R98 Crooked River R98 Crooked River oped or undeveloped) Information available online R97 Metolius River Parking for cars without trailers L91 Hosmer Lake

Water Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R94 Williamson River R94 Williamson River oped or undeveloped) Non-motorized boat launch Wood River facilities Map of routes L109 Upper Klamath Lake

Water Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R110 Grande Ronde River R100 John Day River (Picture Cr. To Service oped or undeveloped) (Confluence with the Wallowa River Cr.) to WA state line, near Troy) Areas without motorized boats R114 Wallowa River (Minam to R115 Imnaha River confluence with the Grande Ronde River) Designated water trails with signs R100 John Day River (Source to Service Creek)

Water Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

Water Trail Funding Priorities Top Water Trail Nominations Potential Scenic Waterway Additions Public access to the water (devel- R120 Snake River (Owyhee Dam to R121 Owhyee River (Owyhee Dam to Snake oped or undeveloped) state line) River Non-motorized boat launch R122 Owhyee River (Lake Owyhee facilities to Rome, near Hwy 95) Information available online R118 Lake Owhyee

162 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 7 Identification of Management Issues

Introduction The second method was a component of the statewide survey of OHV trail users. Resident OHV The 2016-2025 trails planning effort included a participants were asked to rate the importance of 16 region-level analysis to the most significant issues issues by answering the following question. “Based effecting OHV, snowmobile, non-motorized, and on your OHV riding in the past 12 months, how water trail provision in the state of Oregon. The much of a problem do you think each of the follow- following is a description of issue identification ing is on OHV trails on public land in Oregon?” methods and lists of identified statewide and region- Specific items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale al management issues. (1=Not a problem to 5=A serious problem). Next, a series of regional public meeting workshops Issue Identification were held at 14 locations across the state in October 2014. Each workshop included an afternoon session Methods open to all public recreation providers and an eve- OHV Issues Identification Methods ning session open to the general public. Following a presentation describing the trails planning process, The OHV planning effort included four distinct workshop attendees were given three colored dots methods to identify OHV trail management issues at to prioritize the importance of OHV issues in the the state and region levels. The first method involved region. an online survey of Oregon OHV area managers Finally, the OHV trails planning advisory committee conducted in March-April, 2014. Respondents were members were given an opportunity to prioritize the asked to rate the importance of region-level OHV importance of statewide OHV management issues management issues. during the July 29, 2015 committee meeting.

163 Snowmobile Issues Identification statewide survey of non-motorized trail users Methods (Oregon Non-motorized Trail Participation and Priorities). Resident non-motorized trail users were The snowmobile planning effort included four asked to rate the importance of 21 issues by answer- distinct methods to identify snowmobile trail need at ing the following question. “Based on your trail use the state and region levels. The first method involved in the past 12 months, how important do you feel an online survey of Oregon snowmobile area manag- each of the following is on trails in Oregon?” Specific ers conducted in June 2014. Respondents were asked items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not to rate the importance of region-level snowmobile important to 5=Very important). management issues. Next, at regional trails workshops, attendees were The second method was a component of the state- given three colored dots to prioritize the importance wide survey of snowmobilers (Oregon Snowmobiler of non-motorized trail management issues within Participation and Priorities). Resident snowmobilers UGBs and in dispersed settings. were asked to rate the importance of 16 issues by Finally, the non-motorized trails planning advisory answering the following question. “Based on your committee members were given an opportunity to snowmobile riding, how much of a problem do you prioritize the importance of non-motorized trail think each of the following is on snowmobile trails issues both within UGBs and in dispersed settings on public lands in Oregon?” Specific items were during the May 11, 2015 committee meeting. rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not a problem to 5=A serious problem). Water Trail Issues Identification Methods Next, as with other trail category types, workshop attendees were given three colored dots to prioritize The water trails planning effort included three the importance of snowmobile management issues distinct methods to identify non-motorized man- in the region. agement issues at the state and region levels. The Finally, the snowmobile trails planning advisory first method involved an online survey of Oregon committee members were given an opportunity to non-motorized boating facility managers conducted prioritize the importance of statewide management in July 2014. Respondents were asked to rate the issues during the June 29, 2015 committee meeting. importance of region-level non-motorized boating management issues. Non-Motorized Trail Issues Identification Methods The second method was a component of the statewide survey of non-motorized boaters (Oregon The non-motorized trails planning effort included Non-motorized Boater Participation and Priorities). four distinct methods to identify non-motorized Resident non-motorized boaters were asked to rate trail management issues at the state and region the importance of 14 issues by answering the follow- levels. The first method involved an online survey ing question. “Based on your non-motorized boating of Oregon non-motorized trail providers conducted in Oregon in the past 2 months, how important do in July to August, 2014. Respondents were asked to you feel each of the following is?” Specific items were rate the importance of region-level non-motorized rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not important trail management issues both within Urban Growth to 5=Very important). Boundaries (UGBs) and in dispersed settings. Next, at regional trails workshops, attendees were The second method was a component of the given three colored dots to prioritize the importance of non-motorized boating issues.

164 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Finally, the water trails planning advisory committee members were given an opportunity to prioritize the importance of non-motorized boating issues during the March 27, 2015 committee meeting.

Identified Management Issues

The following is a summary of trail management issues identified through this planning process for each trail category type. OHV Management Issues

Statewide Issues

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Riding in closed areas Regional Issues

Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Riding in closed areas

Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Riding in closed areas

Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

OHV trail issues Riding in closed areas Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads

Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Litter/ dumping

Chapter 7 - Identification of Management Issues 165 Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

OHV trail issues Litter/ dumping Closure of trails Riding in closed areas

Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Vandalism Too little law enforcement

Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

OHV trail issues Litter/ dumping Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Closure of trails

Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Litter/ dumping

Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Vandalism

Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Litter/ dumping

Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

OHV trail issues Closure of trails Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Litter/ dumping

166 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Snowmobile Management Issues

Statewide Issues

OHV trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Riding in closed areas Lack of snowmobile trail maintenance Regional Issues

Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues No snowmobile trails in region

Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas ATVs on snowmobile trails Irresponsible/ dangerous/ reckless riding

Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues ATVs on snowmobile trails Too little law enforcement Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas

Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Snowmobile trail issues Too little law enforcement Riding in closed areas Irresponsible/ dangerous/ reckless riding

Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues No snowmobile trails in region

Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Riding in closed areas ATVs on snowmobile trails

Chapter 7 - Identification of Management Issues 167 Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Riding in closed areas Natural resource damage

Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Riding in closed areas Irresponsible/ dangerous/ reckless riding

Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues ATVs on snowmobile trails Riding in closed areas Irresponsible/ dangerous/ reckless riding

Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Riding in closed areas Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas Irresponsible/ dangerous/ reckless riding

Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

Snowmobile trail issues Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas More riding areas ATVs on snowmobile trails

168 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Non-Motorized Trail Management Issues

Statewide Issues

Non-motorized trail issues Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Need for more trails connecting towns/ public places. Need for improved trail maintenance. For this issue, trail maintenance includes routine trail maintenance and trail rehabilitation/ restoration. Need for improved trail maintenance. For this issue, trail Need for more trails connecting towns/ public places. maintenance includes routine trail maintenance and trail rehabilitation/ restoration. Need for more trail signs (directional and distance mark- Need for more trail signs (directional and distance markers, and level of difficulty). ers, and level of difficulty). Regional Issues

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails connecting towns/ public places Ability to experience the natural environment Ability to experience the natural environment Improved trail maintenance Trail maps at trailheads More trails connecting towns/ public places

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Improved trail maintenance More trails connecting towns/ public places More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance Ability to experience the natural environment Ability to experience the natural environment

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance Improved trail maintenance More trails connecting towns/ public places More trail signs (directional & distance markers, and level More trail signs (directional & distance markers, and level of difficulty) of difficulty)

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance More trails More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance More parking space at trailheads

Chapter 7 - Identification of Management Issues 169 Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance Improved trail maintenance Ability to experience the natural environment Trail maps at trailheads Trail maps at trailheads

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Improved trail maintenance Improved trail maintenance Ability to experience the natural environment Ability to experience the natural environment More trails connecting towns/ public places More trails connecting towns/ public places

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance Improved trail maintenance More trails connecting towns/ public places Ability to experience the natural environment Ability to experience the natural environment

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings Improved trail maintenance Improved trail maintenance More trails connecting towns/ public places More trail information on the Internet More trail information on the Internet More trails connecting towns/ public places

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Within Urban Growth Boundaries Dispersed Settings More trails Improved trail maintenance More trails connecting towns/ public places More trails connecting towns/ public places Improved trail maintenance More trail signs (directional & distance markers, and level of difficulty)

Non-Motorized Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

170 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Water Trail Management Issues

Statewide Issues

Water trail issues Need for increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boater facilities Lack of non-motorized boating maps and information. Regional Issues

Trails Planning Region 1 (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties)

Water trail issues Too few water trails Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities

Trails Planning Region 2 (Columbia, Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities Improved water conditions (quality, obstructions, rapids, currents, low levels, floating debris)

Trails Planning Region 3 (Yamhill, Polk, Benton, Marion, and Linn Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities More parking

Trails Planning Region 4 (Non-coastal Lane County)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities Lack of law enforcement

Trails Planning Region 5 (Coastal Lane, Coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating More restrooms Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities

Chapter 7 - Identification of Management Issues 171 Trails Planning Region 6 (Non-Coastal Douglas, Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating More trash receptacles Lack of non-motorized boating maps/ information

Trails Planning Region 7 (Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties)

Water trail issues Lack of funding for non-motorized boating facilities Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of separation at existing sites between motorized and non-motorized uses

Trails Planning Region 8 (Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, and Wheeler Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of water accessible campsites More parking

Trails Planning Region 9 (Klamath and Lake Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of water accessible campsites More parking

Trails Planning Region 10 (Grant, Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating More consistent water flows and/ or dam releases Lack of funding for non-motorized boater facilities

Trails Planning Region 11 (Harney and Malheur Counties)

Water trail issues Increased access for non-motorized boating Lack of non-motorized boating maps/ information More restrooms

172 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ► Chapter 8 Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions

Introduction Off-Highway Vehicle

This chapter provides a description of the most sig- Trail Issues And Actions nificant issues effecting recreational trail provision Statewide Issue 1: Closure of trails in the state of Oregon. It also provides a framework for collective action in addressing these issues for the Closure of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails was next ten years. identified as a top motorized trail issue during the trail’s planning public workshops, in the statewide The previous chapter describes the process used to de- survey of resident OHV riders, and during the July 29, termine top statewide trail issues. Top statewide trail 2015 OHV trails plan advisory committee meeting. issues were finalized at the trails advisory committee meetings for each trail category type. A set of strategic The majority of OHV trails and riding areas in actions for addressing each statewide issue were also Oregon are on federal lands managed by the U.S. finalized at the trails advisory committee meetings. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In recent years, these federal agencies have begun to reevaluate the procedures they use to make OHV designations—or are in the process of developing additional regulations for OHV use—in light of the recent increase in popularity of OHV use. Specifically, in 2005, the USFS issued a travel management regulation, in part to standardize the

173 motorized travel be limited to designated roads, trails, and areas, reducing the acreage within national forests that is open to cross-country travel. The travel management regulation also requires that designated roads, trails, and areas be displayed on a motor vehicle use map. The USFS developed a schedule to complete the route designations and to develop the required motor vehicle use maps by the end of calendar 2009. In January 2009, the USFS updated its travel management guidance to provide individual forests with details on how to designate roads, trails, and areas for motorized use. This guidance, among other things, describes the process that forests should go through to make travel management decisions, including the criteria for making these decisions. These criteria include effects process that individual national forests and grass- on natural and cultural resources, effects on public lands use to designate the roads, trails, and areas safety, provision of recreation opportunities, access that will be open to motorized travel. Prior to travel needs, conflicts among uses of national forest lands, management, unless a road or trail is designated the need for maintenance, and the availability of closed, it’s considered open. Under the new rule, resources for such maintenance. roads, trails and areas will be considered closed to motorized use unless they’re designated as open. Like the Forest Service, BLM has also begun to reevaluate the procedures it uses to make OHV The Travel Management Rule was passed because designations. Over the past 10 years, BLM has issued of a need to resolve a number of resource and increasingly detailed guidance on how its field offices social concerns related to unregulated motorized should address travel management in their resource travel that were detailed in the Rule. These included management plans. In accordance with the executive concerns such as: orders, BLM regulations require that all its lands be 1. Confusion about where or when motorized given an area designation of either open, limited, access is or is not allowed, or for what type of ve- or closed with respect to motorized travel and that hicle, and how or where to find that information. these designations be based on protecting resources, 2. Resource damage from inappropriate promoting the safety of users, and minimizing motorized uses. conflicts between users. Open areas are areas where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times, 3. Conflicts between motorized and anywhere in the area. Limited areas are lands where non-motorized users. OHV use is restricted at certain times or use is only 4. Quality of recreational experiences for all authorized on designated routes, and close areas are forest users. lands where OHV use is prohibited.

This designation process applies only to motorized BLM’s most recent guidance, issued in 2007, provid- vehicles and does not address other forms of trans- ed additional details related to how field units should portation, such as biking, horseback riding, and conduct travel planning in the context of resource hiking. After roads, trails, and areas are designated, management planning. While updating a resource the travel management regulation requires that management plan, BLM field unit officials are to

174 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future inventory and evaluate OHV routes and area des- Action 9: Reduce unwarranted OHV closures ignations (such as open, limited, and closed), seek through comprehensive review/input/analysis by public input, and make changes as appropriate. For all stakeholders. areas designated for limited OHV use, BLM guid- Action 10: No Oregon ATV grant funds will be ance states that the resource management plan must used for federal travel management planning. include a map identifying the OHV route system. In addition, because of recent increases in OHV use on Action 11: Land managers should work with public lands and the potential for related resource user groups to inventory all existing roads and damage, BLM’s latest guidance encourages field units trails prior to the start of travel management not to designate large areas as open to cross-country planning. motorized travel. Action 12: As federal recreation budgets decline, Action 1: USFS Region 6 should place a higher land managers should build more public-private priority on motorized recreation in Oregon. partnerships (e.g., with OHV user groups and manufacturers) to manage OHV recreation on Action 2: Federal land managers should make federal lands in Oregon (e.g., trail maintenance, outdoor recreation management a viable career trail building, user education). For example, the path within their agencies. Stay the Trail program, a joint project between Action 3: Land managers should hold monthly the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition local multi-user recreation committee meetings and Federal agencies, reinforces and highlights to gather public feedback regarding trail issues responsible OHV use and seeks to reduce irre- and concerns. sponsible use, thus minimizing resource damage.

Action 4: The USFS and BLM should provide Action 13: The USFS and BLM should develop funding from the federal budget to create a staff user-friendly maps and signs for route systems position dedicated to OHV management at the including large format signage, on-the-ground Portland Region 6 office. route markers, and information kiosks with maps to inform riders of the law and indicate Action 5: The USFS and BLM should allocate where they can legally ride. adequate resources for travel management planning in Oregon. Action 14: Land managers should close or relocate problem OHV routes. Action 6: Federal land managers should follow travel management guidelines when conducting Action 15: Work with Sports Utility Vehicle travel management planning in Oregon. (SUV) and OHV manufactures and dealers to stop the use of product development and mar- Action 7: Federal land managers should adopt keting strategies (e.g., vehicles riding off-routes the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation and cross-country) which are in conflict with Council (NOHVCC) motorized access plan travel management objectives. agreement for engaging OHV clubs in travel management planning in Oregon. Statewide Issue 2: Closure of unimproved backcountry roads Action 8: A Federal funding mechanism should be implemented to fund increased OHV law Closure of unimproved backcountry roads was iden- enforcement, trail maintenance, user education, tified as a top statewide OHV trail issue during the signage, mapping, and rehabilitation of damaged trails planning workshops, in the statewide survey areas.

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 175 of resident OHV riders, and during the July 29, 2015 Transportation planning is being conducted as the OHV trails plan advisory committee meeting. USFS considers how to maintain logging roads no longer used for timber harvesting traffic. For Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximate- example, the Mount Hood National Forest has about ly 280,000 miles of National Forest System roads 3,380 miles of logging roads, built when it produced open to motor vehicle use. In addition, approximate- up to 370 million board feet of timber annually, ly 144,000 miles of trails are managed by the Forest as it did in 1990. Due primarily to environmental Service, with an estimated 33 percent or 47,000 miles restrictions, timber sales now are about 25 million open to motor vehicle use. This transportation sys- board feet annually, according to forest reports. The tem ranges from paved roads, designed for passenger USFS will decide which roads to maintain, close or cars to single-track trails used by dirt bikes. Many decommission. roads designed for high-clearance vehicles (such as log trucks, and sport utility vehicles) also accom- Action 1: No state ATV grant funds should be modate use by ATVs and other OHVs not normally used for closing and decommissioning unim- found on city streets. proved backcountry roads in Oregon.

In Oregon, the USFS manages approximately 72,000 Action 2: Oregon land managers should consid- miles and the BLM another 21,000 miles of unpaved er the importance of shared-use roads for OHV backcountry roads. In the 1960s, motorized recre- use. ational traffic on the National Forest System roads Action 3: Federal land managers should follow was relatively light compared with timber traffic. travel management guidelines when conducting Today, recreational traffic is 90 percent of all traffic travel management planning in Oregon. on National Forest System roads. Much of the road system maintenance needs and resource damage Action 4: Federal land managers should adopt concerns are the result of continuous recreation use the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation of roads only designed for controlled intermittent Council (NOHVCC) motorized access plan commercial use. During transportation planning, the agreement for engaging OHV clubs in travel USFS and BLM consider capability to maintain roads management planning in Oregon. in decisions to designate roads for motorized use. Action 5: Land managers should develop standard motor vehicle use maps for each management area in a consistent manner that provides adequate detail to inform users of the open areas and serves as legal notification for enforcement purposes.

Action 6: Reduce unwarranted OHV closures through comprehensive review/input/analysis by all stakeholders.

Action 7: Land managers should work with user groups to inventory all existing roads and trails prior to the start of travel management planning.

Action 8: Land managers should develop user-friendly maps and signs for route systems including large format signage, on-the-ground

176 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future route markers, and information kiosks with maps to inform riders of the law and indicate where they can legally ride.

Action 9: Land managers should close or relocate problem OHV routes.

Action 10: Work with Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and OHV manufactures and dealers to stop the use of product development and marketing strategies (e.g., vehicles riding off-routes and cross-country) which are in conflict with travel management objectives. Statewide Issue 3: Riding in closed areas

The problem of OHV riding in closed areas was identified as a top motorized trail issue in the survey of OHV area providers and during the July 29, 2015 OHV trails plan advisory committee meeting.

The USFS and other land managers have been confronted with a proliferation of trails arising from repeated unauthorized travel by OHVs. Such behavior can result from areas not being properly mapped, signed, or marked clearly as open or closed; or recreationists ignoring designations. A number of motorized users simply don’t understand and/or have Action 3: Land managers should quickly repair a lack of appropriate trail ethics. Cross-country travel resource damage caused by off-trail riding before occurs and unauthorized trails are created which more damage occurs. This may include land adversely affect wildlife habitat, watersheds, cultural restoration, revegetation, invasive species treat- resources, grazing and other multiple-use activities. ment, long-term rehabilitation, barriers, route Action 1: Land managers should develop OHV realignments, or closures. In some cases, alter- system plans which include a variety of riding native (sustainable) routes will need to replace challenge opportunities (easy, more difficult, user created trails. Replacement routes should be most difficult) to satisfy diverse user needs. constructed and opened prior to closing off user System plans should also develop OHV connec- created routes. tors and networks to create loop trails or provide Action 4: Land managers should develop longer rides. user-friendly maps and signs for route systems Action 2: Land managers should provide including large format signage, on-the-ground trailhead kiosks to inform visitors about route markers, and information kiosks with trail level-of-difficulty and available riding maps to inform riders of the law and indicate opportunities. where they can legally ride.

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 177 Snowmobile Issues And (TMR) required the USFS to have a designated summertime off-road vehicle system, while subpart Actions C allowed, but did not require, forests to designate a Statewide Issue 1: Closure of winter time off-road vehicle system. snowmobile trails/ riding areas In 2013, a Federal court found that subpart C failed to comply with the direction in the Executive Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding areas was Order to designate a system of trails and areas that identified as a top snowmobile trail issue during minimize impacts to natural resources and conflicts. the trail’s planning public workshops and in the In response, the USFS issued a draft amendment statewide survey of resident snowmobilers. Almost to the TMR in 2014 to require the designation of all snowmobile trails and riding areas in Oregon are roads, trails, and areas where over-snow vehicle on federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (OSV) use is allowed, restricted, or prohibited. In (USFS). January 2015, the USFS released the final policy for managing snowmobile and other OSV use on In 2006, Oregon national forests contained 3,257 national forests and grasslands. The rule is effective miles of groomed winter trails.22 Of these 3,257 February 27, 2015. As directed by the court order, trail miles, 3,043 were open to snowmobiles, and the policy requires that roads, trails and areas where 214 miles were closed to snowmobile trails (opened OSV use can occur be specifically designated by only to non-motorized trail uses). Oregon national local Forest Service managers. Previously, managers forests with adequate snow cover for winter trail had the discretion to decide whether to designate uses (including the Willamette, Wallowa-Whitman, specific areas for OSV use. The policy maintains the Umpqua, Umatilla, Rogue River-Siskiyou, Mt. requirement that all designations must be made with Hood, Malheur, Freemont-Winema, and Deschutes- public input as well as ensure protection of natural Ochoco National Forests) contain 15,942,517 acres resources, such as water and soils and wildlife, while of land. Of these acres, 12,196,335 acres of land were continuing appropriate recreational opportunities open to snowmobiles, 1,323,764 acres of non-wilder- for OSV and other recreational uses. In western ness land were closed to snowmobiles, and 2,379,902 states like Oregon, in addition to trail-based riding, acres of designated wilderness land were also closed larger wide-open, power-filled bowls can support to snowmobiles. Oregon SCORP inventory data cross-country OSV use. The final rule recognizes from 2001 identifies that there were approximately that cross-country travel by OSVs may be acceptable 66,565 miles of unpaved backcountry roads in these in appropriate circumstances. Oregon national forests with adequate snow cover for winter trail use. The rule states that all Forest Districts will need to go through a public planning process to review and In 2005, the Forest Service issued a travel manage- designate roads, trails, and cross country areas which ment regulation, in part to standardize the process are open to snowmobile use (similar to OHV Travel that individual national forests and grasslands use Management). Each Forest District will conduct its to designate the roads, trails, and areas that will be own NEPA process to designate areas in the next 5 open to motorized travel. This rule governed the years or so, according to the Portland office. The OSV management of summer and winter off-road vehicle travel management rule also requires that designated, systems. Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule roads, trails, and areas be displayed on a motor vehicle use map. Current riding opportunities will stay in 22 Rivers, K.E., and M. Menlove. 2006. Winter Recreation on Western National Forest Lands: A comprehensive analysis of place until planning is completed on each District. motorized and non-motorized opportunity and access. Winter Wildland’s Alliance, Boise, ID. p 26-27.

178 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Action 1: The USFS should allocate adequate Action 8: Undertake proactive and systematic resources for OSV travel management planning outreach programs in order to facilitate increased in Oregon. compliance of closures and reduce user conflicts.

Action 2: A Federal funding mechanism should Action 9: The USFS should develop user-friend- be implemented to fund increased snowmobile ly maps and signs for route systems including law enforcement, user education, signage, large format signage, on-the-ground route mapping, and rehabilitation of damaged areas. markers, and information kiosks with maps to inform riders of the law and indicate where they Action 3: Reduce unwarranted snowmobile can legally ride. riding closures through comprehensive review/ input/analysis by all stakeholders. Action 10: Land managers should implement outreach programs to raise public awareness of Action 4: No OPRD grant funds will be used for winter wildlife habitat, wildlife behavior, and federal travel management planning. ways to minimize user impact. Action 5: Develop education and outreach Statewide Issue 2: Riding in closed areas programs that reduce conflicts between winter trail uses and to increase compliance. Snowmobiling in closed areas was identified as a top snowmobile trail issue during the trail’s planning Action 6: Consider the effects of changing public workshops. In recent years, the USFS has climate (e.g., receding snowpack and earlier been confronted with a proliferation of trails arising spring runoff) on future recreation use patterns from repeated unauthorized cross-country snow- when conducting OSV travel management. mobile travel. Unauthorized access can result from Action 7: Identify routes and areas of particu- either areas not mapped, signed, or marked clearly larly high value or demand for motorized and as open or closed; or snowmobilers ignoring desig- non-motorized use. nations. Snowmobiling opportunities are dispersed

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 179 over large areas of the state, making enforcement of Action 7: The USFS should expand snowmobile closures difficult, especially with limited law enforce- enforcement capacity in the state. ment resources. Action 8: The USFS should create opportuni- As stated earlier, all Oregon Forest Districts will ties for citizen reporting of snowmobile rule need to go through a public planning process to violations. review and designate roads, trails, and cross country Action 9: The USFS should incorporate remote areas which are open to snowmobile use. The state- electronic monitoring technologies to assist wide survey of Oregon snowmobilers and the survey with monitoring and enforcement of OSV travel of Oregon snowmobile area managers both show a restrictions. high priority for funding backcountry off-trail riding opportunities in the state. These results indicate that Statewide Issue 3: Lack of snowmobile large-scale closure of off-trail riding opportunities trail maintenance may not be the best strategy for addressing the issue of snowmobiling in closed areas in the state during Lack of snowmobile trail maintenance was identified the OSV travel management process. as a top snowmobile trail issue during the June 29, 2015 Snowmobile Trails Plan Advisory Committee Action 1: The USFS should develop standard Meeting. OSV motor vehicle use maps for each management area in a consistent manner that provides A recent GAO report23 found the USFS is only able adequate detail to inform users of the open areas to maintain about one-quarter of National Forest and serves as legal notification for enforcement System trails to the agency standard, and the agency purposes. faces a trail maintenance backlog of $314 million in fiscal year 2012. A consistent trail maintenance Action 2: The USFS should develop user-friend- backlog is also reported on Oregon national forests. ly OSV maps and signs for route systems includ- According to USFS Off-Highway Vehicle Travel ing large format signage, on-the-ground route Management Rule (TMR) documentation, the USFS markers, and information kiosks with maps to considers capability to maintain roads in decisions to inform riders of the law and indicate where they designate roads (most snowmobile trails are existing can legally ride. logging roads) for motorized use. This situation Action 3: The USFS should allocate adequate creates a risk that many existing snowmobile trail resources for OSV travel management planning miles in Oregon could be closed during forest-level in Oregon. OSV transportation planning efforts.

Action 4: Reduce unwarranted off-trail snow- Action 1: Congress and the USFS should provide mobile riding closures through comprehensive additional funding to maintain trails on national review/input/analysis by all stakeholders. forest lands.

Action 5: The state should consider increasing Action 2: The State of Oregon will work with penalties for violations of travel management the USFS Region 6 Office to develop a long-term rules on federal lands. strategy for using state snowmobile gas tax funds for snowmobile trail rehabilitation, maintenance, Action 6: The state should consider increasing and grooming on USFS lands in Oregon. penalties for violations and improved enforcement of non-registered vehicle operation. 23 U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013). Forest Service Trails: Long and short-term improvements could reduce maintenance backlog and enhance system sustainability. GAO-13-618.

180 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Action 3: The USFS should develop a national Non-Motorized Trail trail maintenance strategy. Issues And Actions Action 4: The USFS should create a career path of standardized training program for trails staff Statewide Issue 1: More trails to develop and retain professional trail expertise. connecting towns/public places

Action 5: The USFS should develop national More trails connecting towns/public places was standards for trail volunteer training, including identified as a top non-motorized trail issue both chain saw requirements and dress codes that within UGBs and in dispersed settings during the would work across all forests. trails planning workshops and in the survey of with- Action 6: The USFS should address the liability in UGB non-motorized trail providers. Recreation issue that hampers volunteer and partner trail providers strongly felt that increasing non-motor- maintenance activity in national forests. ized trail connectivity will result in better use of the state’s existing non-motorized trail infrastructure Action 7: The USFS should provide more staff- and provide more trail opportunities. ing for managing and supervising volunteers and training for field staff who manage volunteers. For the purposes of this planning effort, trail connectivity will include trail projects that: Action 8: The USFS Region 6 Office should hire • Connect communities to each other; a full-time grant administrator to better leverage external trail funding opportunities such as the • Provide connections between existing trails; RTP program. • Close a gap within an existing trail; • Provide links to trails outside UGBs; Strategy 9: Pursue the overlay of snowmobile and OHV trail routes to the greatest extent • Provide access to parks and open space; and possible, to provide more cost-effective and • Provide access to significant facilities within efficient year-round trail maintenance. communities such as schools, libraries, indoor recreation facilities, and businesses.

Action 1: Give priority to trail proposals that connect to other trails, communities, parks and open space, schools, libraries, indoor recreation facilities, and businesses.

Action 2: Recognize and support cooperative regional trail planning, development, and promotion.

Action 3: Encourage the design of trails for increased Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility.

Action 4: Provide financial assistance for sound planning that will enhance regional multi-juris- dictional trail systems.

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 181 Action 5: Identify and address critical gaps in Action 12: OPRD and the Oregon Recreation regional trail24 networks, including trails in local Trails Council (ORTAC) should prepare case and regional transportations plans, coordinating studies, resource lists and best practices for using planning among all trail providers. Where neces- existing linear corridors (parkways, railroads, sary, identify high-quality on-street connections utility ROWs, canals, rivers) in the development and required directional signage. of trail systems in Oregon.

Action 6: Prioritize the acquisition of corridors Action 13: Encourage trail advocates to partic- for use in developing trail systems. ipate in local and regional planning efforts to help facilitate the development of trail systems. Action 7: Initiate demonstration projects to implement key regional trail network segments. Action 14: Support the coordination of systems that collect and manage trail data. Action 8: Encourage every community to prepare a recreational trail system plan and integrate the Action 15: Support efforts to coordinate regional recreation trail system into the Comprehensive expertise for trail construction, management, Plan and Transportation System Plan. and maintenance.

Action 9: OPRD will provide training, guidance, Statewide Issue 2: Improved trail and information related to obtaining funding maintenance and other resources for trail development and maintenance. Improved trail maintenance was identified as a top non-motorized trail issue both within UGBs and in Action 10: Trail partners should collaborate with dispersed settings during the trails planning work- the public health community to promote the use shops, in the statewide survey of non-motorized of trails for physical and mental health. trail users, and in the survey of non-motorized trail providers. Recreation providers strongly stated that Action 11: Support efforts to improve on street/ they are struggling to maintain existing trails due sidewalk trail connections and highway right-of- to increasing use levels and declining maintenance way crossings. budgets. 24 Regional trails provide non-motorized recreation and transportation opportunities and connect communities to each For this issue, trail maintenance includes both other and to open spaces. Regional trails serve as a backbone routine trail maintenance and trail rehabilitation/ to a larger trail network and provide non-motorized access to community centers and other developed areas as well as open restoration. Routine trail maintenance includes work space and other trails.

182 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future that is conducted on a frequent basis in order to that recognize the type, use, and challenge being keep a trail in its originally constructed serviceable offered by the trail for all trail types. standard (e.g., mowing, tree and brush pruning, leaf Action 6: Actively seek out financial support, and debris removal, cleaning and repair of drainage partnerships, and volunteers to supplement trail structures such as culverts, water bars, and drain budgets. dips) maintenance of water crossings, and repairs to signs and other amenities. Routine maintenance Action 7: Provide volunteer training for trail work is usually limited to minor repair or improve- design and maintenance techniques. ments that do not significantly change trail location, width, surface, or trail structure. Trail rehabilitation, Action 8: Encourage the use of volunteers to restoration involves extensive trail repair (e.g., accomplish multiple goals such as controlling resurfacing of asphalt trails or complete replacement, invasive species while maintaining trails. regrading, and resurfacing of all trails) needed to Action 9: OPRD will develop a statewide trail bring a facility up to standards suitable for public maintenance handbook including best man- use (not routine maintenance). In some cases, trail agement practices and maintenance funding rehabilitation/ restoration may include necessary alternatives. relocation of minor portions of the trail. Action 10: Assess the feasibility of a trails Proper management and maintenance is essential foundation with a mission of funding trail to ensure that trail experiences are maximized. maintenance and rehabilitation. Ongoing maintenance of trails is also important for safety, minimizing capital outlay costs and protect- Action 11: Standardize trail planning guidelines, ing environmental integrity. Adequately maintaining information, and funding decision criteria to Oregon’s trails will be challenging as use increases, build a sustainable statewide trail system. user expectations grow, and budgets tighten. Action 12: OPRD will consider funding routine Action 1: Encourage the use of regularly trail maintenance work in the Recreational Trails scheduled trail monitoring and maintenance Grant Program (RTP). Currently, the RTP grant that includes inspection and assessment of trail program does not fund routine trail mainte- conditions, use, signage, and structures followed nance work, but does fund trail rehabilitation/ by prompt repair. restoration projects.

Action 2: Foster the development of partnerships and “friends” groups to encourage community involvement, promote stewardship, and assist with trail maintenance. Also, encourage the donation of materials, equipment, and labor by local businesses to relive maintenance costs.

Action 3: Conduct training in best practices for trail construction management or maintenance as needed.

Action 4: Adhere to design standards in con- structing or rehabilitating trails.

Action 5: Standardize yearly maintenance plans

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 183 Statewide Issue 3: More trail signs Action 2: Encourage the development of trail (directional and distance markers and wayfinding master plans by Oregon recreation level of difficulty) providers. Action 3: OPRD will develop a generic trail The need for more trail signs/ markers was identified wayfinding master planning document for use as a top non-motorized trail issue in the statewide by small communities in Oregon. The document survey of non-motorized trail users and during will be designed to be in compliance with the the May 11, 2015 Non-motorized Trails Advisory Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Committee Meeting. Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Trail users require a number of different types of signs Action 4: Ensure that trailhead signs and maps to safely and enjoyably pursue their trail experience. include trail characteristics such as allowable Locator signs that lead people to trailheads and park- uses, surface conditions, slope, trail length, and ing areas, directional signs along the trail, destination distance to significant barriers to a person with signs to let people know they have reached end points, limited mobility. interpretive signs that describe the natural or cultural history of the area, and regulatory signs that explain Action 5: Consider the installation of distance the do’s and don’ts of the area are important trail com- markers along trails to aid in management and ponents. Trail managers should provide information emergency response. about their trails that allows users to choose the trails Action 6: Encourage the use of universal sym- within their skill and capability level. It is important bols in trail signage. for all users, but especially elderly or disabled users, to understand a specific trail’s maximum grade and Action 7: Provide bilingual signage where cross-slope, trail width, surface, obstacles and length applicable. before using the trail. Action 8: OPRD will provide priority for trail Action 1: OPRD will finalize a trail sign manual signing projects in the RTP grant program. for use in the Oregon State Park system and make the document available on the agency website.

184 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Water Trail Issues And Actions Statewide Issue 1: Increased access for non-motorized boating

Increased access for non-motorized boating was identified as a top non-motorized boating issue during the trail’s planning public workshops and in the statewide survey of non-motorized boaters. More public access points, along with restricting development along shorelines, requiring pack-in, pack-out in more locations, and more water-accessible campsites along waterbodies, were also identified as management actions with the strongest level of In 2011, 12.5% of the Oregon population (432,087 support by non-motorized boaters in the non-mo- individuals) participated in non-motorized torized boater survey. white-water canoeing, kayaking, or rafting for 2,911,759 user occasions. In addition, 11.7% of The need for increased access for non-motorized the Oregon population (455,177 individuals) boating is driven by a continuing increase in partic- participated in non-motorized flat-water canoeing, ipation in non-motorized boating activities in both sea kayaking, rowing, stand-up padding or tubing/ Oregon and the U.S. in recent decades. This rise in floating for 3,982,657 user occasions. In terms of non-motorized boating has been attributed in part total participants, there were 768,523 individuals to outdoor adventure films, new boating design (Note: individuals participating in both white-water materials, new paddling techniques, demographic and flat-water activities were counted as one person) changes among participants, and the increased who participated in non-motorized boating activities desire of tourists to view nature.25 compared to 504,653 individuals who participated The National Survey on Recreation and the in motorized boating (Oregon Parks and Recreation 27 Environment (NSRE) represents the continuation of Department, 2013) . the ongoing National Recreation Survey (NRS) series. The Oregon 2011 outdoor recreation survey also Begun in 1960 by the congressionally created Outdoor asked Oregonians about their opinions about rec- Recreation Resources Review Commission (OORC), reation priorities for the future. Respondents were the survey is designed to measure outdoor recreation asked to rate several items for investment by park participation in the United States. Currently, the and forest agencies using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = survey is conducted by the U.S. Forest Service. Author Lowest priority need to 5 = Highest priority need). Ken Cordell (2008)26 cites kayaking as one of the fast- The top priority needs for Oregonians are: est-growing US nature-based outdoor activities, with an estimated 12.5 million participants, representing a • Soft surface walking trails; 63% increase from 2000 to 2007. • Public access sites to waterways; • Nature and wildlife viewing areas; 25 Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B. and Jacobi, C. (1999). Crowding Norms: Alternative Measurements Approaches. Leisure Sciences, 21, 97-115. 26 Cordell, K. (2008). The latest on trends in outdoor recreation. 27 Oregon Parks and Recreation (2013). 2013-2017 Statewide Forest History Today, Spring, 4-10. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 68.

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 185 • Playgrounds with natural materials Conservation Fund (LWCF), Local Government (Natural Play Areas); Grant Program (LGGP), and Recreational Trails • Picnic areas for small groups; and Program (RTP) grant programs). • Off-street bicycle trails. Action 4: Provide grant emphasis for projects that are on the list of top nominations for Public access sites to waterways were identified as a water trail development, list of potential Scenic top three priority need in all 36 Oregon counties and Waterway additions, and waterways having the a top priority need in eight counties. highest concentration of non-motorized boater Access refers to a specific location where the public participation for non-motorized boater land has the legal right and physical means to get to acquisition, facility development, and water the water to launch a non-motorized boat. Non- trail projects identified in this planning process motorized boating access may be unimproved, or (LWCF, LGGP, and RTP grant programs). enhanced to varying degrees. Formal non-motorized Action 5: The Oregon State Marine Board boater access areas may be paved launch ramps, should have designated staff to promote public parking areas with dirt trails, or roadside-to-the-wa- non-motorized boating access to waterways, terway trails. Where there is inadequate formal including identifying and acquiring public access access, non-motorized boaters may be tempted sites, and to enhancing public access outreach to use whatever routes are convenient to access and communication. the water with their boats. Informal boater access often results in boaters hiking down steep slopes, Action 6: Collect waterfront property informa- trespassing through private property, and damaging tion from land managers to create a database soil, vegetation, and water quality. Inadequate formal of publically-owned sites along waterways to access can also deny paddlers the opportunity to establish new paddling access points. access waterways. Action 7: Continue to acquire and develop Action 1: Work with non-motorized boaters non-motorized boating access to meet public to identify a fee that can be used for land boating needs. acquisition and facility development to satisfy non-motorized boating need. (Note: The Oregon Action 8: Support community-based efforts to State Marine Board is engaging non-motorized increase access to waterways. boaters to identify how to better serve non-mo- Action 9: Encourage development of parking lots torized boaters and a funding mechanism to for existing and new non-motorized boating use. support those services, including access to the waterways.) Action 10: Use universal design principals in non-motorized boater access design. Action 2: Educate land managers and non-profit organizations on funding options available for Action 11: Legally add safe non-motorized non-motorized boating land acquisition and boater access points and safe parking around facility development projects. roadway bridges.

Action 3: Provide grant emphasis for non-mo- Action 12: Assist public, non-profit or grass torized boating land acquisition, facility roots organizations to inventory waterway development, and water trail projects on the list corridors to identify water trail development of nominated water trail additions identified opportunities. in this planning process (Land and Water

186 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Action 13: All land managers should identify Action 20: Locate access points at intervals that and prioritized where more paddling access is could be paddled comfortably in an afternoon appropriate and needed. (5-10 miles).

Action 14: Prevent the loss of traditional sites to Action 21: Incorporate water access into trans- other uses. portation and other projects and programs that are associated with water bodies (e.g., highway, Action 15: Disperse demand among priority hydroelectric, local waterfront planning). waters by acquiring land on priority waters where public access is currently unavailable or Statewide Issue 2: Lack of funding for traditional access is in danger of being lost. non-motorized boater facilities

Action 16: Maintain the serviceability of Lack of funding for non-motorized boater facilities existing sites. was identified as a top non-motorized boating issue Action 17: Develop close-to-home paddling during the trail’s planning public workshops and in opportunities. the statewide survey of non-motorized boater facility providers. Again, this issue is driven by a continuing Action 18: Give preference to sites and site increase in non-motorized boater participation in designs requiring minimal maintenance and to the state. As mentioned earlier, based on Oregon those projects where state or federal assistance SCORP survey findings, there are now more resident funds will leverage local funding and/or en- individuals participating in non-motorized boating courage local responsibility for operation and than in motorized boating in the state. Currently, maintenance. non-motorized boaters access the water through sites developed for motorboat use leading to Action 19: Funding priority will be given to conflicts over parking, use of boat ramps, boarding projects where public access rights are estab- docks, and increasing congestion on the water. lished in perpetuity.

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 187 Although the demand is increasing for non-motor- Action 4: Educate Oregon non-motorized boat- ized boating access and facilities, a funding mecha- ers on how additional funding could improve the nism is lacking to address this need on a statewide paddling experience in Oregon. basis. The Oregon State Marine Board is funded Action 5: Create a trust fund for non-motor- primarily by marine fuel tax and title and registra- ized boating water trail development projects tion fees for motorized boaters. These funds are used through an organization such as the Oregon for boating facility development and services such Community Foundation supported by donations as waterway law enforcement and safety education. and corporate sponsorships. Funding would be While hundreds of boat access points have been used for water trail management planning, land developed with the use of these funds, the sites are acquisition, facility development, maintenance, primarily designed to serve recreational motorboat operations and maintenance equipment, and operators, rather than paddlesports enthusiasts. information resources (e.g., guides, information- Many of these facilities are regularly used by al brochures, maps, sign projects, websites). non-motorized boaters to access the waterway, which increases the potential for user conflict. A Action 6: Create an Oregon Water Trails small number of access points have been developed Association to promote and protect non-mo- for non-motorized boaters, but more are needed. torized boater access to Oregon’s waterways by promoting water trails and through supporting Currently, non-motorized boat users do not register stewardship work. their boats, and as a result, there is no dedicated funding source specifically for non-motorized facility Action 7: Establish parking fees where intensive development. The lack of a specific funding source management is necessary to maintain the limits the establishment of new opportunities solely condition and orderly use of the site. for people who enjoy non-motorized boating in Statewide Issue 3: Lack of non- Oregon. Therefore, there is a need to address this programmatically by creating a dedicated funding source motorized boating maps and for non-motorized boat access and launch facilities. information

Action 1: Work with non-motorized boaters Lack of non-motorized boating maps and informa- to identify a fee to support non-motorized tion was identified as a top non-motorized boating boating. (Note: The Oregon State Marine Board issue during the March 27, 2015 Water Trails is engaging non-motorized boaters to identify Advisory Committee Meeting. Online information how to better serve non-motorized boaters and was the second highest ranked non-motorized a funding mechanism to support those services, boating facility/service (74% rated somewhat of very including access to the waterways.) important) in the statewide survey of non-motorized boaters. Providing non-motorized boating maps and Action 2: Partner with other agencies and information will also address the top statewide issue, non-profit and environmental organizations to increased access for non-motorized boating, by make the case for non-motorized boater fees for informing boaters about existing paddling opportu- Oregon. nities in the state. Action 3: Educate the Oregon public on the Resident non-motorized boater survey respondents economic benefits of non-motorized boating also reported the information they would like a in the state using results from the trails plan’s “water trail” smart app to provide if it were created economic impact analysis. for waterbodies in Oregon. Most highly ranked

188 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future items included where/ how to access the waterbody Action 4: Develop minimum-standard require- (80% reporting somewhat or very important), safety ments for water trail guides, water trail informa- information/ waterbody obstructions (74%), map tional brochures, and water trail signage. of water trail sites (70%), trailhead information Action 5: Develop geospatial PDF maps of water (65%), list of amenities that are available at launch trail routes to allow on the water way finding. site (62%), driving directions (61%), and regulatory Such maps can be uploaded onto mobile devices information (61%). (smartphone or tablet) and then, using an app, Action 1: Develop a statewide website to house use built-in GPS to track the users location on general information about non-motorized boat- the map. ing opportunities and water trails in Oregon. Action 6: Develop a promotional package tem- Only those water trails meeting established plate that can be used by water trail managers to standard requirements identified in this plan will market water trails in Oregon. be included on the website. Action 7: Travel Oregon should put increased Action 2: Develop a user-friendly map showing emphasis on non-motorized boating tourism in all non-motorized boating access points in the Oregon. state based on the existing Oregon State Marine Board boat access database. Action 8: Provide grant emphasis for development of water trail guides, information Action 3: Develop a set of minimum standards brochures, and water trail signage projects for water trail providers to share site-specific (Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), information and a map template for posting Local Government Grant Program (LGGP), water trail maps online. and Recreational Trails Program (RTP) grant programs).

Chapter 8 - Top Statewide Trail Issues and Stategic Actions 189

► Chapter 9 State Scenic Waterway Planning

Introduction includes approximately 1,150 miles on 20 waterways (Figure 106). No new waterways have been designat- The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department ed since 1988. (OPRD) is directed to periodically study rivers or The Commission’s rules specifically outline the segments of rivers and their related adjacent land manner in which the Scenic Waterways Act is to be for potential inclusion in the State Scenic Waterway carried out. The Act and the Commission’s rules gen- Program. The purpose of this chapter is to describe erally require proposed changes of land use within how OPRD will conduct State Scenic Waterway ¼ mile on each side of the river to be evaluated for planning in the next ten-year period (2016-2025). their potential to impair the natural scene. Property Background owners wanting to build roads, houses, develop mines, cut timber or other activities that may alter The Oregon Scenic Waterway Program, established the existing scene, must notify the Commission by a vote of the people in 1969, is administered in advance. Within one year of notification, the under the authority of the State Parks Commission Commission must decide if the proposal will impair through the State Parks and Recreation Department the scenic beauty of the river. The Commission (ORS 390.805 to ORS 390.925). The scenic waterway relies on its rules for each designated scenic water- program seeks to preserve, protect and enhance way to make the determination. Other local and scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife and cultural state agencies must comply with the Act; and the values possessed by each individual scenic waterway. Commission is instructed to study other rivers for The Scenic Waterways Act was created to strike a possible inclusion in the scenic waterways system. balance between protecting the natural resources, scenic value, and recreational uses of Oregon’s rivers by designating them. The state program currently 191 Figure 106. Oregon’s Existing State Scenic Waterways System

Filling in the river, removing soil and gravel from the river or changing the riverbank in any way, regardless of the amount of soil or rock involved, requires special prior approval of the State Land Board and the Director of the Division State Lands. The Director of the Oregon Department of Water Resources is required to insure that new water rights issued within the scenic waterway will be used only for human consumption, livestock, fish, wildlife and recreation unless adequate flows can be assured to protect fish, wildlife and recreation. Dams, impoundments, reservoirs and some mining activities are prohibited within the scenic waterway corridor including tributary streams within the ¼ mile boundary. The complete Oregon Scenic Waterways Act and Administrative Rules are available on the OPRD website at: oregon.gov/OPRD/RULES/Pages/waterways.aspx. Designation Process for New Scenic Waterways

The Oregon Scenic Waterways Act (ORS 390.855 to 390.865) establishes procedures by which new scenic waterways may be designated (Figure 107). A river or river segment can be designated as an Oregon Scenic Waterway by one of three ways: 1. Public initiative. The voters of Oregon, following a successful initiative campaign, established the program in 1970 by a vote of two to one. In 1988 the system doubled as a result of Ballot Measure 7. The governor or the legislature cannot veto a public initiative.

192 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future 2. Direct legislative action. The Clackamas River adjournment of the next or current regular session was added to the system by the Legislature in of the Oregon Legislature. The legislature could (by 1975. Parts of new rivers (and Waldo Lake) were joint resolution) act to void all, or part of, the gover- added this way in 1983, 1985, and 1987. The nor’s designation. governor can veto this legislation at any point. ORS 390.855 establishes the three criteria for qualifi- 3. By the governor. After studies by OPRD and cation which must be considered in the commision’s favorable recommendations from the Oregon study and report: State Parks and Recreation Commission and the 1. The river or segment of river is relatively Water Resources Commission, the governor may free-flowing and the scene as viewed from designate a scenic waterway. The new designa- the river and related adjacent land is pleasing, tion becomes effective if the legislature has no Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future whether primitive or rural-pastoral or these objections. conditions are restorable. The following is a further explanation of river or 2. The river or segment of river and its setting pos- ORS 390.855river segment establishes designation the three criteriathrough for the qualification governor which must be considered in the commission’s study and report: sess natural and recreation values of outstanding involving actions required by state agencies. quality. 1. The river or segment of river is relatively free-flowing and the scene as viewed from the river and With concurrence of the State Water Resources 3. The river or segment of river and its setting are related adjacent land is pleasing, whether primitive or rural-pastoral or these conditions are Commission,restorable. the Oregon State Parks and Recreation large enough to sustain substantial recreation use and to accommodate existing uses without 2. TheCommission river or segment may recommend of river and itsto thesetting governor possess desig- natural and recreation values of outstanding nationquality. of additional scenic waterways. Favorable undue impairment of the natural values of the resource quality or the recreation experience. 3. Therecommendation river or segment is ofnecessary river and before its setting the aregovernor large enough to sustain substantial recreation use may designate a scenic waterway. The governor may and to accommodate existing uses without undue impairment Beforeof the natural a river values can be of designated the resource a State Scenic orquality may ornot the choose recreation to designate experience. the candidate scenic Waterway it must be found to meet these waterway. Scenic Waterway designation by the Before a river can be designated a State Scenic Waterway it must bequalifications. found to meet these qualifications. governor becomes effective the day following final

Figure 107.Figure Oregon’s 107. Oregon’s State Scenic State Scenic Waterway Waterway Designation Designation Options Options

Ballot Legislative Bill OPRD Study Initiative

Public meetings & comment OPRD & WRD period Commissions

Governor

Not Designates designated

Legislature may override

2013-2016 Scenic Waterway Planning Pilot Study Chapter 9 - State Scenic Waterway Planning 193 Since the OPRD is directed to periodically study rivers or river segments and their related adjacent land for potential inclusion in the State Scenic Waterway Program, in September 2013, the agency made a decision to analyze up to three waterways for potential designation every future State biennium (two- year period). The pilot study effort (2013-2016) is to establish a method for future scenic waterway planning efforts.

167

2013-2016 Scenic Waterway Planning Pilot Study

Since the OPRD is directed to periodically study rivers or river segments and their related adjacent land for potential inclusion in the State Scenic Waterway Program, in September 2013, the agency made a decision to analyze up to three waterways for potential designation every future State biennium (two-year period). The pilot study effort (2013-2016) is to establish a method for future scenic waterway planning efforts.

An initial screening of all Oregon waterways by OPRD resulted in a list of approximately 80 river segments having the potential to meet the State’s waterway designation criteria. Based on a broad coalition of agencies and stakeholders, OPRD’s capacity to complete the waterway assessments, and to provide geographical distribution throughout the State, sections of the Molalla, Chetco, and Grande Ronde rivers were included in the 2013-2016 pilot study. These study areas are show in red in Figure 108. Figure 108. Location Of The Molalla, Chetco, And Grande Ronde River Study Areas

194 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future In 2014, OPRD evaluated the Molalla (13.2 mile Management of New Scenic Waterways segment), Chetco (14 mile segment), and Grande Ronde (29 mile segment) river segments through If the Molalla or Chetco River segments are des- on-river evaluations and public input. These evalua- ignated as part of the Oregon Scenic Waterway tions found: System, the law requires OPRD to administer the • Based on eligibility findings and significant area in order to protect and enhance the value support for the potential designation, the which caused the scenic waterway to be included Molalla River study area is a strong candidate for in the system. Management would be based on the the State Scenic Waterway program. “special attributes of each area” and give primary emphasis to protecting the scenic, fish and wildlife • Based on eligibility findings and significant and recreational features. The aim of the program support for the potential designation, the Chetco is to maintain the scenic “status quo” condition of River study area is a strong candidate for the the area without “turning back the clock” on land State Scenic Waterway program. developments. If directed to do so by designation, • Based on eligibility findings, the Grande Ronde ORPD would classify the rivers, or segments of the River study area is not a strong candidate for the river according to the level of existing development, State Scenic Waterway program. into one or more of six possible classifications. Once The full state scenic waterway reports for these three the classifications are set then specific guidelines river segments are available online at: oregon.gov/ for development are established as state rules. The oprd/NATRES/scenicwaterways/Pages/index.aspx. classifications have been established by the commission and are in use on other scenic waterways. Effective Scenic Waterway management is affected The classifications and their general management by the balance between waterway protection direction are described as follows: and the development rights of area property and 1. Natural River Areas are generally inaccessible business owners. It is also critical that OPRD and except by trail or river with primitive or mini- local proponents develop a strong partnership in mally developed shorelands. Preservation of the environmental stewardship efforts and promotion primitive character of these areas is the goal of of recreation opportunities along the waterway. In this classification. 2015, OPRD convened a voluntary local proponent 2. Accessible Natural River Areas is reserved for group to draft non-binding management plans for relatively primitive, undeveloped areas with ac- the Molalla and Chetco rivers as an addendum to cess by road or railroad. Management emphasis the river study reports approved by the Oregon State is to preserve the primitive qualities of the area. Parks and Recreation Commission. These plans will be used as a starting point for formal rulemaking if 3. Scenic River Areas may be accessible by roads the waterways are officially designated. but are largely undeveloped and primitive except for agriculture and grazing. Management seeks The Oregon State Parks and Recreation and Water to preserve the undeveloped nature of the area. Resources Commissions have recommended the 4. Natural Scenic View Areas are designated governor designate these segments as new state where one riverbank is inaccessible, undevel- scenic waterway additions. oped or primitive in character while the opposite bank is accessible and developed. Preservation of the natural primitive qualities are sought after by management.

Chapter 9 - State Scenic Waterway Planning 195 5. Recreational River Areas are readily accessible Identification of Potential Scenic by road or railroad with some agricultural, Waterway Study Reaches commercial and/or residential development along the banks. Management is aimed at The 2016-2025 Oregon trails planning effort allowing development consistent with what is included three distinct methods to identify a list of present while protecting the view and other potential state scenic waterway study areas for the natural features. plan’s ten-year planning horizon. The following is a 6. River Community Areas are highly developed description of these methods. areas of commercial or residential uses in natural The first method involved an online survey (Survey settings. Allowing development with an eye Monkey website) of Oregon non-motorized boating toward maintaining the natural setting is the aim facility managers conducted in July 2014. Of the of management. 330 providers contacted, 215 completed the survey The rules established for each classified river for a 65% response rate. Respondents were asked segment generally allow continuation of the use of to nominate river segments they would like to existing structures or improvements. In fact, though see added to the Oregon State Scenic Waterway some improvements would require notification/ Program. Recommended additions were identified review/approval by the commission, many others by respondents using drop-down menus to select the do not. For example, on most scenic waterways, highest, second highest, and third highest priority notification and approval is not needed for construc- additions for each region. The overall point score tion of new fences; maintenance of farm buildings, for each nominated waterway was calculated based fences or outbuildings; laying of irrigation lines; crop on three points for each time the waterway was rotation; removal of dangerous trees; construction identified as a first priority addition, two points for a of grain storage facilities under certain conditions; second priority, and one point for a third priority. maintenance of existing residences and outbuildings; The second method was a component of the state- minor residential remodeling; construction of wide survey of non-motorized boaters (Oregon garages adjacent to existing homes; certain changes Non-motorized Boater Participation and Priorities) in home site landscaping; maintenance of roads and conducted by Oregon State University in the fall of bridges; and firewood cutting for personal use. 2014. The survey included a random sample of 5,428 Mining, road-building, construction of some new resident non-motorized boaters. Of the 5,428 indi- structures, placement of mobile homes, land clear- viduals contacted, 1,983 completed the survey for a ing and timber harvest are examples of activities 37% response rate. In the same manner as the survey requiring approval, if they are visible from the river. of Oregon recreation providers, respondents were River classification and the rules or guidelines that asked to nominate river segments they would like apply to the given classification determine exactly to see added to the Oregon State Scenic Waterway how the natural and scenic beauty of the river will be Program. maintained. Finally, a series of regional public meeting work- If designation on the Molalla or Chetco River shops were held at 14 locations across the state in takes place, then OPRD will work with the local October 2014. Each workshop included an afternoon proponents and other state agencies to finalize draft session open to all public recreation providers plans describing how each river segment would be and an evening session open to the general public. managed. Public hearings associated with formal Following a presentation describing the trails state administrative rule-making would be held. planning process, workshop attendees were given an

196 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future opportunity to prioritize regional scenic waterway nominations.

Results of these public input processes were combined, summarized, and reviewed by OPRD management. The following is a list (Table 49) of these priority potential study reaches and a map (Figure 109) showing each of the 22 potential study reach locations. Table 49. Potential Scenic Waterway Study Reaches (2016-2025)

Planning Region River Reach 8 R98 Crooked River 4 R70 McKenzie River (Paradise South) 3 R66 North Santiam River (Pending dam status review) 6 R89 Rogue River (Lost Creek Lake to Applegate River) 9 R94 Williamson River 10 R100 John Day River (Picture Cr. to Service Cr.) 2 & 7 R60 White River 5 & 6 R27 Umpqua River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Fork to the Pacific Ocean) 6 R44 Illinois River (Illinois River Forks State Park to Deer Creek) 2 R58 Sandy River (Source to confluence with Bull Run River) 1 & 2 R5 Nehalem River 10 R115 Imnaha River 2 R49 Tualatin River 11 R121 Owhyee River (Owyhee Dam to Snake River) 3 & 4 R126 Willamette River (Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria, to Mid Fork Junction) 3 R69 Middle Santiam River 2 & 3 R125 Willamette River (Canby to Sam Daws Bend, near Peoria) 3 R68 South Santiam River 7 R102 Umatilla River (Source to McKay) 5 & 6 R28 Smith River 1 & 3 R17 Siletz River (Mainstem from confluence of North and South Forks to Siletz Bay) 4 R79 Coast Fork Willamette River

Chapter 9 - State Scenic Waterway Planning 197 Figure 109. Location Of The Potential Scenic Waterway Study Reaches (2016-2025)

Future Scenic Waterway Planning Step 2. OPRD will encourage potential proponent groups to champion the establishment As previously mentioned, OPRD will facilitate the of a scenic waterway included on the list of study of candidates for potential scenic waterway potential scenic waterway reaches (Table 49). If designations in coming biennia (two-year periods) the proponent group intends to propose a river using the process developed during the 2013-2016 corridor not included in Table 49, the group pilot study. The schedule included in Figure 110 could submit a proposed river study corridor will be used for scenic waterway planning each map and a summary of how the study area meets biennium. the statutory scenic waterway eligibility criteria, to OPRD for review. If this river corridor study The following is a brief description of major plan- area is accepted, it will be added to the official ning components. list of potential scenic waterway study reaches. Step 1. OPRD distributes the list of potential OPRD will select candidates for study after scenic waterway study reaches (Table 49) to a considering input from agencies, stakeholders, broad list of government agencies and potential and, optionally, proponent groups. stakeholders in the state.

198 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Step 3. OPRD finalizes the list of potential study Step 5. OPRD and Water Resources Department reaches for the biennium. OPRD will develop a (WRD) staff will present plan findings and set of evaluation criteria (based on those set in recommendations to the Oregon State Park and statute) to score and prioritize the nominated Recreation and Water Resources Commissions study reaches for each biennium. for consideration as additions to the Scenic Waterways Program. If the study corridor is Step 4. OPRD staff will conduct eligibility studies determined not suitable for inclusion by the and final report writing in cooperation with an commissions, no further actions will be taken. optional proponent group if it exists. The eligi- If the study corridor is found suitable by the bility studies will include substantial public input commissions for inclusion, the proposed addi- (suitability evaluation) and an on-river evaluation tion will move on to Step 6. during the optimal float season to assess the waterway’s free-flowing nature, scenic characteris- Step 6. The OPRD and WRD Commissions tic, and recreation qualities (eligibility evaluation). submit the proposed addition to the governor. Study conclusions will state if the study corridor Step 7. If the corridor receives official designa- is suitable for inclusion into the Scenic Waterways tion, OPRD staff will finalize the management Program. If the study corridor is not suitable for plan as part of a public process to develop a set inclusion, no further actions will be taken. If the of Administrative Rules for the waterway. study corridor is found suitable for inclusion, the study will move on to Step 5.

Figure 110. Scenic Waterway Planning Schedule (2017-2025)

7/1/17 -9/30/17 10/1/17 -10/15/17 10/15/17 -8/31/18 9/1/18 -11/30/18 12/1/18 -6/30/19 OPRD Works With Finalize List of Potenal Conduct Eligibility Seek Oregon State Park Develop Basic Agencies/Groups To Study Reaches For Studies and Report and Water Resources Managment Plans/ Accept Proposals For Biennium Wring Commission Approval Administrave Rules Waterway Studies

7/1/19 -9/30/19 10/1/19 -10/15/19 10/15/19 -8/31/20 9/1/20 -11/30/20 12/1/20 -6/30/21 OPRD Works With Finalize List of Potenal Conduct Eligibility Seek Oregon State Park Develop Basic Agencies/Groups To Study Reaches For Studies and Report and Water Resources Managment Plans/ Accept Proposals For Biennium Wring Commission Approval Administrave Rules Waterway Studies

7/1/21 -9/30/21 10/1/21 - 10/15/21 10/15/21 -8/31/22 9/1/22 - 11/30/22 12/1/22 -6/30/23 OPRD Works With Finalize List of Potenal Conduct Eligibility Seek Oregon State Park Develop Basic Agencies/Groups To Study Reaches For Studies and Report and Water Resources Managment Plans/ Accept Proposals For Biennium Wring Commission Approval Administrave Rules Waterway Studies

7/1/23 -9/30/23 10/1/23 - 10/15/23 10/15/23 -8/31/24 9/1/24 - 11/30/24 12/1/24 -6/30/25 OPRD Works With Finalize List of Potenal Conduct Eligibility Seek Oregon State Park Develop Basic Agencies/Groups To Study Reaches For Studies and Report and Water Resources Managment Plans/ Accept Proposals For Biennium Wring Commission Approval Administrave Rules Waterway Studies

Chapter 9 - State Scenic Waterway Planning 199

► Chapter 10 All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria

Allocation Process • A grant meeting, typically in February, will distribute Operation, Maintenance, Law The All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Grant Program Enforcement and Emergency Medical grant provides funding statewide for OHV recreation in funding. Operation and Maintenance projects Oregon. OPRD-administered grant funds come will be evaluated using the O&M project scoring from ATV user permit sales and a percentage of criteria; Law Enforcement and Emergency gasoline tax money. ATV Grant Program grants are Medical projects will evaluated using the Law awarded to projects that best meet the needs identi- Enforcement and Emergency Medical project fied in the Oregon Statewide OHV Trails Plan. This scoring criteria. The ATV Grant Subcommittee plan is updated every ten years based on input from (ATV-GS) will have the option to score the trail users and land managing agencies in Oregon. projects as presented and provide the applicant ATV grants help pay for operation and maintenance, their score or hold a scoring session at the end of law enforcement, emergency medical services, land the meeting and provide their scores and fund- acquisition, leases, planning, and development in ing recommendations at that time. Oregon’s OHV recreation areas. The following is a • A grant meeting, typically in April, will brief description of the program’s administration. distribute the remaining annual funding for • For each biennium, an estimate is made for total Acquisition, Development, and Planning proj- dollar amount of annual ATV grant funds to be ects. Acquisition, Development and Planning made available and the percentage of these funds projects will be evaluated using the Acquisition, for each major grant category (e.g., Operation Development and Planning project scoring and Maintenance, Law Enforcement, etc.). criteria. The ATV-GS will have the option to

201 score the projects as presented and provide the ATV Grant Program Rating applicant their score or hold a scoring session at Criteria Point Summary the end of the meeting and provide their scores and funding recommendations at that time. Criteria Type Possible Points Technical review • Ineligible or incomplete applications will be 1. Compliance Criteria 0 returned to the project sponsor with an expla- ATV advisory grant subcommittee member rating nation of why their application was returned. If criteria time allows, grant applicants will have an oppor- 2. Operations 20 tunity to submit a revised application addressing specific problems. 3. Rider Benefit 20 4 Project Planning 20 • If any grant application or presentation causes 5. Economic Benefit 10 committee members concern, the ATV-GS will 6. Financial Support 5 have the option to table a project and request 7. Letters Of Support 5 staff to obtain additional information as may be 8. Discretionary Committee 20 necessary. Member Criteria Total Points Possible 100 Project Priority Scoring System For Evaluating

Once projects submitted to OPRD for grant funding Operation And make it through the technical review, they will then Maintenance Project be scored by ATV-GS members according to the criteria, rating factors, and points shown in the follow- Proposals ing “Project Priority Scoring System.” The criteria are Eligible operation projects provide for the normal based on the findings of the current state trails plan day-to-day routine operation of open OHV trails and reflect priorities identified by workshop par- and facilities. Operation projects may also include ticipants, trail’s plan advisory committee members, funding for employees who make public contact to trail user survey respondents and land managers. provide help and information to OHV users as part These criteria have been designed to evaluate and of their daily routine. Eligible maintenance projects prioritize Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) operation include services and equipment necessary to main- and maintenance; law enforcement; acquisition, tain OHV trails and facilities. ATV sponsors must development and planning; and emergency medical have an agency approved maintenance plan in place project proposals. that includes how each trail or facility will be main- A project’s final score will be calculated as an average tained, how often maintenance will be provided and of the sum of all individual ATV-GS member scores. the maintenance standard to be used. Maintenance The highest possible score for a project will be 100 funding is also available for equipment such as quads points. (See Potential ATV Program Rating Criteria and excavators used to maintain OHV trails. Sign Point Summary below for criteria point breakdowns.) replacement and trail guides may also be included in The priority rank of a project will depend on its score maintenance applications. relative to other projects and in relation to the amount of ATV grant funds available each year.

202 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Technical Review – Application OPRD Staff Rating Criteria Completeness 1. Compliance Criteria As part of the ATV grant evaluation process, OPRD Due to the large number of requests for ATV funds, first conducts a technical review of all grant applica- the following set of compliance criteria were devel- tions. Each submitted grant application packet will oped to ensure that: need to include all materials requested in Section 2 (Application Submittal, Review and Approval • Project sponsors with active and previously Process) of the ATV Grant Instruction Manual & awarded grants through OPRD are in full Application Packet. Ineligible or incomplete applica- compliance with federal and state programs; tions will be returned to the project sponsor with an • Funds are expended and projects completed explanation of why their application was returned. within the agreement period; and Project applicants are encouraged to contact OPRD • Each new project proposal satisfies the require- grant staff with questions regarding the ATV grant ments of the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS application process. 390.550-585, Oregon Administrative Rules, Project Priority Scoring System Chapter 736, and the most current version of the ATV Grant Instructions Manual. Once operation and maintenance projects submitted Note: No scoring points will be awarded for com- to OPRD for grant funding make it through the pliance criteria. Failure to comply with or lack of technical review, they will then be scored by ATV- sufficiently demonstrated progress with the following GS members according to the criteria, rating factors, compliance criteria (a and b) may result in the and points shown in the following “Project Priority disqualification of consideration for new grant Scoring System.” These criteria have been designed assistance during the current grant review period. to evaluate and prioritize OHV operation and maintenance project proposals. A. Grant Performance and Compliance

A project’s final score will be calculated as an average The successful completion of projects in a timely and of the sum of all individual ATV-GS member scores. efficient manner is an important goal of the ATV The highest possible score for a project will be 100 grant program. A project sponsor’s past performance points. (See Potential ATV Program Rating Criteria in effectively meeting the administrative guidelines Point Summary on page 175 for criteria point of the program is also an important factor in evalu- breakdowns.) The priority rank of a project will ating performance and compliance. depend on its score relative to other projects and in a. The project sponsor is on schedule with all active relation to the amount of ATV grant funds available OPRD administered grant projects. each year. ___ Yes ___ No b. The project sponsor is in compliance with applicable guidelines for current and past projects.

___ Yes ___ No

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 203 ATV Grant Subcommittee Member B. Miles Of Roads/Trails Rating Criteria • Please provide the number of miles of each type of road or trail in your system. 2. Operations (0-20 Points) ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) A. Project Description (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 Please provide the following information related to points based on the information provided by the your operation and maintenance project: applicant.) • Provide a detailed description of your grant 3. Rider Benefits (0-20 Points) project request. • Describe the OHV riding area for this project. OPRD intends to ensure that available ATV grant dollars are used to fund projects maximizing rider • What Classes of ATVs will be allowed in the area? benefits. • On an annual basis, what are the anticipated months of use? What are the typical wildlife, A. Benefits snow, or fire season closures? Also discuss condi- Please provide the following information related to tions that reduce riding such as summer heat or your project: dust or winter rain/ snow/ cold. • How does this program benefit the OHV trail • Describe how this project will result in a user? well-designed, managed, and sustainable trail/ facility. How will impacts and damage to trails B. Statewide Management Issues and facilities be proactively prevented or mini- mized through innovative and sustainable trail The statewide planning process identified three top and facility design and management practices? issues on OHV trails on public lands in Oregon. Describe how this project maintains or increases Please describe how the project addresses the the carrying capacity at the existing riding area. following statewide motorized trail issues: • Describe how the project will serve as a means Issue 1. Closure of trails. The implementation of to restore, improve or enhance, or conserve and federal travel management planning has resulted maintain high quality or sensitive natural or in a loss of OHV trail riding opportunities in cultural resources in the protected area, such Oregon. Closure of designated trails and routes as plant communities, wildlife, water bodies, without providing other designated routes in the terrain, and archeological or historic sites while same area leads to overuse and impacts in new striking a proper balance between the conserva- areas. tion of these resources and motorized trail use. Issue 2. Closure of unimproved backcountry • Describe how you developed your maintenance roads. Again, the implementation of federal travel schedule. How many facilities/ staging areas will management planning has also resulted in the loss be maintained in this proposal and how often? of OHV riding on backcountry roads in Oregon. • If you manage multiple riding areas, list each area and total miles of routes. Issue 3. Riding in closed areas. Land managers have reported a proliferation of user created trails arising from repeated unauthorized travel by OHVs.

204 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future C. Statewide Funding Need 4. Project Planning (0-20 Points)

The statewide planning process also identified three Project sponsors are encouraged to develop project top funding needs for OHV trails on public lands in applications that meet high priority need of the Oregon. Please describe how the project addresses intended clientele. Priority points are awarded for the following three funding priorities: project sponsors demonstrating that they have • Funding Need 1. Maintaining existing trails in conducted both long-term and short-term operation good/ sustainable condition. and maintenance planning and use innovative and sustainable trail and facility design and management • Funding Need 2. More single-track off-road practices. motorcycle trails (Class III). • Is the project part of an overall OHV plan for the • Funding Need 3. Prioritize loop over out-and- area and does the project contribute the imple- back trails. mentation of the plan? D. Dispersed Riding Opportunities • Describe your planning efforts to determine the The Oregon OHV Guide includes a listing of 53 staffing levels and resources required. How do Designated Riding Areas in the state. These areas you make decisions on when and how staff will are high-intensity riding areas with associated high work on an annual basis, such as for seasonal operation and maintenance costs. There are also peak use, seasonal closures (fire, snow), holiday many designated Shared Use Roads, OHV routes weekends, weekdays/weekends, and number of and trails on public lands in Oregon which are employees at a given time? outside the boundaries of these Designated Riding • Describe how your O&M program uses Areas. Many OHV enthusiasts seek out these less innovative and sustainable practices. Please crowded riding experiences and enjoy exploring new see specific sustainability recommendations riding areas. Others use these routes for access to for OPRD-administered grant programs are special sites (lookouts, lakes, geographical features) included in SCORP Chapter Seven (pages 115- or for activities such as hunting, fishing or gathering. 117). Recommendations are included for land A project sponsor that enhances existing or provides acquisition, new facility development, major riding opportunities outside of the 53 Designated rehabilitation, and trail projects. The full support Riding Areas in the state will receive additional document entitled, “Developing Sustainable Park priority points. Eligible enhancement projects can Systems in Oregon,” is available at the following include mapping and signing projects to help riders link: http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/ know where to ride. docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/2013-2017- • Please describe how your program is main- SCORP_App_D.pdf. taining or enhancing dispersed riding in your ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) management area (forest, district, etc.). This may be outside the scope of this application, but is a (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 use allowed in your area? points based on the information provided by the applicant.) ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points)

(The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 points based on the information provided by the applicant.)

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 205 5. Economic Development two letters from agencies are allowed. Please list the Opportunities (0-10 Points) name, title, group, business or agency for each letter attached. Up to 10 letters of support will be accepted. The findings from the Oregon OHV trail user survey No letters will be accepted from previous years. identified that spending by Oregon residents on OHV riding trips was an estimated $100 million ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) per year across the state. In turn, this expenditure (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 contributed 869 jobs, $35 million in value added, points based on information provided by the applicant and $23 million in labor income. When out-of-state related to the degree to which the project demonstrates visitors are included, the estimated amounts increase broad community support.) to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in value added, and $29 million in labor income. 8. Discretionary Committee Member • Please describe how this project will contribute Criteria (0 - 20 Points) to the local economy. The ATV-GS membership is representative of state ___ points awarded (0 - 10 points) geographic regions, agencies, communities, and trail user groups. This assessment allows committee (The rating team will determine a value from 0-10 members to bring their knowledge of statewide and points based on the information provided by the local recreation patterns, resources, and needs into applicant.) consideration. The determination of points award- 6. Financial Support (0-5 Points) ed is an individual decision, based on informed judgment. Support can be demonstrated in both financial and ATV-GS members may award the project additional non-financial ways and varies depending upon the points based upon their subjective evaluation of key project type. project considerations included in the list below28. • Please describe match to this project, such as Please note that some considerations may add to volunteer labor, other grants, agency budgets while others may reduce the number of discretion- or donations. Please list other grants you have ary points a project receives. received over the last 3 years which are not part of this grant, but relate to OHV use in your Fiscal Consideration: Under this review, project program. sponsors will be asked to justify their request for financial assistance including the extent to which ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) the project is cost comparable to other trail (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 facilities of its type in their geographic area (e.g. points based on the information provided by the cost-per mile comparisons), that the sponsor has applicant.) budgeted enough money to successfully complete the project and if the requested amount is 7. Letters Of Support (0-5 Points) greater than the prior years’ funding, a proper justification for increased funds. Current letters of support, from a variety of sources, help to demonstrate the need and success of your Project Cost: Consideration will be given to program. Letters from OHV riders and clubs are very important. Letters from local businesses, county 28 This list is not intended to be a complete list of all discretionary criteria to be considered by ATV-GS members. Other commissioners, and other groups are also important. considerations could include exemplary design, special needs, Letters from agencies also show support, but only project presentation and superior leverage of funding and partnership.

206 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future the degree to which a significant portion of the For Evaluating Law State’s annual apportionment is requested for one project. Enforcement Project

Mixed-Use Trails: Project sponsors should Proposals provide evidence that the project will support Eligible law enforcement projects include services Class I, II, III, and IV riding opportunities and equipment that will provide a direct law enforce- serving a wide range of abilities including the ment presence by certified personnel in OHV riding handicapped and a range of skill levels. areas for OHV recreational enthusiasts. Use Levels: Project sponsors should describe the Technical Review – Application level of use the trail and support facilities receive. Completeness Special Maintenance Problems: If the site poses special maintenance problems, it may not be cost As part of the ATV grant evaluation process, OPRD effective to continue maintenance over the long first conducts a technical review of all grant applica- term. tions. Each submitted grant application packet will need to include all materials requested in Section Regional Issues: Regional trail issues were also 2 (Application Submittal, Review and Approval identified in the current trails planning process. Process) of the ATV Grant Instruction Manual & Where appropriate, project sponsors should Application Packet. Ineligible or incomplete applica- describe how the project addresses appropriate tions will be returned to the project sponsor with an regional trail issues. Regional motorized trail explanation of why their application was returned. issues are included in Chapter 7. Project applicants are encouraged to contact OPRD grant staff with questions regarding the ATV grant Note: Locate the project sponsor’s region and identify application process. each regional trail issue addressed in the project proposal. Project Priority Scoring System

Each committee member will determine the number Once law enforcement projects submitted to OPRD of points awarded for each project. for grant funding make it through the technical Assessment Score: review, they will then be scored by ATV-GS members according to the criteria, rating factors, and ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) points shown in the following “Project Priority Scoring System.” These criteria have been designed to evaluate and prioritize OHV law enforcement project proposals.

A project’s final score will be calculated as an average of the sum of all individual ATV-GS member scores. The highest possible score for a project will be 100 points. (See Potential ATV Program Rating Criteria Point Summary on page 175 for criteria point breakdowns.) The priority rank of a project will depend on its score relative to other projects and in relation to the amount of ATV grant funds available each year.

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 207 OPRD Staff Rating Criteria ATV Grant Subcommittee Member Rating Criteria 1. Compliance Criteria 2. Operations (0-20 Points) Due to the large number of requests for ATV funds, the following set of compliance criteria were devel- Please provide the following information related to oped to ensure that: your operation and maintenance project: • Project sponsors with active and previously • Provide a detailed description of your grant awarded grants through OPRD are in full project request including seasons of use, how compliance with federal and state programs; patrols are conducted, and types of vehicles used • Funds are expended and projects completed for patrols such as quads, motorcycles, side-by- within the agreement period; and sides, or trucks. • Each new project proposal satisfies the require- • What OHV areas are you patrolling? ments of the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS • Please describe the need for this project. List and 390.550-585, Oregon Administrative Rules, describe the OHV law enforcement problems/ Chapter 736, and the most current version of the issues and how the grant will help to resolve ATV Grant Instructions Manual. them. Note: No scoring points will be awarded for com- • How many law enforcement officers will patrol pliance criteria. Failure to comply with or lack of the OHV areas? sufficiently demonstrated progress with the following • What is the average hourly cost for OHV patrols compliance criteria (a and b) may result in the including benefits? disqualification of consideration for new grant • Provide a written summary of your OHV law assistance during the current grant review period. enforcement activities over the previous 12 A. Grant Performance and Compliance months. • How many total hours will you patrol in the The successful completion of projects in a timely and first year (12 months)? Include an estimate of efficient manner is an important goal of the ATV hours for each of the 12 months (e.g., number of grant program. A project sponsor’s past performance hours in July, number of hours in August, and so in effectively meeting the administrative guidelines forth). of the program is also an important factor in evaluating performance and compliance. ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points)

a. The project sponsor is on schedule with all active (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 OPRD administered grant projects. points based on the information provided by the ___ Yes ___ No applicant.) b. The project sponsor is in compliance with applica- 3. Rider Benefits (0-20 Points) ble guidelines for current and past projects. OPRD intends to ensure that available ATV grant ___ Yes ___ No dollars are used to fund projects maximizing rider c. The project sponsor is in compliance with benefits. entering law enforcement data into the ATV Law Please provide the following information related to Enforcement Tracking System. your law enforcement project: ___ Yes ___ No

208 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future • How does this project benefit the OHV trail 5. Economic Development user? Opportunities (0-10 Points) • Explain how this project is directly related to the The findings from the Oregon OHV trail user survey safety of OHV users? identified that spending by Oregon residents on ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) OHV riding trips was an estimated $100 million per year across the state. In turn, this expenditure (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 contributed 869 jobs, $35 million in value added, points based on the information provided by the and $23 million in labor income. When out-of-state applicant.) visitors are included, the estimated amounts increase 4. Project Planning (0-20 Points) to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in value added, and $29 million in labor income. Please provide the following information related to • Please describe how the riding areas you patrol your law enforcement project: will contribute to the local economy. • Describe your planning efforts to determine the staffing levels and resources requested. ___ points awarded (0 - 10 points) This should include initial planning with other (The rating team will determine a value from 0-10 agencies. How do you make decisions on when points based on the information provided by the staff will patrol on an annual basis; such as applicant.) seasonal peak use, seasonal closers (fire, snow); holiday weekends; weekend/weekends; and 6. Financial Support (0-5 Points) number of deputies at a given time? Please focus Support can be demonstrated in both financial and your responses on annual staff planning. non-financial ways and varies depending upon the • How are you communicating with the land man- project type. ager/ recreation staff and how often throughout • Please describe match to this project, such as the year to address issues and coordinate re- volunteer labor, other grants, agency budgets sources? Consider things such as events, changes or donations. Please list other grants you have in use patterns, problem riding areas, reducing received over the last 3 years which are not part duplication of patrols, providing backup, proof this grant, but relate to OHV use in your viding assistance, and sharing schedules. Please program. focus your responses on the day-to-day, on the ground, operations of staff. ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) • How are you working with other law enforce- (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 ment agencies (OSP, other county Sheriffs, USFS points based on the information provided by the LEOs, BLM Rangers, city police) throughout the applicant.) year to assist with your patrols? 7. Letters Of Support (0-5 Points) ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) Current letters of support, from a variety of sources, (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 help to demonstrate the need and success of your points based on the information provided by the program. Letters from OHV riders and clubs are applicant.) very important. Letters from local businesses, county commissioners, and other groups are also important. Letters from agencies also show support, but only

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 209 two letters from agencies are allowed. Please list the Project Cost: Consideration will be given to the name, title, group, business or agency for each letter degree to which a significant portion of the State’s attached. Up to 10 letters of support will be accepted. annual apportionment is requested for one project. No letters will be accepted from previous years. Each committee member will determine the number ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) of points awarded for each project.

(The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 Assessment Score: points based on information provided by the applicant ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) related to the degree to which the project demonstrates broad community support.) 8. Discretionary Committee Member For Evaluating Criteria (0-20 Points) Acquisition, The ATV-GS membership is representative of state Development And geographic regions, agencies, communities, and Planning Project trail user groups. This assessment allows committee members to bring their knowledge of statewide and Proposals local recreation patterns, resources, and needs into Technical Review – Application consideration. The determination of points award- Completeness ed is an individual decision, based on informed judgment. As part of the ATV grant evaluation process, the ATV-GS members may award the project additional Oregon Parks and Recreation Department staff first points based upon their subjective evaluation of key conducts a technical review of all grant applica- project considerations included in the list below29. tions. Each submitted grant application packet will Please note that some considerations may add to need to include all materials requested in Section while others may reduce the number of discretion- 2 (Application Submittal, Review and Approval ary points a project receives. Process) of the ATV Grant Instruction Manual & Application Packet. Ineligible or incomplete applica- Fiscal Consideration: Under this review, project tions will be returned to the project sponsor with an sponsors will be asked to justify their request for explanation of why their application was returned. financial assistance including the extent to which Project applicants are encouraged to contact OPRD the project is cost comparable to other projects of its grant staff with questions regarding the ATV grant type in their geographic area, that the sponsor has application process. budgeted enough money to successfully complete the project and if the requested amount is greater Project Priority Scoring System than the prior years’ funding, a proper justification for increased funds. Once acquisition, development and planning projects submitted to OPRD for grant funding make it through the technical review, they will then be scored by ATV-GS members according to the criteria, rating factors, and points shown in the 29 This list is not intended to be a complete list of all discretionary criteria to be considered by ATV-GS members. Other following “Project Priority Scoring System.” The considerations could include exemplary design, special needs, criteria are based on the findings of the current project presentation and superior leverage of funding and state trails plan and reflect priorities identified by partnership.

210 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future workshop participants, trail’s plan advisory com- A. Grant Performance and Compliance mittee members, trail user survey respondents and The successful completion of projects in a timely and land managers. These criteria have been designed to efficient manner is an important goal of the ATV evaluate and prioritize Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) grant program. A project sponsor’s past performance acquisition, development and planning project in effectively meeting the administrative guidelines proposals. of the program is also an important factor in evalu- A project’s final score will be calculated as an average ating performance and compliance. of the sum of all individual ATV-GS member scores. a. The project sponsor is on schedule with all active The highest possible score for a project will be 100 OPRD administered grant projects. points. (See Potential ATV Program Rating Criteria Point Summary on page 175 for criteria point ___ Yes ___ No breakdowns.) The priority rank of a project will b. The project sponsor is in compliance with applica- depend on its score relative to other projects and in ble guidelines for current and past projects. relation to the amount of ATV grant funds available each year. ___ Yes ___ No OPRD Staff Rating Criteria B. Permit Status (For development projects only)

1. Compliance Criteria Project sponsor has demonstrated what it will take to get their particular development project completed Due to the large number of requests for ATV funds, in a timely manner including such items as: the following set of compliance criteria were devel- • Needed permits, environmental clearances and oped to ensure that: signed agreements. • Project sponsors with active and previously • Permits such as building permits for a structure awarded grants through OPRD are in full may be obtained at the time of construction, but compliance with federal and state programs; applicant must research all permits by the time • Funds are expended and projects completed submitting application. within the agreement period; and • NEPA, EA or Record of Decision on Federal • Each new project proposal satisfies the require- Lands must be completed by the Committee ments of the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS Review Meeting date. 390.550-585, Oregon Administrative Rules, • Construction plans Chapter 736, and the most current version of the • Archaeological surveys ATV Grant Instructions Manual. • Available ATV grant dollars are used in a timely C. Acquisition Status manner once funding is awarded to a project (For acquisition projects only) sponsor. Project sponsor has demonstrated what it will take to Note: No scoring points will be awarded for com- get their particular development project completed pliance criteria. Failure to comply with or lack of in a timely manner including such items as: sufficiently demonstrated progress with the following • Completed appraisal compliance criteria (a and b) may result in the • Preliminary Title Report disqualification of consideration for new grant assistance during the current grant review period. • Level 1 or higher Environmental Assessment • Proof of willing seller or donor

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 211 D. Planning Status (For planning projects only) • Explain your plan to continue trail/facility operation and maintenance. Include mainte- Project sponsor has demonstrated the need for the nance requirements and future funding and plan and basic public involvement strategies includ- partnerships. ing items such as: • A clearly defined concept and purpose ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) • An advisory committee (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 • A method to involve landowners, neighbors, points based on the information provided by the public officials, and user groups in the planning applicant.) process 3. Rider Benefits (0-20 Points) ATV Grant Subcommittee Member Rating Criteria OPRD intends to ensure that available ATV grant dollars are used to fund projects maximizing rider 2. Operations (0-20 Points) benefits. A. Benefits Please provide the following information related to your project: Please provide the following information related to • Provide a detailed description of your grant your project: project request. • How does this program benefit the OHV trail • Describe the OHV riding area for this project. user? • What Classes of ATVs will be allowed in the area? B. Statewide Management Issues • On an annual basis, what are the anticipated The statewide planning process identified three top months of use? What are the typical wildlife, issues on OHV trails on public lands in Oregon. snow, or fire season closures? Also discuss condi- Please describe how the project addresses the tions that reduce riding such as summer heat or following statewide motorized trail issues: dust or winter rain/ snow/ cold. • Describe how this project will result in a Issue 1. Closure of trails. The implementation of well-designed, managed, and sustainable trail/ federal travel management planning has resulted facility. How will impacts and damage to trails in a loss of OHV trail riding opportunities in and facilities be proactively prevented or mini- Oregon. Closure of designated trails and routes mized through innovative and sustainable trail without providing other designated routes in the and facility design and management practices? same area leads to overuse and impacts in new Describe how this project maintains or increases areas. the carrying capacity at the existing riding area. Issue 2. Closure of unimproved backcountry • Describe how the project will serve as a means roads. Again, the implementation of federal travel to restore, improve or enhance, or conserve and management planning has also resulted in the loss maintain high quality or sensitive natural or of OHV riding on backcountry roads in Oregon. cultural resources in the protected area, such as plant communities, wildlife, water bodies, Issue 3. Riding in closed areas. Land managers terrain, and archeological or historic sites while have reported a proliferation of user created striking a proper balance between the conserva- trails arising from repeated unauthorized travel tion of these resources and motorized trail use. by OHVs.

212 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future C. Statewide Funding Need 4. Project Planning (0-20 Points)

The statewide planning process also identified three A. Readiness To Proceed top funding needs for OHV trails on public lands in • Is the project ready to start? Demonstrate what Oregon. Please describe how the project addresses it will take to get this project completed. Please the following three funding priorities: include items such as permits, environmental • Funding Need 1. Maintaining existing trails in clearances, signed agreements, construction good/ sustainable condition. plans, contract bids, cultural, historical, or • Funding Need 2. More single-track off-road archaeological surveys. motorcycle trails (Class III). • Has an EA, EIS or Record of Decision been com- • Funding Need 3. Prioritize loop over out-and- pleted for this project? (Federal applicants only) back trails. • Describe other information pertaining to this D. Dispersed Riding Opportunities site, such as noise issues, noise impacts, environmental concerns, social issues, or tribal, cultural, The Oregon OHV Guide includes a listing of 53 or heritage issues. Designated Riding Areas in the state. These areas B. Public Involvement are high-intensity riding areas with associated high operation and maintenance costs. There are also • Please describe how public involvement was many designated Shared Use Roads, OHV routes received through public meetings/ workshops, and trails on public lands in Oregon which are open houses, interviews, club input, rider input, outside the boundaries of these Designated Riding questionnaires. Summarize their comments both Areas. Many OHV enthusiasts seek out these less in support and opposition of the project. crowded riding experiences and enjoy exploring new C. Local Funding Need riding areas. Others use these routes for access to special sites (lookouts, lakes, geographical features) Project sponsors are strongly encouraged to develop or for activities such as hunting, fishing or gathering. project applications that meet high priority need of A project sponsor that enhances existing or provides the intended clientele. Need can be demonstrated riding opportunities outside of the 53 Designated through results of the trails plan needs assessment Riding Areas in the state will receive additional (item a below), coordinated, long-range planning priority points. Eligible enhancement projects can with a minimum of a 5-year planning horizon include mapping and signing projects to help riders (item b below), or through a substantive public know where to ride. involvement process (item c below). If the project • Please describe how your program is main- isn’t identified as a region-level need by the trails taining or enhancing dispersed riding in your plan needs assessment, local need should be demon- management area (forest, district, etc.). This may strated through the project’s inclusion in a current be outside the scope of this application, but is a planning document or by describing the project’s use allowed in your area? public involvement process. a. The 2016-2025 trails planning effort included a ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) region-level analysis to identify priority projects. (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 Please identify if the project satisfies region-level points based on the information provided by the needs included in the tables in Chapter 6. applicant.) b. The extent to which the project will satisfy priority needs, as identified in a current planning

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 213 document such as a comprehensive local plan 6. Financial Support (0-5 Points) or recreation master plan, county or regional master plan, trail system plan or land use/ Support can be demonstrated in both financial and management plan. non-financial ways and varies depending upon the *Note: The local planning document must be project type. adopted/ approved by the applicable governing • Please describe match to this project, such as body. volunteer labor, other grants, agency budgets c. If the project is not included in a current plan- or donations. Please list other grants you have ning document, describe the public involvement received over the last 3 years which are not part of effort that led to the selection of the project such this grant, but relate to OHV use in your program. as citizen involvement through public meetings/ ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) workshops, open houses, interviews, questionnaires, etc. (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 points based on the information provided by the ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) applicant.) (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 7. Letters Of Support (0-5 Points) points based on the information provided by the applicant.) Current letters of support, from a variety of sources, help to demonstrate the need and success of your 5. Economic Development program. Letters from OHV riders and clubs are Opportunities (0-10 Points) very important. Letters from local businesses, county The findings from the Oregon OHV trail user survey commissioners, and other groups are also important. identified that spending by Oregon residents on Letters from agencies also show support, but only OHV riding trips was an estimated $100 million two letters from agencies are allowed. Please list the per year across the state. In turn, this expenditure name, title, group, business or agency for each letter contributed 869 jobs, $35 million in value added, attached. Up to 10 letters of support will be accepted. and $23 million in labor income. When out-of-state No letters will be accepted from previous years. visitors are included, the estimated amounts increase ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in value added, and $29 million in labor income. (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 • Please describe how the riding areas you patrol points based on information provided by the applicant will contribute to the local economy. related to the degree to which the project demonstrates broad community support.) ___ points awarded (0 - 10 points)

(The rating team will determine a value from 0-10 points based on the information provided by the applicant.)

214 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future 8. Discretionary Committee Member • Project Cost: Consideration will be given to Criteria (0-20 Points) the degree to which a significant portion of the State’s annual apportionment is requested for The ATV-GS membership is representative of state one project. geographic regions, agencies, communities, and • Project Urgency. Project sponsors should show trail user groups. This assessment allows committee an urgent need for time-sensitive land acqui- members to bring their knowledge of statewide and sitions, immediate threat of closure because local recreation patterns, resources, and needs into of non-compliance with state and federal law, consideration. The determination of points awarded is threat of lost opportunity, meeting project an individual decision, based on informed judgment. completion deadlines, public health and safety ATV-GS members may award the project additional concerns or impacts on cultural and natural points based upon their subjective evaluation of the resources. 30 following : • Mixed-Use Trails: Project sponsors should • Site Suitability: The extent to which the site is provide evidence that the specific trail design suitable for the proposed development (e.g., demonstrates that the project will support minimizes negative impacts on the environment, mixed-use recreational trail opportunities serv- surrounding neighborhood). ing a wide range of abilities including the elderly • Fiscal Consideration: Under this review, project and handicapped as well as the more active and sponsors will be asked to justify their request highly skilled trail user. for financial assistance including the extent to • Regional Issues: Regional trail issues were also which the project is cost comparable to other identified in the current trails planning process. trail facilities of its type in the geographic area Project sponsors should describe how the project (e.g., cost-per mile comparisons), is justifiable in addresses appropriate regional trail issues. terms of the quantity and quality of recreation Regional motorized trail issues are included in opportunities the facilities will provide, and that Chapter 7. the sponsor has budgeted enough money to Note: Locate the project sponsor’s region and identify successfully complete the project. each regional trail issue addressed in the project • Commitment to Long-Term Operation and proposal. Maintenance: Sponsors should show evidence of a commitment to long-term operation and Each committee member will determine the number maintenance that their organization has demon- of points awarded for each project. strated at existing trail and park resources. In Assessment Score: those cases where the applicant does not pres- ently have an operation/ maintenance respon- ___ points awarded (0-20 points) sibility for an existing trail or park, information about other public facilities or resources within the sponsor’s jurisdiction may be presented.

30 This list is not intended to be a complete list of all discretionary criteria to be considered by ATV-GS members. Other considerations could include exemplary design, special needs, project presentation and superior leverage of funding and partnership.

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 215 For Evaluating OPRD Staff Rating Criteria Emergency Medical 1. Compliance Criteria

Project Proposals Due to the large number of requests for ATV funds, the following set of compliance criteria were devel- Eligible emergency medical projects include oped to ensure that: equipment, services and supplies used for providing emergency medical attention to OHV users. • Project sponsors with active and previously awarded grants through OPRD are in full Technical Review – Application compliance with federal and state programs; Completeness • Funds are expended and projects completed within the agreement period; and As part of the ATV grant evaluation process, OPRD first conducts a technical review of all grant applica- • Each new project proposal satisfies the require- tions. Each submitted grant application packet will ments of the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS need to include all materials requested in Section 390.550-585, Oregon Administrative Rules, 2 (Application Submittal, Review and Approval Chapter 736, and the most current version of the Process) of the ATV Grant Instruction Manual & ATV Grant Instructions Manual. Application Packet. Ineligible or incomplete applica- Note: No scoring points will be awarded for com- tions will be returned to the project sponsor with an pliance criteria. Failure to comply with or lack of explanation of why their application was returned. sufficiently demonstrated progress with the following Project applicants are encouraged to contact OPRD compliance criteria (a and b) may result in the grant staff with questions regarding the ATV grant disqualification of consideration for new grant application process. assistance during the current grant review period. Project Priority Scoring System A. Grant Performance and Compliance

Once emergency medical projects submitted to The successful completion of projects in a timely and OPRD for grant funding make it through the tech- efficient manner is an important goal of the ATV nical review, they will then be scored by ATV-GS grant program. A project sponsor’s past performance members according to the criteria, rating factors, in effectively meeting the administrative guidelines and points shown in the following “Project Priority of the program is also an important factor in evalu- Scoring System.” These criteria have been designed ating performance and compliance. to evaluate and prioritize OHV emergency medical project proposals. a. The project sponsor is on schedule with all active OPRD administered grant projects. A project’s final score will be calculated as an average of the sum of all individual ATV-GS member scores. ___ Yes ___ No The highest possible score for a project will be 100 b. The project sponsor is in compliance with appli- points. (See Potential ATV Program Rating Criteria cable guidelines for current and past projects. Point Summary on page 175 for criteria point ___ Yes ___ No breakdowns.) The priority rank of a project will depend on its score relative to other projects and in relation to the amount of ATV grant funds available each year.

216 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future ATV Grant Subcommittee Member 4. Project Planning (0-20 Points) Rating Criteria Please provide the following information related to 2. Operations (0-20 Points) your law enforcement project: • Describe your planning efforts to determine Please provide the following information related to the staffing levels and resources requested. your operation and maintenance project: This should include initial planning with other • Provide a detailed description of your grant agencies. How do you make decisions on when project request including seasons of use, how staff will patrol on an annual basis; such as patrols are conducted, and types of vehicles used seasonal peak use, seasonal closers (fire, snow); for patrols such as quads, motorcycles, side-by- holiday weekends; weekend/weekends; and sides, or trucks. number of deputies at a given time? Please focus • What OHV areas are you patrolling? your responses on annual staff planning. • Please describe the need for this project. List and • How are you communicating with the land man- describe the medical problems/ issues and how ager/ recreation staff and how often throughout the grant will help to resolve them. the year to address issues and coordinate resources? Consider things such as events, changes • Provide a written summary of your ATV medi- in use patterns, problem riding areas, reducing cal calls over the previous 12 months. duplication of patrols, providing backup, pro- ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) viding assistance, and sharing schedules. Please focus your responses on the day-to-day, on the (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 ground, operations of staff. points based on the information provided by the • How are you working with other law enforce- applicant.) ment agencies (OSP, other county Sheriffs, USFS 3. Rider Benefits (0-20 Points) LEOs, BLM Rangers, city police) throughout the year to assist with your patrols? OPRD intends to ensure that available ATV grant dollars are used to fund projects maximizing rider ___ points awarded (0 - 20 points) benefits. (The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 Please provide the following information related to points based on the information provided by the your law enforcement project: applicant.) • How does this program benefit the OHV trail user? • Explain how this project is directly related to the safety of OHV users?

___ points awarded (0 - 20 points)

(The rating team will determine a value from 0-20 points based on the information provided by the applicant.)

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 217 5. Economic Development two letters from agencies are allowed. Please list the Opportunities (0-10 Points) name, title, group, business or agency for each letter attached. Up to 10 letters of support will be accepted. The findings from the Oregon OHV trail user survey No letters will be accepted from previous years. identified that spending by Oregon residents on OHV riding trips was an estimated $100 million ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) per year across the state. In turn, this expenditure (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 contributed 869 jobs, $35 million in value added, points based on information provided by the applicant and $23 million in labor income. When out-of-state related to the degree to which the project demonstrates visitors are included, the estimated amounts increase broad community support.) to 1,120 jobs, $45 million in value added, and $29 million in labor income. 8. Discretionary Committee Member • Please describe how the riding areas you respond Criteria (0-20 Points) to will contribute to the local economy. The ATV-GS membership is representative of state ___ points awarded (0 - 10 points) geographic regions, agencies, communities, and trail user groups. This assessment allows committee (The rating team will determine a value from 0-10 members to bring their knowledge of statewide and points based on the information provided by the local recreation patterns, resources, and needs into applicant.) consideration. The determination of points award- 6. Financial Support (0-5 Points) ed is an individual decision, based on informed judgment. Support can be demonstrated in both financial and ATV-GS members may award the project additional non-financial ways and varies depending upon the points based upon their subjective evaluation of the project type. following31: • Please describe match to this project, such as volunteer labor, other grants, agency budgets Site Suitability: The extent to which the site or donations. Please list other grants you have is suitable for the proposed development (e.g., received over the last 3 years which are not part minimizes negative impacts on the environment, of this grant, but relate to OHV use in your surrounding neighborhood). program. Fiscal Consideration: Under this review, project ___ points awarded (0 - 5 points) sponsors will be asked to justify their request for financial assistance including the extent to (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 which the project is cost comparable to other points based on the information provided by the trail facilities of its type in the geographic area applicant.) (e.g., cost-per mile comparisons), is justifiable in 7. Letters Of Support (0-5 Points) terms of the quantity and quality of recreation opportunities the facilities will provide, and that Current letters of support, from a variety of sources, the sponsor has budgeted enough money to help to demonstrate the need and success of your successfully complete the project. program. Letters from OHV riders and clubs are very important. Letters from local businesses, county 31 This list is not intended to be a complete list of all discretionary criteria to be considered by ATV-GS members. Other commissioners, and other groups are also important. considerations could include exemplary design, special needs, Letters from agencies also show support, but only project presentation and superior leverage of funding and partnership.

218 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Commitment to Long-Term Operation and Note: Locate the project sponsor’s region and identify Maintenance: Sponsors should show evidence each regional trail issue addressed in the project of a commitment to long-term operation and proposal. maintenance that their organization has demon- Each committee member will determine the number strated at existing trail and park resources. In of points awarded for each project. those cases where the applicant does not pres- ently have an operation/ maintenance respon- Assessment Score: sibility for an existing trail or park, information about other public facilities or resources within ___ points awarded (0-20 points) the sponsor’s jurisdiction may be presented.

Project Cost: Consideration will be given to the degree to which a significant portion of the State’s annual apportionment is requested for one project.

Project Urgency: Project sponsors should show an urgent need for time-sensitive land acquisitions, immediate threat of closure because of non-compliance with state and federal law, threat of lost opportunity, meeting project completion deadlines, public health and safety concerns or impacts on cultural and natural resources.

Mixed-Use Trails: Project sponsors should provide evidence that the specific trail design demonstrates that the project will support mixed-use recreational trail opportunities serving a wide range of abilities including the elderly and handicapped as well as the more active and highly skilled trail user.

Regional Issues: Regional trail issues were also identified in the current trails planning process. Project sponsors should describe how the project addresses appropriate regional trail issues. Regional motorized trail issues are included in Chapter 7.

Chapter 10 - All-Terrain Vehicle Grant Program Evaluation Criteria 219

► Chapter 11 Recreational Trails Program Grant Evaluation Criteria

Technical Review Project Priority – Application Scoring System

Completeness Following staff technical review, qualified applications are scored by Recreational Trails Program As part of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Grant Advisory Committee (RTPAC) members grant evaluation process, the Oregon Parks and according to the application criteria, rating factors, Recreation Department (OPRD) first conducts a and points shown in the following “Project Priority technical review of all grant applications. Submitted Scoring System.” The criteria reflect the RTP pro- grant application packets need to include all ma- gram guidelines and are based on the findings of the terials requested in Section 2 (Application Process current state trails plan and reflect priorities identi- – How to Apply) of the Recreational Trails Program fied by workshop participants, trails plan advisory Grant Manual and Application Packet. Ineligible committee members, trail user survey respondents or incomplete applications will be returned to the and land managers. These criteria have been de- project sponsor with an explanation of why their signed to evaluate and prioritize non-motorized, application was returned, Project applicants are water, Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV), and snowmobile encouraged to contact OPRD grant staff regarding trail projects. eligibility and for information on other suitable funding sources. The project score will be calculated as an average of the sum of all individual technical review and RTPAC member scores. The highest possible score will be 100 points (See Potential RTP Program

221 Rating Criteria Point Summary in the table below Note: No scoring points will be awarded for com- for criteria point breakdowns). The priority rank of pliance criteria. Failure to comply with or lack of a project will depend in its score relative to other sufficiently demonstrated progress with the following projects and in relation to the amount of RTP grant compliance criteria (a and b) may result in the funds available each year. disqualification of consideration for new grant assistance during the current grant review period. Recreational Trail Program Rating Criteria Point Summary A. Grant Performance and Compliance

Criteria Type Possible Points The successful completion of projects in a timely OPRD technical review and efficient manner is an important goal of the RTP 1. Compliance 0 grant program. A project sponsor’s past performance 2. Recent Awards 5 in effectively meeting the administrative guidelines RTPAC member rating criteria of the program is also an important factor in evalu- 3. Economic Development 5 ating performance and compliance. Opportunities a. The project sponsor is on schedule with all active 4. Project Scope and Plan 10 OPRD administered grant projects. 5. Issues and Need 30 6. Demonstration of Public 5 ___ Yes ___ No Support b. The project sponsor is in compliance with appli- 7. Sustainable Trail Design 5 cable guidelines for current and past projects. 8. Trail Maintenance and 10 ___ Yes ___ No Management 9. Project Urgency 5 2. Recent Awards (0 or 5 Points) 10. Youth Conservation Corps 5 Priority points are given to projects from project 11. Discretionary Committee 20 sponsors that have not received an RTP grant in the Member Criteria past ten years. Total Points Possible 100 • The project sponsor has not received OPRD Staff Rating Criteria Recreational Trail Program funding in the last ten years. 1. Compliance (0 Points) ___ points awarded (0 or 5 points) Due to the large number of requests for RTP funds, the following set of compliance criteria were devel- (5 points for project sponsors who have not received an oped to ensure that: RTP grant in the last ten years, 0 points for all other • Project sponsors with active and previously project sponsors.) awarded grants through OPRD are in full compliance with federal and state programs; • Funds are expended and projects completed within the agreement period; and • Each new project proposal satisfies the requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and is consistent with the Federal RTP guidelines.

222 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future Recreational Trails Program Advisory • Why is the work being done? Committee Member Rating Criteria • What is your project timeline? 3. Economic Development B. Has the pre-project planning occurred and is Opportunities (0-5 Points) the project ready to proceed? a. Development and heavy restoration projects. The Oregon trail-user surveys showed that trail-related trip expenditures result in substantial Project sponsors should describe how their contributions to local economies. As a result, OPRD project is ready to proceed by responding to the would like to encourage the development of recre- following questions/ requested items. A success- ational trails to assist local communities in economic ful project need not address each bullet. development. Such areas could greatly benefit from • What is the current level of design for the project the trip expenditures and job creation associated (e.g., conceptual, percentage estimate, construc- with trail-based recreation. tion drawings)? • How will the project facilitate economic • Please provide project plans or drawings. development? • When will project work begin? When will work ___ points awarded (0-5 points) be completed or the facility opened for use? • Is any public involvement required or planned? (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 If yes, is it completed or when will it be points based on the information provided by the completed? applicant.) • What permits will be needed to complete the 4. Project Scope and Plan (0-10 Points) project and do you have these permits in hand at OPRD intends to ensure that available RTP grant this time? dollars are used in a timely manner once funding b. Acquisition projects is awarded to a project sponsor. Having completed Project sponsor should describe what it will the necessary upfront tasks of detailing the project take to get their particular development project scope, budget and pre-project planning will show the completed in a timely manner including such project sponsor has a well thought out project that is items as: ready to complete. • Completed appraisal A. Are the project scope, budget, and plan clear • Preliminary Title Report and realistic? • Level 1 or higher Environmental Assessment Project sponsors should describe how their project • Proof of willing seller or donor will provide a clear and concise budget and identify how they plan to accomplish the project. Items to c. Design, safety, or education projects address include: Project sponsors should describe how their • What are you proposing to do? project is ready to proceed by responding to the • Project elements including trail amenities, users, following questions/ requested items. A success- length, width, structures (item description, ful project need not address each bullet. width, length), standards. • Have you identified the scope and deliverables? • How are you proposing to complete the work • Have you hired a firm or developed a request for (contractor, youth crews, staff, volunteers, etc.)? proposal or similar bid document?

Chapter 11 - Recreational Trails Program Grant Evaluation Criteria 223 • Have you completed artwork, copy or to trails outside Urban Growth Boundaries; curriculum? provide access to parks and open space; and • Do you have a proof of the product? provide access to significant facilities within communities such as schools, libraries, indoor • Do you have production ready design, artwork, recreation facilities, and businesses. etc.? d. How have you addressed Americans With Issue 2. Need for improved trail maintenance. For Disabilities (ADA) Guidelines for this project? this issue, trail maintenance includes routine trail maintenance and trail rehabilitation/ restoration. Project sponsors should use the attached form to show how they are addressing ADA Guidelines for Routine maintenance includes work that is the project. conducted on a frequent basis in order to keep a trail in its originally constructed serviceable ___ points awarded (0-10 points) standards (e.g., mowing, tree and brush pruning, leaf and debris removal, cleaning and repair of (The rating team will determine a value from 0-10 drainage structures such as culvers, water bars, points based on the information provided by the and drain dips), maintenance of water crossings, applicant.) and repairs to signs and other amenities. Routine 5. Issues and Need maintenance work is usually limited to minor repair or improvements that do not significantly Project sponsors are strongly encouraged to develop change the trail location, width, surface, or trail project applications that meet high priority needs of structure. the intended clientele. Project proposals addressing trail management issues and funding needs at the Trail rehabilitation/ restoration involves exten- statewide and local levels identified through the sive trail repair (e.g., resurfacing of asphalt trails statewide trails planning process or local planning or complete replacement, regrading, and resur- efforts will be given priority points. facing of all trails) needed to bring a facility up to standards suitable for public use (not routine A. Statewide Trail Management Issues maintenance). In some cases, trail rehabilitation/ The statewide trails planning process identified a restoration may include necessary relocation of set of three top statewide trail management issues minor portions of the trail. for each trail type (non-motorized, water, OHV, and Issue 3. Need for more trail signs (directional snowmobile). Project proposals addressing statewide and distance markers, and level of difficulty). trail issues will receive additional priority points (see Trail users require a number of different types top statewide trail issues listed below). To receive of signs to safely and enjoyably pursue their trail these points, project sponsors should describe how experience. Location signs that lead people to the project addresses these issues for their designat- trailheads and parking areas, directional signs ed project type. along the trail, destination signs to let people a. Non-motorized Trail Projects know they have reached end points, interpretive signs that describe the natural or cultural history Issue 1. Need for more trails connecting towns/ of the area, and regulatory signs that explain the public places. This issue is addressed by trails do’s and don’ts of the area are important trail projects that connect communities to each other; components. Trail managers should provide provide connections between existing trails; information about their trails that allows users to close a gap within an existing trail; provide links choose the trails within their skill and capability

224 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future level. It is important for all users, but especially Issue 3. Riding in closed areas. Land managers elderly or disabled users, to understand a specific have reported a proliferation of user created trail’s maximum grade and cross-slope, trail trails arising from repeated unauthorized travel width, surface, obstacles and length before using by OHVs. the trail. d. Snowmobile Trail Projects b. Water Trail Projects Issue 1. Closure of snowmobile trails/ riding Issue 1. Need for increased access for non-mo- areas. In the coming years, all Oregon USFS torized boating. The need for increased access Forest Districts will go through a public plan- for non-motorized boating is driven by a ning process to review and designate roads, continuing increase in participation in non-mo- trails, and cross country areas which are open to torized boating activities in both Oregon and snowmobile use as part of the over-snow vehicle the U.S. in recent decades. Access refers to a (OSV) travel management rule. There is a need specific location where the public has the legal to minimize unwarranted snowmobile riding right and physical means to get to the water to closures during upcoming OSV travel manage- launch a non-motorized boat. Non-motorized ment planning in Oregon. boating access may be unimproved or enhanced Issue 2. Riding in closed areas. In recent years, to varying degrees. the USFS has been confronted with a prolifera- Issue 2. Lack of funding for non-motorized tion of trails arising from repeated unauthorized boater facilities. cross-country snowmobile travel. Unauthorized access can result from either areas not mapped, Issue 3. Lack of non-motorized boating maps signed, or marked clearly as open or closed; or and information. Projects addressing this issue snowmobilers ignoring designations. could include water trail guides, information brochures, signage projects, websites, smart- Issue 3. Lack of snowmobile trail maintenance. phone apps, and promotional materials. A consistent snowmobile trail maintenance c. Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Projects backlog exists on Oregon national forests.

Issue 1. Closure of trails. The implementation of B. Regional Trail Management Issues federal travel management planning has resulted The statewide trails planning process also identified in a loss of OHV trail riding opportunities in a set of three top regional trail management issues Oregon. Closure of designated trails and routes for each trail type (non-motorized, water, OHV, without providing other designated routes in the and snowmobile). Project proposals addressing same area leads to overuse and impacts in new regional trail issues will receive additional priority areas. points (see top regional trail issues listed in Chapter Issue 2. Closure of unimproved backcountry 7). To receive these points, project sponsors should roads. Again, the implementation of federal travel describe how the project addresses these issues for management planning has also resulted in the loss their designated project type and planning region. of OHV riding on backcountry roads in Oregon. C. Statewide Trail Need

The statewide trails planning process identified a set of three top statewide trail funding needs for each trail type (non-motorized, water, OHV, and snowmobile). Project proposals addressing statewide

Chapter 11 - Recreational Trails Program Grant Evaluation Criteria 225 non-motorized, water, OHV, or snowmobile trail a. The 2016-2025 trails planning effort included issues will receive additional points. To receive these a region-level analysis to identify priority points, project sponsors should describe how the projects. Project proposals addressing regional project addresses these issues for their designated non-motorized, water, OHV, or snowmobile trail project type. funding need will receive additional points. To receive these points, project sponsors should Non-motorized Trail Projects Within Urban describe how the project addresses this need for Growth Boundaries and in Dispersed Settings their designated project type (regional funding • Connecting trails into larger trail systems. need listings are included in Chapter 6). In • More signs/ trail wayfinding. addition to water trail funding need, top nominations for water trail development and potential • Repair of major trail damage. Scenic Waterway additions are also included Water Trail Projects to encourage water trail development on these • Public non-motorized boater access to the water waterways (See Chapter 6 – Water trail funding (developed or undeveloped). priorities). • Non-motorized boat launch facilities. b. The extent to which the project will satisfy priority needs, as identified in a current plan- • Restrooms. ning document such as a comprehensive plan OHV Trail Projects or recreation master plan, county or regional master plan, trail system plan, capital improve- • Maintain existing trails in good/ sustainable ments plan or land use/ management plan. Is the condition. plan part of an adopted plan? If yes, provide the • More single-track off-road motorcycle trails name of the plan, governing body that adopted/ (Class III). approved the plan, and the date adopted/ • Prioritize loop over out-and-back trails. approved.

Snowmobile Trail Projects c. If the project is not included in a current planning document, describe the public involvement • Expand existing trail system. effort that led to the selection of the project such • More trail grooming/ rehabilitation. as citizen involvement through public meetings/ • More back-country off-trail riding opportunities. workshops, open houses, interviews, questionnaires, etc. D. Local Funding Need ___ points awarded (0-30 points) Local need can be demonstrated through results of the trails plan needs assessment (item a below), co- (The rating team will determine a value from 0-30 ordinated, long-range planning with a minimum of a points based on the information provided by the 5-year planning horizon (item b below), or through applicant.) a substantive public involvement process (item c below). If the project isn’t identified as a region-level need by the trails plan needs assessment, local need should be demonstrated through the project’s inclusion in a current planning document or by describing the project’s public involvement process.

226 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future 6. Demonstration of Public Support • The applicant should describe how the trail (0 to 5 Points) project results in a well-designed, managed and sustainable trail system. The applicant should Public involvement is a means of building support also identify what trail standards or guidelines and developing a constituency and a partnership for will be used to complete the project. the development effort. ___ points awarded (0-5 points) • The sponsor should show letters of support from citizens or user groups that articulate this spe- (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 cific project as a needed or supported project. A points based on the information provided by the priority list developed out of planning process to applicant.) identify public support for this trail project can be used in addition to letters of support. Letters 8. Trail Maintenance and Management of support from organizations and agencies are (0-10 Points) (For non-motorized, water, also acceptable, but should cover the specific OHV, and snowmobile trail projects) project’s public process, their fiscal support or A. Commitment to Long-term Maintenance and other forms of support Management ___ points awarded (0- 5 points) Maintaining existing trails in good/ sustainable (The rating team will determine a value from 0 to condition was identified as the top statewide funding 5 points based on the information provided by the priority and trails issue for all user groups in the applicant.) planning process. The applicant should carefully respond to the following questions related to trail 7. Sustainable Trail Design (0 or 5 Points) maintenance and management after the project is complete. A sustainable trail system will allow for carrying more visitors into a natural area with little impact • Do you have dedicated funding for ongoing trail on the surrounding ecosystem. They will require operation and maintenance? If yes, what is the less maintenance through sound construction approval cycle (e.g., annual, bi-annual, perma- techniques and using materials that are designed for nent, fixed)? long-term self-sustaining use and by using on-site • Do you have permanent staff for ongoing trail materials as much as possible. The trail project will operation and maintenance? If yes, please result in a well-designed, managed and sustainable identify the number of permanent and seasonal trail or trail system. staff. Specific sustainability recommendations for OPRD- • Do you have an organization that adopts/ assists administered grant programs are included in SCORP with trail maintenance? If yes, please identify Chapter Seven (pages 115-117). Recommendations these organization names. are included for land acquisition, new facility de- • Do you have a trail management plan? If yes, velopment, major rehabilitation, and trail projects. please identify the title of the document and The full support document entitled, “Developing when it was adopted by a governing body. Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon,” is available at • Do you have a resolution of support for long- the following link: term maintenance (or similar guarantee of http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/ financial support)? scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/2013-2017-SCORP_ ___ points awarded (0-10 points) App_D.pdf

Chapter 11 - Recreational Trails Program Grant Evaluation Criteria 227 9. Project Urgency (0-5 Points) 11. Discretionary Committee Member Criteria (0-20 Points) The RTPAC is aware that time can often be a critical factor in the acquisition and operation of valuable Consistent with RTP guidance, RTPAC membership recreation properties. The intent of the following represents a broad range of motorized and non-mo- criteria is to provide priority for project proposals torized trail users within the state. This assessment showing an urgent need for time-sensitive land allows committee members to bring their knowledge acquisitions, immediate threat of closure because of of statewide and local recreation patterns, resources, non-compliance with state and federal law, threat of and needs into consideration. The determination of lost opportunity, public health and safety concerns points awarded is an individual decision, based on or impacts on cultural and natural resources. informed judgment.

Opportunities that may be lost as a result of sponsors Reviewers may award the project additional points budget cycles or other activities within the control based upon their subjective evaluation of the follow- of the Project Sponsor will not be considered as ing: superior design, ADA compliance, site suitabili- “urgent.” ty, fiscal consideration, state/regional issues (regional trail issues are included on the following pages), and ___ points awarded (0-5 points) the basic intent of MAP-21. Other considerations (The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 could include, superior leverage of funding and points based on the information provided by the partnership including the use of volunteers, heritage, applicant.) context, and potential for legacy. This is not intended to be a complete list of all discretionary criteria to be 10. Youth Conservation Corps (0-5 considered by RTPAC members. Points) Each committee member will determine the number “Youth Conservation Corps Involvement,” origi- of points awarded for each project. nates from federal guidance for the Recreational Trails Program, which encourages use of Youth ___ points awarded (0-20 points) Conservation Corps or service corps to construct and maintain trails. This criterion recognizes this encouragement by giving credit to trail projects that use the Community Conservation Corps, Certified Conservation Corps and/or service corps.

___ points awarded (0-5 points)

(The rating team will determine a value from 0-5 points based on the information provided by the applicant.)

228 Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision For The Future

Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision for the Future

Download the report online at: oregon.gov/oprd/trail_programs_services/pages/trail-plans.aspx

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301-1271 503-986-0980 For the hearing impaired: 1-800-735-2900

This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.

Printed on recycled paper. February, 2016 2016-2025